Hot answers tagged

10

The cited example is inherently ambiguous. The meaning depends on how you parse it... 1: The bank is opposite the supermarket [and [the bank is]] next to the bar (the bank is next to the bar) OR 2: The bank is opposite the supermarket [which is] next to the bar (the supermarket is next to the bar) BUT - if you include a comma (pause, in speech) after ...


4

The subject is uncontroversially the price, so it requires a singular verb. You may be confusing it with phrases such as the number of, which can take a singular verb when it is the number that is relevant: The number of pens is going up this year but functions as a numerical modifier to a plural noun phrase when that is the logical subject: A number of ...


4

These look correct to me. They use a double negative, but it is meaningful and correct.


4

The preposition phrase "next to the bar" is modifying "the supermarket" since it is tightly following "the supermarket". If the preposition phrase is modifying "the bank," it'd be written like this: The bank is opposite the supermarket and next to the bar.


3

My colleague’s was a specific type of racism, a sort perpetuated by liberals so believing in their supposed lack of prejudice they think they can make racist jokes ironically. You can understand the sentence as follows: "My colleague's [racism] was a specific type of racism: [that is to say,] a sort [of racism] [that is] perpetuated by liberals [who ...


2

"the most repulsively nationalistic sporting event" does make sense. As does: "the most repulsive nationalistic sporting event." The difference is slight. In the first sentence, you are saying that the nationalistic aspect is what is repulsive. In the second, you are saying the sporting event is most repulsive. It would work the same ...


2

You can take a swig of something (beer, cold tea, water, whatever) from a bottle, or just a swig from a bottle. The verb 'swig' is informal; draught is more formal in British English. Swig (Collins Dictionary)


2

Don't get distracted by the idiom - this is completely standard English syntax. When we use the verb let, the next verb should be a bare infinitive. Ex: The girl sat down We let the girl sit down The boy goes home Let the boy go home The dust settles Let the dust settle The noun dust is a mass noun, like water - it refers to an uncountable amount of a ...


2

The construction "let + object + verb" takes its verb in the bare infinitive form. This is similar in structure, although not necessarily in meaning, to modal verbs which take main verbs in the infinitive (he goes; he must go). The dust settles. Here, "settles" is the correct conjugated form of the verb "settle" (for the ...


2

The general rule is that you use Future Continuous when the action takes a certain amount of time, and you will be in the middle of it at that time: At 5 o'clock, I'll be working on my project. (You'll start working earlier, and won't be done by 5'o clock). This evening, I'll be plowing my fields. (You might start earlier, and you might not finish this ...


1

Both are grammatically correct. However, "What are you studying?" is referring to a current, ongoing event, and therefore I would use it to a person who is currently studying, and expect not the major but the particular class, which might not even be in the major. "What do you study?" is ambiguous. On first hearing, I would not be sure ...


1

“Let the dust settle” is imperative, where the main verb is always in the same form as the bare infinitive. “The dust settles” is present simple, so it gets the “-s” for third person singular.


1

Professional, royal, government, and family roles, such as teacher, boss, co-worker can be considered abstract and don't need the article, especially after as. But it's OK to use it as well, because the person is a teacher, so the noun also works non-abstractly. It's slightly more formal/professional to omit the article.


1

The cited example is syntactically fine for native speakers. It might help to imagine there's an implied but unstated extra word plus comma... 1: We attract our own negative experiences more, the more we share them. It's worth pointing out that all permutations of the more and the less are perfectly idiomatic when both elements of the juxtaposition are ...


1

A single comma is used to separate clauses. I don't think this is two separate clauses. I think what you are trying to do is highlight a parenthetic statement, which would require two commas. A parenthetic statement is one that can be enclosed in commas or brackets. For example: The result can be phrased as the statement that, given an integer n, the ...


1

The first sentence is non-idiomatic, but not grammatically incorrect. It's the opposite of "We now introduce many notations." and emphasizes that there's only a small number of them. That's probably not what you want; you want to say that there is more than one, so in that case you need 'a few' ('some' would work too). We now introduce a few ...


1

In this sentence, they are interchangeable. For me "couple of giggly girls" flows a little better (the dactylic rhythm is better) In other contexts they are not the same, compare: Those two are a right pair! Haven't you heard, they're a couple now.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible