Need help the sentence

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Is the following sentence correct?

Since these certificates are in French, an English translation of
these documents is also attached.

Should we use *an English translation of these documents is* or *an
English translation of these documents are*?

Thanx
NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Is the following sentence correct?
Since these certificates are in French, an English translation of
these documents is also attached.
Should we use *an English translation of these documents is* or *an
English translation of these documents are*?

The first is correct "A translation ... is attached"

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

In one of the grammar books I found the following:

* She told me that you'hv just been taken on by one of the biggest
bank in the City.

I feel this sentence should be as follows:

* She told me that you had been taken on by one of the biggest bank in
the City.

Please advise why they have used the present perfect in the second
sentence and why NOT past perfect.

Thanx
NSP

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* She told me that you'hv just been taken on by one of the biggest
bank in the City.
* She told me that you had been taken on by one of the biggest bank in
the City.
Please advise why they have used the present perfect in the second
sentence and why NOT past perfect.
Thanx
NSP

Hi,

If you email me: ***@gmail.com I will answer any question
you like about English.

www.askaboutenglish.com

Matt

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* She told me that you'hv just been taken on by one of the biggest
bank in the City.
* She told me that you had been taken on by one of the biggest bank in
the City.
Please advise why they have used the present perfect in the second
sentence and why NOT past perfect.

She told me something that is still true, i.e. "you have just been taken
on ..." - if I used the past perfect it could be understood to mean that
I doubt the truth of what she told me or that I think that what she told
me is no longer true.

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Is the following sentence correct especially use of pending?

You can send me a scanned copy of the document by email *pending*
dispatch of the same by DHL.

[a***@gmail.com]

On Feb 15, 10:30 am, "n o s p a m p l e a s e"

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Is the following sentence correct especially use of pending?
You can send me a scanned copy of the document by email *pending*
dispatch of the same by DHL.

Hi,

I would probably start the sentence: Please send me.....

The use of pending is fine if you mean the following: DHL will send
the document to the other person (who the you refers to), and when
that is done the other person will send a scanned copy to you..

Also I would write "pending the dispatch", or maybe "Please send me a
scanned copy of the document pending your receipt of the said document
from DHL".

M

www.askaboutenglish.com

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by a***@gmail.com
On Feb 15, 10:30 am, "n o s p a m p l e a s e"

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Is the following sentence correct especially use of pending?
You can send me a scanned copy of the document by email *pending*
dispatch of the same by DHL.

Hi,
I would probably start the sentence: Please send me.....
The use of pending is fine if you mean the following: DHL will send
the document to the other person (who the you refers to), and when
that is done the other person will send a scanned copy to you..
Also I would write "pending the dispatch", or maybe "Please send me a
scanned copy of the document pending your receipt of the said document
from DHL".

Huh? Are you sure? Who's got the document now and who's going to get it
via DHL?

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Is the following sentence correct especially use of pending?
You can send me a scanned copy of the document by email *pending*
dispatch of the same by DHL.

It's OK but a bit formal.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Thanx Einde for help. Below is a sentence.

* John had a go at his neighbour

I know the meaning of every word in above sentence but I could gather
the meaning of the sentence. Please help me.

Thanx/NSP

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Thanx Einde for help! Below is a sentence.

* John had a go at his neighbour for trying it on with his wife.*

I know the meaning of every word in above sentence but I could gather
the meaning of the sentence. Please help me.

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Thanx Einde for help! Below is a sentence.
* John had a go at his neighbour for trying it on with his wife.*
I know the meaning of every word in above sentence but I could gather
the meaning of the sentence. Please help me.

John attacked his neighbour (probably verbally) for flirting with his wife.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Thanx. What is *about* doing in the sentence below?

* I can just about make him out.*

Regards/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Thanx. What is *about* doing in the sentence below?
* I can just about make him out.*

I can recognise him, but with difficulty, e.g. on a blurred photo, or on
a phote of a large group. It could also refer to someone in the far
distance.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Thanx. What is the best book/technique to sharpen skills in such type
of English?

Regards/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Thanx. What is the best book/technique to sharpen skills in such type
of English?

I don't think there is really any book that is guaranteed to be of use
with such idiomatic phrases. A good dictionary of idioms might help.

Reading books - particularly if there is a good translation into your
own language with which you can compare the bits you don't understand -
can also be helpful - but with some books in translation, I must admit,
I get the impression that the translator didn't quite understand an
idiom properly.

Watching movies in English, perhaps with undertitles in your own
language, can be helpful if you have no great difficulties understanding
the spoken language.

Living in a country where English is spoken is also useful for picking
up idiomatic language.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Thanx Einde for help. Below is a sentence.
* John had a go at his neighbour
I know the meaning of every word in above sentence but I could gather
the meaning of the sentence. Please help me.

John attacked his neighbour (either verbally or physically).

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[k***@gmail.com]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* She told me that you'hv just been taken on by one of the biggest
bank in the City.
* She told me that you had been taken on by one of the biggest bank in
the City.

My take is that both are possible.

You have been taken on prior to the moment that I am speaking with
*you* (now)

You had been taken on prior to the moment when I spoke with *her* (at
that moment in the past).

Karen

[Aybeecee]

On 13 Feb 2007 in the message

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* She told me that you'hv just been taken on by one of the biggest
bank in the City.
* She told me that you had been taken on by one of the biggest bank in
the City.
Please advise why they have used the present perfect in the second
sentence and why NOT past perfect.

The main error that the book seems to be inviting you to detect is the
singular "bank", which should be the plural "banks". (I assume that the book
doesn't say "you'hv".)

But I would love to know which of the "grammar books" you're talking about.

--
Aybeecee

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Post by Aybeecee
On 13 Feb 2007 in the message
The main error that the book seems to be inviting you to detect is the
singular "bank", which should be the plural "banks". (I assume that the book
doesn't say "you'hv".)

It is *banks* only and I made mistake while typing.

Post by Aybeecee
But I would love to know which of the "grammar books" you're talking about.

Practical Everyday English Steven Colins ISBN 91-646-1481-6

NSP

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Which is the better construction?

* I do not know anyone there to be able to speak to him.
* I do not know anyone there who I can speak to.

Thanx
NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Which is the better construction?
* I do not know anyone there to be able to speak to him.
* I do not know anyone there who I can speak to.

The second one is correct English and the first isn't - although it
would be understood (more or less).

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Someone who knows better English than I, wrote me as follows:

* It truly is a wonderful place to live and work.

I feel it should be as follows:

* It is truly a wonderful place to live and work.

Which is a better construction?

NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* It truly is a wonderful place to live and work.
* It is truly a wonderful place to live and work.
Which is a better construction?

The second is the neutral position of the adverb, however the first is
more emphatic.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Suppose I am sending a mail to 10 people and I am requesting each one
of them to write me if anyone of them happen to my city. How do I do
it?

* I would love to meet you/all of you/anyone of you/every one of you/
if you/all of you/anyone of you/every one of you/ happen to XYZ.

What should I have at the first place and the second place in the
above sentence?

NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Suppose I am sending a mail to 10 people and I am requesting each one
of them to write me if anyone of them happen to my city. How do I do
it?
* I would love to meet you/all of you/anyone of you/every one of you/
if you/all of you/anyone of you/every one of you/ happen to XYZ.
What should I have at the first place and the second place in the
above sentence?
NSP

I would rephrase it:

If any of you should ever come to XYZ, I'd love to meet you, so let me
know if you are coming.

Or perhaps something like: I'd love to meet all of you (or: you all)
some day, and if any of you should ever come to XYZ, please let me know.

The second one seems better to me.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[Owain]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Suppose I am sending a mail to 10 people and I am requesting each one
of them to write me if anyone of them happen to my city. How do I do
it?
* I would love to meet you/all of you/anyone of you/every one of you/
if you/all of you/anyone of you/every one of you/ happen to XYZ.
What should I have at the first place and the second place in the
above sentence?

"you" and "you".

The English "you" covers singular, plural, collective and any other
number of people.

If you wrote "you all" it would suggest that you are meeting all 10
people as a group, not individually.

And it should be "happen to be in my city" or "happen to visit my city".

Owain

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

* I would like to strength my acquaintance with each one of you.

How would a native speaker write above?

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* I would like to strength my acquaintance with each one of you.
How would a native speaker write above?

I'd like to get to know all of you better.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

A) I am satisfied.
B) I am quite satisfied.

I am told B means less satisfied as compared to A. Is this correct?

Regards/NSP

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

"Upto". How should it be written i.e. as "upto" or "up to"? I guess
both are correct but gmail's spell check shows "upto" as wrong.

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
"Upto". How should it be written i.e. as "upto" or "up to"? I guess
both are correct but gmail's spell check shows "upto" as wrong.

Two separate words - "upto" is never correct.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[FarmI]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
A) I am satisfied.
B) I am quite satisfied.
I am told B means less satisfied as compared to A. Is this correct?

I would use either to mean the same thing.

[FarmI]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Which is the better construction?
* I do not know anyone there to be able to speak to him.
* I do not know anyone there who I can speak to.

The latter, however it is not usual to finish a sentence with a preposition.
If I wrote this sentence, I would probably write "I do not know anyone there
to whom I can speak". However, that way of writing is probably considered
to be rather old fashioned these days

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by FarmI

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Which is the better construction?
* I do not know anyone there to be able to speak to him.
* I do not know anyone there who I can speak to.

The latter, however it is not usual to finish a sentence with a preposition.
If I wrote this sentence, I would probably write "I do not know anyone there
to whom I can speak". However, that way of writing is probably considered
to be rather old fashioned these days

Exactly - there is absolutely nothing wrong with ending a sentence with
a preposition in modern English. Only in very very formal English is it
generally avoided.

Indeed you could write the sencond sentence (the only correct one): ""I
don't know anyone there I can talk to" as you can omit the relative
pronoun in identifying relative clauses when it's the object of the
sentence or a preposition placed at the end of the clause.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

* He was going off to night school when he saw a firework lying *in*
the road.

In a book titled "Practical Everyday English Steven Colins ISBN
91-646-1481-6", I found the above sentence. Why should it be *in*?
I feel it should be *on*.

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* He was going off to night school when he saw a firework lying *in*
the road.
In a book titled "Practical Everyday English Steven Colins ISBN
91-646-1481-6", I found the above sentence. Why should it be *in*?
I feel it should be *on*.

"On" implies on the surface of the road, whereas "in" implies in the
middle of the road. "In" seems more natural to me, but I wouldn't be
disturbed by "on".

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/needful suggests *needful* is
adjective. Why do then the use of *needful* in the following sentence
correct?

* Please do the needful.

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/needful suggests *needful* is
adjective. Why do then the use of *needful* in the following sentence
correct?
* Please do the needful.

It is possible to create a collective noun by putting the word "the"
before an adjective: "the rich" means "all rich people", "the sick"
means "all sick people". In this case "the needful" is "everything that
is needed/necessary".

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

* Headed a team of about fifteen personnel comprising of about six
junior engineers and other supporting staff.

How can the above sentence be bettered?

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* Headed a team of about fifteen personnel comprising of about six
junior engineers and other supporting staff.
How can the above sentence be bettered?

This isn't a sentence at all - it doesn't have a subject.

The use of "about" twice is also a bit much. Why the imprecision? - you
name two specific numbers. Why can't you simply state them?

Also: What do you mean by "junior engineers"? Young ones? Ones in
training? Inexperienced ones?

"He headed a team of fifteen consisting of 6 junior engineers and other
support staff."

If the team varied in size, you could try:

"The team he headed usually consisted of 15 people, among them about 6
junior engineers and other support staff."

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

* I tried phoning her office, but I couldn't get through.

This shows there was some problem with phone system. Can we use *get
through* even when she didn't pick up the phone or she wasn't there to
attend the phone.

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* I tried phoning her office, but I couldn't get through.
This shows there was some problem with phone system. Can we use *get
through* even when she didn't pick up the phone or she wasn't there to
attend the phone.

Nobody answered the phone, probably because the phone was engaged - but
the phone could also have been out of order.

Regaqrds, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

n o s p a m p l e a s e schrieb:> * I tried phoning her office, but I couldn't get through.

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
This shows there was some problem with phone system. Can we use *get
through* even when she didn't pick up the phone or she wasn't there to
attend the phone.

Nobody answered the phone, probably because the phone was engaged - but
the phone could also have been out of order.
Regaqrds, Einde O'Callaghan

What if there is an answering machine at the other end telling us XYZ
can't receive the call at the moment. Can we still say "I couldn't get
through to you" even though both the parties know that phone was not
out of order.

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e

n o s p a m p l e a s e schrieb:> * I tried phoning her office, but I couldn't get through.

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
This shows there was some problem with phone system. Can we use *get
through* even when she didn't pick up the phone or she wasn't there to
attend the phone.

