Does it sound right?

[Woods]

I think you've missed an important context here - the part before the section you quoted mentioned that Linguoboy "strongly prefers" to use the word "of" with expressions of time:

In general I would prefer forms without "of". I think the only case where I strongly prefer it is with expressions of time (e.g. "He said he'd have it done inside of a week").

Then he compares that to his tendency to prefer to leave out the word "of" in dynamic expressions while using "inside of" with statives:

I think I also have a tendency to prefer plain "inside" with dynamic expressions and "inside of" with statives. E.g. "They put it inside me" but "It's been living inside of me for three months." But this isn't as strong and "They put it inside of me" but "It's been living inside me for three months" sound equally acceptable.

In other words: But this preference isn't as strong....
So he isn't saying that the sentence "they put it inside of me" is stronger than the sentence "they put it inside me". He is saying that his preference for one sentence over the other is stronger in the first example and not as strong in the second example, in other words, both sentences in the second example sound okay and he doesn't strongly prefer one sentence over the other.

A-ha! Yes, I got confused with the long sentence but now I got it

I think I also have a tendency to prefer plain "inside" with dynamic expressions and "inside of" with statives.

Very interesting! I think I'm the other way around - I heard that phrase something along the lines of "put that thing inside that person" and it kept bugging me reading it without "of". But so, is it like in most (or all) cases it's acceptable either with or without of?

Yes, it's acceptable either way. In fact I think it tends to be more common without "of", at least in American English, but also perfectly acceptable with "of".

Thanks to both of you!

[Woods]

to mourn something

According to Merriam-Webster:
1) "to feel or express grief or sorrow"
3) "to murmur mounrfully" (i.e. to complain about something you don't have, I guess?)

So I was wondering to what extent I one could use it for something else, like once I said something like:

"mourning the summer" (like meaning that there were no traces of summer any longer and probably wouldn't be for the next seven months in Finland)

or

"mourning their comfort" (meaning that someone got pissed off when something made them feel uncomfortable, kind of ironic because it's in a situation when they shouldn't be uncomfortable)

How understandable/good-sounding are those? If not much, any other suggestions?


sitting in a bench / on a bench

two people are sitting in a bench / two people are sitting on a bench - are both of those acceptable?


put-on as an adjective

I found this as a synonym to falsely, pretendedly, and it sounds good. But then I didn't find so many examples: "a put-on Russian accent" (macmillandictionary.com). Does something like that sound all right:

a put-on confident person


enough (of) irony

To end a paragraph with something like "this and that jokes and sarcasm... But enough (of) irony, ..." - does it sound better with or without the "of"?


search for the one you're looking for

Would this sound repetitive in a normal phrase or is it okay?

[Linguaphile]

to mourn something

According to Merriam-Webster:
1) "to feel or express grief or sorrow"
3) "to murmur mounrfully" (i.e. to complain about something you don't have, I guess?)

So I was wondering to what extent I one could use it for something else, like once I said something like:

"mourning the summer" (like meaning that there were no traces of summer any longer and probably wouldn't be for the next seven months in Finland)

I would say mourning the loss of summer.

"mourning their comfort" (meaning that someone got pissed off when something made them feel uncomfortable, kind of ironic because it's in a situation when they shouldn't be uncomfortable)

Mourning the loss of their comfort, although "mourning" means the person is sad about it, not angry or "pissed off", so I'm not sure if this is what you are going for.

sitting in a bench / on a bench

two people are sitting in a bench / two people are sitting on a bench - are both of those acceptable?

Two people are sitting on a bench is the only one I would use.

put-on as an adjective

I found this as a synonym to falsely, pretendedly, and it sounds good. But then I didn't find so many examples: "a put-on Russian accent" (macmillandictionary.com). Does something like that sound all right:

a put-on confident person

A put-on confident person doesn't work for me. You can "put on" an accent but you can't "put on" a person. You could say put-on confidence instead; I'm not sure that I've ever heard that phrase, but it should be understandable.

enough (of) irony

To end a paragraph with something like "this and that jokes and sarcasm... But enough (of) irony, ..." - does it sound better with or without the "of"

They're not the same thing. I'd say but enough irony. If you say but enough of irony, it's more like criticism or negativity about the irony that came before (for example, there has been too much irony already), rather than just a transition to more serious talk.

search for the one you're looking for

Would this sound repetitive in a normal phrase or is it okay?

It's normal, nothing there sounds repetitive to me.

[Woods]

...

Thanks :)

[Woods]

S-O-V

the elements from which is built [something] are...

It's fine to flip the word order here to emphasise, isn't it?

And can something be built from something, if we're talking about its elements and not the material?

I'm pretty sure the only standard proposition is "of" but I'm wondering if "from" works too.

[Linguaphile]

S-O-V

the elements from which is built [something] are...

It's fine to flip the word order here to emphasise, isn't it?

Yes, but like this:
the elements from which [something] is built are...

And can something be built from something, if we're talking about its elements and not the material?

Yes. You could also use another verb + from: "the elements from which [something] is composed/formed/made".

[Dormouse559]

S-O-V

the elements from which is built [something] are...

It's fine to flip the word order here to emphasise, isn't it?

Yes, but like this:
the elements from which [something] is built are...

I think he was asking about switching the subject and verb in a relative clause (so VS word order). I’m inferring that you reached the same conclusion I did about the example, which is that it doesn’t work here.

