wrong use of prepositions.docx

Good websites to help improve usage of prepositions [closed]

up vote1down votefavorite

Please anyone suggest some good websites which give tips on the usage of prepositions on a daily or weekly basis.

I have doubts regarding usage of prepositions in many contexts. So wanted to know a general website which would help.

I am a software programmer and i get many doubts regarding the usage of prepsitions many times while discussing on forums.

For example: I am not sure of a sentence like "Is this conference only for android developers or anyone without a prior knowledge of/in android coding can attend? "

prepositions

shareimprove this question

askedNov 2 '11 at 8:50

kairav92

closedas off topic bykiamlaluno,aedia , Jasper Loy,simchona,waiwai933Nov 2 '11 at 14:28

Questions on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange are expected to relate to English language and usage within the scopedefined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more aboutreopening questionshere.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in thehelp center, pleaseedit the question.

2

A possible approach is to Google both phrases, e.g. "knowledge of coding" and "knowledge in coding", and see what occurs more often.remsNov 2 '11 at 10:14

add a comment

2 Answers

activeoldestvotes

up vote2down vote

you may like this:http://rwc.hunter.cuny.edu/reading-writing/on-line/prep-def.html

shareimprove this answer

answeredNov 2 '11 at 11:35

Talha Ashfaque1912

add a comment

up vote1down vote

You can also searchGrammar Girlfor your questions.



Mark3,31751942

add a comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions taggedprepositionsorask your own question.

sign uplog intourhelp

required.

Which one is more correct: works at a university or works in a university?


1

My relative is a fairly big academic and worksata university.

Is this correct? or should I have usedininstead?

word-choicegrammaticalityprepositionsat-in

Related:Studying PhD at the university or studying PhD in the university?RegDwigtAug 16 '12 at 13:40

add a comment

5 Answers

activeoldestvotes

up vote4down voteaccepted

My relative is a fairly big academic and worksata university

is correct.

My relative is a fairly big academic and worksina university

is wrong.

See a similar example atCambridge Dictionaries Online.

2

I'm not sure I would definitively say that using "in" is wrong because a dictionary doesn't use it in one of the examples for the noun "university". Said dictionary has an entry for "in" that seems like a valid use for this case:dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/in_3Dr. Wily's ApprenticeJan 13 '11 at 14:49

2

@Dr. Wily's Apprentice: This was a very quick answer. Certainly, there are cases where the constructionin a universitywould be correct. In this case/context, however,in a universityis absolutely wrong. I just did not have the time to come with a reason. In fact, the only reason I can think of isatis simply the correct preposition to use here. I only cited the dictionary example to lend more credibility to my answer, as the example's context is exactly the same as the one here.Jimi OkeJan 13 '11 at 14:54

1

My appologies for being abrasive in my first comment. Let me say that I agree that using "at" seems like the more natural/appropriate choice here, and your citation of the dictionary's example does back that up. I think I mistook your citation as evidence that using "in" is wrong, which may not be what you intended. Personally, I don't really agree that using "in" is absolutely wrong for this case, although I don't have any evidence that suggests one way or the other whether it is acceptable.Dr. Wily's ApprenticeJan 13 '11 at 15:42

@Dr. Wily's Apprentice: Oh, no worries; no offense taken, at all, although I admit that my rejoinder may have been slightly curt. And I do agree:absolutelyis too strong a modifier. Indeed, evidence is hard to find :)Jimi OkeJan 13 '11 at 15:47

3

I completely disagree that it is "absolutely wrong". There is no way to determine what this person is trying to say without proper context. Counter-example:My friend is a fairly big academic and works outside mainstream academia in the mountains of Tibet doing geological research. However, my relative is also a fairly big academic and works in a university.treefaceJan 13 '11 at 19:22

add a comment

up vote2down vote

The quoted sentence is fine.

'In' is usually used when speaking about the general kind of work someone does, e.g.

My father worksintelecommunications.

but

My father worksatthe telephone exchange.

add a comment

Using 'in' is not just plain wrong - although in that context it does sound it. I would possibly use 'in' if I meant that heworksthere, but is not directly involved in the university establishment, for example someone who is for whatever reason doing an unrelated job but using the university for accommodation, or a cleaner etc.

add a comment

I would also use "at" in that case. It's completely correct.

answeredJan 13 '11 at 12:27

Mehper C Palavuzlar17.9k3096172

add a comment

AT university

My son studies at a university.

My brother teaches English at a university.

But...

My friend Sohan is a painter. He is now workingina university.

A student studies or a teacher works AT a university while a person not directly involved with studying or teaching for which a university exists, like a carpenter or a painter, works IN a university. At the same time you should useatwhen the name of the university is mentioned:

Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to studyatUniversity Oxford.

4

In college versus at college versus at university

1

What is the difference between teaches at and in xxx university

0

Can I say He is at graduate school.?

6

Studying PhD at the university or studying PhD in the university?

0

Employment with vs. employment at

RELATED

2

Which is correct: it's not a big deal to me or it's not a big deal for me?

6


4

Which one is right He works at company X or in company X ?

2

In office or at office?

2

Which is more appropriate I work for or I work at?

3

Phrasing of What knowledge is required [at/in] [a] university?

4


1


3

To work for vs. to work in vs. to work at

1

Which one is correct at the city or in the city?

tourhelpblog

Bottom of Form

Ask Question

Take the 2-minute tour

English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.



5

Which of these two sentences is correct:

1. I am studying PhDatthe university.

2. I am studying PhDinthe university.

Should I use "at" or "in"? Or is there no difference?


1

The first one...user730Dec 23 '10 at 10:37

add a comment

2 Answers

activeoldestvotes


1. I am studying PhD at the university.

2. I am studying PhD in the university.

In the above, both sentences are wrong. Insertingfor abetweenstudyingandPhDwould make sentence 1. correct. Sentence 2. would still be wrong, asinis the wrong preposition to use in this case:

1. I am studying for a PhD at the university. [Correct]

2. I am studying for a PhD in the university. [Wrong]

This is not to say that the constructionin the universityis inherently wrong. There are certainly some contexts where this would be the correct form to use. For instance:

The monument is in the university.

He is in the university.

It is not always easy to come up with a rule to determine the choice betweenatandin. Some cases are clear cut, as in my first round of examples below. Others are not always so, as in my second batch of examples, for speakers tend to leave a lot of things implied in speech and in writing. Hopefully, you will be able to infer these rules from my examples.

In academic contexts, useatwhen referring to the institution in general or to a specific one. Note, however, that one would useinforgraduate schoolorcollege(largely American context). The constructionin universityis also correct (largely British):

I am studying for a PhDatthe university.

I'matOxford for a PhD.

I'm studying for a PhDingraduate school.

I'm currentlyingrad school for a PhD.

I'm a sophomoreincollege.

I'minuniversity for a PhD.

I am studying for a PhDatHarvard.

I am studying for a PhDatthe Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi.

I'm a PhD studentatETH, Zurich.

I'matKing's College, London.

I'm a junioratWilliams College.

I should point out thatin collegeandin universityare rather colloquial constructions, but that's why they're used in everyday situations! In more formal contexts, it would be better to useat college/ at university.

More examples usingschool,departmentandfacultyboth explicitly and implicitly. Generally,inis used fordepartment, whileatis used forfaculty:

I'm studying for a PhDinthe physics department.

I'minphysicsatMIT.

He's a professorinthe Department of BiologyatHarvard.

Are you the only assistant professorinthis department?

I'm a PhD studentatthe Faculty of Social Sciencesinthe University of Copenhagen.

She's a professoratthe Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

My son is a lecturerincriminologyatthe Faculty of Law.

I'm a PhD studentatthe Cape Town University Faculty of Law.

I aminthe School of Engineering for a PhD.

He's a professorinBiological SciencesatCambridge.

I am a PhD studentatthe Yale School of Architecture.

I'm studying for a PhDinthe law schoolatHarvard.

I'm a PhD studentatHarvard Law [School].

NB: I did not look up information from any grammar book. These are just examples I came up with based on my experiences as a native speaker, general observations of usage, and what sounds right!


editedDec 23 '10 at 18:36

answeredDec 23 '10 at 17:23

Jimi Oke20.3k23883

add a comment

up vote7down vote

In the UK we'd be most likely to say:

I am studyingfor aPhDatthe university.

Furthermore, thethewould be dropped if we weren't emphasising a specific university.

"Inthe university" would usually be understood to mean "physically inside the university buildings".

United States usage is precisely the same, though we generally lack "at university"...we would say "at college".Chris B. BehrensDec 23 '10 at 15:37

add a comment

Top of Form

In office or at office? [duplicate]


1

Possible Duplicate:At or in the office?

I am a little confused about which preposition should be used here as in the title. I prefer to usein office. But how about the other one? Are both correct or not?


markedas duplicate byRegDwigtOct 18 '12 at 10:13

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, pleaseask a new question.

Looks like an exact duplicate to me.Monica CellioJun 19 '11 at 15:56

add a comment

1 Answer

activeoldestvotes


I'd use them more or less like this:

"in office" = "having taken up their official position" (e.g. as an MP, president...)

"in the office" = "present in the office"

"at the office" = "in the office for the purpose of carrying out his duties"

2

I'd distinguish between "in the office" and "at the office" slightly differently. I'd use "at the office" in opposition to "at home" -- at his place of work, but maybe not necessarily physically in his office, while "in the office" means that he is physically present in his office.Peter ShorJun 19 '11 at 15:15

Interesting to pick on 'in office' as valid - well done. I can think of no parallel for 'at office' that would be valid.Jonathan LefflerJun 19 '11 at 17:00

Since the poster specifically mentioned "in/at office" without the article I thought I'd better clarify. Incidentally (I'm from the UK) I don't get the reading that Peter does with "at the office": to me it implies they're actually working at the office (whereas "at work" could imply e.g. they're out on the road).Neil CoffeyJun 19 '11 at 17:54

It's somewhat tangential, but there is a chain of bar & grill restaurants in New Jersey called "The Office." The joke is that you can go there, call home, and say "Honey, I'll be staying late at The Office." I don't believe Americans would use "in" for this usage, although they would say "Honey, I'm in the office".Peter ShorJun 19 '11 at 18:14

add a comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions taggedword-choicegrammaticalityprepositionsat-inorask your own question.

In office or at office? [duplicate]

1

Possible Duplicate:At or in the office?

I am a little confused about which preposition should be used here as in the title. I prefer to usein office. But how about the other one? Are both correct or not?


markedas duplicate byRegDwigtOct 18 '12 at 10:13


Looks like an exact duplicate to me.Monica CellioJun 19 '11 at 15:56

add a comment

1 Answer

activeoldestvotes


I'd use them more or less like this:

"in office" = "having taken up their official position" (e.g. as an MP, president...)

"in the office" = "present in the office"

"at the office" = "in the office for the purpose of carrying out his duties"

2

I'd distinguish between "in the office" and "at the office" slightly differently. I'd use "at the office" in opposition to "at home" -- at his place of work, but maybe not necessarily physically in his office, while "in the office" means that he is physically present in his office.Peter ShorJun 19 '11 at 15:15

Interesting to pick on 'in office' as valid - well done. I can think of no parallel for 'at office' that would be valid.Jonathan LefflerJun 19 '11 at 17:00

Since the poster specifically mentioned "in/at office" without the article I thought I'd better clarify. Incidentally (I'm from the UK) I don't get the reading that Peter does with "at the office": to me it implies they're actually working at the office (whereas "at work" could imply e.g. they're out on the road).Neil CoffeyJun 19 '11 at 17:54

It's somewhat tangential, but there is a chain of bar & grill restaurants in New Jersey called "The Office." The joke is that you can go there, call home, and say "Honey, I'll be staying late at The Office." I don't believe Americans would use "in" for this usage, although they would say "Honey, I'm in the office".Peter ShorJun 19 '11 at 18:14

add a comment

At or in the office?

when do you useat the office? And when do you usein the office? What's the difference between the phrases?

4 Answers

activeoldestvotes


'At the office' refers generally to the state of someone who worksin an office of some kindbeing at work, e.g.

"Where's Bob?", said Jim. "At the office.", replied John

It can also refer to an object being at said place of work:

"Where's your briefcase?", said Jim. "I left it at the office.", said John.

'In the office' refers to someone or something physically being in a specific office, e.g.

"Where's Bob?", said Jim. "In his office.", said John.

This would usually be used when the office in question was in close proximity to the speakers, for example if Jim and John were in another office in the same building as Bob.

"Where's the telephone?", said Jim. "It's in the office", said John.

However, in and at are often interchangeable. Take the briefcase example. John could have said:

"I left it in my office."

To summarise, 'at' is a more general, vague term, whereas 'in' usually refers to a specific location.

1

In some cases "the office" means "the place where I work" which could mean a building or a suite in a building. In other cases "the office" refers to a particular room. The context of the answer depends on the context of the question.John SattaJan 24 '11 at 14:11

+1. "In the office" usually means "physically inside the office" which doesn't make as much sense when you are using "the office" metaphorically.Mr. Shiny and New Jan 24 '11 at 14:15

add a comment

Did you find this question interesting? Try our newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter and get our top new questions delivered to your inbox (see an example).

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

up vote4down vote

I suspect "at" is more often used with buildings or non-specific locations

John is at home.

John is at work.

John is at the shops.

John is at the office (meaning his office building).

I think "in" is more often used with specific rooms.

John is in the kitchen.

John is in the meeting room.

John is in his office.

This theory falls apart somewhat when I consider

John is in France.


editedJan 24 '11 at 17:11


RedGrittyBrick7,4051736

add a comment

up vote1down vote

You're "in" the office if you mean to emphasise your physical location, inside a room where one works. You're "at" the office if you are at a place of work, but not emphasising a specific room.

So, "I need to have a printer in the office", but "I'm at the office, but I'll come home to see you soon."



Carlos1,78231018

add a comment

up vote0down vote

A close call. In my opinion, 'at' is used when one is correcting an implied absence

I shall be at the office tomorrow

implies the existence of doubt that I would have been there. Either I had previously said I would be away, or something led you to believe so and I am contradicting that belief.

I shall be in the office tomorrow

confirms my presence, as was anticipated (probably by both of us).



smirkingman1,21048

add a comment

protectedbytchristFeb 21 at 23:52

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10reputationon this site.Would you like to answer one of theseunanswered questionsinstead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions taggedword-choiceprepositionsat-inorask your own question.

asked

4 years ago

viewed

67377 times

active

2 years ago

Get theweekly newsletter!

Top questions and answers

Important announcements

Unanswered questions

see anexample newsletter

LINKED

2


0

Which is more appropriate: drop in to the library or drop in at the library?

RELATED

3

When do we use arrive at versus arrive in?

2

At any moment vs. in any moment

2


3

Located in vs located at

6

At hand vs on hand vs in hand

4


4

At vs. in followed by a city name

0

Are in and at the same in some situations?

1

Use of or for with Institute, Department, Office?

0

Hospital at ABC City vs. hospital in ABC City

HOT NETWORK QUESTIONS

3

Prof Doe in/at the Department of, in/at the Faculty of, at/in the University of

7

In school vs at school

6


4


0

Are in and at the same in some situations?

0

In or at the department of English and American Studies?

RELATED

6


4


3

study comedy at or in the XYZ theater

2


3


4


1


1


0

Apply to a university to study/for studying..?

1

Position in/at/for your company

HOT NETWORK QUESTIONStour

Take the 2-minute tour

English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.



1

My relative is a fairly big academic and worksata university.

Is this correct? or should I have usedininstead?


Related:Studying PhD at the university or studying PhD in the university?RegDwigtAug 16 '12 at 13:40

add a comment

5 Answers

activeoldestvotes


My relative is a fairly big academic and worksata university

is correct.

My relative is a fairly big academic and worksina university

is wrong.

See a similar example atCambridge Dictionaries Online.

