New answers tagged

0

To use the statement “come over”, either the speaker’s or the listener’s location must be the topic of discussion. Another third location would not work.


4

It is not "standard" English. It is being used as a joke here. Look how the scientist responds: "Science" you? It's clear that he/she doesn't understand what Ava means. So, unless you are making a joke, don't do this. For "Mathematics" the same joke works (so don't use it except as a joke) This problem is hard, so I'm going ...


0

"Embarrassed" is absolutely the right choice. The relevant meaning of "embarrass" according to MW is "to cause to experience a state of self-conscious distress" What causes the child to feel distress is not specified in the clause where "embarrass" is used. In other words, the causative agent is not the grammatical ...


1

There are many present and past participles of this kind functioning as ADJECTIVES. Present participles (ending in -ing) have an active meaning (be embarrassing = cause embarrassment), while past participles (ending in -ed) have a passive meaning (be embarrassed = suffer embarrassment). In this case, "he is embarrassed about changing for PE in front of ...


1

They would both be taken to mean the same thing, though “is shining” would be more natural and idiomatic; “shines” feels a little more poetic to me. “Is shining” refers more to the state of the sun, whereas “shines” refers more to something the sun is doing - perhaps you might picture the sun beginning to shine after it hadn’t been shining with “shines”, ...


0

I was bored while watching the series. At that time, you had that state. We have no idea when or why your boredom began, only that it overlapped your viewing of a television program. This might imply that you didn't pay much attention to the show because you were already bored. I got bored while watching a series. At that time, you acquired that state. ...


0

The answer that Jason Bassford linked has a great explanation of the context in which to use possessive pronouns (eg. my/mine, your(s), his, her(s)) and objective pronouns (eg. me, you, him, her). I slightly disagree with the conclusion that using possessive pronouns before gerunds will "never get you into trouble" since they are usually jarring in ...


0

Yes, "One" is perfectly okay in English although, in my opinion, it is used mostly in formal English rather than in informal, where it can still be sometimes very useful. Mostly "One" stands for everyone, anyone (mostly followed by "they") l, and "he or she". Thus your sentence can be rewritten using those three and ...


2

You have marked your question as "formal language" and neither "scam" nor "rip off" are particularly formal. Scam originated in US slang of the early 1960s, and "rip off" is from African American vernacular of the late 60s Formal alternatives for "scam" could be "an attempt to defraud" or "...


2

A scam is generally a dishonest or deceitful attempt to rip someone off. A rip off is taking money from someone without giving them anything of equivalent value in return. It is not necessarily dishonest or deceitful. For example, selling bottled water for $1 per liter is a rip off (at least in countries where tap water is safe to drink), but it isn't a scam....


4

A popular noun is "rip-off". Clerk: 1kg of mangos is 100 USD! Customer A: That's a rip-off! Customer B: This store is a rip-off! ... and the verb is "to rip someone off". That store ripped me off!


0

In the given sentence My hair is short so I'm growing them for my wedding. You switch from a singular reference (your hair is long - referring to the entire mass on your head as singular hair) to a plural reference (them - referring to single strands), which creates additional confusion. Consider My hair is short so I'm growing it for my wedding. (This ...


1

Is this a current use or considered old-fashioned? "One" is in current use. It's somewhat formal, not usually heard in casual conversation, and therefore seems appropriate for a school essay where they prefer overly wordy verbiage. Although it may be "gender-neutral", the emphasis is not on that fact. The purpose is to refer to "...


1

The correct usage is "it" and not "them" because "it" is a singular pronoun and "hair" is a singular noun. As it has been mentioned, hair is a collective noun because it represents all the many (plural) hairs on a person's head as just one singular collection of things--"My hair". COLLECTIVE: Hairs (plural) =...


19

In this case you want it, not them. The word hair can be either an uncountable noun (also known as a mass noun) or a countable noun depending on context. You're using it as an uncountable noun in that sentence, so you'd want it: My hair is short so I'm growing it for my wedding. You use it (and the singular form) when referring to a mass noun (or to a ...


29

No, use "it" for sentences where we talk about somebody's entire head of hair. Use "them" for sentences about a small well-defined group of hairs, or about seperate hairs, in case of an almost bald person. Hair can be used in several ways The word Hair is a noun that could be described as either countable or uncountable mass (material), ...


7

Nope, you refer your hair in a unit or in its totality, I think using "it" is most appropriate.


0

For the moment, let's ignore the supplemental participial phrases and focus on the core of the clause: the most piano key hits in one minute is 824 This is only one clause.  It does not contain a subordinate clause.  It has exactly one verb, "is".  The simple subject of the clause is "hits".  This is a plural noun, not a third-person ...


0

"Hit" can be either a noun or a verb. There are therefore two correct phrases. As a verb you get The most piano keys hit in a one minute This might be understood to mean "different keys", but that doesn't appear to be the record here, instead there was one key that was repeatedly pressed. If hit is a noun you get: The most piano-key ...