I’m having difficulty coming up with a general principle for when switching is acceptable. It seems to correlate with verbs of location, formal/poetic language, and length of the subject phrase. Location verbs like “stand,” “lie” and “sit” seem to accept inversion. This phrase sounds fine to me in either order: “a table upon which sat a pile of books” and “a table upon which a pile of books sat.”

Here’s an example sentence from The New York Times: “The table […] is accented by a 39-foot baldachin (canopy) from which is suspended an extraordinary crucifix made of burnished bronze inlaid with green marble tiles.” To me, the inversion is necessary here because of the length of the subject phrase (“an extraordinary crucifix … tiles”); if the verb were after the subject, you’d lose track of the meaning.

Poetic language can also allow more inversions than normal. Woods’ example could actually work in a poem if it facilitated a rhyme (The shining gold and ancient stone / from which is built the castle throne).

All of these assume a formal register. Inversion itself is formal, but so is the preposition–relative pronoun construction, which is necessary for this kind of inversion.

[Linguaphile]

S-O-V

the elements from which is built [something] are...

It's fine to flip the word order here to emphasise, isn't it?

Yes, but like this:
the elements from which [something] is built are...

I think he was asking about switching the subject and verb in a relative clause (so VS word order). I’m inferring that you reached the same conclusion I did about the example, which is that it doesn’t work here.

Yes, I was thinking of the elements from which [something] is built are... as an acceptable variation of the elements which [something] is built from are...; both sound okay to me.
The way Woods wrote it doesn't work, except possibly in specific situations like poetry, as you mentioned.

[Woods]

"has worked at place A, place B and others"

- does that work in standard idiomatic English?

It should be as concise as possible (it's taken from a CV), yet "other ones" sounds better to me and even "and other" seems more correct - I am thinking others here can only refer to people?

[linguoboy]

"has worked at place A, place B and others"

- does that work in standard idiomatic English?

It should be as concise as possible (it's taken from a CV), yet "other ones" sounds better to me and even "and other" seems more correct - I am thinking others here can only refer to people?

"...and elsewhere".

[Woods]

"has worked at place A, place B and others"

- does that work in standard idiomatic English?

It should be as concise as possible (it's taken from a CV), yet "other ones" sounds better to me and even "and other" seems more correct - I am thinking others here can only refer to people?

"...and elsewhere".

Isn't that a bit too indefinite?

He's worked in several companies: SpaceX, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, TSMC and elsewhere.

I guess it works, it just sounds to me like there's a little bit less emphasis on the importance of those unmentioned companies?

[linguoboy]

"...and elsewhere".

Isn't that a bit too indefinite?

For what? Presumably if you wanted something more definite, you'd specify. For instance:

• He's worked at SpaceX, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, TSMC and other tech firms.

Other possible rephrasings:

• He's worked in several companies: SpaceX, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, TSMC, and so forth.

• He's worked in several companies including SpaceX, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and TSMC.

[Woods]

"...and elsewhere".

Isn't that a bit too indefinite?

For what? Presumably if you wanted something more definite, you'd specify. For instance:

• He's worked at SpaceX, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, TSMC and other tech firms.

Other possible rephrasings:

• He's worked in several companies: SpaceX, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, TSMC, and so forth.

• He's worked in several companies including SpaceX, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and TSMC.

Okay, thanks for the suggestions! I mostly wanted to confirm that my impressions about the usage of "others" in this case were right - and you confirmed without saying it by suggesting other phrasings :)

[Linguaphile]

In a sentence like "has worked at place A, place B and others", the word others doesn't sound right because it's not clear what the antecedent is. Other tech companies (if place A and place B are tech companies too)? Other companies that aren't tech-related? Other workplaces of any type? Other places in general?
"Elsewhere" works because it doesn't have this issue. But any variant of "others" in a sentence like this, such as "and other ones", has the same issue as "others": other what?
When you add that missing information, it's grammatically okay even with the word "others":
He's worked in several companies: SpaceX, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, TSMC, and others.
Now it's clear that the word "others" refers to "other companies", and you could say it this way.

However, for a CV, I like Linguoboy's last example best, which sounds more confident because the writer has chosen which workplaces to highlight without hedging it with any reference (however worded) to "other places not mentioned". In my opinion it sounds more professional that way:
He's worked in several companies including SpaceX, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and TSMC.

[Woods]

In a sentence like "has worked at place A, place B and others", the word others doesn't sound right because it's not clear what the antecedent is.

So not my impression that others here can only refer to people?

[Linguaphile]

In a sentence like "has worked at place A, place B and others", the word others doesn't sound right because it's not clear what the antecedent is.

So not my impression that others here can only refer to people?

No, it can refer to people or to things. For an example of the latter, the first sentence here is "Some projects are shorter than others."
In your sentence, where there is no clear antecedent, perhaps it sounds like it should refer to people to you because you've probably encountered situations in which you can use "others" without an explicit antecedent with the meaning "other people", such as "be kind to others". In fact you could say "he's worked with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and others" and it would be correct - where there is no antecedent category mentioned and people are listed, we can assume the category is still "people". (We won't know if the category is billionaires, investors, businessmen, famous people, etc., but we'll know it means some sort of people, so it works grammatically.) But this does not work in your sentence. People aren't listed, places are. We need an antecedent like "companies" for clarification. So in your sentence it is the lack of a clear antecedent that causes the problem. We don't have to replace the word "others", we just need to add an explanation of what category of things we are referring to when we use it. More examples of usage here.