2

I'm not sure I would definitively say that using "in" is wrong because a dictionary doesn't use it in one of the examples for the noun "university". Said dictionary has an entry for "in" that seems like a valid use for this case:dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/in_3Dr. Wily's ApprenticeJan 13 '11 at 14:49

2

@Dr. Wily's Apprentice: This was a very quick answer. Certainly, there are cases where the constructionin a universitywould be correct. In this case/context, however,in a universityis absolutely wrong. I just did not have the time to come with a reason. In fact, the only reason I can think of isatis simply the correct preposition to use here. I only cited the dictionary example to lend more credibility to my answer, as the example's context is exactly the same as the one here.Jimi OkeJan 13 '11 at 14:54

1

My appologies for being abrasive in my first comment. Let me say that I agree that using "at" seems like the more natural/appropriate choice here, and your citation of the dictionary's example does back that up. I think I mistook your citation as evidence that using "in" is wrong, which may not be what you intended. Personally, I don't really agree that using "in" is absolutely wrong for this case, although I don't have any evidence that suggests one way or the other whether it is acceptable.Dr. Wily's ApprenticeJan 13 '11 at 15:42

@Dr. Wily's Apprentice: Oh, no worries; no offense taken, at all, although I admit that my rejoinder may have been slightly curt. And I do agree:absolutelyis too strong a modifier. Indeed, evidence is hard to find :)Jimi OkeJan 13 '11 at 15:47

3

I completely disagree that it is "absolutely wrong". There is no way to determine what this person is trying to say without proper context. Counter-example:My friend is a fairly big academic and works outside mainstream academia in the mountains of Tibet doing geological research. However, my relative is also a fairly big academic and works in a university.treefaceJan 13 '11 at 19:22

add a comment

up vote2down vote

The quoted sentence is fine.

'In' is usually used when speaking about the general kind of work someone does, e.g.

My father worksintelecommunications.

but

My father worksatthe telephone exchange.



user3444

add a comment

up vote2down vote

Using 'in' is not just plain wrong - although in that context it does sound it. I would possibly use 'in' if I meant that heworksthere, but is not directly involved in the university establishment, for example someone who is for whatever reason doing an unrelated job but using the university for accommodation, or a cleaner etc.



Joe45325114

add a comment

up vote1down vote

I would also use "at" in that case. It's completely correct.



Mehper C. Palavuzlar17.9k3096172

add a comment

up vote0down vote

AT university

My son studies at a university.

My brother teaches English at a university.

But...

My friend Sohan is a painter. He is now workingina university.

A student studies or a teacher works AT a university while a person not directly involved with studying or teaching for which a university exists, like a carpenter or a painter, works IN a university. At the same time you should useatwhen the name of the university is mentioned:

Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to studyatUniversity Oxford.


editedSep 1 '14 at 7:18

Mari-Lou A27.8k1359184

answeredSep 13 '13 at 10:27

O.Abootty1005

add a comment

Top of Form

iewed

4850 times

active

8 months ago

Get theweekly newsletter!

Top questions and answers

Important announcements

1


0

Can I say He is at graduate school.?

6


0

Employment with vs. employment at

RELATED

2

Which is correct: it's not a big deal to me or it's not a big deal for me?

6


4


2


2

Which is more appropriate I work for or I work at?

3


4


1


3

To work for vs. to work in vs. to work at

1


HOT NETWORK QUESTIONS

question feed

Why is this usage of to incorrect?


I am in communication with a friend who is learning English.

I noticed her using "to" in the wrong context, but I'm unable to explain which rule she is breaking.

I can't accesstoGmail.

No, "to" is incorrect in both examples. You would need "to" only if written: "I need access to Gmail ..."MEdJan 19 '12 at 19:08

Thank you for the correction. --- However I'm still curious which rule the first example is breaking. So I will remove my mistaken second example, to reduce confusion and distraction.AdemosJan 19 '12 at 19:15

add a comment

4 Answers

activeoldestvotes


"Access" can be either a transitive verb or a noun depending on context, and "to" can be either a preposition or a particle indicating an infinitive, and your friend is mixing up the uses.

"Access" as noun:

I need access.

I cannot get access.

"Access" as verb:

I cannot access Gmail.

"To" as preposition:

I need access to Gmail.

I cannot get access to Gmail.

"To" indicating an infinitive:

I need to access Gmail to send this report.

I need Gmail access to send this report.

I need to access Gmail for sending this report.

Thank you for providing so many examples. ---- I am unfamiliar with much of the English grammar terminology people have been using in their answers. (such as "indicating an infinitive") But your generous list of examples has given me a starting point in understanding the many English grammar terms. --- I now understand why I couldn't answer my friend's question; because there is much about English grammar terminology, that I haven't studied yet.AdemosJan 23 '12 at 0:27

I don't know if there's a US/UK difference there, but I don't think many/any Brits would say"I need to access Gmail for sending this report". I can't put my finger on why exactly -"I need internet access for emailing"sounds okay(-ish) to me, but"I need internet access for emailing this report"sounds worse, and"I need to access the internet for emailing this report"worse still. Personally I'd tend to discard the actual word "access" in all "noun" usages (whereGmaileffectively meansGmail access, oraccess to Gmailanyway).FumbleFingersJan 23 '12 at 1:14

Did you say if "I can't access to Gmail." is grammatically correct? If so, how, and else, why? I suppose those were the OP's questions. In fact, the OP presumes it is incorrect and asks how and why it is so (per title of the OP).KrisJan 23 '12 at 4:52

add a comment

up vote3down vote

The reason thattois wrong in the original sentence is because the verbaccessis constructed with a direct object:I can't access the Internet right now.

Whenaccessis a noun, then you needto:Disabled people should have easy access to museums and galleries.


editedJan 19 '12 at 19:26


Irene10.5k2040

Thank you for the answer, but a problem remains. My friend will inevitably ask "How will I know,whenaccess is a noun?"AdemosJan 19 '12 at 19:38

@Ademos: Give your friend two examples to explain.I can't access Gmail:accessis used as a verb.I can't get access to Gmail: the verb phrase here iscan't get, makingaccessa noun.IreneJan 19 '12 at 19:43

@Ademos: Tell your friend that in standard English the word that follows the subject ("I" in this case) is usually functioning as a verb. And point out thatcanandcan'tare usually just "helper" verbs that come before the main verb ("access" in this case).FumbleFingersJan 19 '12 at 19:43

Irene: Thanks for clarifying. Your answer was helpful, but Choster provided so many examples that even my inquisitive friend will understand. --- @FumbleFingers: Thanks for explaining about the "helper" verbs.AdemosJan 23 '12 at 0:23

1

@FumbleFingers: Thanks for the warning. But my friend always has her dictionary close by, so I'm sure she'll do that automatically.AdemosJan 23 '12 at 0:57

show1more comment

up vote1down vote

"to" is a preposition which can be used to indicate that a noun is the indirect object of a verb, rather than the direct object. For example, consider the sentence: "I am sending a letter to my friend". The verb is "sending". The direct object of this verb -- the thing being sent -- is "a letter". The indirect object, in this case, the thing receiving the letter, is "my friend".

In your example, "access" is a verb and Gmail is the direct object of "access". Therefore, no "to" is called for because there is no indirect object.

The example is, perhaps, confusing because someone could also say "I need access to Gmail", in which case the "to" would be correct. But note that in this sentence, the verb is "need" and "access" is a noun. "access" is the direct object of "need". The two examples can be misleading because in the first case, "access" is a verb, but in the second case, it is a noun. "to Gmail" in this case is a prepositional phrase functioning as an adjective modifying "access". This is a completely different function of the word "to" than its use indicating an indirect object.



Jay23.9k12762

Thank you for mentioning the confusing aspects of the grammar rules. --- Combining the last part of your answer with choster's answer, will provide me with much detail when explaining this to my friend.AdemosJan 23 '12 at 0:16

add a comment

up vote0down vote

Your friend associates it with "I can'tconnect toGmail."

Accessis akin to but different fromconnect to.



Kris24.4k42571

Aha, my friend probably intended to say "connect" rather than "access." Thank you for your observation.---- However, her next question would likely be, "why can't I use 'access' in this situation?" --- So I chose choster's answer, since he/she provided many useful examples.AdemosJan 23 '12 at 0:19

add a comment

protectedbyRegDwigtDec 6 '12 at 9:39


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions taggedprepositionsor

Is the usage of in in the following sentence correct? [closed]


Is the usage ofinin the following sentence correct?

She sacrificed her own life in to teach my father a lesson and hoped to keep us alive.

I am reading a book that one of my friends wrote; she asked me to read it & see if there is anything that needs to be edited.

