Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange

New answers tagged

13

"By" gives method (travel by train), it can also be used to give location (by the statue) "at" and "on" give location or time. (let's meet at 5:00, on Oxford street) You want to give purpose, and the preposition that gives purpose is "for" Let's meet for coffee. (Drinking) coffee is the purpose of our meeting


-1

"Of" is preferable. Though according to the graph all the prepositions are possible. Here's an example from Reverso.context.net: "The project is divided into three segments:  equality in national organizations,  equality in regional and structural policy, and equality in the development of the immediate neighbourhood." But: "There will also be ...


1

"Get {something} across to {somebody}" means "Present {something} in a way that {somebody} can understand", or "Explain in a way that {somebody} shows they understand". The phrasing assumes that the problem is a difference in language or assumptions. For example, science teachers often have a hard time getting quantum mechanics concepts across to their ...


1

Neither answer is correct. As Kshitij Singh said, "expect something" is the correct form in this case, so you would simply say "We are expecting positive changes in future." "Expecting to" would be used when you are talking about what you expect yourself (or in this case, "we") to do, and would be connected to a verb to create the infinitive form ("to do", ...


1

According to OALD expect something is correct. We are expecting positive changes in future. Expect somebody/something to do something We expect you to arrive by 8 o'clock


2

It is an adverb. From Merriam-Webster's definition of on: adverb 2 b : in continuance or succession // rambled on // and so on In the sentence in question: on they flew → they flew on The adverb is then followed by the prepositional phrase through the gathering darkness.


1

While the sentence has issues in terms of seeming like natural, well-formed text - and possibly with being grammatical in terms of normal usage - the use of to rather than for there isn't one of them. True, there are people who insist that the preposition to should only be used for adverbials that modify translate if they are indicating the language that ...


0

Here is what Google Books NGram Viewer shows, indicating at least the written word: Although this is a case sensitive search, it's possible that some of these hits, in particular join the us, could represent join [preposition] US (or United States). In any case, there is a much greater frequency of simply join us than there is of any use of a preposition. ...


1

'Join in us' is incorrect. 'To join in' can be used in the context of involving in an activity: Join in our discussion. Join us. We are going to play football, you can join in/us. More 'join in' examples: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/join-in-sth


-1

They are both suitable, with some difference. to - means that you arrived in the region of Prague, maybe in the city, maybe at an airport outside of the city... in - means that you arrived inside the area of the city; e.g. you are already between the buildings


0

In the example you provided: I met one of my friends yesterday evening. no preposition is necessary. In other context(s), a preposition might be needed: We met some day before yesterday. We get ready for tomorrow. We have to wake up early in the morning.


3

In the context of an auction where you are buying something, you place a bid on an item. Example: "I bid on an eBay auction" In the context of submitting a proposal to provide goods or services under a contract, you make a bid for the contract. Example: "The company made a bid for the contract to provide services". However, when speaking about a ...


2

I'm only partially answering your question for now, since it's really difficult for me right now to nail down "why" it is "in equal degree", but I'm a native speaker of English (lived in the UK as a child for a good couple of years, and one of parents/ half my family are UK citizens), and the usage of the phrase is absolutely idiomatic (I would probably use ...


0

The sentence can be re-written as: It is highly creditable that he has risen to eminence from poverty and obscurity.


0

You could say this: ✔ I am approaching the beach. You could also say this: ✔ I am approaching from the beach. If you want to keep to, you can do so be replacing the verb: ✔ I am going to the beach. But the sentence as you have it is unidiomatic: ✘ I am approaching to the beach. It is difficult for me to come up with a rule for this. We have ...


0

"I am approaching" requires an object after it, e.g. "the beach". In your sentence, you provided a direction: "to the beach". So it will be correct to say: I am approaching the beach.


1

While both are correct (-ish), your first option is unclear and may often be misinterpreted. You are using Merriam-Webster's first definition: 1: in proximity to : near However, definition 3b can also be used in a valid interpretation of the sentence: 3b: not later than // be there by 2 p.m. Using this definition, the sentence would mean that ...


