The tomb had been robbed of its treasures. (Oxford Dictionary)   What should I think that this 'of' means? I know 'of' has the similar meanings to 'from' and 'about' but I am not sure which it is in this case.  Thanks and a happy new year to you!  »» I needed to know the meaning of 'of' in this usage and I've seen that question and answer but that one was about 'rob' and not explained about what I needed to know.  »» I want to comment on the 3rd answer because I like it and want to say something. I'm trying to put it in words now.. please give me some time.
123340
From :     Remember the child, in some ways, identifies with both of those parents so if the mother is really asking the child to be her sounding board, she robs that child from the ability to feel good about his connection with the father.   What's the meaning of robs that child from the ability to feel good about his connection with the father? I know that rob has two usages:   rob something from somebody. rob somebody of something.   But it seems that *the ability to feel good about his connection with the father is belonging to "something", so is it more appropriate to modify the word "from" to "of"? just as follows:     robs that child of the ability to feel good about his connection with the father   Which usage is correct? Thanks.
114059
(Tried to search to see if this question had already been asked, but could not find it amongst the many questions concerning pronoun declension and objects and subjects as parts of speech.)  What, exactly, is the difference between the following two sentences? Are they both correct -- or is one considered more correct in certain contexts or constructions?      Jim's wailing child was the subject of much scrutiny.     Jim's wailing child was the object of much scrutiny.    Each of these usages is ubiquitous, and it's not uncommon to see both within the span of a few sentences. (For example, Google estimates over 60,000 results for "subject of study" "object of study".)  The difficulty seems to be that both words have several senses, and they are somewhat overlapping in this case. As a lover of grammar, I am frustrated that I cannot resolve this question in my mind.  Can anyone help clarify this for me?
75066
Someone asked me     What if someone hides their instagram stories from you?   I replied      I'd hide them from my life.   Is my sentence right  Does hide mean to make disappear?  If not What else could I have used here?  Someone told me the object of preposition "from" is a person who is not supposed to see or find that which is hidden  So what about this sentence?      the magician hid(made her disappear) from the stage?   Is it wrong?
54500
What does the actual phrase above mean?
41833
We short men are in big trouble because if we want a shoe that feels decent we feel short and you can’t put in lifts, if you get a shoe with lifts it doesn’t feel comfortable I feel really trapped, that why I cannot believe that there is a god because if there was he wouldn’t of don’t this to me and made me only 5.4″ he or it would of made me to be at lease the regular American height which is 5.8” or taller , its a disaster to be short for a male.   The text is written by a native English speaker. It is the first time I face a usage in which would of + verb is used. Is it grammatically correct? What is the meaning of the parts I have shown in bold?
16736
I have this question that my brain cannot understand because for me it seems to be very illogical. Please, try to explain this to me. It is both english problem but also my native language problem.  For example: If I bought something two days ago. (e.g. Monday, so today is Wednesday) I can't say during Wednesday that I haven't bought anything for 2 days.  Because I skiped just one day and I can still buy something today no? So I would say which makes more logic to me: I haven't bought anything for 1 day.  Same as if I was at the club on Monday now is Wednesday, I would say I haven't been to that club for 1 day. Since today I can still go there. However, i saw more people using it the other way. Which in my opinion is illogical.  They say: I haven't bought anything for 2 days OR I haven't been to that club for 2 days meaning the last time they were there was two days ago. However how logical is it? Imagine you come to that club on Wednesday if you were there on Monday and say to the same barman you saw there on Monday that you haven't been here for 2 days and he would look like: what? are you stupid? You weren't here just one day.  Like as the first question, I haven't purchased anything for 2 days is valid only if you last purchased something on monday and today is thursday, in my opinion, because we should not count monday since you already bought something.  Does anybody get my point? Thanks for answers and your help.
59663
I asked my bank to close my account on 12th of May. Also     I expect the account to be closed [?] 12th of May   . What preposition should be there? I think about by or due. Also if I want to ask someone a question: What date was your account closed [missing preposition?]
117878
Someone said a word, or saying, to me that I didn't know the meaning, so I looked it up.  I cannot remember what it was, but the meaning was:     "Something good comes from something that was bad"   For example, I crashed my car into a beautiful woman's car and we then dated.  Please can someone tell me the word I'm looking for. I think it is two words, each with two syllable's.  Thanks for any help anyone can give.
91206
If there are two of something, can you say "all of" instead of "both of"?  For example, if an email is addressed to two people, and you start off with:     All,   This is to inform you, etc., etc.   ...   Regards,   Me   Is that at all appropriate?
124017
What I write should mean the following: "There is this blog, but I don't remember its name."   So I thought I have to write it this way to achieve the meaning in a short way: "This blog."   But is this correct? Does is mean what I want to say? Because I've learned at school that "this" points to something specific. But I that's not what I want to achieve.   Sorry if the question is unclear. But I have no idea how to explain it differently.
123343
I have some doubts about the usages of That and Who. Sometimes I read sentences such as. "You are someone I love" "You are someone WHO I love" Or "People were asked to describe the qualities they look for in a friend" "People were asked to describe the qualities THAT they look for in a friend"  Why in some of these sentences WHO or THAT are omitted and others are not. Could somebody help me with this? I'll appreciate it! Thanks a million.
3094
Is the word "of" optional in this instance? Is either of these considered preferable to the other?        Taste all our delicious treats.   Taste all of our delicious treats.
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.
122357
OK, so I'm trying to complete the following analogy:     John ate the worms.   is to     The worms were eaten.   as     John tried to eat the worms.   is to     The worms were tried to be eaten.   or     The worms were eaten attemptively.   ... ? I feel like such an inarticulate fool sometimes.  Edit: I'm not asking which of the two possibilities is better, but how I might complete the analogy, preferably with "the worms" as the subject. This is so that I can write something like     The worms were stolen, taken to John's house, and [tried to be eaten].   Sorry if my question wasn't clear.
15245
"In and of itself" is a phrase I find myself using all the time. But in and of itself, the phrase "in and of itself" has no meaning. That is, the individual words don't seem to contribute to the whole meaning of the phrase.
44482
I heard this in  movie. It was my op. What does it mean? Googling gave me : 'Original Poster'. But that doesn't seem very meaningful.
98256
I am not a native speaker myself and would like to inquire about a particular usage of "this".   Here's an example from the Corpus of Contemporary American English  : "Anyway, the first mistake I made was I thought the finger bowl was the soup. So I went to get my spoon and to go to the finger bowl and this lady nicely said, that's not the soup. I said, oh, OK.".    My question is: how is "this" understood in the context above (highlighted with bold)? It seems, from the broader context, that it occurs for the first time in the narration, so is it correct that it can be substituted with "a/an" in this context? How frequent is this phenomenon? Is there a special condition for using "this" in that way in narration?