how to say that meaning:

Post by A.E lover
Hi,
A guy emailed me to ask if I am available on Tuesday to meet with him.
I will be available in that day. So how can I answer him ? which one is
better?
I will be available in whole Tuesday.
I will be available on whole Tuesday.
or
on Tuesday, I will be available in whole day.
Thanks

I will be available the whole day on Tuesday
I will be avaible any time Tuesday. (A bit more informal.)
On Tuesday I will be available the whole day. (I would probably say
'all day")

In/on whole Tuesday does not sound right in English.

Stephen Calder

2006-09-30 16:37:03 UTC

I will be available all day Tuesday.

OR

I will be available all day on Tuesday.

--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia

A. Gwilliam

2006-09-30 16:47:47 UTC

Post by A.E lover
A guy emailed me to ask if I am available on Tuesday to meet with him.
I will be available in that day. So how can I answer him ? which one
is better?
I will be available in whole Tuesday.
I will be available on whole Tuesday.
or
on Tuesday, I will be available in whole day.

None of these are good English, for several different reasons.

What you want to say is something like this:
I will be available for the whole of Tuesday

However, both "I will be available" and "for the whole of" are quite
formal. Unless it's a business meeting, or something of that nature, I
would suggest that you say:
I'll be free all day Tuesday

Now, I'm not great at explaining rules for sentence structures, but
here's a couple of observations:

If you're talking about a day, you use "on", and not "in":
On Wednesday I'll be going to see the doctor.
What time on Friday shall we meet up?
On that particular day, I...

The word "whole" is mainly used when contrasting with individual pieces
or parts of a physical object:
He ate the whole apple [rather than just part of it]
He ate the whole trifle [rather than leaving some for his friends]
From up here, I can see the whole town

You could also use "whole of the" instead, especially if you're giving
a written description:
He ate the whole of the apple
He ate the whole of the trifle
From the top of the hill he could see the whole of the town

I'm sure other people here will give you some better examples and
advice!

--
A. Gwilliam
To e-mail me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "devnull"

2006-09-30 17:52:03 UTC

None of these are good English, for several different reasons.

WRONG! "None of these is good English, for several different reasons."

And since "good English" is wrong, it should be:

"None of these is a good English sentence, for several different
reasons."

'Good Engish" is an improper formulation. 'English' is a proper name,
like 'Joe' or "Mt. Rushmore". There is no "good Joe" or "bad Joe".

Blue Hornet

2006-09-30 17:57:25 UTC

Post by A. Gwilliam
None of these are good English, for several different reasons.

WRONG! "None of these is good English, for several different reasons."
"None of these is a good English sentence, for several different
reasons."

Really? From which language does *this* rule derive? Surely not the
one we're writing. Good English is fine with me. Let's talk about it
over coffee; I'll break out the good china.

2006-09-30 18:42:25 UTC

Post by A. Gwilliam
None of these are good English, for several different reasons.

WRONG! "None of these is good English, for several different reasons."
"None of these is a good English sentence, for several different
reasons."

Really? From which language does *this* rule derive? Surely not the
one we're writing. Good English is fine with me. Let's talk about it
over coffee; I'll break out the good china.

'None' takes 'is'.

Skitt

2006-09-30 19:42:55 UTC

Post by A. Gwilliam
None of these are good English, for several different reasons.

WRONG! "None of these is good English, for several different
reasons."
"None of these is a good English sentence, for several different
reasons."

Really? From which language does *this* rule derive? Surely not the
one we're writing. Good English is fine with me. Let's talk about
it over coffee; I'll break out the good china.

'None' takes 'is'.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

--
Skitt
Living in The Heart of the Bay
http://www.ci.hayward.ca.us/

2006-09-30 20:13:19 UTC

Post by A. Gwilliam
None of these are good English, for several different reasons.

WRONG! "None of these is good English, for several different reasons."
"None of these is a good English sentence, for several different
reasons."

Really? From which language does *this* rule derive? Surely not the
one we're writing. Good English is fine with me. Let's talk about
it over coffee; I'll break out the good china.

'None' takes 'is'.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Interesting exception, in'n'it!