1

The most natural way to ask would be What is the probability that neither house is completed after seven weeks. I'm not very clear, but the sentence can be used to ask about greater than 7 weeks. If the probability that both houses are completed after seven weeks is 25%, then the probability that at least one house will take greater than 7 weeks to ...


2

More natural than either is Point me in the right direction. Indeed this is a standard set phrase. Point me the right direction. feels incorrect, although I think it is in fact correct grammar. Point me to the right path. seems fine, one points someone to an external thing, such as a path or an office or house, but one points someone in a ...


0

Usually "Susan got married to John" Alternatively "Susan and John got married" (in context this would normally be understood as implying "to each other".) You can also use the verb "marry" as an active verb with an object "Susan married John" (there is a slight ambiguity in the meaning of the subject as we would also say "The vicar married Susan and John"...


1

No.2 is certainly better than No.1 You could say ran the opposite way with very similar meaning, so maybe this wasn't really how the words were meant to come out?


2

I wouldn't use any preposition at all. Simply say: Dad went outside to see what the noise was about. There are some more complex constructions—when talking about going from the inside to the outside, for instance—where a preposition could be used, but those don't apply to this simple sentence.


1

Yes, all these prepositions mean close to. by the side of is generally used for non-living things. My house is situated by the side of the river. next to means right after somebody/something If B sits next to A there is no one sitting between A and B. If someone sits by/close to you it does not necessarily mean they are next to you but they are close ...


1

At preposition is used to show the situation somebody/something is in The country is now at war. So at preposition is more idiomatic. Kate was shivering at the thought of being fired for turning up late.


1

I’m not sure “out of” is necessarily better than “from” - these two terms seem to me to be more or less interchangeable in this context. Maybe “out of”, since it contains the word “out”, more dramatically evokes an image of the light escaping the darkness. “In” has a slightly different meaning here- if the light shines in the darkness there is light to be ...


3

As user070221 notes, both sentences are commonly used in American English. In some formal speech and writing, "At what time" is more acceptable than "When" or "What time", especially when "a precise point in time" is being requested. I am an American who grew up in a town with many native speakers of Spanish. To my ear, both examples in the original post ...


6

The initial preposition at in such contexts is entirely optional, but it usually wouldn't be included (although in reality we usually use when rather than [at] what time anyway :). OP's specific example happens to include a "location-based" clause based on at [the swimming pool], but it might be worth looking at two slightly different contexts... 1a: ...


2

Both the sentences are correct and mean the same thing. what time is just a shorter form of at what time


2

Both sentences will be understood to mean the same thing, for all practical purposes. However, the second sentence contains the correct preposition to use with the verb 'to focus'. In this case it means to concentrate the attention. The proper preposition to use with 'focus' is 'on'. Focus the camera on her. I'm focused on finishing my test. So, why ...


1

In this case using "so...as" means the same as using "as...as" except with emphasis on the magnitude of the adjective (profound). In general, "as adjective as" draws attention to the sameness of the two nouns (specifically concerning the adjective) in a neutral tone while "so adjective as" provides emphasis to the adjective. The sentence can be ...


2

"so adjective" is an alternative form of "as adjective" where the context is negative.


3

There is no need for a preposition here. You can say "speak a language" or "speak in a language", both are fine - though they have subtly different meanings. I could say: I speak French Well, I don't really, though it's my strongest foreign language. That statement says that I am capable of speaking French. If I say: I speak in French Well, that's ...


0

Normally, referring to a day as a period of time, you want on. That is essentially universal, and applies here as much as anywhere else. However, we also sometimes use the term "graduation day" to refer to the event. It's more common to just use graduation for that, but if your school, college or university does a lot of things for graduation day, not just ...


0

We say 'on + day', it doesn't matter if you have one or more words in between. on Wednesday on Christmas day on the first day of spring on the day when I was born Prepositions of Time Explanation


-2

in time: in short a bit earlier or a bit late on time: in short neither before nor late but on fix time.


