I Can Also Can/ Can Also ? Or Also Can : Grammar I Can Also Or I Also Can

  -  

The air flow can be also determined from Bernoulli’s equation, as shown in Eq. (1).The air flow also can be determined from Bernoulli’s equation, as shown in Eq. (1).

Bạn đang xem: I Can Also Can/ Can Also ? Or Also Can : Grammar I Can Also Or I Also Can

I am not a non-native English speaker. But I like English very much because it will help me know the world in more ways & make friends with people all over the world.My English is poor. If I ask many questions about English sentence,will you hate when I vì chưng that?


Observing members:0
*
Composing members:0
*

*

Zissou (3078)“Great Answer” (6) Flag as… ¶
*

Welcome khổng lồ backlinks.vn.

”...can also be” is the most natural wording for an English speaker.

We generally enjoy these.


CWOTUS (26082)“Great Answer” (7) Flag as… ¶
tianxiaweigong We are happy to lớn help you. Please feel không lấy phí to ask more questions. Language questions are interesting puzzles.

I disagree with

I would say “can also be” or “also can be.” They have slightly different rhythms. I think the first one might sound a little smoother, and the second one might put a little more emphasis on the word “also” itself, but it’s not too much of a difference either way (at least, I don’t think it is).

I would not say “can be also” >> although I think it’s grammatical, it’s not typical syntax.


I’m team “can also be”.

And yes, please vị continue asking grammar questions. Thank you for trying to parse our ridiculous language.


I don’t think both have the same meaning. If you’re saying “airflow can also be determined” you are suggesting alternate method for measuring air flow. If you’re saying “the airflow also can be determined” then you’re essentially suggesting usage of Bernoulli’s equation which includes airflow measurements.


Putting the adverb (“also”) in the middle of the two parts of the verb is standard, but it’s not a terrible error if you don’t. Sometimes there’s a reason to vary it. And it’s fine khổng lồ ask.

But how about omitting the space before your question mark? If you put the question mark right at the over of your question, with no space before or after, we won’t see two question marks with spaces around them. Much tidier (và more accurate) that way.

I think our language is wonderful and not ridiculous. And I appreciate your efforts khổng lồ master it.

Xem thêm: Top Các Công Ty Headhunter Tại Hà Nội, Top 12 Công Ty Headhunter


Jerubố (51640)“Great Answer” (5) Flag as… ¶

the usual order is “can also be determined”, but “also” should only be included in the sentence if another method for determining the air flow has been previously mentioned or discussed in the article or paper concerned. I think your questions are useful to lớn us who are so accustomed lớn our language in appreciating just how complex & difficult that language is khổng lồ wrestle for those not born to it.


stanleybmanly (23561)“Great Answer” (3) Flag as… ¶

”....useful lớn WE who are so accustomed to….”


stanleybmanly (23561)“Great Answer” (1) Flag as… ¶

Just because it’s out there now, I too think that our language is wonderful, but it can also be pretty ridiculous.

But as khổng lồ the previous jelly’s self-correction:“useful to us, who are so accustomed to our language”


CWOTUS (26082)“Great Answer” (1) Flag as… ¶

It is ridiculous when approached from the outside. Of course, as is true with everything, those on the inside regard the language as “elaborate but elegant”. Look at that “useful to” clause above sầu once more. The “us” would be fine if “who are” is removed. And there are just far too many insufferable quirky little rules to our language road guaranteed to exasperate the hell out of anyone trying to acquire the language. I have friends who earn handsome livings editing correspondence from Chineseapplicants và business people lớn U.S. schools và firms.


stanleybmanly (23561)“Great Answer” (0) Flag as… ¶

I love our language, because I’m naturally proficient at rulesets. I lượt thích when the rules are the rules except when they’re not, và I find the exceptions to the rules interesting.

My eight year old utterly hates our language as written. He’s got a very mathematical brain, where rules are rules are rules, & the fact that “cough” has a “G” và not an “F” in it drives him completely bananas.


Seek (34769)“Great Answer” (1) Flag as… ¶

You’re in for a good time with him. Enjoy it. His youth is brief và will recede faster than you can believe sầu.


stanleybmanly (23561)“Great Answer” (0) Flag as… ¶

Can also be.


kritiper (20350)“Great Answer” (0) Flag as… ¶
stanleybmanly, no, you were right the first time: it’s “are useful lớn us who are so accustomed.” Comtháng error, understandable error, but error.

It’s a relative clause. The relative clause is “who are so accustomed.” The pronoun is “who,” & its antecedent is “us.” Pronouns agree with their antecedents in number & gender but take their case from the clause they’re in. “Are useful lớn US”: “us” is the object of the preposition “to lớn.” It’s “us” no matter what comes after it. We vị not say “useful to we.”

In the relative sầu clause, “who” is the subject of the verb “are,” so it’s nominative.

I don’t know of any other language group that routinely and even smugly expresses contempt for its own language. Why vì we vị this? Because some people have sầu scored humor points by spotlighting inconsistencies? Come on. It might be tricky in places & even seem illogical, but it isn’t fit for mockery và scorn.

English has certain complexities & irregularities because it has absorbed structure và vocabulary from so many sources, but that is also its beauty và its strength. And I have sầu talked with non-native sầu speakers who have sầu said that English is by no means the hardest language they’ve sầu learned.

Xem thêm: Mẫu Quyết Định Xử Lý Kỷ Luật, Quyết Định Xử Lý Kỷ Luật Lao Động 2021


Jerutía (51640)“Great Answer” (2) Flag as… ¶

And no comma because it’s restrictive. It’s limiting the meaning of “us” lớn those who fit the description “are so accustomed.”

You would hear the same construction in everyday English all the time if the nouns & pronouns in our language were inflected (if they changed khung according to lớn case), but most of them aren’t. In the first paragraph here, “to those who fit the description” is exactly the same construction, but because the word “those” doesn’t change depending on how it’s used, you don’t hear it. The personal pronouns vì chưng change, and so they force us khổng lồ notice grammar that we can afford to lớn ignore most of the time.