I cannot recall the word "datum " (and I am a pre computer dinosaur) but I was always aware that "data" was a plural form. However, I think it is acceptable for collective nouns to be treated either as a singular or a plural quantity. http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/si...ect-and-verb-agreement-with-collective-nouns/ Also "data" can be thought of as either a collective noun or as a simple plural. (eg it can be "data" or "the data")
Why would it not be? The Japanese did surrender so the information that they surrendered would be a piece of data, i.e. a datum. In personal experience, datum is really only used when referring to specific data points in a chart. Although even then most would probably say "this piece of data" rather than "this datum".
In the USA, we write "traveled, traveling." In the UK, people prefer "travelled" and "travelling," but the American forms are acceptable.
I never said she stole my money. This fun sentence takes on seven different meanings depending on which word is emphasized: I never said she stole my money. - Someone else said it. I [never] said she stole my money. - I didn't say it. I never [said] she stole my money. - I only implied it. I never said [she] stole my money. - I said someone did, not necessarily her. I never said she [stole] my money. - I considered it borrowed. I never said she stole [my] money. - Only that she stole money--- not necessarily my own. I never said she stole my [money]. - She stole something of mine, not my money. While this trick works for plenty of other sentences as well, this one’s short and easy to understand. ------------------------- To me, it means my money was stolen but I never said the thief is she.
A woman without her man is nothing. This has made the rounds on the internet for a while now, but it’s still a fascinating look at how punctuation can completely change the meaning of a sentence. As the story goes, a professor told his class to correctly punctuate the sentence. The males in the classroom wrote, “A woman, without her man, is nothing.” The women in the class wrote, “A woman: without her, man is nothing.” With just a simple change in punctuation, the entire meaning of the sentence was changed in an instant.
You have just begun reading the sentence you have just finished reading. This collection of words is a simple one, but its sole purpose is to take you on a chronological journey of words while making you uncomfortably self-aware. I feel like this belongs somewhere in The Matrix. This makes no sense to me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Can you please explain how do you learn to cook? Is "do" necessary here? Or, Can you please explain how you learn to cook?
In the sentence you wrote, with the punctuation you have used, I would not include "do", and I would say "Can you please you explain how you learn to cook". The verb here is "explain" and "how you learn to cook" is what you're asking to be explained. If you include the verb "do" as well then you end up with two verbs, which makes a mess. However, you could write "can you please explain: how do you learn to cook". Unfortunately I don't know how to explain why this works, only that I'm pretty sure it does.
They can do. "so long as" expresses a condition... e.g. I will do this so long as you do that - i.e. you doing that is the condition for me doing this. "as long as" can also express a condition... e.g. I will do this as long as you do that. So in this regard they are interchangeable... but "as long as" can also be used to express a passage of time - e.g. I will hold this door open as long as I can. "as long as" can also be used to express how physically long something is - e.g. I think this table is as long as I need it to be.
I would distinguish the following: Can you please explain how you learn to cook? Can you please explain: how do you learn to cook? The first sentence is a normal question. The "you" in that sentence really means "anyone", so the question is really asking how somebody (an unspecified person) can learn to cook (in general). If you were asking something specifically about a person you are talking to, you'd more likely ask "Can you please explain you you learned to cook?" and then they'd tell you their experiences, whereas with the first question above the response is more likely to be "Read recipe books, find somebody to teach you" and so on. The second sentence above, with the "do" adds emphasis to the question. Not only does it say you're interested in finding out how to learn to cook, but also that it's important to you. For example, you might be standing there admiring a chef preparing a meal, so you ask "How do you learn to cook so well?" That is, how would a person, in general, go about learning to cook so expertly?
It is a bit different when the "how" is used in a standalone way to start a question (and it does not,as in the example given introduce a subordinate clause) : "How do you learn to cook?" requires the "do". It is an essential part of the structure of the (interrogative ) sentence. I have heard non native speakers commonly attempt "How you learn to cook?" and this would be wrong .
Not quite. I might be "affected by" a breakdown of the London Underground. But one would not say I was "influenced" by it. Again, I might be affected by my wife's death, but you would not say "influenced" by it. Influence has more a sense of something that exerts an effect rather than doing so purely incidentally. So I might be influenced by a persuasive speaker, or by a TV commercial. Though you could perfectly well say affected in this case as well. So I think you can use "affect" to cover both, and that "influence" has the more restricted meaning of the two. But it is a subtle distinction.
You would be influenced by a breakdown in determining how you travel around London on that day. You might also be influenced by your wife's death in determining which film you went to see. Yeah, this is a reasonable distinction, I think - I'd possibly add the word "deliberately" exerts. So the news might say that Russia affected the result of the US elections, or it might say that Russia influenced the result of the US elections, and the latter (to me at least) clearly suggests something deliberate whereas the former does not. Also both words mean "changed by" but I tend to think that "affected by" emphasises more the result whereas "influenced by" emphasises more a deliberate process in reaching the result.
Yes I agree. There is a suggestion in "influenced", not exactly of deliberate intent, but of something positively exerted or emanated, or indeed intended. For example one might say that the orbit of Neptune "influences" the motion of objects in the Kuiper Belt, rather than merely affecting them, even though it is not a deliberate act by a conscious entity.
