Stack Exchange
log in

Tuffy

 Discussion on answer by Kate Bunting:…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
Nov 9, 2024 16:24
My question is a general one as to how phrases like 'agree with' are essentially different from the compound verbs like 'consent' (in Latin 'consentire', which is just the preposition 'cum' (= 'with') glued to the front end of '-sentire'). "withhold", for example, has become literally a prepositional verb. Phrasal verbs are only so called because the preposition is not glued to the front or back end of the core verb. But are that different from prepositionally compound verbs minus the glue?
 

 Discussion on question by rhetorician…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
Mar 23, 2024 02:07
Could you say whether you have explored whether your feeling corresponds with definitions in dictionaries? The issue seems to be who the possessor or dispossessed of dignity in a given situation. My understanding is that treating people with dignity involves acting towards them in ways that preserve their dignity (in the sense of self respect) or which are humiliating. It is not about acting towards others in a dignified manner.
 

 Discussion on question by I. Chekhov:…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
Aug 5, 2023 07:56
Could you say how small. That have, historically, been miniature books, and even 'microminiature' books. There is a useful article in Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/….
 

 Discussion on question by alphabet: I…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
Jul 24, 2023 17:15
As I understand the sentence in question, the speaker want whosever'd car it is that is blocking the drive to remove it (the driveway just mentioned) immediately.
 

 Discussion on question by sundowner: …

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
Jul 3, 2023 23:40
@Fumble Fingers: Yes, I did think about that a bit and decided that a justification would be too long for a note, having to go round a mulberry bush of psychological (or would it be phonogical?) reasoning (or would it be rationalisation?).
Tuffy
Jul 3, 2023 23:40
I have enough of a nerve to have an amateur theory. Could the difference arise from the AmE voiced pronunciation of the letter 't' allowing the 'a' to be silenced into the 'n' of 'nerve'?
 

 Discussion on question by A O: Is the…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
Jul 3, 2023 23:40
Could you explain in more detail, please? What do your categories mean? A 'parent' may refer to either anyone who is or has been legally responsible for at least one child. Or it may refer only to anyone who is genetically parent of at least one child. Or it could refer to both. If genetic, some males may be parents but not know they are. Some legal 'parents' have adopted, so that there may be two sets of parents for the same child. All this needs to be clear before category names can be suggested.
 

 Discussion on question by hanna: Is t…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
Mar 30, 2023 19:57
@Barmar You are right. I did not read the question carefully enough and so I shall delete my comment.
 

 Discussion on question by Michael: Ho…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
Nov 12, 2022 09:47
This question seems to me off-topic, in that it has no explanation of the context in which such a term would be needed. There is, sadly, nothing unusual about the phenomenon of lone old women, for the simple reason that women on average live longer than men. You need to explain why this characteristic is of interest. Such a classification could be regarded as offensive. Describing women as 'spinsters' (or men, for that matter, as bachelors) is widely and rightly frowned on. I see that you have accepted the word 'spinster'.
 

 Discussion on question by Loviii: "nu…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
Jan 8, 2022 19:18
@Loviii Kate Bunting is making a fair point. The word 'nurture' is a quite formal medical/philosophical sense. Many a school includes 'nurture' among its important aime. When we discuss what a parent should do we may summarise it with the noun 'nurture' as something covering feeding, clothing, loving, caring. We make sure their food is 'nourishing'.
 

 Discussion on question by Author Jesp…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
Jan 2, 2022 19:21
My advice is that you consider whether the Danish word you have translated as 'unimportant' is a true synonym for 'unimportant'. To an English speaker it would mean that there is no need to go out of your way to smoke. It does not mean that it is important not to smoke, but that smoking does not matter.
 

 Discussion on answer by BillJ: Refere…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
May 11, 2021 11:12
That is an interesting example you give from German. There will always be a tension between the perceived 'rules' of grammar and syntax and current usage. For one thing, there are the schools and language colleges which tend to (perhaps have to) teach 'rules'. How else do people learn English? The Greek government wasted a century trying to force the people back into a 'purified' mediaeval vocabulary and syntax. More recently they were driven back to an uneasy compromise 'new standard Greek'. It has broadly worked, but with the side-effect that 19th century writers are found very hard.
Tuffy
May 11, 2021 11:12
@EllipticNoob My point is that the whole language of 'fronting' versus 'stranding' (or should it be 'backing'?) suggests there is some kind of 'rule'. You can argue that there is such a rule in France, because of the official status of the Académie Française, with the constitutional role of overseeing rules about the language. Moreover, dictionaries and grammars are bound to lag somewhat behind the language as it evolves. What I am saying is that what is actually happening is that the dilemma in question is being evolved out of existence by the omission of pronouns altogether.
Tuffy
May 11, 2021 11:12
@EllipticNoob Are you saying that "from under which car did you rescue your cat?" is any better? But this is a matter of style rather than grammar. You would find another way to say it. This is the sort of usage for which publishers and corporate and government administrations have style guides. So do Google and other online organisations through their spelling and even style checkers.
Tuffy
May 11, 2021 11:12
Continuing the above: By now "The information I came across" or "... asked for" are standard English usage in speech and writing. That, in turn, does not make the writing of sixty years ago wrong or 'not allowed'. What is to be avoided is an excessive distance between pronoun and preposition. "What did you bring that book I didn't want to be read to out of up for?" is a funny parody of how things can go too far. But even this, silly as it is, is not 'ungrammatical'.
Tuffy
May 11, 2021 11:12
Doesn't this debate about where to put the pronoun miss the point? More and more the pronoun is being dropped (or, rather, not thought of)? "The information across which I came" or "... for which I asked" look and feel increasingly starchy. But neither is ungrammatical. It was when I was at school, sixty years ago that the use of the 'dependent preposition' was a mortal sin. Usage had moved on since then.
 

 Discussion on question by JK2: Supple…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
Apr 23, 2021 09:00
I think that you are treating GCEL as if it purports to be THE grammar of the English language. Usage comes first. The systems of grammarians are the results of attempts to find ways to account for the relationships between the different jobs that words, phrases and clauses perform. One of these may become 'standard' (i.e. adopted by the majority of text books in schools, language schools etcetera. For now, though, there is nothing inconsistent between saying that the phrase in question is causal/explanatory and that it is a 'supplement'. Both can be true together.
 

 Discussion on answer by Peter Shor : …

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Tuffy
Apr 13, 2021 14:53
Very interesting discussion. I have a lot of sympathy with the idea that it is wrong to treat the categories of conjunction as a given or 'home' definition of what 'because', or 'for', or 'since' or, for that matter, 'as'. Each of the four can show a causal connection and do a subordinating job. 'Because', 'since' and 'as' can either precede or follow the main clause; whereas 'for' only appears after the main clause with which it is co-ordinated. That is a matter of usage. Moreover, the four words are not exactly interchangeable in the role of conjunction.