Nobody answered the phone, probably because the phone was engaged - but
the phone could also have been out of order.
Regaqrds, Einde O'Callaghan

What if there is an answering machine at the other end telling us XYZ
can't receive the call at the moment. Can we still say "I couldn't get
through to you" even though both the parties know that phone was not
out of order.

If the answering machine allows you to leave a message, you have got
through. If it only has a message saying that so-and-so isn't available
at the moment and to call back, later you haven't got through.

Regaqrds, Einde O'Callaghan

[John Ramsay]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* Headed a team of about fifteen personnel comprising of about six
junior engineers and other supporting staff.
How can the above sentence be bettered?
Thanx/NSP

Comprising only. Remove the 'of'.

If this is part of a list in a resume the grammar is
otherwise fine but you might want to add what
the team accomplished while you headed it.

Should also be more definite in number. You don't want to
give the impression you did not know how many
people worked for you.

If it varied just say, 'varying from 12-15 or whatever
numbers are appropriate.

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Post by John Ramsay

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* Headed a team of about fifteen personnel comprising of about six
junior engineers and other supporting staff.
How can the above sentence be bettered?
Thanx/NSP

Comprising only. Remove the 'of'.
If this is part of a list in a resume the grammar is
otherwise fine but you might want to add what
the team accomplished while you headed it.
Should also be more definite in number. You don't want to
give the impression you did not know how many
people worked for you.
If it varied just say, 'varying from 12-15 or whatever
numbers are appropriate.

Thanx. Yeah, it is CV. Is the following better?

* Headed a team of supporting staff varying fifteen to twenty
comprising six junior engineers.

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e

Post by John Ramsay

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* Headed a team of about fifteen personnel comprising of about six
junior engineers and other supporting staff.
How can the above sentence be bettered?
Thanx/NSP

Comprising only. Remove the 'of'.
If this is part of a list in a resume the grammar is
otherwise fine but you might want to add what
the team accomplished while you headed it.
Should also be more definite in number. You don't want to
give the impression you did not know how many
people worked for you.
If it varied just say, 'varying from 12-15 or whatever
numbers are appropriate.

Thanx. Yeah, it is CV. Is the following better?
* Headed a team of supporting staff varying fifteen to twenty
comprising six junior engineers.

* Headed a team of fifteen to twenty support staff including 6 junior
engineers.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Consider the following sentence:

* I was put off the idea of travelling through jungles; my brother
picked up malaria in that way.

Why is it *I was put off .....*? Why not *I put off .......*?

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* I was put off the idea of travelling through jungles; my brother
picked up malaria in that way.
Why is it *I was put off .....*? Why not *I put off .......*?

"I was put off ..." means "I was dissuaded ..." whereas "I put off ..."
means "I postponed ..."

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[knsri]

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* I was put off the idea of travelling through jungles; my brother
picked up malaria in that way.
Why is it *I was put off .....*? Why not *I put off .......*?

"I was put off ..." means "I was dissuaded ..." whereas "I put off ..."
means "I postponed ..."

Thanx. Then it should be like * I was put off by the idea.......*

Why *by* has not been used?

Thanx and regards
NSP

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* I was put off the idea of travelling through jungles; my brother
picked up malaria in that way.
Why is it *I was put off .....*? Why not *I put off .......*?

"I was put off ..." means "I was dissuaded ..." whereas "I put off ..."
means "I postponed ..."

Thanx. Then it should be like * I was put off by the idea.......*

Why *by* has not been used?

Thanx and regards
NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by knsri

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* I was put off the idea of travelling through jungles; my brother
picked up malaria in that way.
Why is it *I was put off .....*? Why not *I put off .......*?

"I was put off ..." means "I was dissuaded ..." whereas "I put off ..."
means "I postponed ..."

Thanx. Then it should be like * I was put off by the idea.......*
Why *by* has not been used?

Perhaps I should have been clearer. It wasn't the idea that put the
speaker off, rather the the speaker was dissuaded FROM doing something,
in this case, "I was dissuaded from travelling through the jungle."

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Which of the following is correct?

* I am clueless what this difference might be due to.
* I am clueless what to this difference might be due.
* I am clueless to what this difference might be due.

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Which of the following is correct?
* I am clueless what this difference might be due to.
* I am clueless what to this difference might be due.
* I am clueless to what this difference might be due.

I'm clueless about what the difference is due to.

