headers
Farhan Noor | 8 Jul 2009 20:36
Picon

Re: Partisanship

hello:
1. is  " women's rights " correct? someone corrected me by pointing out that
it is "women rights"

2. are the following two statements grammatically correct?

"... when any person assures another with personal guarantees ..." (the
believed error is not using the word "person" after the word "another" in
the sentence)

"...when a person pacts an agreement with him or with any third that he will
be the..." (the believed error being not using the word "person" after the
word "third" in the sentence)

please let me know

cheers,

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: EngFor-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
Permalink | Reply | 503 comments |
headers
Bill Kelly | 8 Jul 2009 21:14

Re: Partisanship

 > 1. is " women's rights " correct? someone corrected me by pointing 
out > that it is "women rights"

Yes, "women's rights" is correct.

Whoever corrected you probably knew that the plural of "woman" is 
"women" rather than "womans."

But in "women's rights" the "s" is not there to mark the plural but to 
mark the possessive: the rights of women = women's rights

> 2. are the following two statements grammatically correct?
> 
> "... when any person assures another with personal guarantees ..." (the
> believed error is not using the word "person" after the word "another" in
> the sentence)

This sentence is correct as is. The word "another" can be used as a 
pronoun meaning "another person" as well as being used as an adjective.

> "...when a person pacts an agreement with him or with any third that he will
> be the..." (the believed error being not using the word "person" after the
> word "third" in the sentence)

The word "third" can sometimes be used as a pronoun meaning "third 
person," but not in your example. You must insert "person" or "party" 
after the word "third."

Here is an example where you do NOT need to insert a noun: "We needed a 
third and a fourth for bridge (card game)."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Abhishek Verma | 10 Jul 2009 19:38
Picon

Re: Partisanship

I think apostrophe should come after 's' cause women is plural :
So, Womens' Right will be appropriate.

(If I'm wrong then please do reply.)

Regards:
Abhishek.

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Bill Kelly <bkelly <at> snet.net> wrote:

>
>
>  > 1. is " women's rights " correct? someone corrected me by pointing
> out > that it is "women rights"
>
> Yes, "women's rights" is correct.
>
> Whoever corrected you probably knew that the plural of "woman" is
> "women" rather than "womans."
>
> But in "women's rights" the "s" is not there to mark the plural but to
> mark the possessive: the rights of women = women's rights
>
> > 2. are the following two statements grammatically correct?
> >
> > "... when any person assures another with personal guarantees ..." (the
> > believed error is not using the word "person" after the word "another" in
> > the sentence)
>
> This sentence is correct as is. The word "another" can be used as a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Sidhartha Desai | 10 Jul 2009 21:22

RE: Partisanship

The word women is the plural form of woman. So, women has no s. Therefore,
if you use an apostrophe, it should become before the s. For example: I
believe in women's rights.

This seems a little confusing because women is one of the few plural words
that doesn't have an s.

Hope this helped.

Sidhartha Desai

www.ExpertEnglishTeacher.com

www.TOEFLWritingSecrets.com

From: EngFor <at> yahoogroups.com [mailto:EngFor <at> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Abhishek Verma
Sent: July 10, 2009 1:39 PM
To: EngFor <at> yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [EngFor] Partisanship

I think apostrophe should come after 's' cause women is plural :
So, Womens' Right will be appropriate.

(If I'm wrong then please do reply.)

Regards:
Abhishek.

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Bill Kelly <bkelly <at> snet.net
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
sidhartha.desai | 10 Jul 2009 22:06

Re: Partisanship

The word women is the plural form of woman. So, women has no s. Therefore, if you use an apostrophe, it should
become before the s. For example: I believe in women's rights.

This seems a little confusing because women is one of the few plural words that doesn't have an s.

Hope this helped.

Sidhartha Desai
www.ExpertEnglishTeacher.com
www.TOEFLWritingSecrets.com

--- In EngFor <at> yahoogroups.com, Abhishek Verma <hookabhi <at> ...> wrote:
>
> I think apostrophe should come after 's' cause women is plural :
> So, Womens' Right will be appropriate.
> 
> (If I'm wrong then please do reply.)
> 
> 
> Regards:
> Abhishek.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Bill Kelly <bkelly <at> ...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >  > 1. is " women's rights " correct? someone corrected me by pointing
> > out > that it is "women rights"
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ann English | 12 Jul 2009 07:32
Picon

Re: [learningenglish_moderated] Re: put and putt / put in the present tense


On 12/07/2009, at 11:17 AM, Natasha The Bear wrote:

>  What is the past tense of the verb "Putt?"
> Example: "Yesterday, Tiger Woods putted the ball well."

This is correct.  It is common to leave out "the ball"

You may be amused by these verbs:

To put-put [or "to putt-putt"] (rhymes with "but" and "cut")
	= to make sharp repeated sounds like a small petrol engine
	= to move while making these sounds
The -ED form and -ING form are regular.

To potter (rhymes with "gotta") [or "to putter" (rhymes with "butter"}
	= to work idly or to work at things that are not important
Frequently with "around": "I pottered around for a while until teatime"
The -ED form and -ING form are regular.

Students.  Try to make sentences with these verbs (to put, to putt, to  
put-put, to potter). Send us your sentences and we will tell you if  
they are good.

Ann
www.lulu.com/AnnEnglish

------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: EngFor-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ignacio | 15 Jul 2009 07:07
Picon
Favicon

Concise


Hello everyone,

Here's a simple joke I translated from another place.
As usual, I will appreciate your comments, corrections and
suggestions for improvement.

Yesterday

A Cocker Spaniel goes into a telegraph office.  It takes a form
and writes, "Wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow."

The clerk checks the sheet of paper and tells the dog amiably,
"that's nine words.  You may send another 'wow' for the same
price."

To what the dog replies, "but that wouldn't make any sense!"

Today

A Cocker Spaniel types an SMS message in its cell phone, "Wow wow
wow wow wow wow wow wow wow."

Shortly after, it receives a message from its carrier, "you are
about to send nine words.  You may send another 'wow' for the
same price."

To what the dog replies, "thanks, but that wouldn't make any
sense!"
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Bill Kelly | 15 Jul 2009 13:43

Re: Concise

To what ... --> To which ...

Bill Kelly
Connecticut USA

--

> Hello everyone,
> 
> Here's a simple joke I translated from another place.
> As usual, I will appreciate your comments, corrections and
> suggestions for improvement.
> 
> Yesterday
> 
> A Cocker Spaniel goes into a telegraph office. It takes a form
> and writes, "Wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow."
> 
> The clerk checks the sheet of paper and tells the dog amiably,
> "that's nine words. You may send another 'wow' for the same
> price."
> 
> To what the dog replies, "but that wouldn't make any sense!"
> 
> Today
> 
> A Cocker Spaniel types an SMS message in its cell phone, "Wow wow
> wow wow wow wow wow wow wow."
> 
> Shortly after, it receives a message from its carrier, "you are
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tero Pesonen | 15 Jul 2009 18:02

Re: Concise

On Wednesday 15 July 2009, Ignacio wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Here's a simple joke I translated from another place.
> As usual, I will appreciate your comments, corrections and
> suggestions for improvement.
>
>
> Yesterday
>
> A Cocker Spaniel goes into a telegraph office.  It takes a form
> and writes, "Wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow."
>
> The clerk checks the sheet of paper and tells the dog amiably,
> "that's nine words.  You may send another 'wow' for the same
> price."
>
> To what the dog replies, "but that wouldn't make any sense!"
>
>
> Today
>
> A Cocker Spaniel types an SMS message in its cell phone, "Wow wow
> wow wow wow wow wow wow wow."
>
> Shortly after, it receives a message from its carrier, "you are
> about to send nine words.  You may send another 'wow' for the
> same price."

Here as well as above, the clerck or carrier might rather suggest
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tero Pesonen | 15 Jul 2009 18:14

Re: Concise

On Wednesday 15 July 2009, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 July 2009, Ignacio wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Here's a simple joke I translated from another place.
> > As usual, I will appreciate your comments, corrections and
> > suggestions for improvement.
> >
> >
> > Yesterday
> >
> > A Cocker Spaniel goes into a telegraph office.  It takes a form
> > and writes, "Wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow."
> >
> > The clerk checks the sheet of paper and tells the dog amiably,
> > "that's nine words.  You may send another 'wow' for the same
> > price."
> >
> > To what the dog replies, "but that wouldn't make any sense!"
> >
> >
> > Today
> >
> > A Cocker Spaniel types an SMS message in its cell phone, "Wow wow
> > wow wow wow wow wow wow wow."
> >
> > Shortly after, it receives a message from its carrier, "you are
> > about to send nine words.  You may send another 'wow' for the
> > same price."
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane