Fonte di grammatica: EnglishpediaPorti la vostra curiosità e le vostre domande e calcoliamo fuori la nostra lingua bizzarra |
Tutti gli abbiamo sperimentato. Sedendosi ad uno scrittorio o ad un calcolatore posponga mentre pezzo di carta in bianco e lo schermo in bianco stares indietro noi e li osa scrivere qualche cosa, persino una frase-appena qualcosa.
Ciò è la malattia paralizzante conosciuta come il blocchetto del produttore [della modifica] [/tag].
Che cosa?
Osservazioni 0 In uno della mia università classifica l'altra notte, io si è seduto con alcune presentazioni dell'allievo [modifica] su dishonesty accademico nella formazione [/tag]. Un gruppo ha fatto un lavoro bene-ricercato su inflazione del grado [della modifica] [/tag], dettagliando le relative cause e cure di potenziale. L'altro gruppo si è presentato che cosa sulla superficie è sembrato essere un iniettore su come truffare e perchè è essenziale per fare così a scuola, a qualsiasi livello.
Ouch!
Credo che abbia accennato prima che, nel parlare almeno e spesso nella scrittura, usando chi esclusivamente e dimenticarsi chi esiste funzionerà l'indennità giusta.
Tuttavia, l'altro giorno ho ascoltato un annuncio radiofonico circa un servizio datante in linea in cui una donna extols le qualità del suo nuovo boyfriend “di chi ho venuto a contatto in linea,„ o parole a quell'effetto.
Ciò grattata sui miei orecchi. Perchè?
Se siete serii circa [modifica] l'individuazione delle informazioni buone in linea [/tag] - e non appena che cosa qualcuno desidera forzare giù il vostro gola-voi avrà bisogno di alcune strategie per successo.
Mi occupo dei questi lo strategies nella mia nuova caratteristica inglese delle risorse denominata Ricerca in linea di qualità.  Controllilo fuori.
Ho funzionato sempre in quei redattori [della modifica], copyeditors e correttori di bozze salt-duri [/tag] che hanno insistito quello contenga sia usato nel senso attivo, significante “includere.„
Hence, one could write, "The program comprises dieting, exercise, and yoga." One could not write this in the passive voice, "The program is comprised of dieting, exercise, and yoga," which is the way I always used the verb.
Now,"blow-hard central" had a point in the sense that I never recognized comprise as a transitive verb that took objects, but I’m not sure they were right about not using "is comprised of."
Now to the rescue comes Common Errors in English, which has a solution–use "is composed of" instead, but that doesn’t quite, to me at least, convey the same meaning as "is comprised of."
Whatever, the blow-hards are always right. Blow-hards rule just about everywhere, don’t they? But they’re not always right!
My title is an example of two words that are often confused. Actually, what’s confused in many writers’ minds is how to use and spell complementary. I’ve even seen professional Web sites where companies are trying to sell their “complementary services” and they use complimentary completely incorrectly. Sure, I’ll take their free services anytime.
Here’s an explanation of the difference.
I have my NotWords and MorphedWords categories, and now I’m toying with a Grammar Horror Stories category.
I bring this up because I can’t remember how many college students I’ve taught over the years who live in mortal fear of K-12 English admonitions from well-meaning (I hope) but un-grammar-educated (for sure) teachers.
Examples?
Like Milton in Office Space, who proclaimed “the last straw” when they turned the lights off on him, I am now beyond the last straw with the newer generations’ misuse of the NotWord thru, which is a misspelling of the real word through.
Thru belongs in only one usage, and that’s for fast food joints such as [tag]Drive-Thrus[/tag].
The final straw was reached when a student of mine, who has Mensa-caliber brain functions, turned in a paper with [tag]thru[/tag] used throughout it.
Enough. Let’s banish this NotWord forever. I’m through with thru.
Now here’s a misusage that almost no ear, nor eye, will ever catch.
What’s wrong with this lyric:
“If I was a rich man…”?
If this clause reads and sounds okay to you, then you’re definitely among the majority of English users who don’t know, don’t understand or otherwise just ignore the subjunctive mood.
Briefly, the to be verb takes the subjective form were when used in if constructions expressing a wish or condition. For instance:
“If I were in New York today, I could visit my friend Daniel.”
You’re not in New York, so the if expresses a wish or condition and thus requires the subjunctive mood in the verb, which is plural rather than singular.
If I was just learning English, I’d be confused, but if I were born here, I might still be confused. (Find the error–or irony–in there yet?)
I was dashing off an e-mail just now, and I used the word gleam in the sense of examining some documents and deriving meaning.
Something struck me as odd about the word. It turns out that I really meant glean. It’s a good thing I turned instantly to my cyber-buddy Dictionary.com to verify my spelling and usage, and sure enough: Gleam: a flash or beam of light. Glean: to gather slowly and laboriously, bit by bit. Of course, these are only the first definitions for each, but as you can see, I had chosen the wrong word entirely.
Lesson here, even for an old writer hack like me: When in doubt, look it up.
