How can he speak against his interest? In Legalese you’ll also hear against interest with no possessive, for example, a declaration against interest is a statement that is ( as Wikipedia puts it ): “so prejudicial to the person making it that she would not have made the statement unless she believed the statement was true” ; for example, a statement that also proves that the statement is true. For another

and a sentence with no possessive, I’d like a similar but less familiar version which could take the possessive to

I have the same experience with Papa Poule, but the sentence is awkward (or “redundant”) unless it’s feasible that they could take place at different times. Do people think so?

My example, however, is not anywhere near as bad as this. I think the difference has to do with how obvious and fundamental the redundancy is; I think he’s turning 21 on a given day, by definition this is his birthday. What is the reality that an eclipse can only happen during the full moon?

I have the same experience with Papa Poule, but the sentence is awkward (or “redundant”) unless it’s feasible that they could take place at different times. Do people think so?

My example, however, is not anywhere near as bad as this. I think the difference has to do with how obvious and fundamental the redundancy is; I think he’s turning 21 on a given day, by definition this is his birthday. What is the reality that an eclipse can only happen during the full moon?

I have the same experience with Papa Poule, but the sentence is awkward (or “redundant”) unless it’s feasible that they could take place at different times. Do people think so?

My example, however, is not anywhere near as bad as this. I think the difference has to do with how obvious and fundamental the redundancy is; I think he’s turning 21 on a given day, by definition this is his birthday. What is the reality that an eclipse can only happen during the full moon?

I have the same experience with Papa Poule, but the sentence is awkward (or “redundant”) unless it’s feasible that they could take place at different times. Do people think so?

My example, however, is not anywhere near as bad as this. I think the difference has to do with how obvious and fundamental the redundancy is; I think he’s turning 21 on a given day, by definition this is his birthday. What is the reality that an eclipse can only happen during the full moon?

I have the same experience with Papa Poule, but the sentence is awkward (or “redundant”) unless it’s feasible that they could take place at different times. Do people think so?

My example, however, is not anywhere near as bad as this. I think the difference has to do with how obvious and fundamental the redundancy is; I think he’s turning 21 on a given day, by definition this is his birthday. What is the reality that an eclipse can only happen during the full moon?

Can and could are both fine here, though I would recommend adding ever to clarify the intended meaning (unless other context already makes that clear):

• “Can happiness ever bring pain? Will
• happiness bring pain? “The

difference between the two is that can seems to be asking about whether it ever really happens, whereas could seems to be asking about whether it could even hypothetically happen. (Neither of these is strict, however; we can say things like, on the one hand, “Is there any possible world where happiness can bring pain? “.” And, on the other hand, “Do you think that, in the average person’s life, happiness could ever bring pain? Can

joy bring pain? Does happiness bring pain?

What is it that they are not the same? For the former, I’d recommend could ; for the latter, I’d recommend can (or does ).

Your first two examples are a special use of of that’s not readily understandable by reference to its other uses. I am always shocked. In each of them, the of is optional (More of a Sanity Check” = “More of a Sanity Check”; “More of a Hack” = “More of a hack”), and serves to introduce a singular countable predicate that’s modified by more. What does the same happen with less (“it’s not a problem”) and much (your thoughts on me) and less (“Would you think me less of a man today? “the “), and a few other adverbs of quantity. It doesn’t generally happen with non-count nouns, nor with plural nouns; *”they’re more of sanity checks than anything” and *”there’s not much of reason” are both ungrammatical, or at least, very awkward. Even with singular count nouns, I think this use of of may be specific to some dialects; I (an American) find it perfectly normal, but I’ve heard Britons describe it as a strange Americanism.

You have another example. It’s called ” where ” links together two adjectives. The core of the sentence is, “A course would be of utility”, which means “A course would be useful.” “It’s

more like a sanity check than anything” is grammatically correct but would not have quite the same meaning. If you have to tell someone something about it as a sanity check, and want to rephrase it, ‘It’s a sanity check more than anything.’ Well, this ain’t it. ”

“

Your first two examples are a special use of of that’s not readily understandable by reference to its other uses. I am always shocked. In each of them, the of is optional (More of a Sanity Check” = “More of a Sanity Check”; “More of a Hack” = “More of a hack”), and serves to introduce a singular countable predicate that’s modified by more. What does the same happen with less (“it’s not a problem”) and much (your thoughts on me) and less (“Would you think me less of a man today? “the “), and a few other adverbs of quantity. It doesn’t generally happen with non-count nouns, nor with plural nouns; *”they’re more of sanity checks than anything” and *”there’s not much of reason” are both ungrammatical, or at least, very awkward. Even with singular count nouns, I think this use of of may be specific to some dialects; I (an American) find it perfectly normal, but I’ve heard Britons describe it as a strange Americanism.

You have another example. It’s called ” where ” links together two adjectives. The core of the sentence is, “A course would be of utility”, which means “A course would be useful.” “It’s

more like a sanity check than anything” is grammatically correct but would not have quite the same meaning. If you have to tell someone something about it as a sanity check, and want to rephrase it, ‘It’s a sanity check more than anything.’ Well, this ain’t it. ”

“

What is your DRM management plan? How do you define it? In approximate descending order, the terms DRM locked, DRM enabled, and DRMed vary from year to year. For comparison, HW, DRs, and HW locked only differ from their respective definitions (DRM protected and unprotected).

DRM protected seem

• to be relatively neutral whereas DRM locked, DRMed and DRM encumbered seem to be slightly pejorative and DRM enabled seems to be slightly, um, ameliorative.
• Is DRM secure? But the intended meaning is usually clear from context.
• Like Martin Smith discussed above, DRM can take a number of different forms, and doesn’t necessarily prevent downloading.

What are some of the coolest movies to watch?