Skitt

2006-09-30 20:24:09 UTC

Post by A. Gwilliam
None of these are good English, for several different reasons.

WRONG! "None of these is good English, for several different reasons."
"None of these is a good English sentence, for several different
reasons."

Really? From which language does *this* rule derive? Surely not
the one we're writing. Good English is fine with me. Let's talk
about it over coffee; I'll break out the good china.

'None' takes 'is'.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Interesting exception, in'n'it!

Naah, it ain't none o' that.

As MWCD10 so eloquently puts it:

Main Entry: 1none
Pronunciation: 'n&n
Function: pronoun, singular or plural in construction

--
Skitt
Living in The Heart of the Bay
http://www.ci.hayward.ca.us/

Skitt

2006-09-30 20:31:52 UTC

Post by A. Gwilliam
None of these are good English, for several different reasons.

WRONG! "None of these is good English, for several different reasons."
"None of these is a good English sentence, for several different
reasons."

Really? From which language does *this* rule derive? Surely not
the one we're writing. Good English is fine with me. Let's talk
about it over coffee; I'll break out the good china.

'None' takes 'is'.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Interesting exception, in'n'it!

Naah, it ain't none o' that.
Main Entry: 1none
Pronunciation: 'n&n
Function: pronoun, singular or plural in construction

Oh, for a more explanatory look at it, the following from AHD4 might be
useful:

USAGE NOTE: It is widely asserted that none is equivalent to no one, and
hence requires a singular verb and singular pronoun: None of the prisoners
was given his soup. It is true that none is etymologically derived from the
Old English word n, "one," but the word has been used as both a singular and
a plural noun from Old English onward. The plural usage appears in the King
James Bible as well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is
widespread in the works of respectable writers today. Of course, the
singular usage is perfectly acceptable. The choice between a singular or
plural verb depends on the desired effect. Both options are acceptable in
this sentence: None of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial.
When none is modified by almost, however, it is difficult to avoid treating
the word as a plural: Almost none of the officials were (not was)
interviewed by the committee. None can only be plural in its use in
sentences such as None but his most loyal supporters believe (not believes)
his story. See Usage Notes at every, neither, nothing.

--
Skitt
Living in The Heart of the Bay
http://www.ci.hayward.ca.us/

Blue Hornet

2006-09-30 21:04:26 UTC

Post by A. Gwilliam
None of these are good English, for several different reasons.

WRONG! "None of these is good English, for several different reasons."
"None of these is a good English sentence, for several different
reasons."

Really? From which language does *this* rule derive? Surely not the
one we're writing. Good English is fine with me. Let's talk about it
over coffee; I'll break out the good china.

'None' takes 'is'.

You didn't even hear the "whoosh", did you? I'm surprised, because it
was written in good English.

A. Gwilliam

2006-09-30 21:18:44 UTC

Post by A.E lover
A guy emailed me to ask if I am available on Tuesday to meet with
him. I will be available in that day. So how can I answer him ?
which one is better?
I will be available in whole Tuesday.
I will be available on whole Tuesday.
or
on Tuesday, I will be available in whole day.

None of these are good English, for several different reasons.

WRONG! "None of these is good English, for several different reasons."
"None of these is a good English sentence, for several different
reasons."
'Good Engish" is an improper formulation. 'English' is a proper name,
like 'Joe' or "Mt. Rushmore". There is no "good Joe" or "bad Joe".

Not for the first time you're making dogmatic assertions about English
usage that are either utterly pointless or entirely spurious.

"None of these are [...]" is perfectly well-formed, unambiguous, clear,
and concise. Furthermore, it has the support of numerous authorities,
such as Fowler's [2nd edn], and the AHD [4th edn].

As for your assertion that "good English" is somehow an improper
formulation, I doubt you will find any other native speaker of the
language who would agree with you. Certainly not one with more than an
ounce of common sense.

--
A. Gwilliam
To e-mail me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "devnull"

Stephen Calder

2006-10-01 01:28:17 UTC

Post by A.E lover
A guy emailed me to ask if I am available on Tuesday to meet with
him. I will be available in that day. So how can I answer him ?
which one is better?
I will be available in whole Tuesday.
I will be available on whole Tuesday.
or
on Tuesday, I will be available in whole day.

