query
Which one is correct:
"A stable currency is of course not without its disadvantages , but it falls upon the bank to stop any unpleasant inflationary aftermaths"
OR
"A stable currency is of course not without its merits, but it falls upon the bank to stop any unpleasant inflationary fallout"
I think it is the first one, but my teacher is adamant about the second one being correct...
please help me know if this is correct grammar:
"May the paths you follow allow for the accommoadation of your girth"
my gf says allow and accommodate are repetitious making it bad grammar
I tend to agree with your girlfriend. Allow and accommodate both mean very similar things.Originally Posted by Mahdrek
please help me know if this is correct grammar:
"May the paths you follow allow for the accommoadation of your girth"
my gf says allow and accommodate are repetitious making it bad grammar
The same statement can be made with "May the paths that you follow accommodate your girth." This is also easier to read.
Everyone has a fairly broad vocabulary - particularly those of us who are avid readers, so don't try to sound more intelligent by adding more words. This usually only has the effect (
) of making the prose more difficult to read.
Your reader will soon realise how knowledgeable you are from what you have to say and the ideas you choose to express. Just try not to use the same word for the same thing each time (eg. there is an almost endless supply of alternatives for the word 'said').
Well neither. What's with the double negative for a start? Quit beating around the bush. And "of course" isn't part of the sentence so it gets a comma set. But what's it really there for? To show you're stating the obvious?
In one sentence you're showing disadvantages and in the other you're showing merits so it is the point of emphasis that has changed not the grammar. What do you want to emphasise?
I would agree with your teacher in that a stable currency is a desirable thing so it would have merits, and you want to counter merits against inflation in your sentence. Good against bad. Bad against bad would show no contrast... no reason for a "but".
A stable currency has its merits, but it falls upon the bank to stop any unpleasant inflationary fallout
(I kept the comma because I presume you're American. Australians don't need them with words like "but".)
May the paths you follow accommodate your girth is much funnier too.
please help me know if this is correct grammar:
"May the paths you follow allow for the accommoadation of your girth"
This thread's really useful for grammar help. Another GREAT resource for English grammar questions (and other general writing questions) is this forum. They've got professionals who answer your specific questions personally.
-Jacky
Well said.
Make every word count.
That's the one and only rule, I feel. It takes a long time to figure this out as a writer (I'm still figuring!). But if something is concise and has meaning, the reader will move forward. Every extra word is weight tacked onto meaning and those pounds drag it under. Your girlfriend was correct in this. I like the phrase here and accomodate does all your work for you. Verbs are the most powerful things in writing. Trust them and choose them wisely.
From what I see, it appears as if you have that down. Keep writing and remember that no first draft is ever perfect. You'll always be tweaking and carving off the extra fat. Nothing wrong at all with that. The hardest part is realizing where that fat is to begin with.
Write on....
That's true. You won't believe how often I've seen people change "was running" to "ran", because it's "more concise". *Sigh*
This piece of advise is such a cliché these days that I see writing ruined by cutting too much as often as by writing too much in the first place.
"not without its merits" is no worse than "has its merits". I'm not talking as a writer now; I'm talking as a reader. (I was itching to type this when the post was new, but I figured Sheepie was at the receiving end of my rants often enough when it comes to these things; now I have a new victim. Be prepared.)
Strunk and White's The Elements of Style states you should always use an 's no matter the ending of the word. Jules's cat.Tblue's cat is right.
Tblues would be plural.
And if you would be called Tblues not Tblue, than it would be Tblues' cat. Also, if all the Tblues in the world have one cat it would be Tblues' cat as well.
One more example: Julia's cat, but Jules' cat.
Sorry that I can't explain it, hope you understand it anyway.
They do mention exceptions (here), but you're right: they would have us write, "Jules's cat". If you like that better, use it. But what Nimea says isn't wrong (I for one prefer that usage).
Strunk and White aren't especially known for their tolerance for usage other than their own. Personally, I wish Strunk's booklet had faded into obscurity instead of being picked up by White, edited and published. People quote it to justify a lot of nonsense corrections.
It's a style guide, just like any other. Honestly, unless someone points out an error, the error isn't there. If people read over the "error" without stopping, it isn't much of an error.
People are going to understand the possessive meaning of Jules' and Jules's, either way. I like the Strunk and White guide myself. I think it is a safe, non superflouse way of writing. I can't claim to adhere to it one hundred percent. But I think it is a good place to start.
But people can pull from many grammatical sources to justify corrections that they deem important. Most grammar text books are harder to follow than Strunk and White's guide. I highly recommend it.
This is driving me nuts...no one I ask knows. Sorry if it's been posted; I don't have time to read all those.
Would I say "All (noun)s are not (adjective)" or "Not all (noun)s are (adj.)"?
It seems to me that, although I see the first used a lot, the second would make more sense. The first seems to imply that because ALL (noun)s are (adj) no (noun)s are (adj)'s opposite. E.G.:
"All Vietnamese are not bad" or
"Not all Vietnamese are bad"?
The second is a clearer way of describing what you want to say.
I like that attitude.
Agree. But it's a matter of style, really. It's not so much the book that riles me, but that many people refer to it as an authority.I like the Strunk and White guide myself. I think it is a safe, non superflouse way of writing.
That's okay. Neither do Strunk and White. It's fun to correct them with their own guide. You should try it once.I can't claim to adhere to it one hundred percent.
Well, as you said it's a style guide. You're not going to learn grammar from it. Actually, if you don't know grammar, what are you going to make of this sentence, in "Use the Active Voice"?But people can pull from many grammatical sources to justify corrections that they deem important. Most grammar text books are harder to follow than Strunk and White's guide. I highly recommend it.
How many of Srunk's readers know what a "transitive" is? And how does it relate to the "active voice"? (And where is the lively active voice in this sentence? Is this one of the "exceptions" they point out?)
You won't learn grammar from S&W; for that you'll still need the harder-to-follow text books.
I wouldn't advise saying "Not all Vietnamese are bad," as it may include an implied admission that most are.
"All Vietnamese are not bad," sounds like a passionate reprisal to a often heared and just repeated stereotype. Syntactically, "all Vietnamese" would have to be treated somewhat like "The Vietnamese, as a group, are not bad." It's unusual syntax, but apparantly it happens. (Notice that you have to emphasise the "not" to make the sentence work.)
The two sentences don't sound equivalent. The first makes you sound like a jovial racist, the second one like an easily riled activist (exaggerated for clarity).
There's always the option of saying: "Most Vietnamese are not bad."
There is a bit of grammar in there. It, however, relies on a basic knowledge by the reader.
The main question is, of all the examples, why this one? A better example of group division through contrast would be: Not all murderers are sociopaths. Murders are not all sociopaths. Most murderers are not sociopaths.
That is an eerie example as well, but I'm trying to stay with the theme of: Why would he use that example in the first place?
Oh, and anyone who attempts to use one small book to define the usage of style within the english language is a dimwit. The english language is complex, convoluted, and weird.
Edit: For clarification, I mean to say that there are many books which need to be taken into account. I haven't read those other books since High School, but they are there.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks