Recent Posts

1

Language Questions / Re: ---- sells tickets on the bug

« Last post by PennyFarthing on Today at 06:50:13 am »

Other people asked this question know as little about it as I.

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/2005-July/051691.html

2

Language Questions / ---- sells tickets on the bug

« Last post by t k on Today at 03:29:05 am »

They went down to Madame Reba's Palace of Sweet Pleasure. And Father, that is sure one bad, wicked place. They got a man sells tickets on the bug--but they also got these strutting, bad-blood, tail-shaking nigger gals and these here red satin curtains and----  (from The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, by Carson McCullers; a larger context is here; use ctrl-f to locate the sentence)

Please explain "sells tickets on the bug".  Thanks.  --- tk

3

Language Questions / Re: Are Given Away Free Vs Are to be Given Away Free

« Last post by admin on October 29, 2020, 10:06:52 am »

 

4

Language Questions / Re: Complement

« Last post by admin on October 29, 2020, 10:06:26 am »

No problem; you are very welcome.

5

Language Questions / Re: Stacking in Relative Clauses

« Last post by admin on October 29, 2020, 10:04:10 am »

I am with PennyFarthing on that one, but it can be even simpler - "that" is dispensable in the first instance but I also agree with Darryl in that I would prefer who in the second case
1. The one person I met who really impressed me was John.

2. John, who I met in Cambridge, who really impressed me, always replies to emails.
Once again, I agree with Darry here. Though "whom" (the accusative form if you like) is rapidly dropping from fashion.
If you insist on one sentence, I would recast it as:
John, who I met in Cambridge and who really impressed me, always replies to emails.

The author of a grammar book whom which I am now reading says that defining clauses like the type in Sentence 1 allows for "stacking". As to sentence 2, such stacking in non-defining clauses is not permissible.
Were they to be defining, there would be no commas.

He did not elaborate on his reasons.
I am not surprised; he has none 

6

Language Questions / Re: good to

« Last post by admin on October 29, 2020, 09:55:53 am »

This architect is perfectly able to design your house but not big buildings.

7

Language Questions / Re: a book to improve your Italian

« Last post by admin on October 29, 2020, 09:55:01 am »

I agree with Darryl
1a is fine - you don't need (with)
2b - I agree with you azz
I would recast 2a more simply - I am sending you someone to repair your computer.

8

Language Questions / Re: a book to improve your Italian

« Last post by Darryl on October 29, 2020, 08:54:01 am »

I don't think Sentence (a) requires anything added. The meaning is quite clear.

9

Language Questions / good to

« Last post by azz on October 29, 2020, 07:52:07 am »

a. This architect is good to design your house, but not to design big buildings,
b. Thus architect is good for designing your house, but not for designing big buildings.

Are the above sentences grammatically correct?
Are they natural?

The idea is that he is good for the task of designing your house, but not good for the task of designing big buildings.


Many thanks

10

Language Questions / a book to improve your Italian

« Last post by azz on October 28, 2020, 04:08:18 am »

a. I am sending you a book to improve your Italian.

Would you say that sentence corresponds to:
1. I am sending you a book to improve your Italian with. (you are going to improve your Italian using the book)
or
2. I am sending you a book which is to improve your Italian. (the book will improve your Italian)
?

I think one can't tell, but at the end of the day, it doesn't change anything.


1a. I am giving you a pen to sign the papers (with).
2a. I am sending you a repairperson to repair your computer.

However I don't think
2b. I am sending you a repairperson who is to repair your computer.
is natural, although not incorrect...

Many thanks