Although I am not the person to do this job, but I am doing my best to fulfill this wish for her.

grammaticalityprepositions


editedAug 7 '14 at 8:47

Matt E. 20.8k757116

askedAug 7 '14 at 8:35

Nada41

closedas off-topic byFumbleFingers,Ronan,Hellion,Josh61,MitchAug 9 '14 at 19:08

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

"Proofreadingquestions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." FumbleFingers, Ronan, Hellion, Josh61, Mitch

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in thehelp center, pleaseedit the question.

Hello Nada. Reading texts to correct grammar etc is specifically off-topic on this website. However: 'She sacrificed her own life in order to teach my father a lesson and hoped to keep us alive.' is grammatical. But it runs together two different trains of thought that really need setting apart.Edwin AshworthAug 7 '14 at 8:45

"sacrificed her own lifein teachingmy father a lesson" or maybe even "sacrificed her own lifeto teachingmy father a lesson" if I understand correctly what is meant in the sentence.KrisAug 7 '14 at 8:45

1

The complete sentence could beIn the hope it would keep us alive, she sacrificed her own life in order to teach my father a lesson .but is too longmplungjanAug 7 '14 at 8:58

@mplungjan I think you have hit the nail perfectly on the head. But I don't see why such a sentence would be 'too long'.WS2Aug 7 '14 at 10:19

Edwin Ashworth, thank you for your help, and for informing me about the rule. I also appreciate the participation of "mplungjan & WS2.NadaAug 7 '14 at 10:45

add a comment

2 Answers

activeoldestvotes

up vote2down vote

No, it should either sayin order to, or justto.


answeredAug 7 '14 at 8:45

Reg Edit4439

Thank you for your help :-)NadaAug 7 '14 at 10:48

add a comment

up vote0down vote

Converting comment to answer

As said by Reg, the "in to" should be "to" or "in order to"

Reversing some of the sentence makes it flow better.

In the hope it would keep us alive, she sacrificed her own life in order to teach my father a lesson

It does duplicate the "in" and puts the sacrifice secondary so perhaps

She sacrificed her own life in the hope it would keep us alive by teaching my father a lesson.



mplungjan23.6k5387

add a comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions taggedgrammaticalityprepositionsorask your own question.

Is the following sentence grammatically correct? [closed]


Myself and Brian have recently moved offices.

grammaticality


askedJan 21 at 11:46

Andy61

closedas off-topic byAndrew LeachJan 21 at 11:48


"Proofreadingquestions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." Andrew Leach


The answer is No. Use "Brian and I". There are questions about the use of the reflexive pronoun.Andrew LeachJan 21 at 11:49

The answer is Yes.AraucariaJan 21 at 11:53

@AndrewLeach I think this "rule" about the "use of the reflexive pronoun" is recommendatory, not mandatory. And it's not a proof-reading question.KrisJan 21 at 12:08

@Kris It is a proofreading question, because it asks "Is this sentence grammatically correct?" without specifying a source of concern. By all means edit it.Andrew LeachJan 21 at 12:19

1

@AndrewLeach That defeats your first comment :)KrisJan 21 at 12:30

show2more comments

Is it grammatically correct to omit is in the following sentence? Is it correct in formal speech?


Is it grammatically correct to omit "is" in the following sentence? Is it correct in formal speech?

The Soviet Union is the largest land power, China the greatest land-sea compound country and the United States the biggest sea power.

grammargrammaticality


editedDec 23 '14 at 9:11

Ronan5,20331644

askedDec 23 '14 at 8:56

user1029201

add a comment

1 Answer

activeoldestvotes

up vote2down vote

Yes, it is grammatical. It is a form of ellipsis calledgapping.


answeredDec 23 '14 at 9:51

ajd1462

Doesn'tgappingrequire the omitted word to be used once, at least.UrbycozDec 23 '14 at 10:05

In this case it is, no? "The Soviet Unionisthe largest land power..."ajdDec 23 '14 at 10:06

1

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I thought the OP was asking ifthat"is" could be removed too. And the answer would be no.UrbycozDec 23 '14 at 10:08

1

@Urbycoz An excellent illustration of the inverse correlation between deletion and clarity.Edwin AshworthDec 23 '14 at 10:16

Ah, your interpretation may well be correct.ajdDec 23 '14 at 10:47

show1more comment

Top of Form

ok

Your Answer

Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!

Please be sure toanswer the question. Provide details and share your research!

Butavoid

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see ourtips on writing great answers.

Links

Images

Styling/Headers

Lists

Blockquotes

Preformatted

HTML

advanced help

Is 'Apart from by' grammatically correct


While writing a news report, I found myself phrasing a sentence like this:

"Apart from by the managing director, the report would be reviewed by three specially constituted teams."

Though I immediately changed the sentence into active, I wondered if "Apart from by..." was grammatical.

I searched for the exact phrase in Google. It turned out about 222,000 results. But I could not find any 'reputable' source (at least not in the first few pages).

grammaticality




user737473817

add a comment

1 Answer

activeoldestvotes


It's perfectly grammatical, but rather clumsy.

Apart fromfunctions as a preposition. And, though prepositions normally take noun phrases as their complement, they can sometimes take a prepositional phrase.

Other examples of this construction are

There were papers all over the floor,as well as onthe table.

The queue stretched from the theatreto beyondthe bank.

Note, incidentally, thatapart from byis not structurally a component of the sentence: the structure is[apart from [by the managing director]].



Colin Fine37.3k3099

Thanks for your informed and lucid answer. The note and the examples were helpful.user73747Aug 19 '14 at 16:25

1

Let me step out from behind my tree and tell you the story of a little boy who asked his father, "Daddy, what did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to out of about Down Under up for?"RegDwigtAug 19 '14 at 17:21

Reg, go ahead, tell us the story.Colin FineAug 19 '14 at 17:23

Which is more grammatically correct; [closed]

up vote-1down votefavorite

Which is more grammatically correct - a guide to things to do or a guide of things to do?

grammaticality


askedMar 29 at 19:21

Rachel11

closedas off-topic byRobusto,Hellion,tchrist,Jim,Edwin AshworthMar 30 at 0:25


"Pleaseinclude theresearchyou've done, or consider if your question suits ourEnglish Language Learnerssite better. Questions that can be answered usingcommonly-available referencesare off-topic." Robusto, Hellion, Jim, Edwin Ashworth


How about "a guide on things to do".MikeMar 29 at 19:35

As with most such questions, neither is more grammatical and each means something different. It may be more felicitous to ask about the nuances that each has.AnonymMar 29 at 19:36

There is "no such thing" as "grammatically correct" English. Even pidgin English would be "grammatically correct", if it conforms to a regional set of grammatical patterns. Such questions should be , "is it grammatically acceptable" within the circles of formal English usage.Blessed GeekMar 29 at 22:23

add a comment

1 Answer

activeoldestvotes


A guidetothings to do would be, for example, a guide book. A guideofthings to do would give the impression that the things to do are themselves being guided. In the second case "guide" takes on the feeling of "guidelines".

Which one is grammatically correct? Why?


I've a quick question about grammar within a sentence. I'd also like to know why it is like that if someone could provide an answer.

Which one is correct?

Along with fishing,I enjoy frequently writing.While the ...

Along with fishing,I frequently enjoy writing.While the ...

Along with fishing,I enjoy writing frequently.While the ...

grammaticalityverbsadverbsword-order


editedMay 18 '13 at 12:58

RegDwigt66.5k24222317

askedOct 12 '10 at 12:48

JFW1,581113153

5

Implicit in the answer below: rather than "along with", it's better to use "besides", as "along with" can give the impression that you like to fish and write at the same time.ShreevatsaROct 12 '10 at 13:48

add a comment

2 Answers

activeoldestvotes


It's not really a question of grammar, but a question of what you mean to communicate. I assume that what you mean is that you enjoy writing and that you frequently write. In your sentence it should be clear that "frequently" (or any adverb that you choose) refers to "writing" and not to "enjoy" or "enjoy writing". Compare the following:

"I enjoy frequently writing" it may be interpreted as if what you enjoyed was to "write frequently".

"I enjoy writing frequently" same as above.

"I frequently enjoy writing" it may be interpreted as if you frequently enjoyed writing (but not always enjoyed writing).

