"Yesterday I went to have a talk with John and Peter's parents?"
"Yesterday I went to have a talk with Jonn's and Peter's parents?
Grop wrote:Here in France (and I suppose in other countries as well) you may buy cheap canned meat labelled "corned beef". Which makes me wonder... Apparently this product contains almost no carbs (typically 1% or less) so I suppose there is no corn in the can.
How do you guys understand it? Is it supposed to be corn-fed beef? Could it be that canned and corned are homophonous in some dialect? Can someone make some sense in the phrase "corned beef" describing this product?
HugsBoson wrote:Hello! I am a native English speaker who is starting college soon. It was recently brought to my attention how much my writing skills have degraded since high school. The essay I wrote for my college's placement test was atrocious. I notice myself struggling with grammar and sentence structure while writing even a small post such as this. Do you have any tips for cleaning up my messy writing?
JamesP wrote:I'm actually Scottish so I should be able to speak English, but this is nagging me.
"The first is whether the choice of Balliol was the right one- legally and pragmatically."
Does this make sense? I'm trying to state that there's a debate over Balliol's inauguration as king of Scotland- both as a legal matter (primogeniture) and whether it was best for Scotland (which I've condensed to 'pragmatically'. I think it's easier than I'm making it but I've hit a wall.
Bitte, mein lieblings.
Kirby wrote:I'm no grammarian, but I really feel like you're missing a noun between "first" and "is." The first what? Debate? Order of business?
(Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, or if this is a matter of local variation)
Something like "Our first order of business tonight is whether..." reads much more naturally to me.
Cathode Ray Sunshine wrote:Maybe it's just me as a foreign English speaker, but "interpretated" should totally be a valid word. You have interpretation, but you don't interpretate something, you interpret. I don't know, it just feels weird.
Lazar wrote: Likewise, "oblige" and "obligate" are both used.
Schrottrocker wrote:Well, thing is, ~500 years ago rules were not consistent, today they are and that includes archaisms. While Shakespeare alternates between -s and -th just as he likes modern authors will usually employ only -th to point out clearly they are using archaic language. While Shakespeare uses 'thou art' and 'thou beest' interchangeably Tolkien uses 'art' for indicative only and 'beest' for subjunctive only.
So, even though there are no general rules how to handle archaisms modern speakers are usually quick to build up rules that fit in our modern language patterns. That would be my point to justify construing forms like that. But then I'm weird, I like playing with language