« first day (386 days earlier)      last day (112 days later) » 

Anonymous
00:00
Here, it's a comparison of how well known "legendary buckers like Bodacious [...] and Little Yellow Jacket" are to how well known "cowboys like Larry Mahan and Ty Murray" are.
Anonymous
In this sense as known as is grammatical, but of course it means something different from 'also known as'.
02:41
Which one is correct?
There are many users on this site for who answering questions like this is easy.
There are many users on this site for whom answering questions like this is easy.
22
Q: How can one differentiate between "who" and "whom"?

ManishearthMany times, I've been asked the difference between "who" and "whom". I myself know the difference, but it is hard to explain to others. What is the easiest way to explain it to those with a basic understanding of English? A mnemonic (if possible) would help.

According to the accepted answer there: "Fortunately for the English learner, in modern informal English, you don't need to distinguish them. Who (as well as derived forms like whoever) can be used in all positions."
So both of them are correct?
Anonymous
When who(m) is the object of a fronted preposition, use whom (as long as it's not an echo question). Otherwise, who is generally fine.
Anonymous
In informal style, people don't front prepositions very often, and they usually don't use whom at all.
Anonymous
Whom is very formal.
Anonymous
03:00
18 mins ago, by Martin Sleziak
There are many users on this site for who answering questions like this is easy.
Anonymous
> Answering questions like this is easy for [many users].
Anonymous
> users [ who answering questions like this is easy for _ ]
Anonymous
> users [ for who answering questions like this is easy _ _ ]
Anonymous
The last one doesn't really work.
Anonymous
Moving for to the front of the relative clause like that is characteristic of formal style.
Anonymous
03:02
But in formal style, you expect whom there.
Anonymous
The answer says:
Anonymous
> in modern informal English, you don't need to distinguish them
Anonymous
But you do need to distinguish them in formal English.
Anonymous
It also says:
Anonymous
> Who (as well as derived forms like whoever) can be used in all positions.
Anonymous
03:03
This is not exactly right.
Anonymous
But it is true as long as we're still talking about informal English only.
Thanks
So, in short, for whom was the correct one, right?
03:31
@MartinSleziak I think it's safer to say that for whom is always correct when whom is used as the object of for.
Just keep in mind that whom as an object is not always the only correct choice, especially in informal English.
No problem!
03:51
@Usernew We normally use to+infinitive can we use present participle like in this sentence 1. "this led to killing tiger" or should I use 'the' after 'to' like 2."this led to the killing of tiger"
04:09
@Usernew I think 'killing' is gerund not participle in first example as it is after 'to' , but only if the sentence is correct
Anonymous
04:34
@Rocky I have a few comments.
Anonymous
1. "killing of tiger" and "killing tiger" are both ungrammatical. It would have to be a tiger or the tiger or tigers.
Anonymous
I can't tell you which article (or other determiner) to use without context, but I'll go with tigers for now:
Anonymous
2. I would say "This led to tigers being killed."
Anonymous
3. "This led to killing tigers" and "This led to the killing of tigers" are both grammatical.
Anonymous
In the former, killing is a gerund, and so the clause killing tigers as a whole acts like a noun phrase.
Anonymous
04:36
You're right that it's a gerund, not a participle (in traditional grammar, where this distinction is made).
Anonymous
In the latter, killing is a derived noun, so the killing of tigers is an actual noun phrase.
Anonymous
That's why it has the and of.
Anonymous
Does that help?
@snailplane Thanks snail! Even it's grammatical, only 4 results...
 
2 hours later…
06:40
@snailplane "This led to the killing of tiger" here 'killing' is noun? 2."This led to the killing the tiger" here 'killing' is gerund? 3. "This led to killing the tiger" here 'killing' is gerund?
 
2 hours later…
08:59
@Rocky 1 should be "this led to the killing of the tiger*."
If you know the killing, you know the tiger.
2 is ungrammatical.
And the answer to 3 is "yes".
09:13
@Rocky I think you got the idea, right?
@Rocky like PhMgBr said, yes.
"I like running" Gerund (running) acting as a noun.
@Usernew When we use 'to the killing' then 'killing' is noun and when we use 'to killing' then 'killing' is gerund? as 'to' is preposition and after preposition we use gerund. I know that gerund are actually a noun.
"I found him inside the burning building" "burning" is participle because it is describing the building, which was on fire.
Remind me again why these distinctions are necessary?
he is confused between gerunds, participle etc
No, I mean why is it necessary to distinguish between gerunds and participles?
09:26
@Rocky "to the verb+ing" Here, "verb+ing" is gerund
please look at my problem..
Does it help him speak more fluently?
to+the+noun and to+gerund am I right?
09:32
I'll come back to you in some time after reading the page you have provided.
okay :)
@Rocky "You think we'll ever get used to the killing?" Killing is a gerund which is acting as a noun.
Look at the meaning of the word "killing" as a noun.
it means: "The act of terminating a life"
Gerund is a verb form that acts as a noun.
killing is not noun here? it just acting as noun here?
@Rocky nope
I will explain again
Gerund is a form of a verb
which functions as a noun
@Rocky "killing" is gerund :)
there is nothing like to+the+ noun and to+gerund?
nope
is that formula?
09:47
I'm asking you I don't know
I said, "nope." :)
here is an example: "...around the world ranging from the stunned to the sanctimonious."
"sanctimonious" is an adjective, neither a noun or gerund. :)
no no I'm asking to distinguish between noun and gerund
oh
now I got it.
Wait, first lemme see if I can find a site that explains this problem better than me :)
the basic, and I think the only, difference is that gerunds are derived from verbs @Rocky
okay..
All gerunds end in the form +ing
found it
read this page
Gerund or noun. Both are same
However, only gerunds are derived from "verb"
09:54
why this sentence is wrong? He objects to spend to so much money
example: "Kill" is a verb, as in "My cat will kill your mouse"
this sentence? '"He objects to spend to so much money"?
sorry to spend too much money
didn't get
"He objects to spend too much money"?
He objects to spend too much money
yeah
hmmm
it's pretty hard for me to explain
I suck at explaining
because "to" here is preposition
"He objects to spending so much money on a T.V." from that site
I know that but scroll down you will find the example
because "to" is used as a prepositin
It says, 'Remember, you can use "to + gerund," but the "to" MUST be a preposition that is part of a combination.'
how would we know that it is preposition?
10:06
let me read...
ok :)
listen, sometimes I am great at explaining things, other times I am exactly the opposite.
few months ago, I chanced upon a great grammar book from Oxford that teaches these things, but I deleted that as it was of no use to me.
I will try to find it, and I am pretty sure you will benefit from it
so just wait if I don't reply for some time :)
great!
I found it
download this PDF
okay
10:21
any other queries?
but in this PDF only difference is given not explaining the reason behind see yourself you will understand more
I have seen it :)
wait
can you give me your email?
I cant send the file through ELL :(
or wait for few minutes
no problem
try this
another good grammar book
it is more like a basic
version
doesn't cover all topics
but very good :)
It's not opening 404 Page Not Found
10:32
they must have deleted it
it teaches you about prepositions etc
that file they deleted
let me read first
see if this download works: google.co.in/…
it is similar to that one
but still you should read it
I mean, it's completely your choice :)
I'll come back to you in 1-2 days let me absorb all first, have a great day...
okay :)
Have a nice day, too!
 
6 hours later…
16:18
Dashrath Manjhi (c. 1934 – 17 August 2007), also known as "Mountain Man", was a poor labourer in Gehlaur village, near Gaya in Bihar, India, who carved a path 360 ft long, 30 ft wide and 25 ft high through a hillock using only a hammer and chisel. After 22 years of work, Dashrath shortened travel between the Atri and Wazirganj blocks of Gaya town from 55 km to 15 km. == Early life and work == Dashrath Manjhi ran away from his home at a young age and worked at Dhanbad's coal mines. He returned to his village and married Phalguni Devi. While crossing Gehlour hills to bring him lunch, she slipped...
2
 
2 hours later…
18:34
John Henry is an African American folk hero and tall tale. He is said to have worked as a "steel-driving man"—a man tasked with hammering a steel drill into rock to make holes for explosives to blast the rock in constructing a railroad tunnel. According to legend, John Henry's prowess as a steel-driver was measured in a race against a steam powered hammer, which he won, only to die in victory with his hammer in his hand as his heart gave out from stress. The story of John Henry is told in a classic folk song, which exists in many versions, and has been the subject of numerous stories, plays, books...
Bill Wood's rendition of the song is great
He went on to become a molecular biologist
So every Monday morning
When the blue dirds begin to sing
You can hear John Henry a mile or more
18:51
Oh, Bruce Springsteen also sang about him. I'll listen to it to!
do send me link :) @cowper
Sings nicely
> Well, every Monday morning
When the blue birds begin to sing
You can hear Dashrath-baba a mile or more
You can hear Dashrath's hammer ring, Lord, Lord
You can hear Dashrath's hammer ring
(0:
You
You
Hello
It's me.
hey @you
You
You
Hello, @Freddy!
19:02
how @you doing? :)
You
You
I'm fine. You?
I am good. Thanks
-2
Q: Effect of tear gas and laughing gas together

FreddyWhat will happen if someone uses tear gas, such as CS $(\ce{C10H5ClN2})$ and laughing gas, $\ce{N2O}$, in auditorium? Means will people start laughing and crying together? Or there will be other effect?

Nice one. (0:
hahaha we all friends were just discussing it for fun and I thought of asking it here...till today my friends mock me about this question @cowper
You
You
19:19
Why does that question have so many downvotes? I think it's a good question!
19:29
initially it had -8 votes.
You
You
Wow.
You
You
20:27
Bye.

« first day (386 days earlier)      last day (112 days later) »