Out of context the sentences can mean the same but are partially ambiguous. Do you eat the good food? Why is that something is not clear? What is the importance of eating food?

Even though the people say that you currently eat bad

• food, the fact that you do it is not important, only the first sentence implies a second interpretation.

A statement with this meaning might continue:

• It is not important that you eat good food; it is important you were born of the right parents.

What is the meaning of “I’m a Catholic”?

The repetition of whether in interrogative content clauses (where whether could be replaced by whether ) is unnecessary but grammatical. Fowler’s Modern English Usage (p676) has an example:

• I cannot remember whether they were lowered into the street or whether there was a window opening out at the back.

Whether is

often repeated as a clearer pointer than a bare or to an alternative that forms a separate sentence. Fowler states: Is

it a common and normal conditional clause in a sentence like “but I’m buying it whether I can afford it, or whether I have to take out a loan”? And when does whether mean regardless of whether or no matter whether for a given person?

In its explanation and exemplification of concessive conditional clauses the CaGEL explicitly refers back to an example similar to Fowler’s in its discussion of interrogative clauses: I

• don’t know whether the flight has been delayed or whether it has been canceled. I try to avoid delays for 10 minutes.

“The correlative sequence whether…or (whether) is

an alternative condition in that it combines the conditional meaning of if with the disjunctive meaning of either…or or.” It is therefore a means of coordinating two subordinate clauses. If the second unit is a full clause, whether may be repeated as in :

Whether Martin pays for the broken vase or (whether) he replaces it with a new vase, I’m not inviting him again, in any case. So,

the cagell would regard the OP’s sentence as ‘well-formed’, and following Fowler we could say that the repetition of whether serves to give the or clause just as much emphasis as it would have without it.

And in the Pence example, the repetition of whether separates and gives equal prominence to each of the three fairly long clauses heading by it.

Why does the matter appear clear and clear? I am slightly embarrassed to say

that I don’t think I need someone to speak to me. So I am simply saying: “Thank you for initiating this opportunity for me”.

I am really frustrated as Bob was offended

when we accidentally mentioned that I would be doing a conversation in bed. Thank you.

Thank you for instituating

that Bob and I can meet. What should we say?

What is Huddleston and Pullum say about the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language? Here is a lengthy extract from their Preliminaries chapter (pp6-5):

One kind of illegitimate argument is based on analogy between one area of grammar and another. Consider yet another construction where there is variation between nominative and accusative forms of pronouns:

a. i. 1. I had lunch with my parents and they were friendly. The food was surprisingly good.

b. I was disappointed to see my partner and I have been invited to lunch.

The ‘%’ symbol is again used to mark the B example as typically used by some speakers of -set, except other languages, though this time it is not a matter of regional variation. The status of the construction in B differs from that of It’s me, which is undisputedly normal in informal use, and from that of! Me and Kim saw her leave, which is unver able non-standard.

What is different is that examples like B are regularly used by a significant proportion of speakers of English and not generally thought by ordinary speakers to be non-standard; they pass unnoticed in broadcast speech all the time.

Prescriptivists, however, condemn the use illustrated by 3b, insisting that the ‘correct’ form is They invited my partner and me to lunch.I have never been deceived and I insist that it is an error.Do you really think there is a question on 3b? But here, again, they seek to justify their claim that 3b is ungrammatical by an implicit analogy, this time with other situations found in English, such as the example seen in A. In A the pronoun functions by itself as direct object of the verb and invariably appears in accusative case. What is different in B is that the direct object of the verb is the form of coordination, not a single pronoun. What is similar in GC is that the verb has sprite. Prescriptivists commonly take it for granted that this difference is irrelevant to case assignment. If we have an accusative in B, they argue that because we have an accusative in A we should also have an accusative in B so the nominative I is ungrammatical (it can be written as a ‘good’ A’)?

How do we differentiate between a coordinated and a non-coordinated pronoun? The rules are sensitive to this distinction – for almost all speakers, not just those that speak them: 4. A. By enforcing both clauses of that fourth sentence,

you are not helping any one of your speakers in this case. I don’t know if you are eligible to receive a scholarship.

4 b. (Jeff. 5:6). 3: (James 1:2) I don’t know if she is eligible or if she does.

The sequence you are can be reduced to you’re in A, where you is subject, but not in B, where the subject has the form of coordinates of pronouns.

What is the difference between coordinating pronouns and pronouns and why can’t one rule actually apply? Is there a rule likewise for difference between 3a and 3b? Is our analogy wrong? Whether 3b is treated as correct Standard English or not (a matter that we take up in Ch. 5, 16.2). 2) cannot be successfully argued to be correct simply by virtue of the analogy with 3a.

