Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    ENGLISH_TUTOR    |    English Tutoring for Students of the Eng    |    4,347 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 2,609 of 4,347    |
|    Alexander Koryagin to Paul Quinn    |
|    National Geographic    |
|    03 May 19 21:39:42    |
      MSGID: 2:221/6.0 5ccc8aec       REPLY: 3:640/1384 5ccc1f5b       PID: JamNNTPd/Cygwin32 1.3 20190208       CHRS: LATIN-1 2       TZUTC: 0300       TID: hpt/w32-mvc 1.9.0-cur 2019-01-08       Hi, Paul Quinn!       I read your message from 03.05.2019 13:48               AK>> [The lack of oxygen at this height saps power.] "saps" is related        AK>> to "lack" and oxygen doesn't make "lack" uncountable.               PQ> IMHO: saps is related to power. Power is the thing being sapped by        PQ> a lack of oxygen.              But "lack" is the subject, and "saps" is the predicate to "lack"               AK>> or an uncountable form:               AK>> [Their apparent lack of progress mean they are not doing their job        AK>> properly.]               PQ> IMHO: this is unnatural to a native speaker.              Yes, you are right it was my fault. That example from the dictionary was in       the form of a question (Does their apparent lack of progress mean...) and I       remade it wrongly.              So, "Their apparent lack of progress MEANS they are not doing their job       properly." -- here we have "lack" uncountable.              [a lack of food]       here we use "lack" as singular noun.               PQ> (I don't know where        PQ> Mike got his rule from, although it may be correct for 99.99% of        PQ> cases in his locale.) The passage should read: "... lack of        PQ> progress means they are not...".              If we apply Mike's rule we'll see that "progress" is an uncountable noun, as       should be "lack", and, therefore, it should be "lack of progress MEAN they are       not..." So the rule is not working.               PQ> It could be countable, in either        PQ> the case of there being many (persons) involved, or in the singular        PQ> case of one person, when speaking of 'their'. English can be        PQ> annoyingly imprecise at times.                     Bye, Paul!       Alexander Koryagin       english_tutor 2019              ---        * Origin: nntps://fidonews.mine.nu - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/6.0)       SEEN-BY: 1/123 15/2 203/0 221/0 1 6 360 226/17 229/354 426 1014 240/1120       SEEN-BY: 240/2100 5138 5832 5853 8001 8002 249/206 317 261/38 280/5003       SEEN-BY: 280/5006 5268 313/41 317/3 320/219 322/757 335/364 342/200       SEEN-BY: 393/68 2454/119       PATH: 221/6 1 280/5003 240/1120 5832 229/426           |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca