EU legislation is full of 'responsible officials' and 'responsible persons', 'responsible authorities' and the like (e.g.'at least one responsible person must be resident in Estonia' 'a responsible official body must carry out the checks), where 'responsible' means (I am quoting the ODO) 'Having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one’s job or role'. For me, and, it seems also for the ODO, which describes this meaning as 'predicative'as well as for Macmillan and Collins, responsible officials are those who are not irresponsible. In order to render the required meaning, responsible should be placed after the noun - or should it? If so, does the same distinction hold in the US? This question is clearly different from the previously answered question 'Why do some adjectives follow the nouns they modify'. It refers to a question concerning the meaning of a specific adjective depending on its position and the usage on both sides of the Atlantic. Neither of these questions are broached in the previous post.
37370
Right now I can only think of one instance in which this regularly occurs.  The adjective proper is sometimes placed after the noun it modifies, e.g:      A class of cold-blooded oviparous or ovoviviparous vertebrated animals whose skin is covered with scales or scutes; the reptiles proper.   What is this word order called, and why is it ever used?  Edit: I really want to know about proper, and while the word hyperbaton relates to post-positivity when it is meant to be rhetorically impacting, it doesn't seem to fit with ubiquitous post-positivity, such as that of proper.  I've accepted hyperbaton as the correct term/reason for almost all post-positive constructions, but I'd like a complete answer to include proper.
13231
I was watching the film A Game of Shadows starring Robert Downey Junior and Jude Law when this line came up, "...neither you nor I is in control..." (I can’t remember the exact words that ended the phrase; if anyone can supply them, it would be much appreciated.)   It immediately struck me as being odd. When I mentioned this to my boyfriend; an English native speaker, with a PhD in something sciency, he told me it was correct. When I asked why, he couldn't explain but put forward the following sentence as an example. "Neither of us is in control..." However, I disagreed with the wording and said the sentence should have been: "Neither one of us is in control..." The genderless third person, one, is singular, and hence, so too the verb that follows. And we say, "one is" NOT "one are".      "Neither you nor I are in control over ..."    I believe the above sounds better, but it is more logical to say:     "Neither you nor I am in control..."    because the verb agrees with the subject closest to it; however, I'm not sure if I have ever read or heard this solution. So, I tried inverting the subject and auxiliary verb order and the resulting phrase was:    "Neither you nor am I in control..."    which sounds very formal, pompous, and ... odd. Am I imagining things?  The two subjects you and I are two separate individuals who are not joined together, I agree the verb should be in the singular; but why should we use "is"? We don't say, "you is" or "I is". Before anyone rushes off to claim my question is a duplicate of a previous Stackexchange one:  I want to explain why the answer to that question fails to explain why my boyfriend and the film makers consider the  sentence below correct:     Neither you nor I is in control...   As I see it, Michael and Albert are two separate individuals, it therefore stands to reason that the verb should be singular, and "is" agrees with the subject. If I rephrase the neither and nor construction, I would get:          Michael is not correct but neither is Albert   OR          Michael is not correct and Albert isn't either.      Which have the same meaning, (either being the negative equivalent of neither) the sentences are grammatical which leads me to conclude that the verb must be singular and hence         Neither Michael nor Albert is correct      However, when I rephrase the "neither you nor I" sentence following the same procedure I have to say this:        You are not in control but neither am I (‘I am’ is ungrammatical)   OR              You are not in control and I’m not either.      which leads me to surmise that the sentence below must be grammatically correct        Neither you nor I am in control"      So, why does my boyfriend insist that the sentence ought to be:     Neither you nor I is in control   Which one of us is right and why?
61703
First of all, note that this is not a duplicate question of another one asking about the usage of so as to, since this one is asking about the structure of so . . . as to. . . .  I understand this might have been a better question at the , since I’m not a native English speaker. I am asking it here since I want to get some professional advice in regard to this question, since I don’t seem to have found anything similar to this on the Internet.  At the Oxford Dictionaries Online (OD) I have found the following definition of ludicrous:     So foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing.   I understand the phrase so as to, simply meaning in order to and preceding the purpose for which an action is done.  So by itself is just therefore, hence, thus, or a way of emphasizing an adjective or adverb.  As to in itself means with regard to or according to, as pointed out in .  In the OD definition of ludicrous, the use of so looks fair to me, that is, it clearly emphasizes the high extent to which something is foolish or unreasonable.  The use of as to doesn’t work in any way I’ve mentioned in this case (neither as in with regard to nor according to). I think the dictionary I’ve referred to has missed one, if not more, meaning of the phrase as to.  In this case, it appears to have likely been used as an alternative to that when used in the form So X, that Y, meaning something is or happens X (a combination of adjectives or adverbs) enough to cause Y to happen.  Of course, I don’t mean that in the structure so X as to Y the phrase as to is absolutely equivalent to that, since substituting as to with that changes the structure of Y.  Does all this mean that the phrase as to is a great alternative to that (although changing the structure of Y) whenever the sentence is of the form so X, that Y (where X is a combination of one or more adjectives or adverbs)?  I am new here and so I’m not too familiar with the variety of existing tags here, so if anyone sees an additional one that would fit, please add it to this question. I would also be glad to see some other corrections of my grammar.
13443
Example with :     That, I think, is the most likely circumstance for Putin's departure. It's not that he'll lose an election—it's that a bunch of men in gray suits are going to file into his office and say, "Vladimir Vladimirovich, it's time for you to do your last service to the state, and that's to retire."   Or he may be off at his dacha and see on the television that he's just stepped down for reasons of ill health. And he'll pick up his red phone, and find that the people answering it will no longer take orders from him.   What do you think the difference would be if we got rid of the article? Why not say on television instead? What's the nuance?
39463
I have a question about the words order and their effect on the meaning of a sentence when it comes to use the verbs "replace" and "substitute"!  As far as I know, "to replace someone / something with someone / something else" means "to substitute someone / something for someone / something else".  Additionally, as far as I am concerned, if you are replacing A with B, then you are substituting B for A.  But problem is that if changing the words' places in each structure makes any difference in meaning?  For instance, does it make any difference if I say:         Yesterday, I had a terrible quarrel with the company's directing manager and they are going to replace me with Sam Or substitute Sam for me.           Yesterday, I had a terrible quarrel with the company's directing manager and they are going to replace Sam with me Or substitute me for Sam.       Let me simplify it! The inly thing that is important in the meaning of the two is that:  (Replace X with Y = Substitute Y for X)  But I need to know if replacing X and Y has a specific connotation in English? For example, in:      1.a. They  are going to replace Sam with me.    1.b. They  are going to substitute me for Sam.     ..........................      2.a. They  are going to replace me with Sam.    2.b. They  are going to substitute Sam for me.     I was wondering which set implies that I was the first employee and Sam is taking my place?  Also which set implies that I as a new employee am taking Sam's place?  I hope I could make myself understood.   Thank you.
37626
I'm trying to pass a test on "Articles exercise" as they call it . Reviewing my answers I got stuck about the two I posted on the picture below.  As I understand both words are uncountable (according to the ), so it looks like (or said for example ) I can't say a/an with an uncountable noun.  But this test says the opposite. Is there some trick? Or am I just dumb? Please help me to understand why I need to use "a" article in these cases?        We need a secretary with ____ good knowledge of English.          a  (marked as the correct answer)   the     a / the     no article is needed (the answer I think is correct)        We're having ____ terrible weather.         a (marked as the correct answer)     the     a / the     no article is needed (the answer I think is correct)
79512
I read this sentence in a book.  However, it does not solve specific problems relating to a business or a profession.  I, myself, often use related to instead of relating to. Is there any difference?
38698
The exact phrase from the book of Swan (the context is choosing the words permit or allow) -      The passive structure with it is only possible with permit   Having said that...     It is not allowed to smoke in the kitchen - incorrect     It is not permitted to smoke in the kitchen - correct   I feel absolutely fine for the incorrect sentence.   Your inputs please. Make me understand this.
56684
I have an inkling that the following word usage is grammatically-correct; however, it is immensely difficult to search for confirmation, as all I receive for queries like &quot;Proper as an adjective&quot; are reams of results on &quot;Proper adjectives&quot;. The word itself I am using as a postpositive adjective, similar in form to the phrase &quot;time immemorial&quot;.  The shelter remains in name only; the shelter proper is in another town. Work in theory remained, although operations proper had mostly been outsourced.  Can anyone advise?
122780
OK, this question has been asked over and over, and I am still unsure. I am just trying to find the thin line between a substantial and minor edit.  I find myself making edits for grammar and poor formatting, that I can see some reviewers find minor and others do not.  I have also noticed some users with high rep, or moderators will make the similar edits:     If I have edited your post with an edit summary of “ARGH”... ... or   some variation thereof, then you probably used “it’s” when the correct   word was, in fact, “its”.   Can anyone provide a definitive way to establish whether or not one should proceed to edit? It seems to be more a matter of opinion rather than an objective delineation.
9787
I have been taught that it's grammatically proper to use the before countries like "Sudan and Yemen" but I was never given a reason (if there exists any, of course) when I asked why, except for "it is one of those ambiguous parts of English language that we &ndash; as non-native speakers &ndash; should just accept without trying to look for a reason". Now, I'd like to know if there is any answer to this "why" or I should keep on believing that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to questions like these.
86463
When reading about  on the OALD, I saw the following note:     The difference between someone and anyone is the same as the difference between  and . Look at the notes there.   The note that I read for some is the following:     In negative sentences and questions any is usually used instead of some:           I don't want any more vegetables.     Is there any wine left?           However, some is used in questions that expect a positive reply:           Would you like some milk in your coffee?     Didn't you borrow some books of mine?      Does that apply to someone too? Should I use someone in a question when I am expecting a positive answer?      Does someone know the answer?
95618
I understand there has been so much on this topic but I am still confused. I get that if the person is the subject it is who and anything else is whom. However, I'm really struggling to work out this rule for the following sentence:     The scope of which his account of morality applies to is therefore restricted to those whom/who the ‘notion of justification to a being of that kind makes sense.’   Should it be who or whom? I can't work out the subject and object.
114538
This is a question about American English usage of the word "already". As a UK resident I don't completely understand when I hear Americans give commands like "Stop it already!" In the UK the word already is not normally used in the imperative mood and the sentence I've just quoted would leave an English person thinking "If you're saying I've already stopped it why are you asking me to stop it again?"
109991
Example:     Actually, there's someone who can help you."      Actually, there's someone who can help you out."   What's the difference between the two? Or they mean the same thing?
99027
I know similar questions have been asked before, but I'm having trouble reconciling the following sentence, received in an email:     Can we ask whomever is your contact there to email us a job so we can check backward compatibility?   I could understand using objective case if the sentence were "can we ask (him) to email...", but I get tripped up considering "whomever" to be the subject of "(he) is your contact there".
7603
I cannot make much sense of one in the following passage from :  Now the various species of whales need some sort of popular comprehensive classification, if only an easy outline one for the present, hereafter to be filled in all its departments by subsequent laborers.  If  is a noun in this passage, then  must serve here as a pronoun. If so, isn't the sentence lacking in punctuation? Rewriting would make it less ambiguous:  Now the various species of whales need some sort of popular comprehensive classification, if only an easy outline, one for the present hereafter to be filled in all its departments by subsequent laborers.  Furthermore, I can't help thinking that one is not needed here at all:  Now, the various species of whales need some sort of popular comprehensive classification, if only an easy outline for the present, hereafter to be filled in all its departments by subsequent laborers.  If Melville correctly worded this sentence, what is the function of one in it? What are your thoughts on my modifications?