Therefore, it's better if you split your sentence to avoid misinterpretation. I suggest something like:

Besides fishing, I also enjoy writing. I frequently write.




answeredOct 12 '10 at 13:07

b.roth13.3k956106

5

+1 for the suggestion to split. There are two completely separate thoughts here: a) you enjoy X, and b) you actually do X quite often. (Just think of all those things that you really enjoy, but haven't done in years.) So, I wouldn't mix the two thoughts too much, though they don't have to be in two separate sentences, either. Something along the lines of "I enjoy X and do it quite often" would be just fine IMHO.RegDwigtOct 12 '10 at 13:18

6

Actually, "I frequently enjoy writing"doesimply (to me) that you write often, for (as it seems to me) you can't enjoy writing except when you're actually writing. (You cansay"I enjoy writing" in a general sense, but if you use the word "frequently", it calls attention to the occasions when you enjoy it, which must be a subset of the times you write.) "I frequently enjoy writing" means that "Frequently, I write and enjoy it", although it leaves open the possibility that even more frequently you write without enjoying it.ShreevatsaROct 12 '10 at 13:36

2

"I frequently write" is more natural than "I'm frequently writing".Jon PurdyOct 12 '10 at 17:09

@Jon, I agree. I'll update my answer. Thanksb.rothOct 12 '10 at 17:13

@kiamlaluno: Huh? "Implicates I write often"? "Rebate that"? What language are you speaking?RobustoApr 24 '11 at 11:08

show1more comment

up vote1down vote

I hate to disagree with Bruno, but there is really nothing wrong with two of your examples:

Along with fishing, I enjoy writing frequently.

Along with fishing, I frequently enjoy writing.

The latter sounds more natural.

This is the kind of information one puts in the "Other Interests" section of one's rsum. What it represents is a kind of list, even though it contains but two items.

Items in a list don't have to be related by class: "I found four things in the box: a hammer, an old shirt, two books and a car battery." The only relationship between those items is that they were found in a box together. The only relationship between fishing and writing in your list is that they are things you enjoy doing. By stating your preference for fishing first, the reader assumes it is your primary interest. But the fact that you place it in a dependent clause indicates that you also hold writing in high esteem.

Furthermore, constructing the sentence in this way lets you imply that you do both things frequently without having to explicitly state that. And although toenjoya pursuit means to like doing it, it is also a mild way of simply stating that you do something. If I say "I enjoy an occasional evening out with friends," that may mean I delight in the activity, or it may just mean that I "possess and benefit from" those evenings out. It is a way of saying that these evenings out are something I consider to be properly part of my domain.

In short, the ideas don't have to be split. And I must say I find Bruno's much-heralded suggestion,

Besides fishing, I also enjoy writing. I frequently write.

to be wordy, repetitious, unnecessary, and may not even mean what you originally intended. Certainly it has a different feel from the more relaxed "Along with fishing, I frequently enjoy writing." Perhaps I am wrong, and that is how you would prefer to say the idea after all. But don't be bullied just because a lot of people up-voted the answer.

Correct position of only


4

Which is grammatically correct?

I canonlydo so much in this time.

or

I can doonlyso much in this time.

grammaticalityadverbsword-orderonly





user1784

add a comment

4 Answers

activeoldestvotes


In the given example there's not much difference. But there can be a great deal of difference in other constructions involving the same idea. Consider:

I only eat fish when I'm sick.

I eat fish only when I'm sick.

I eat only fish when I'm sick.

I submit that the first sentence is a bit ambiguous, and could be clarified in the direction of the second or third. Two and three mean entirely different things.


editedJun 25 '12 at 23:18


Robusto101k20230413

Well exemplified :)coleopteristOct 17 '12 at 15:29

1

It's worth noting that the ambiguity in the first sentence is essentially an inadequacy in the writing system. In their spoken form, intonation disambiguates readings of the first sentence and brings at least two different readings to the second.Neil CoffeyOct 17 '12 at 16:17

My general take is that placingonlyimmediately before the verb is quite often the very worst possible place for it. I always rearrange if possible to make the sentence stronger.tchristOct 24 '12 at 11:43

1

@tchrist: Milton was able to manage the feat quite handily in "On His Blindness" when he wrote, "They also serve who only stand and wait." I think the issue is placement ofonlyas close as possible to the word that draws the distinction, be it verb, noun, preposition, or whatever.RobustoOct 24 '12 at 12:00

add a comment

up vote3down vote

They are both grammatically correct, and both mean the same thing.

(However, "in this time" doesn't sound quite right in this context. "In the time available" might be better).



Steve Melnikoff5,0471840

Like withenglish.stackexchange.com/questions/5464/I think the difference, to the extent that it exists at all, is one of emphasis.MarthaNov 23 '10 at 20:32

2

I agree that these sentences here both mean the same thing, but want to add that this can't be generalized to any adverb next to a verb. Sometimes, it will make a difference which side of the verb the adverb is on.KosmonautNov 23 '10 at 20:34

I'm not sure I understand the downvote for this. Forthe question that wasactuallyasked, this answer is 100% correct. It's irrelevant that there might exist a question for which this is the wrong answer.MarthaNov 23 '10 at 21:30

They're both grammatically correct, but they don't necessarily mean the same thing. ?"I canjustdo so much in this time" versus "I can dojustso much in this time": I think the first is questionable & the second means the same thing as "I can do only so much in this time". Some people are red/green colorblind & will tell you that they look the same; some are tone-deaf ("relatively insensitive to differences in musical pitch") & can't tell the difference between two different notes; & most native English speakers are semantically challenged & indiscriminate (cf. "fewer" vs. "less").user21497Jan 10 '13 at 10:50

add a comment

up vote2down vote

1. "Only I eat fish when I'm sick" means "OnlyI, and nobody else, eat fish when I'm sick". In this case, only is anadjective, qualifying the pronoun which directly follows it, I.

2. "I only eat fish when I'm sick" means "I onlyeatfish when I'm sick. That is the only thing I do with fish when I'm sick". In this case, only is anadverb, qualifying the verb which directly follows it, eat.

3. "I eat only fish when I'm sick" means "I eat onlyfishwhen I'm sick; I eat nothing else beside fish". In this case, only is anadjective, qualifying the noun which directly follows it, fish.

4. "I eat fish only when I'm sick" means "I eat fish onlywhenI'm sick; when I am not sick, I do not eat fish." In this case, only is anadverb, qualifying the adverbial clause which directly follows it.


editedOct 24 '12 at 11:26


systemovich34317

3

"I only eat fish when I'm sick" would be more likely to be understood as "I don't eat fish except when I'm sick", or perhaps "When I'm sick, I eat nothing but fish". In order to ensure that the meaning was "The only thing I do to fish is eat then", extra emphasis would have to be placed on "eat" in pronunciation.psmearsJan 14 '11 at 15:51

I eat fish when only I'm sick.coleopteristOct 17 '12 at 15:30

You've got the adverb/adjective dichotomy wrong. In all four of your sentences,onlyis an adverb.Talia FordOct 7 '13 at 6:28

add a comment

up vote1down vote

The latter is probably what you mean to say.

I can eat only so much in one sitting.

This means just what you think: In one sitting, you're only able to eat until you're full.

I can only eat so much in one sitting.

This implies that in this situation, you can only eat, as if you're compelled to do so. This is usually not what someone intends.



Joshua Karstendick4,10312026

No, the second example doesn't imply that - it can equally (probably even more likely) mean the same as the first example.psmearsJan 14 '11 at 15:53

add a comment

protectedbytchristJul 1 '14 at 0:59


Where do you place the word 'only' [duplicate]


Possible Duplicate:Correct position of onlyUse of only and word-order

Should one say

The bidders shall not be permitted to bid for one or two tenders only.

or

The bidders shall not be permitted to bid for only one or two tenders.

word-orderonly




askedJul 18 '12 at 11:53

Beagle211

markedas duplicate byRobusto,Kit Z. Fox,FumbleFingers,Matt E. , Jasper LoyJul 18 '12 at 12:53


add a comment

1 Answer

activeoldestvotes

up vote5down vote

Both versions are normal English -onlycan shift around, to the extent that sometimes (not here) it may actually be ambiguous what exactly it modifies.

In common parlance people would probably place the wordonlyimmediately beforeone or two, if only because that particular numeric range is the primary focus of the word.

But OP's example being relatively formal (as indicated by the wordshall), it's more likely to come at the end. The reader in such a context is expected to be capable of parsingone or two tendersas a complete syntactic unit modified byonly.


answeredJul 18 '12 at 12:10

FumbleFingers91.7k18157304

add a comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions taggedword-orderonlyorask your own question.

