home bbs files messages ]

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