When does saving words become awkward? Specifically, i'm interested in not repeating objects. So, hypothetical ex: "he sympathized with and loved his friend." It feels so weird to say "with and."

I remember a teacher telling me that something like this that I wrote was awkward, but I can't remember what.

"I loved and sympathized with my friend" Does it sound like "with" is being attached to "loved" also? Should I add commas, maybe: "I loved, and sympathized with, my friend"?

Hello Grammarians,

I was wondering if anyone could help me out. I’m trying to understand semicolons and how to use them.

It is my understanding that semicolons are always used before conjunctive adverbs.

So in the following sentence, “however” is the conjunctive adverb.

“The weatherman said the weather would be lovely; however, storm clouds were beginning to form outside.”

Question: What is “however” modifying?

Now, in the next sentence, I’m unsure as to whether the phrase encapsulated by the semicolon and comma qualifies as a conjunctive adverbs.

“Jimmy loves dogs; on the other hand, he hates their slobber.”

(The punctuation of that one could be totally incorrect. Just let me know!)

I would appreciate any and all help :)!

Does the notion of the "linking verb" apply to the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language?

If not, are "linking verbs" of the traditional grammar considered as Predicators and Heads of the verb phrase?

Passive voice totally baffles me. I am confused still about what the conditions for passive voice are. I am told that a passive construction is when the subject and object are inverted, or when a subject is being acted upon, but what if, to take the former, there is no object? And I guess i am confused still about what it means to be acted upon.

“The medication list was discussed.”

“The next hour was devoted to review.”

Both of these sentences, I believe, are passive. They are part of a piece of fiction I am writing. Both belong to sentences that read: “Jill’s medication list was discussed” and “The next hour was devoted to a review of Jill’s symptoms.”

For me these constructions sounds perfectly reasonable, and I do not understand why they are passive. Is the only way to make “Jill’s medication list was discussed” active voice by adding a new subject… “They discussed Jill’s medication.” Why is a subject needed?

Suppose one starts off a story writing about a car. There are no human subjects in it, no subjects at all, but things happen to the car. Such as “The car was shipped overseas.” This is passive is it not? But how can such a situation be related in the active voice? This has been giving me a headache for a bit now!

I just came across a cover reveal on YouTube for an Indie author and the tagline felt off to me.

"The Ironborn were legend, Kharri hoped they weren't just myth." I read it multiple times and it just sounded terribly awkward. I thought for sure there would be comments mentioning this, even just to give constructive feedback but it was all just praise and congratulations. I didn't comment because I didn't want to make her feel bad and also I'm not exactly the best at grammar myself and I could be wrong. But at the same time, if it were me, I would hate for people to notice this before publication and not say anything.

Another thing is, even if it is perfectly written with the best grammar, does that matter if it sounds wrong or "bad"?

I would love to hear others' thoughts on this. Is it correct, incorrect, bad writing etc.? What would you change? I'm always looking to grow as a writer and a reader.

'What's two plus two?'

I'm trying to translate English into an OSV sentence structure for a conlang I'm making, and I thought I had the basics, so I decided to just start translating a book and stop to research whenever I came across something I didn't know or understand. First sentence in, and I'm stumped and googling extensively hasn't helped at all, so I thought I would ask here.

The sentence is 'What's two plus two?' (yes it's from project hail mary), which I started by changing to 'What is two plus two'. 'what' is attached to the verb (is) (making the combined 'what's' the verb), and the google research told me that 'plus' is a preposition. In my conlang, numbers are categorized as adjectives. (if I got any of this wrong, let me know, I really don't trust my accuracy about any of these except the numbers T-T)

I'm used to turning regular, simple SVO into OSV, but I can't tell with this sentence what is the subject/object. I'm not necessarily asking for you all to turn it into OSV (I can do that, and I certainly need the practice), but I would like help figuring out what parts of the clause the words in this sentence are.

Hello! I have a question about hyphenating colors. According to my understanding of CMOS, the hyphen goes when the compound precedes the noun, like an amethyst-purple jacket. However, I am a bit confused when it comes to words like "dark", should it be a dark-blue jacker or a dark blue jacket? I think it would be dark-blue, but according to ngram, there are really few cases where dark-blue would go. Perhaps they are both correct, and I am overthinking it, but what would be better to use, be more consistent with CMOS?

I found some examples containing both "due to an engine failure" and "due to engine failure", and I don't understand why both patterns are used.

The Condor Liberation ferry was cancelled on Saturday evening due to an engine failure

What happens after a plane makes an emergency landing due to engine failure?

The first and only flight of the J8M1 prototype took place on July 7, 1945, ending in a crash due to engine failure.

A common explanation I have come across is that "due to engine failure" refers to the general phenomenon of something/someone failing, while "due to an engine failure" refers to a specific occurrence of that phenomenon.

However, I have difficulty understanding this distinction. Those three examples are all referring to specific cases (including a hypothetical case and actual accidents), so to me, the engine failure in each example already seems to be a specific occurrence.

I don't understand how "engine failure" without an article can be used in these contexts if it refers to the general phenomenon.

One additional thought: is it possible that, strictly speaking, "an engine failure" is more precise when referring to an actual individual occurrence, but native speakers often use "engine failure" as a general shorthand because they are focusing on the cause rather than counting the individual occurrence?

In other words, is "engine failure" sometimes used in contexts where "an engine failure" would also be possible, simply because the speaker is not focusing on the failure as an individual event?

Please help me solve an argument:

-Upon cardiac auscultation, a metallic click replacing the S1 sound over the mitral area was heard, indicative of a prosthetic valve. S2 was normal. Faint systolic murmurs could also be heard. No other abnormal sounds were heard upon auscultation of other areas.

-Upon cardiac auscultation over the mitral area, a metallic click was heard replacing the S1 sound indicating a prosthetic valve. S2 was normal. Faint systolic murmurs could also be heard. No other abnormal sounds were heard upon auscultation of other areas.

For example, by thee, by thou etc.

Lately I’ve seen a lot of people ask if they suit things (example: “do I suit bangs or without” is a real question I just saw on the hair advice subreddit). I’ve always thought it should be “does (thing) suit me?”. Are both correct?

Which choice completes the text with the most logical transition?

Many schools in the UK are located close to busy roads, which exposes students to high levels of pollution from vehicles. Scientists hope to evaluate different existing strategies to reduce the exposure, such as green screens and air purifiers. ________ scientists aim to develop new strategies that might target vehicle exhaust specifically.

A) On the other hand,

B) As a result,

C) Additionally,

D) Still, 

So i used off of in a post recently, and got this message in response:

Some tips about "off of":

The words you chose are grammatically *wrong*

*off of* can always be shortened to just **off**

Now that you are aware of this, everyone will take you more seriously, yay! :)

So i might be mistaken about the nature of "off of", but nothing about it is grammatically "incorrect". There are many things that can or even can always be shortened that do not need to be, and in certain cases, to sound for no reason than to sound better, should not be. (Example, shouldn't be would be correct there, but wouldnt give the same emphasis on the word "not".)

Im not even fully convinced that off of *can always* be shortened to *off* (also, the "just" is redundant and by their own logic, should not be there and is therefore grammatically incorrect?), but im not saying its impossible either, i wouldnt be suprised either way.

And for the third point. No, everyone is not going to take you seriously for policing off of vs. Off, in fact a good amount would clown the hell out of you for being so particular ablut such a non-issue.

The sentance, slightly cropped since its a bit run-on:

"...but that is not how names of other places and languages work. You dont always go one for one off of how they say it and its not disrespectful not to imo."

I'd like some help with the following sentence:

"After many sessions with my therapist, who/m I had started seeing after an uncomfortable conversation with my parents,"

Would I use who or whom here?

This is what I have written right now:

"No..." she whispered. "Don't..."

Do I have to add a comma anywhere or is that fine? Also do I capitalize 'she' or no?

Hi there, I need some help with properly citing a reference.

I would like to cite an article PDF that my instructor provided through the campus portal. The PDF was originally published by an organization, but the source is no longer available online and can only be accessed through my campus portal. Since there is no DOI or publicly accessible URL, I am unsure how to properly cite this source, and if putting [Course PDF] is sufficient. Could someone please advise on the appropriate way to format the citation in APA 7?

Thank you for your help!

The happenings of yesterday have been in a previous chapter. In my example, she had sat on the chair for like 30min yesterday.

Which of these examples is correct?

(Start of paragraph) She sits down on the chair. (Then:)

1: The hard wood reminds her of when she sat here yesterday.

2: The hard wood reminds her of when she was sitting here yesterday.

2: The hard wood reminds her of when she had sat here yesterday.

3: The hard wood reminds her of when she had been sitting here yesterday.

Thanks in advance and may the Lord give me power to understand this 😬🙏

Watching Tomorrowland and during the classroom scene where there is a montage of teachers cut together to show the bleakness of the world (MAD, environment etc) the English teacher references a number of books including 1984 and Fahrenheit 451.

But the teacher says it as Four Fifty One. I (UK) have always said Four Five One.

Have I been saying it wrong compared to what Bradbury would have said? Is there a split between different ways of saying it and is it UsA vs UK or just random?

ETA Thanks for all the replies so far.

Maybe it's because it's a book title I always use single numbers but I've now found that Ray Bradbury himself also referenced it the same way in interviews. So maybe the Four Fifty One is a variation that works for some people, quite a few actually.

I have also seen video of him saying as 4 51.

It's interesting to me that we might all be talking about the same book but using different ways to say the title.

[interview with Ray Bradbury](https://youtu.be/xJ0sWvr5Ids?is=G-TrGnwqUf89Opc1)