And indeed there are numerous examples on Google of the “for x and I ” construction: it

was so much fun for Bob and I to see each other as grandparents.

Which is the happiest day of my 25 years of life so far?

For Bob and I this has been a step of faith to get away so soon… by being so far from home our entire lives.

“He had work for me and Bob.”

This is such a fantastic day for Bob and I…

For Bob and I the scheduled departure time from Taipei differ by 3.40 hours.

It took a bit of practice, but Bob and I had a few stabs at getting some of our crazy sticks.

I doubt that many of the ” for x and I ” users were knowingly “differentiating) between a coordinated and a non-coordinated pronoun “. How can we avoid hypercorrection and the examples seem more likely to result from hyper-correction based on dim recollections of their English teachers castigating them for constructions such as ‘bob and me went swimming “.

In my opinion, rather more people are likely to consider ” for Bob and I ” a mistake than ” for Bob and me “. What you choose, when and

how should you make it.

Is it really possible for a human to stop saying the word “defend everything”? Then don’t tell a human to stop saying ‘everything is necessary’?

What does it mean to stop at nothing for

something? Four authentic examples from Google: Headline: Parents stop at nothing to find cure for son.

• How will he win Beck’s heart?

• Why do people want everyone to quit live trading?

• I am sickly as a man, and therefore believe in the doctrine of the church. I believe the Church is to do anything to be more thorough in its treatment of all sexual abuse.

What advice can I give myself?

What is distributive plural? What is the following discussion for a Swan in Practical

English Usage (p530): Singular and

plural (distributive plural) 1. People doing the same thing

To talk about several people doing the same thing, English usually prefers a plural noun for a repeated idea.

• Tell everyone to bring in raincoats to school tomorrow morning.

• So with plural forms there is almost always a possessive in

this case.

• Tell your child to blow their noses. Six people died in an automobile accident
• in Canada.

Quirk et al., 1979. What are two examples of grammar in the English language. Has everyone brought

• their cameras?

• Hand in your papers next Monday.

and agree with Swan that “, the distributive plural is the norm…”.

But the CGEL goes on to state that:…

the distributive singular may also be used to focus on single instances. The number is our choice. So we have a choice.

• Some children have understanding fathers / an understanding father. I need to find this type of teaching, I know..

• Does everyone have good appetites? Or does everybody have different appetites?

How do I summarize the CGEL discussion

as follows: “Every student was asked to name

• their favorite sport.” The singular is sometimes used to avoid ambiguity.

A sport is name by singular, so only one sport is named. Should

• my children have to have a parent with them?

Turning to the OP’s example, The speaker has a’number choice’. While, according to Swan and Quirk, the plural is the more usual form ( People are using cell phones ), the singular ( People are using a cell phone ) can also be used ‘to focus on individual instances ‘.

As for the recipient of the message, their world knowledge will usually lead them to interpret both sentences identically, namely that each person is using his or her own single phone. People don’t usually use multiple phones at the same time, and people even less commonly jointly and simultaneously use a single phone.

In the same way the backpack example was shown. Our experience of the world tells us that people almost always carry a single backpack. They almost never share the carrying of a single backpack.

What is also intrinsically ambiguous in the message? In both such cases, the message needs to be phrased in such a way as to be clear to the recipient how many of the items are involved for each person.

For example

• two people with one backpack: They are carrying a backpack between them.

• A person having multiple smartphones (people all using the same phone or phone to start with) is using all of their phones. (people and everyone can see the picture even onscreen)

How is the world changing, and why?

Both sentences are correct but There have been no historical digs on the pipeline is more formal than There have not been any historical digs on the pipeline.

In Quirk, In A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (p783)

states, In all cases, the combination of not and the non-assertive word (any, anything, anywhere, etc.) is less colloquial and idiomatic than the negative variant.

But not always was conversational English used in the UK. There is the suggestion by

Peters in The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (p374), who writes: “… researchers found that not…any was the preferred form in conversational English in the UK, making it very familiar to British ears u00bb.

Why don’t I just feel sad…?

The phrase You Just Don’t get Over You Never can be “It is just That” without reference to the context in which you were uttered. Is it commonly follows an expression of negative polarity? If you search

Google, you should have more options than you are viewing. Why?

Do dogs like meat?

What’s the most common sense thing that people don’t know?

Said phrase ” It is just that the specific policies and practices associated with transnational liberalism are not the same as globalization tout court”. Could have been preceded by something like: “I don’t

think you are wrong about the essential aspects of transnational liberalalism. (It is just that transnational liberalism are not the same as globalization tout-court.) In such contexts the expression functions as an

indication that whatever was stated or implied before may well be true, but misses the main point. I mean what follows the letter (I’m just that ): I mean, It is

just that.