None of these are good English, for several different reasons.

Not for the first time you're making dogmatic assertions about English
usage that are either utterly pointless or entirely spurious.
"None of these are [...]" is perfectly well-formed, unambiguous, clear,
and concise. Furthermore, it has the support of numerous authorities,
such as Fowler's [2nd edn], and the AHD [4th edn].
As for your assertion that "good English" is somehow an improper
formulation, I doubt you will find any other native speaker of the
language who would agree with you. Certainly not one with more than an
ounce of common sense.

As most of us know, and this is just a recap for newcomers, UC takes his
own idiolect to be the only acceptable form of standard English; an
error which he knows of and cares nothing about, or is not aware of.

He is not open to the idea of error on his part, myriad attempts to
bring it to his attention have failed; we just have to keep letting the
newbies know that he is not to be taken as an authority.

--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia

2006-10-01 17:04:15 UTC

Post by A.E lover
A guy emailed me to ask if I am available on Tuesday to meet with
him. I will be available in that day. So how can I answer him ?
which one is better?
I will be available in whole Tuesday.
I will be available on whole Tuesday.
or
on Tuesday, I will be available in whole day.

None of these are good English, for several different reasons.

Not for the first time you're making dogmatic assertions about English
usage that are either utterly pointless or entirely spurious.
"None of these are [...]" is perfectly well-formed, unambiguous, clear,
and concise. Furthermore, it has the support of numerous authorities,
such as Fowler's [2nd edn], and the AHD [4th edn].
As for your assertion that "good English" is somehow an improper
formulation, I doubt you will find any other native speaker of the
language who would agree with you. Certainly not one with more than an
ounce of common sense.

Oh please. It is widely acknowledged to be "bad English" to refer to
"good English" or "bad English". I have ioffered you a sound argument:
'English' is a proper name that refers to a single thing, and there can
be no 'good' or 'bad' of a single thing. It's blatantly,
mind-bogglingly, obvious.

Blue Hornet

2006-10-01 23:45:51 UTC

Post by UC
Oh please. It is widely acknowledged to be "bad English" to refer to
'English' is a proper name that refers to a single thing, and there can
be no 'good' or 'bad' of a single thing. It's blatantly,
mind-bogglingly, obvious.

Good God, you can't be serious!

Peter Duncanson

2006-10-02 00:19:24 UTC

Good God, you can't be serious!

UC is always serious.

However there does appear to be a problem with the Assertion from On
High.

'English' is a proper name that refers to a single thing, and
there can be no 'good' or 'bad' of a single thing.

If we accept that, then how are we supposed to understand:

It is widely acknowledged to be "bad English" to refer to
"good English" or "bad English".

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

2006-10-02 13:31:12 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson

Good God, you can't be serious!

UC is always serious.
However there does appear to be a problem with the Assertion from On
High.
'English' is a proper name that refers to a single thing, and
there can be no 'good' or 'bad' of a single thing.
It is widely acknowledged to be "bad English" to refer to
"good English" or "bad English".

That was supposed to be ironic. You are familiar with the concept, no?
You'll note the "scare quotes"?

Post by Peter Duncanson
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Linz

2006-10-02 10:42:30 UTC

UC wrote:

[snip. It is widely acknowledged that trimming posts is good etiquette.]

Post by UC
Oh please. It is widely acknowledged to be "bad English" to refer to
'English' is a proper name that refers to a single thing, and there
can be no 'good' or 'bad' of a single thing. It's blatantly,
mind-bogglingly, obvious.

Good God. "Widely acknowledged" by whom? You on your own don't count.

Stephen Calder

2006-10-02 10:48:02 UTC

Post by Linz
[snip. It is widely acknowledged that trimming posts is good etiquette.]

Post by UC
Oh please. It is widely acknowledged to be "bad English" to refer to
'English' is a proper name that refers to a single thing, and there
can be no 'good' or 'bad' of a single thing. It's blatantly,
mind-bogglingly, obvious.