Use of only and word-order


I'm writing an automobile website and some of my paragraphs contain the word "only".

I understand the following. As far as I'm aware, this is right:

Only the Volkswagen Polo, Golf, Passat, Passat CC and Sharan are available in this country.

This, as far as I am aware means that those Volkswagen vehicles are available, and no other.

This is where I'm having my problem, in the following articles:

The Subaru Legacy was launched recently here. Sold as a sedan or wagon, it isonly available with2.0-litre/148bhp and 2.5-litre/165bhp 4-cylinder petrol engines, for now. The 3.6-litre/256bhp petrol and 2.0-litre/148bhp turbodiesel may arrive in mid-2011.

However, if I rearrange it as such:

The Subaru Legacy was launched recently here. Sold as a sedan or wagon, it isavailable only with2.0-litre/148bhp and 2.5-litre/165bhp 4-cylinder petrol engines, for now. The 3.6-litre/256bhp petrol and 2.0-litre/148bhp turbodiesel may arrive in mid-2011.

or as:

The Subaru Legacy was launched recently here. Sold as a sedan or wagon, it isavailable with 2.0-litre/148bhp and 2.5-litre/165bhp 4-cylinder petrol engines only, for now. The 3.6-litre/256bhp petrol and 2.0-litre/148bhp turbodiesel may arrive in mid-2011.

Here's another similar article from my website I'm developing:

Toyota have facelifted the Corolla recently here. It is available in three body styles, a five-door hatchback, a four-door sedan and a station wagon. There are two engines available: a 1.3-litre/85bhp and a 1.6-litre/109bhp 4-cylinder petrol.The hatchback model comes in four versions - GL, GLi, GLX and Executive.The sedan variant can be specified in GLi and GLX.Only the sedan versiongets the 1.6-litre/124bhp and 1.8-litre/132bhp engines.The Station wagon model line-up mirrors that of the hatchback, except the Executive version is unavailable.

As I understand it, that means one version, no others.

But if I changed it to these, what would it mean:

Toyota have facelifted the Corolla recently here. It is available in three body styles, a five-door hatchback, a four-door sedan and a station wagon. There are two engines available: a 1.3-litre/85bhp and a 1.6-litre/109bhp 4-cylinder petrol.The hatchback model comes in four versions - GL, GLi, GLX and Executive.The sedan variant can be specified in GLi and GLX.The sedan version gets the 1.6-litre/124bhp and 1.8-litre/132bhp engines only.The Station wagon model line-up mirrors that of the hatchback, except the Executive version is unavailable.

If I understand it correctly, only at the end of a sentence should be used carefully.

Also, the following:

Toyota have facelifted the Corolla recently here. It is available in three body styles, a five-door hatchback, a four-door sedan and a station wagon. There are two engines available: a 1.3-litre/85bhp and a 1.6-litre/109bhp 4-cylinder petrol.The hatchback model comes in four versions - GL, GLi, GLX and Executive.The sedan variant can be specified in GLi and GLX. The sedan versiononly gets the 1.6-litre/124bhp and 1.8-litre/132bhp engines.The Station wagon model line-up mirrors that of the hatchback, except the Executive version is unavailable.

Apologies if this is very wordy, I'm trying to ensure factual accuracy with my grammar! The use of the word "only" and word-order sometimes proves problematic for me.

grammaticalitypunctuationword-orderonly




askedJan 27 '11 at 15:12

whitstone86134

1

Related:Correct position of only.kiamlalunoJan 27 '11 at 15:42

add a comment

1 Answer

activeoldestvotes


Only the Volkswagen Polo, Golf, Passat, Passat CC and Sharan are available in this country.

This could be clearer. Although common sense says otherwise, this sounds like these are the only cars available in this country. You might instead use

The only Volkswagens available in this country are the Polo, Golf

If the article is clearly just about VWs, though, you could probably omitVolkswagenfrom the first version and be just fine.

For the Subaru Legacy, all three options convey the same meaning.

Only the sedan version gets the 1.6-litre/124bhp and 1.8-litre/132bhp engines.

This means that the these engines come in the sedan version and arenotavailable in the wagon, which may not be what you want.

The sedan version gets the 1.6-litre/124bhp and 1.8-litre/132bhp engines only.

This means that these are the only engines available in the sedan (presumably others and perhaps these are also available in the wagon).

The sedan version only gets the 1.6-litre/124bhp and 1.8-litre/132bhp engines.

This means something slightly different. Hereonlysuggests that something is disappontingly lacking, like we might hope for better options, but these two engines is all we get. This use ofonlyis similar to this

I wanted the 2010 Audi R8, but I couldonlyafford the 1988 VW Rabbit.



Jay2,50621225

I almost get it. So if the word only is placed in front, like this, it suggests disappointment: > We only get the 2.4-litre 4-cylinder here; no diesel engines are on offer.whitstone86Jan 27 '11 at 17:17

@witstone86 Maybe it isn't disappointment, so I take that back. For example, if you say "Car X only comes with a 600 HP supercharged hybrid engine than runs on salt water," you wouldn't be disappointed. I think it is the use of "only gets" that makes it seem like it could have gotten much more, whereas saying "The sedan version is only available with the" would be a more objective-sounding statement of fact.JayJan 27 '11 at 17:28

I see. Only available with the... is probably the way to go.whitstone86Jan 27 '11 at 18:18

add a comment


Is the word order in the quantity correct in the following sentence?

The boy is3 years and a half old.

If not what would be the right way to say it?

grammaticalityword-order



user2683


brilliant3,1771453110

2

At least we're adding a half...not dividing by half.that'swhere it gets all wahoonie-shaped.JeffSaholAug 26 '11 at 23:27

1

@simchona I think that brilliant could be influenced from his first language; I think it's difficult for him to explain where he has doubts. For example, in Italian I would say3 anni e mezzo, which literally is "3 years and a half"; if I were not sure how to translate it from Italian to English, I think I could have problems in explaining which part confuses me.kiamlalunoAug 26 '11 at 23:42

2

Which means that prior to asking a question I was supposed to learn a whole lot of other things, precisely, how to formulate my question so as to make it understood for a native speaker :) It's like a vicious circle: (step 1) if you have a problem in English, go ahead and ask it here, but be sure you do it correctly in English. (step 2) If you don't know how to describe your question in English correctly, go to step 1 :)brilliantAug 27 '11 at 0:14

You could ask a question about how asking a question, but first you should ask a question about how asking a question that is about asking a question. Before that, you could ask a question about how asking a question that is about asking a question that is about asking a question about asking a question; to start, you could ask a question [].kiamlalunoAug 27 '11 at 2:15

add a comment

2 Answers

activeoldestvotes


Number quantities in English should be written with the number before the thing being counted. That is,

There are [quantity][type of quantity]

For example, the following are correct:

He is [three][years old]

He is [three and a half][years old]

This also works with other quantities, like weight or mass:

I have [5 and a quarter][pounds of apples]

I have [5][dollars] and [42][cents]




simchona25.9k588123

Thank you. It's very clear now.brilliantAug 27 '11 at 0:19

3

This may be the best answer I've ever seen. It explains the English rule, the intuition behind it, and gives more than enough examples both in its simple case and in more complicated cases. Simchona > This probably adds the 'relief' connotation to the adjective.Edwin AshworthJul 23 '14 at 8:53

1

You should only ask one question at a time. I would suggest that you edit thethankfulquestion out and ask it as a separate question (or just edit it out and usegratefulinstead).Janus Bahs JacquetJul 23 '14 at 8:58

(1) Though 'single-handed' can be used as an adverb, I believe its use here at best borders on the ungrammatical; the -ly form is required before the verb. (2) constituted = 'put together; compiled' sounds wrong to me. One can't rule it in or out from the dictionaries I've checked, as they give say 'compose', but I believe they should say " 'compose' meaning 'together constitute', rather than as in 'compose a piece of music' ".Edwin AshworthJul 23 '14 at 9:05

add a comment

1 Answer

activeoldestvotes

up vote1down vote

The verbconstituteis a poor choice there as suggesting that the senior researcher is himself or herself a constituent part of the collection:

To make up, form, compose; to be the elements or material of which the thing spoken of consists. [OED sense 8]

Better choices for the verb would beput togetherorassembled.