1

The subject of the sentence is most. The most is 824. The most what? The most hits. They are using hit as a noun, and modifying it with the noun key. What is a hit? Well, it is what happens when you hit something. A fighter might take a lot of hits. So can a piano key. Some other things can get hits - for instance, a fishing line or a want ad. ...


0

"When the next semester commences...". = agreement "When the next semesters commence...". = agreement "When the next semester commence...". = disagreement


-2

I find both acceptable and would not edit either. “Seek for” is a construct similar to “look for” or “seek out”: the verb is active and is directed at the object by the preposition. Hence we can seek help, seek for help, look for help, seek out help. All are correct, being clear in meaning with no ambiguity.


0

We don't.  It's not all just one clause.  This is a complex sentence, and we have clauses inside other clauses.  “The only thing that’s 1 clear is 2 [that] you were 3 hired to stand up here and tell us lies,” one person shouted 4.”  The contracted "is" belongs to the clause "that's clear".  This is a subordinate clause and a ...


1

Yes, you can use an infinitive phrase (to stay indoors) as a noun, linked by "is", the form of "to be", to the noun phrase "the most sensible thing". The second sentence works too, although it would make more sense as "One of the qualities I would like to have is to argue without being obnoxious."


1

Your question isn’t entirely clear, but I believe you are asking about the verb forms. I’ll explain this sentence with that in mind: “Two men were seen running after robbing the bank” THE SHORT ANSWER “Were seen” is the only verb phrase in this sentence. So conjugate this verb as you would conjugate a passive voice verb. “(Be) (past participle)” makes it “...


1

All three look good to me. I tend to agree that "speak with/to" is marginally more formal than "talk to", but it's not a big difference. Michael suggests in a comment that "speak with" may be slightly more common in American English, and "speak to" in British English, perhaps that's the case. To my mind "speak ...


0

"How long ___ in Spain before you came here?" "How long did you live in Spain before you came here?" This answer is correct. Why? The question includes the words "before you came here," meaning that whoever the person is asking no longer lives in Spain. The answer "did" is past tense and indicates that the person no ...


0

"Sense" is perfectly natural here. It has a meaning very close to "feel emotionally" but with an added overtone of "rational" understanding. He is saying No, I don't actively want to, but I am pretty certain that you do want to, so let's do it.


0

The word "are" isn't an auxiliary there, but the main verb for the first clause. The word "caught" is functioning as an adjective in that sentence.


0

You are mixing tenses; incorrectly in my opinion. Here are my attempts at correcting what I perceive to be a grammatically incorrect phrase. "Nine dogs were caught and one cat escaped" "Nine dogs are caught and one cat escapes" "Nine dogs have been caught and one cat has escaped"


1

It means that the aspects of "knowledge of God" that are described in the preceding paragraphs are not all the knowledge of God that is possible. Those are not "exhaustive" descriptions. American Heritage Dictionary "exhaust" tr.verb 3. To discuss or treat completely; cover thoroughly: exhaust a topic. The previous paragraphs can be seen here; Googled ...


3

I can't feel my fingers is completely natural and correct, with or without the final at all. We might equally say, My fingers have gone numb. If a doctor asked, "Can you feel your hand?" we might say simply, My fingers are numb. It sounds slightly calmer and more matter-of-fact than the sentences above.


0

Both are onomatopoeia "Chomp" starts with the grinding "ch" sound but has the "p" sound of your mouth closing and is the sound of bite: closing the mouth on food. Munch has the closed mouth "m" and the "ch" to evoke grinding. It is more about chewing than biting. But really this is splitting hairs. In many, or most, casual situations, chomp or munch are ...


2

They mean the same thing. Really, it's not so much the noisy aspect I think of with these words. If there's any difference, I'd say "munch" doesn't necessarily imply eating noisily. Sally: Whatcha looking for? Bob: We got anything to munch on? Here it just really means "eat" or "snack." On the other hand, with "chomp" I think more of eating ...


0

Regarding the top answer , "I have read" is not a past tense; it is a present tense. "Read" is simply a past participle. Present perfect, which is the tense being mentioned can be confusing because it does have past elements; however it is not used in past time! It CANNOT be used in past time. Therefore, the sentence, "I have read and agree to the terms"...


0

The question seems to be based on a quote from this source: Streetdirectory.com "How a published author..." "How a Published Author Can Become a Paid Public Speaker" "Some authors-to-be and new authors have trouble figuring out precisely how to leverage that book into speaking." Including that as a question in an exam seems a little odd. They seem to depend ...


2

Yes, 'fill out' is standard idiom in American English and far more used in the US than in UK or other countries. To fill out the form is to complete it. To fill in the form is to supply information as required It was obligatory to fill out the necessary fields in the form (like name and room number).


2

"I get the message" is idiomatic, and is indeed what people actually say. While the other two may be more grammatically correct, and in fact 3 is marginally more correct than 2, it's not so much what people tend to say.


Top 50 recent answers are included