Good God. "Widely acknowledged" by whom? You on your own don't count.

Now he'll get it. Until now he thought he was Good God. Now he knows.

--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia

Don Phillipson

2006-09-30 18:44:48 UTC

Post by A. Gwilliam
I will be available for the whole of Tuesday
However, both "I will be available" and "for the whole of" are quite
formal. Unless it's a business meeting, or something of that nature, I
I'll be free all day Tuesday

As noted, when we name the day we
say ON TUESDAY. (ON is normally said in
Britain, but optional in the USA.) But when we
name the month we say IN SEPTEMBER; also
IN THE MORNING/AFTERNOON; also
IN 2007. When we say the exact time
it may be AT TEN A.M. or AFTER TWO P.M.
or BETWEEN TWO AND FOUR P.M --
never in or on. We usually say NEXT WEEK
but IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS is also normal.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

A. Gwilliam

2006-09-30 21:44:33 UTC

When we say the exact time it may be AT TEN A.M. or AFTER TWO P.M.

Slight quibble:
"after two p.m." is not an "exact time"

--
A. Gwilliam
To e-mail me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "devnull"

Mark Brader

2006-09-30 23:57:40 UTC

When we say the exact time it may be AT TEN A.M. or AFTER TWO P.M.

Gaah! It makes my head hurt to see A.M. or P.M. attached to a time
written in words.

Post by A. Gwilliam
"after two p.m." is not an "exact time"

Ah, but "2 pm" is an "exact time", and in order to say "after 2 pm"
you have to say "2 pm", right? So...

--
Mark Brader, Toronto "I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pedantic and
***@vex.net that's just as good." -- D Gary Grady

Shannon

2006-09-30 19:36:13 UTC

Maybe you should just say that you will NOT be available on Tuesday or
any other day.

Blue Hornet

2006-09-30 22:48:26 UTC

Post by Shannon
Maybe you should just say that you will NOT be available on Tuesday or
any other day.

How many times I've wished I had said that...

Jonathan Morton

2006-10-01 07:38:41 UTC

Post by Shannon
Maybe you should just say that you will NOT be available on Tuesday or
any other day.

How many times I've wished I had said that...

The first thing to strike me from the OP was the tautologous "meet with".

Regards

Jonathan

Blue Hornet

2006-10-01 11:09:13 UTC

Post by Jonathan Morton

Post by Shannon
Maybe you should just say that you will NOT be available on Tuesday or
any other day.

How many times I've wished I had said that...

The first thing to strike me from the OP was the tautologous "meet with".
Regards
Jonathan

However, it's common usage in the States. If Don wants to meet, but I
say that "I can't meet you on Tuesday", he'll think it a strange thing
for me to say, since Don and I have known each other for years. We
"met" a long, long time ago. But we still "meet with" each other on a
regular basis to continue some projects together.

Peter Duncanson

2006-10-01 12:48:21 UTC

Post by Blue Hornet
However, it's common usage in the States. If Don wants to meet, but I
say that "I can't meet you on Tuesday", he'll think it a strange thing
for me to say, since Don and I have known each other for years. We
"met" a long, long time ago. But we still "meet with" each other on a
regular basis to continue some projects together.

In BrE the wording would be:

....Don and I have known each other for years. We "first met"
a long, long time ago. But we still "meet" each other on a
regular basis to continue some projects together.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Django Cat

2006-10-01 20:03:48 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson

Post by Blue Hornet
However, it's common usage in the States. If Don wants to meet,
but I say that "I can't meet you on Tuesday", he'll think it a
strange thing for me to say, since Don and I have known each other
for years. We "met" a long, long time ago. But we still "meet
with" each other on a regular basis to continue some projects
together.

....Don and I have known each other for years. We "first met"
a long, long time ago. But we still "meet" each other on a
regular basis to continue some projects together.

Mmm... I don't have any problem with AmE 'meet with', and furthermore,
since Don and I have known each other for years, I'm inclined to think
we often "meet up" on a regular basis to discuss the project.

Djc@

the Omrud

2006-10-03 09:14:35 UTC