This is an example of the second conditional. The second conditional is used for unlikely events. The events you describe may very well be unlikely, depending on the context. It’s not a matter of redundancy; all pronouns are redundant, after all.It’s just that why is very limited in its distribution. This means why — or that — can be freely deleted after reason. I.e, deleting why in the sentences above also produces exactly the same pattern of grammaticality and ungrammaticality.
- “why” can be compared to an old Latin form qui, an ablative form, meaning how.
- The answer depends on what exactly you are trying to express.
- It has, instead a modal version of the auxiliary, would, or sometimes could.
Is “For why” improper English?
Is there any change in the meaning of sentence if I replace That is why with Which is why? For me both are suitable for the above context and unable to differentiate change in the meaning. Also, If you say “today was an usual day”, unless your pronunciation is extremely clear, you risk being misunderstood as “today was unusual day”, which will only confuse your listeners.
Why is a strange person called a fruitcake?
We’ve just gotten used to always seeing it at the start of a question, but it’s really there to draw attention.
more stack exchange communities
The reason why is an interesting one, and worth answering. Wikipedia has more on this. Pinning slang down to a certain origin is next to impossible. Fruitcake is not a description I would use for anybody as its meaning might not be clear. A person easily influenced. An instructor whose course is not exacting.
More important, why refers to an adverbial clause or phrase of some sort in the relative clause — certainly not a noun phrase — and therefore it can’t possibly be the subject of the clause. This is important because relative pronouns that are the subject of their relative clause (like the man who/that came to dinner) cannot be deleted. But adverbial wh-words — like why, where, when, and sometimes how — can’t ever fall into that category. Use a before words that start with a consonant sound and an before words that start with a vowel sound.Other letters can also be pronounced either way. Just remember it is the sound that governs whether you use a or an, not the actual first letter of the word. Since fruitcake itself doesn’t emerge as an insult term for a homosexual until much later, it seems clear that the original emphasis in “nutty as a fruitcake” is on the nuts, not the fruit.
And these are nouns that could make sense with a Why relative pronoun;try it, if you dare, with nouns that couldn’t, like rock, salamander, or durability. “why” can be compared to an old Latin form qui, an ablative form, meaning how. Today”why” is used as a question word to ask the reason or purpose of something.
more stack exchange communities
I think there is no difference except that the first sounds more emphasized. But there is no difference in meaning. At this point “for why” isn’t even used in contexts where people are trying to sound archaic.
This use might be explained from a formula such as “How does it come that …”. Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search. Nutty as a fruitcake Crazy, idiotic, as in Mary’s nutty as a fruitcake if she thinks she can get away with that. The adjective nutty meaning “insane” was firt recorded in 1821; the similarity to fruitcake, which literally contains nuts as well as fruit, was first recorded in 1935.
Not quite as limited as how, however.How can’t be used at all as a relative pronoun;one may use that, or nothing at all, buthow (which refers to way) is ungrammatical as a relative marker. Since there are only two tenses in English and neither is marked on modals, they’re considered to be why is it called fiat money tenseless. There is no “future tense” in English, no matter what you’ve been told in school, since all modals can refer to any time — will is another modal auxiliary and behaves like the rest of them). While many people prefer to avoid redundancy in writing (“Omit needless words”), a little redundancy is often helpful in speech to improve flow and to compensate for the vagaries of hearing and attention span.
‘, which brings with it a sense of rebuke, as in “I thought I knew you better than that.” As far as I know, “That’s the reason I…” would still be grammatically correct, but I can’t find anything stating one way or the other. There are more, but you get the idea. Sometimes we use variants to freshen up our writing, or avoid variance to hammer home a repetitive point. If you are asking many similar questions of this type in a row, you may repeat the same construction (anaphora). But usually you’re not wielding a rhetorical jackhammer, so variation is the way to go to keep your prose from getting dull.
You must log in to answer this question.
One complication is when words are pronounced differently in British and American English. For example, the word for a certain kind of plant is pronounced “erb” in American English and “herb” in British English. So the proper form in America is an erb, and the proper form in Britain is a herb. In the rare cases where this is a problem, use the form that will be expected in your country or by the majority of your readers.
- Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
- There is a subtle but important difference between the use of that and which in a sentence, and it has to do primarily with relevance.
- English does not have these.
- It is simpler to understand in terms of what is going on.
The answer may be connected to the expression “nutty as a fruitcake.” The two expressions that are idiomatic in this context are “why” or “for what reason”, with the former being the preferred option. I have flunked the exam, that is why I am attending coaching classes. I have flunked the exam, which is why I am attending coaching classes. Usual (pronounced /ˈjuː.ʒu.əl/ as in you) begins with a consonant sound and, as such, it should be preceded by a not an.
Is “For why” improper English?
“For why” (also hyphenated or written as one word) meaning “why” as a direct interrogative was used in Old and Middle English (see the MED’s entry), but it became obsolete sometime around the year 1500. Other senses of the expression (for example, it was used as a conjunction meaning “because”) gradually over time all dropped out of use, so the word is completely obsolete and is marked as such by the OED. I believe the usage depends on what the word sounds like it starts with. For example, “an homage,” since the “h” is not pronounced.
Latin and ancient Greek verbs had special modes, subjunctive and optative (known for these two languages as ‘moods’ along with the – to us – more common ‘indicative’ mood), to express things as not actual in some way. English does not have these. It has, instead a modal version of the auxiliary, would, or sometimes could.
Due to the non-restrictive nature of a relative clause introduced by “which,” the clause is considered a parenthetical, and therefore must be enclosed by commas, parentheses, or dashes. The lack of a comma before “that” helps indicate that the relative clause is necessary to fully specify the noun phrase, and is therefore a dependent clause tied to the preceding clause. So in most cases, “which” requires a comma, but “that” cannot have a comma before it. There is a subtle but important difference between the use of that and which in a sentence, and it has to do primarily with relevance. Grammarians often use the terms “restrictive” and “non-restrictive” when it comes to relative clauses.