But his is clumysy. If I had to use the word "clueless" I'd say "I'm
clueless about the reason for the difference."

More naturally I'd say "I haven't a clue why they're (or: these things
are) different." This is an idiomatic use of "haven't" that I wouldn't
teach in class as this usage is largely obsolete now except in the
phrase "I haven't a clue".

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

* It's time we were off; it's getting on.

What is the meaning of the above sentence?

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* It's time we were off; it's getting on.
What is the meaning of the above sentence?

It's time for us to go, it's getting late.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Are the following sentences grammatically correct?

* I will be *more than happy* to ..............
* He is a *first class first* student.

Thanx
NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Are the following sentences grammatically correct?
* I will be *more than happy* to ..............

This sentence is OK, but most people would probably more often say "I
would be more than happy to ..."

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* He is a *first class first* student.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but it feels wrong to me - BTW
it should be "first-class" since it is a compound adjective, i.e. one
concept made up of 2 words.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[Paul Edwards]

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Are the following sentences grammatically correct?
* I will be *more than happy* to ..............

This sentence is OK, but most people would probably more often say "I
would be more than happy to ..."

Your alternative is used in a slightly different context though.

E.g.

I WILL be more than happy to give you a refund if you CAN
show proof of purchase.

I WOULD be more than happy to give you a refund if you COULD
show proof of purchase.

I think. Non-native English speakers come up with really tough
questions.

BFN. Paul.

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by Paul Edwards

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Are the following sentences grammatically correct?
* I will be *more than happy* to ..............

This sentence is OK, but most people would probably more often say "I
would be more than happy to ..."

Your alternative is used in a slightly different context though.
E.g.
I WILL be more than happy to give you a refund if you CAN
show proof of purchase.
I WOULD be more than happy to give you a refund if you COULD
show proof of purchase.
I think. Non-native English speakers come up with really tough
questions.

I was thinking of a different context (a higher level of politeness), e.g.

Old lady asks young man: "Can you help me with this suitcase, please?"

Young man to old lady as he takes the suitcase: "I'd be more than happy
to help you."

You're right about tough questions. I come across this every day in my
work as an English teacher.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[Paul Edwards]

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by Paul Edwards

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Are the following sentences grammatically correct?
* I will be *more than happy* to ..............

This sentence is OK, but most people would probably more often say "I
would be more than happy to ..."

Your alternative is used in a slightly different context though.
E.g.
I WILL be more than happy to give you a refund if you CAN
show proof of purchase.
I WOULD be more than happy to give you a refund if you COULD
show proof of purchase.
I think. Non-native English speakers come up with really tough
questions.

I was thinking of a different context (a higher level of politeness), e.g.
Old lady asks young man: "Can you help me with this suitcase, please?"
Young man to old lady as he takes the suitcase: "I'd be more than happy
to help you."

Well, although that is common usage, it is technically incorrect.
That statement technically should require a disclaimer:

I'd be more than happy to help you BUT I'm allergic to suitcases.

The technically correct version would be:

I'm more than happy to help you.

The original use of "will" would be:

I will be happy to help you AFTER I make a short phone call.

But again, the technically incorrect "would" can be substituted
here too.

And anyhow, if we're talking politeness, "delighted" is more
usual than "happy".

All this is caveated with "I think". :-)

Post by Einde O'Callaghan
You're right about tough questions. I come across this every day in my
work as an English teacher.

I'm sure glad I don't have to learn this language! I think children
should learn it as a dual mother tongue so that they don't need to
really learn it.

BFN. Paul.

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Thanx Einde and Paul for earlier help.

I read somewhere as follows:

* If a 400 kg person sits on you, they will crush you.

My question is why it is they and why not he or she. I tried to
understand but couldn't figure out.

They is plural and it is referring to person which is singular.

Thanx/NSP

[Paul Edwards]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Thanx Einde and Paul for earlier help.
* If a 400 kg person sits on you, they will crush you.
My question is why it is they and why not he or she. I tried to
understand but couldn't figure out.
They is plural and it is referring to person which is singular.

Well, technically it should be "he/she" rather than "they".
But "he/she" is a bit cumbersome. So in these sorts of situations,
"he" is often used. But "they", although technically incorrect, is
also often used (which makes it correct by definition, since English
is defined by common usage). The basic problem is that there is
no gender-neutral word in English. You can say that English is a
sexist language. Maybe not as bad as French where every object
in the world needs to be arbitrarily made male or female and get
a "le" or "la" put in front of it.

BFN. Paul.

[Paul Edwards]

Post by Paul Edwards
Well, technically it should be "he/she" rather than "they".
But "he/she" is a bit cumbersome. So in these sorts of situations,
"he" is often used. But "they", although technically incorrect, is
also often used (which makes it correct by definition, since English
is defined by common usage).

Oh, and rarely, a feminazi will throw in "she" instead of "he" or
"they" in that circumstance, and stuff up the comprehension, because
you wonder if you missed something that made it clear that the
person in question was female, or that perhaps this piece of
information is only applicable to women. It's bloody annoying.
It's not the men of today's fault that the language has no gender-neutral
term. Given that English is my MOTHER tongue, if women have
any complaints with the language they can take it up with my mother.
My father was presumably too busy delivering mail to talk to me in
English anyway.

BFN. Paul.

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Thanx Einde and Paul for earlier help.
* If a 400 kg person sits on you, they will crush you.
My question is why it is they and why not he or she. I tried to
understand but couldn't figure out.
They is plural and it is referring to person which is singular.

In modern conversational English the pronoun "they" is often used to
refer back to impersonal constructions (a person, somebody and similar
constructions), even if technically gthe original construction is singular.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by Paul Edwards

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by Paul Edwards

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Are the following sentences grammatically correct?
* I will be *more than happy* to ..............

This sentence is OK, but most people would probably more often say "I
would be more than happy to ..."

Your alternative is used in a slightly different context though.
E.g.
I WILL be more than happy to give you a refund if you CAN
show proof of purchase.
I WOULD be more than happy to give you a refund if you COULD
show proof of purchase.
I think. Non-native English speakers come up with really tough
questions.

I was thinking of a different context (a higher level of politeness), e.g.
Old lady asks young man: "Can you help me with this suitcase, please?"
Young man to old lady as he takes the suitcase: "I'd be more than happy
to help you."

Well, although that is common usage, it is technically incorrect.

I disagree. It's a question of using distancing (in this case a tense
shift) to achieve a higher level of politiness.

Regards, Einde O'callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* He is a *first class first* student.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but it feels wrong to me - BTW
it should be "first-class" since it is a compound adjective, i.e. one
concept made up of 2 words.

My US educated professor used to often use *first class first
student*. I wanted to investigate if it is correct or incorrect to say
so.

Thanx
NSP

[John Ramsay]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* He is a *first class first* student.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but it feels wrong to me - BTW
it should be "first-class" since it is a compound adjective, i.e. one
concept made up of 2 words.

My US educated professor used to often use *first class first
student*. I wanted to investigate if it is correct or incorrect to say
so.
Thanx
NSP

Too bad you did not ask the prof at the time. He was indulging
in wordplay.

first class means high marks but first also means from the start.

*first class first student* could mean the student
is dedicated to being first class/getting high marks
from the start

but first class is also the top luxury in travel
so the prof may have meant the student wanted to
always go first class but was more interested in that
than actually working for it

[Paul Edwards]

Post by John Ramsay

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e

Post by Einde O'Callaghan

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* He is a *first class first* student.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but it feels wrong to me - BTW
it should be "first-class" since it is a compound adjective, i.e. one
concept made up of 2 words.

My US educated professor used to often use *first class first
student*. I wanted to investigate if it is correct or incorrect to say
so.
Thanx
NSP

Too bad you did not ask the prof at the time. He was indulging
in wordplay.
first class means high marks but first also means from the start.
*first class first student* could mean the student
is dedicated to being first class/getting high marks
from the start

I would reword that and say:

*first class first student* could mean the student
is dedicated to being first class/getting high marks
AS HIS HIGHEST PRIORITY.

But yeah, you have to ask the prof for clarification. It is not
proper English (as in, understandable to another English
speaker).

BFN. Paul.

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

* Responsible for contract management of large projects. Supervised
execution and ensured contract performance of large projects.

This is part of a CV list. How can the above the reworded to make it
more meaningful?

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* Responsible for contract management of large projects. Supervised
execution and ensured contract performance of large projects.
This is part of a CV list. How can the above the reworded to make it
more meaningful?

It seems quite clear to me.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Does "career trajectory" have the same meaning as "career history" and
can we replace "career history" a title in the CV by "career
trajectory"?

Regards/NSP

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

* September 10th to 14th is convenient to everyone.

Should it be *is* or *are* in the above sentence?

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
* September 10th to 14th is convenient to everyone.
Should it be *is* or *are* in the above sentence?

"is" - the period is singular - BTW "convenient FOR everyone".

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

n o s p a m p l e a s e schrieb:> * September 10th to 14th is convenient to everyone.

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Should it be *is* or *are* in the above sentence?

"is" - the period is singular - BTW "convenient FOR everyone".

Thanx. I guess *for* and *to* has to do with British or American
English (http://pewebdic2.cw.idm.fr/display/display.html?
search_str=convenient). Is this correct?

Thanx/NSP

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

A) Finely honed skills in use of various software

This is a part of the list in a CV. At
http://pewebdic2.cw.idm.fr/display/display.html?unfolded=46324&ids=46323,46324,46325,46326,46327
I found as follows:

*the use of something is the ability or right to use something*

My question is as follows:

Is A correct or should I use *the* before use?

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
A) Finely honed skills in use of various software
This is a part of the list in a CV. At
http://pewebdic2.cw.idm.fr/display/display.html?unfolded=46324&ids=46323,46324,46325,46326,46327
*the use of something is the ability or right to use something*
Is A correct or should I use *the* before use?

I think it would be better with "the".

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Does the order of adjectives matter? Consider the following sentences:

A) I work for a first-rate, world-class company.
B) I work for a world-class, first-rate company.

Do A and B have the same meaning?

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Does the order of adjectives matter?

Yes, there is a usual order of adjectives of different types before a noun:

colour origin material purpose noun

Other adjectives usually go before these, e.g. size, length, height and
age, but it's difficult to give any hard and fast rules here for the
exact order. Before these would come adjectives expressing judgements or
attitudes and before all else come numbers.

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
A) I work for a first-rate, world-class company.
B) I work for a world-class, first-rate company.

Here we have 2 adjectives expressing judgements or opinions, so the
above order isn't really any help! :-(

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Do A and B have the same meaning?

In my opinion, however, the first sounds better than the second.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e

n o s p a m p l e a s e schrieb:> * September 10th to 14th is convenient to everyone.

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
Should it be *is* or *are* in the above sentence?

"is" - the period is singular - BTW "convenient FOR everyone".

Thanx. I guess *for* and *to* has to do with British or American
English (http://pewebdic2.cw.idm.fr/display/display.html?
search_str=convenient). Is this correct?

In my opinion, the US usage for "convenient to" is only applicable to
the meaning "close and easy to reach", i.e. not for the meaning in your
sentence, "suited to personal comfort".

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

A) From XXX to YYY tended to home functions and stayed at home with
young children to support demanding career of my spouse.

This is a part of the list in a CV. How can I better the above
especially *stayed at home with young children to support demanding
career of my spouse*?

Thanx/NSP

[lmn]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e
A) From XXX to YYY tended to home functions and stayed at home with
young children to support demanding career of my spouse.
This is a part of the list in a CV. How can I better the above
especially *stayed at home with young children to support demanding
career of my spouse*?
Thanx/NSP

It would seem that the resume writer is trying to account for a period of
time by describing the 'child-rearing' activity. That the spouse had a
demanding career is not relevant. Why the resume writer chose to stay at
home and raise children and not go to work is a matter of personal choice and
does not need to be defended.

" Raised and supported young children at home." seems to get the job done.

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

Post by lmn
It would seem that the resume writer is trying to account for a period of
time by describing the 'child-rearing' activity. That the spouse had a
demanding career is not relevant. Why the resume writer chose to stay at
home and raise children and not go to work is a matter of personal choice and
does not need to be defended.

If there is a wide gap in CV, it needs to be explained. It is the
ability of resume writer how best she explains this gap.

Thanx/NSP

[Einde O'Callaghan]

Post by n o s p a m p l e a s e

Post by lmn
It would seem that the resume writer is trying to account for a period of
time by describing the 'child-rearing' activity. That the spouse had a
demanding career is not relevant. Why the resume writer chose to stay at
home and raise children and not go to work is a matter of personal choice and
does not need to be defended.

If there is a wide gap in CV, it needs to be explained. It is the
ability of resume writer how best she explains this gap.

Child-rearing would be sufficient. Indeed, to suggest that her career
choices are dependent on her husband's job might lessen her chances of
being considered.

Regrds, Einde O'Callaghan