And yes, to specify the single-handed manner in which the action of the verb was done,single-handedlywould be preferable. Alternatively one could makesingle-handedmodify the subject or doer, as in He, single-handed, did it or He did it single-handed. (The latter may arguably exemplify adverbial use without the-ly,but the form with-lyworks better if it directly precedes the verb, without intervening punctuation.)

Regardingthankful,OED defines current usages as wholly synonymous withgrateful,and gives no hint of the connotation of relief (for evil averted) that you mention. My own sense of the difference between the two is thatthankfulis strongly associated with gratitude towards the deity.M-Wsuggests that to be thankful is simply to be glad, a feeling not particularly directedtoanyone. In any case, though,gratefulis the more usual and probably better choice for the context you describe and show, where the feeling is explicitly said to be felttoor toward one or more human beings or a human institution.


answeredJul 23 '14 at 16:28

Brian Donovan6,310831

add a comment

Top of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

the main usage of the to as a prepositional condition


when I was young I wasn't from the English area but I am used to learning English grammar already. Well , I am still thinking about one thing maybe because I had not even got to learn this grammar until I have realized that is such use in English . Nobody has even said to me that an -ing form can be added after the "to" in actually . What I used to learn was all about the infinitives (base verbs) only . I have seen and gone through the post in this webpage but I still cannot understand about it. So what can I actually do so that I can always be able to identify the differences about those situations hence I must able to make it clear about whether to put a gerund or a base verb after that particular "to" ? =(

grammarusage



user5723761

You might get more help atour sister siteRobustoNov 12 '13 at 21:44

add a comment

2 Answers

activeoldestvotes

up vote2down vote

Only if you can put [to+ noun] after a certain verb would you usually use [to+ verb-ing] when using a gerund. The reason is that a gerund functions like a noun, so it can regularly be replaced with a noun. An asterisk indicates a sentence that is not grammatical.

*She likes to eggs.*She likes to eating.

She consented to an evacuation.She consented to evacuating the area.

Note that the first group of verbs is far more common than the last, so [to+ verb-ing] is uncommon.



Cerberus38.8k268144

Nice concise answer.Edwin AshworthNov 12 '13 at 22:02

Mismatcher brain in overdrive. She applied to the board =/=> she applied to boarding. I'd better post an answer.Edwin AshworthNov 12 '13 at 22:15

add a comment

up vote1down vote

Following on from Cerberus's answer (and ignoring travel verbs such as go / walk / drive / travel):

These verbs are commonly followed by the preposition to:

answer to (someone)

appeal to (someone or someone's affections)

apply to (something)

react to (something)

but don't commonly accept a [doing something] object (?) for the preposition.

These verbs do:

apply oneself to [doing] something

aspire to [doing] something

attend to [doing] something

be resigned to [doing] something

commit oneself to [doing] something

confess to [doing] something

devote oneself to [doing] something

react to [doing] (something)

refer to [doing] (something)

resort to [doing] something

see to [doing] something

subject someone to [doing] something

turn to [doing] something)



Edwin Ashworth26.9k12569

If you demand that a verb be used that requires a "to someone", then by definition no gerund is possible, because gerunds, unlike corporations, are not people. But this is a semantic problem rather than a syntactic one. Unlikeanswer toandappeal to, however, I don't see a problem withapplyandreact:this law does not apply to killing a murderer; she reacted badly to losing her brother.CerberusNov 13 '13 at 3:27

Oh, I see I forgot to +1 you. Good examples.CerberusNov 13 '13 at 12:15

Yes, I was so busy trying to straighten out the formatting I lost track of the actual content. I've gotreact toin both classes, though I missed the apply to [doing] something, with that sense for 'apply'.Edwin AshworthNov 14 '13 at 0:33

Ah, I didn't even realise you hadreactin both classes!CerberusNov 14 '13 at 0:56

add a comment


user5723761

You might get more help atour sister siteRobustoNov 12 '13 at 21:44

add a comment

2 Answers

activeoldestvotes

up vote2down vote

Only if you can put [to+ noun] after a certain verb would you usually use [to+ verb-ing] when using a gerund. The reason is that a gerund functions like a noun, so it can regularly be replaced with a noun. An asterisk indicates a sentence that is not grammatical.

*She likes to eggs.*She likes to eating.

She consented to an evacuation.She consented to evacuating the area.

Note that the first group of verbs is far more common than the last, so [to+ verb-ing] is uncommon.



Cerberus38.8k268144

Nice concise answer.Edwin AshworthNov 12 '13 at 22:02

Mismatcher brain in overdrive. She applied to the board =/=> she applied to boarding. I'd better post an answer.Edwin AshworthNov 12 '13 at 22:15

add a comment

up vote1down vote

Following on from Cerberus's answer (and ignoring travel verbs such as go / walk / drive / travel):

These verbs are commonly followed by the preposition to:

answer to (someone)

appeal to (someone or someone's affections)

apply to (something)

react to (something)

but don't commonly accept a [doing something] object (?) for the preposition.

These verbs do:

apply oneself to [doing] something

aspire to [doing] something

attend to [doing] something

be resigned to [doing] something

commit oneself to [doing] something

confess to [doing] something

devote oneself to [doing] something

react to [doing] (something)

refer to [doing] (something)

resort to [doing] something

see to [doing] something

subject someone to [doing] something

turn to [doing] something)



Edwin Ashworth26.9k12569

If you demand that a verb be used that requires a "to someone", then by definition no gerund is possible, because gerunds, unlike corporations, are not people. But this is a semantic problem rather than a syntactic one. Unlikeanswer toandappeal to, however, I don't see a problem withapplyandreact:this law does not apply to killing a murderer; she reacted badly to losing her brother.CerberusNov 13 '13 at 3:27

Oh, I see I forgot to +1 you. Good examples.CerberusNov 13 '13 at 12:15

Yes, I was so busy trying to straighten out the formatting I lost track of the actual content. I've gotreact toin both classes, though I missed the apply to [doing] something, with that sense for 'apply'.Edwin AshworthNov 14 '13 at 0:33

Ah, I didn't even realise you hadreactin both classes!CerberusNov 14 '13 at 0:56

add a comment

Future Perfect with the preposition 'since'


1

I have a question regarding the future perfect tense and which prepositions go with it. Understandably,by,for, andinwork very well with the future perfect.

By friday, I will have been working here for one year.

In two years, I will have worked here for two years.

However, my question is whether or notsinceis usable with the future perfect.

"Do you want to go out tonight?"

"Nah, I'll have been working since 9 AM. I'm going to be dead tired."

My guess is that this is usable as an approximation.I'll have been working here since Mayfor example. Swan and Cambridge offer no solution for this. My question is: is this possible?

grammarusageprogressive-aspectfuture-perfect


editedNov 14 '12 at 5:04

tchrist68.8k14163277

askedJun 22 '12 at 13:39

Adam437414

3

If the point in time aftersince(so9 AM) is earlier than the time of utterance, it sounds fine.CerberusJun 22 '12 at 14:23

add a comment

3 Answers

activeoldestvotes


I can certainly understand the Future Perfect Progressive being used like that.

It's because our grammar textbooks traditionally just concern themselves with the point in the future (by, when etc.) for Future Perfect and Future Perfect Progressive. But in your example, the time in the future has already been mentioned: "(at some point) tonight".

So it makes sense for the speaker to just add the starting point of the action, which was unclear in the situation. Either this or the perfectly acceptable period of time: "for such number of hours."

We make sentences like: "I'll have been working for 6 hours," right? So, I think we can mention the starting point instead.


answeredJun 22 '12 at 14:31

Cool Elf7,7361925

add a comment

up vote5down vote

That seems like perfectly legitimate usage to me, and it's definitely something I've heard in conversation.



LessPop_MoreFizz3,0591223

add a comment

up vote2down vote

In isolationI'll have been working since Maystrikes me as weird. However, if you ask me to defer my winter holiday to oversee the month up to Christmas (assuming I work in marketing, say), then I might complain that _If I do, I'll have been working since May without a break. In general,(I) will have been Xing since blahis fine, I think, if that's a long time to be Xing.