1

I agree of course with other members' comments that "of", just like most other prepositions, is idiomatic when used after verbs like "approve" and "disapprove". However, OP's question is in line with some grammarians (like Seth Lindstromberg, author of "English Prepositions Explained") who claim that, idiomatic as they are, prepositions tend to follow ...


2

Particular verbs require their prepositional phrases to have particular prepositions. There is frequently no real logic to this. You just need to learn which verbs take which sorts of prepositional phrases. One (dis)approves or thinks of things, speculates or thinks about things (or occasionally on things), depends on things, reasons with people, dances to a ...


1

1.a) I have been living here for 3 months. 1.b) I have lived here for 3 months. I think these two sentences pretty much have the same meaning. They both tell the reader that the writer started living "here" three months ago and still does. 2.a) I have been building the house for 3 months. 2.b) I have built the house for 3 months. 2a sounds ok. ...


1

In terms of natural speech in British English, it's pretty much always from, in my experience. No difference with or without the just.


0

"Have been" is used for present perfect continuous. It depicts that the action started before and is still happening. "Have" alone is used for present perfect. It shows that the action has been completed/finished recently.


1

There is a difference between using the proposition for and not using it, but it can often be subtle. It's more obvious in your first set of sentences than in your second. When using for here, you are talking about the purpose of something. It can also used when that something is some time away. To alter your first sentence a bit, let's say it's Monday: ...


-3

"We use in with morning, afternoon, evening and night, but we use on when we talk about a specific morning, afternoon, etc., or when we describe the part of the day."(Cambridge Dictionary). My analysis is based on the preceding definition. Examples from the OP: 1- I had panic attacks in the night when I heard him coming. Remark: No, because: to "heard ...


4

Not all cases of in the morning when are specific mornings. I have trouble getting up in the morning when I've had a late night. That's not a specific morning; the when is specifying a class of mornings. Your first to examples about the night are both correct, but different things. I had panic attacks in the night when I heard him coming. Over some ...


1

I cooked the dinner in two hours. Implies the dinner was ready after 2 hours. I cooked the dinner for two hours. Implies for 2 hours I was busy cooking the dinner. for shows a length of time whereas in expresses that something was complete after a certain time.


0

Native British English speaker here. To me, "on the radio" and "over the radio" are both fine, of course, but they have a slight difference in meaning. Essentially, the different preposition creates a different impression of what the word radio means - though I had to sit and think on it for a while to figure out that that was what the difference was to me. ...


1

"Xing with Y" is a pattern that is often used. In this case, the gerund-participle is with a noun that represents some sort of experience or emotional state - and you'll see it with pain, excitement, pleasure, horror, dismay and so on. It can be used, generally, with pretty much any such noun. It means that the noun has altered the character of the action ...


2

The phrase "in pain" exists, but "in excitement" does not. Yes: I am in pain. No: I am in excitement. These are all okay: Sobbing in pain. Sobbing with pain. Screaming with excitement. But not: Screaming in excitement.


2

Ignore the verbs (screaming/sobbing) for a moment and just consider the nouns. We normally say "I am in pain", not "with pain". The verbs don't change this in any way. Someone who is "screaming in pain" is screaming and in pain. That said, this only really applies to the context of your example. There are other contexts where the reverse is true: I have ...


2

Currently, "on the radio" is commonly used when talking about radio programs: My son's teacher was interviewed on the radio this morning. "Over the radio" is commonly used when talking about two-way communication, or when emphasizing the medium: The watch towers can communicate with each other over short-wave radio. However, until around 1940 the two ...


1

As a native American English speaker, I can't find fault with any of these. I say, "on the radio." But "over the radio" is an understandable expression that can also be used. As far as "hearing him" versus "hearing his voice," I think it is usually not necessary to say "voice." For example, What is the difference as far as basic meaning between saying, "I ...


Top 50 recent answers are included