Daniel Harbour4,578620

What does "to oversee the month up to Christmas" mean? And regardless of whether they ask you to defer your holiday or not, it would already be true that you've been working since May without a break. So the "If I do" doesn't really fit. You might say, "If I do, I'll have worked from May to Christmas without a break."JimJun 23 '12 at 4:48

@Jim You've raised three separate points. First, "to oversee the month up to Christmas" means, this case, "to take charge of operations from November 25 until December 25". Second, the idea behind this specific example is that, in my experience, if you're asked to defer your holiday, it's because your employer is short-staffed and need you to do something special (such as, take on a supervisory capacity). But of course, you could make up other scenarios.Daniel HarbourJun 23 '12 at 7:09

@Jim Last, yes, you might say "I'll have worked from May to Christmas without a break" here. My claim wasn't that there is only one sentence or construction that's felicitous in this scenario (that's all most never the case in English.) That said, I think the future perfectcontinuous("I'll havebeen workingfrom May to Christmas without a break") is better than a plain future perfect here, and, if following a question likeCan you oversee the month to Christmas?, I definitely preferI'll have been working since May, if only to avoid repetition ofChristmas. Hope that clarifies.Daniel HarbourJun 23 '12 at 7:17

add a comment

Future perfect progressive


When is the future perfect progressive used? I am trying to understand in which cases it should be used, but I cannot find any practice examples of sentences using that tense.

I will have been loving.

verbsfuture-tenseprogressive-aspectfuture-perfect


editedNov 14 '12 at 3:15

tchrist68.8k14163277


kiamlaluno34.2k28124237

add a comment

4 Answers

activeoldestvotes


First, just a little preface:

"I will have been loving" is an awkward example because we don't generally use any of the progressives on stative verbs (except under special circumstances). Thus, we don't normally use the progressive for things like "love", "be" (in the sense of being, rather than behaving in a certain way), "think" (in the sense of having an opinion), "have" (in the sense of possession), and so on.

Now, as for the future perfect progressive, it is used to compare two things happening in the future and how they relate to each other temporally. One event (in the future) is ongoing and another event occurs during the first one.

Let's say that tomorrow you will walk your dog from 7 - 8 AM. Let's also say that I am planning to meet up with you at 7:30 AM. We can express a relationship between these two events by using the future perfect progressive:

When I meet up with you,you will have been walkingyour dog for 30 minutes.

This means that, at the time of the second event (when I meet you), the first event (you walking the dog) started already and continued for 30 minutes. (It might continue for longer, though it is not required to happen).



Kosmonaut36.9k4110177

add a comment

up vote4down vote

"As of this fall, I will have been attending college for twelve years," wailed the hapless grad student.

Situations to use the future perfect progressive are unusual but not unheard of. You just have to look out for them.



JSB39.4k4113185

add a comment

up vote2dovote

The future perfect progressive tense indicates a continuous action that will be completed at some point in the future.

Next Thursday, I will have been working on this project for three years.



Mehper C. Palavuzlar17.9k3096172

Not necessarilycompleted. You can easily sayNext Thursday, I will have been working on this project for three years, and it'll still be at least another year before I finish the job.FumbleFingersNov 8 '11 at 14:28

add a comment

up vote0down vote

The funny thing about this verb form is, that you put your reference pointinto the future, while at the same time you aretalking about the past. Only that this past is not necessarily the past now, but might also be the future. Now. But not then.

Confusing? You may can visualize this:

First, perfect progressive:

|start of event......time passes....*now*

This has been V-ing for quite some time now

Now, we put our reference point into the future:

|start of event......time passes....*now*.......*then*

This will have been V-ing for quite some time then

Things can get weirder, though:

|...*now*....start of event...*then*

You still change your reference point, but the start of the event also lies in the future. However, relative to your new "now", it is past. And all with just one little word...



Arne77638

add a comment

Present perfect and present perfect continuous for actions in progress


My grammar book says that both present perfect and present perfect continuous, when used with "for, since, etc", express a situation that began in the past and continues to the present. When used without 'since' or 'for', present perfect expresses the action that has happened before now and the progressive without any specific mention of time expresses a general activity in progress recently.

So neither of them implies that an action is still in progress when time is not mentioned, but I noticed that sometimes even when specific time is mentioned both can refer to an activity that is not in progress anymore and that has finished. Eg.,I have been wearing this dress/I have worn this dress the whole summer. (The summer is over, the action is over too) What do you think about it? I can give another example;I have been living in France(Maybe the person has just relocated and says that he has been living in France recently) andI have been living in France my whole life/for five years/for ages(Again the person has relocated to another location and says where he/she used to live recently.I have lived in France my whole life/for five years/for ages. Similar statements as the two above: he/she doesn't live there anymore, but was recently living there. Sometimes native speakers tell me that nothing is impossible :).

What do you think about these statements?I have been driving my car. The specific time is not mentioned, however the progressive form implies that the action is still in progress. I have been confused by this sentence too as well as by the sentences below.I have been driving my car for ages/for five years. I know that this normally means I am still driving it, but I have been told (not by experts) that it can also imply that the action has finished recently or even if not recently it is not in progress anymore. The following sentence has the same meaning as the previous one;I have driven my car for ages/for five years. AndThey have been married for twenty years/for ages, maybe they are still married, maybe have recently divorced.

Are these comments right? Thanks

verbstensespresent-perfect-tenseprogressive-aspect



JSB39.4k4113185

askedMay 17 '12 at 17:51

Monica5352930

She asked pretty much the same question here too..Roaring FishMay 18 '12 at 5:33

Do something?:) :) Thanks for your advice, but I can't even contact technical support, because it says; 'The default mail client is not properly installed.'MonicaMay 18 '12 at 9:28

Monica... you don't need to send an email, and this is beginning to sound like excuses. Go heremeta.english.stackexchange.com/search?q=how+to+accept+an+answerand press the button that says 'support'...Roaring FishMay 18 '12 at 10:06

add a comment

1 Answer

activeoldestvotes

up vote1down vote

Your examples are not quite the same as what your grammar book says.

The time expression that followsI have been living in France for...needs to be just alengthof time - "un anchored" to a specific point in time. eg "five years", "two days", etc not "the whole summer" which, although it implied a length of 3 months, is anchored to aspecific3 months.

Also your exampleThey have been married for twenty years/for agesmeans absolutely that they arestillmarried. I can't think of a context where that wouldn't be the case. To use it in the context of a recent divorce would be incorrect - you would then use the past perfect continuous:They had been married for twenty years/for ages.

Is there any difference between Present Perfect and Present Perfect Continuous?


8

I have studied "present perfect" and "present perfect continuous" for a week. I know forms, verb and helping verb I should use when I write them.

For me, they have nearly same definition because I can use them interchangeably in Thai language. (My native language)

For example, the sentences

I have learned English language in the past few weeks.

I have been learning English language in the past few weeks.

have no difference in meaning to me. They both mean "I began learning the English language in the past and I am still learning it"

Can I use them interchangeably in English? Or is there any difference between them? For example, when should I use present perfect but not present perfect continuous?

grammarpresent-perfect-tense




askedMay 6 '12 at 16:16

Anonymous1,271102241

possible duplicate ofenglish.stackexchange.com/questions/21727/speedyGonzalesMay 6 '12 at 16:46

possible duplicate ofHow do the tenses in English correspond temporally to one another?Matt E. May 6 '12 at 17:03

add a comment

8 Answers

activeoldestvotes

up vote34down vote

This is a difficult area of English for foreign learners, and Im afraid youre not going to understand it fully from a few answers here. Very briefly, you use the present perfect continuous form to talk about events in the recent past, particularly activities that have not been completed. The form is often found with the prepositions for and since, as in Hes been speaking for a very long time or Ive been working non-stop since this morning.

Here are a few examples contrasting the present perfect with the present perfect continuous:

'Ive done my homework' (its finished) / 'Ive been doing my homework' (its not finished)

Ive drunk my coffee' (its all gone) / Ive been drinking my coffee (theres some left)

Its rained every day since the weekend (repeated rain) / Its been raining all day (continuous rain)

Your own examples dont really illustrate the use very well. You wouldnt say I have learned English language in the past few weeks, because that suggests youve finished your studies and you dont need to do any more. Thats unrealistic. No one learns English in a few weeks. I think these two examples might show the difference more clearly:

I have been studying English for two years (Im still studying it)

'I have studied English, but I dont s

wrong use of prepositions.docx

Documents

usage of prepositions

worksata university

worksina university

noun university

usage of prepsitions

dictionary example

question askednov

answer answerednov