I just received an email that included the phrase
soup-to-nuts
meaning "end-to-end." Are there any other alternatives to this? eg cradle-to-grave? I want to include some in the reply email.
Learn English – end-to-end alternatives
phrasessynonyms
Related Solutions
Using "respectively" can be confusing as it is, and synonyms such as "correspondingly" only make it worse since we're not used to this. If you absolutely have to use one or the other, use "respectively." However, it is much less confusing to avoid "respectively" altogether, and it doesn't even take up any more space. Here's a better way of wording your example: "At the market, Samantha bought apples, John bought mangoes, and Jack bought oranges." This sentence is the same length as your original sentence (both are 13 words) and it flows much more easily.
-
In Strunk and White's Elements of Style, using "respectively" in this manner (and thus using a synonym in this manner) is discouraged:
Respective. Respectively. These words may usually be omitted with advantage. . . . [Example:] The mile run and the two-mile run were won by Jones and Cummings respectively. [Better:] The mile run was won by Jones, the two-mile run by Cummings. (page 57 in the Third Edition)
Following Strunk and White, the way to word your sentence would be: "Samantha bought apples, John bought mangoes, and Jack bought oranges from the market." The problem here is it sounds like Jack was the only one who bought from the market, an the others bought somewhere else. A quick solution is to rearrange the sentence: "At the market, Samantha bought apples, John bought mangoes, and Jack bought oranges."
The way your question is posed shows that you're thinking about it wrong.
It's not the case that "some of these sentences take will and others take to".
First, it's the Verb (not the sentence) that "takes" a Complement, and every verb is different.
Second, expect can take both infinitive and tensed (that) complement clauses. Other verbs differ.
Third, the grammatical sentences with will above don't have that, but it's allowed --
these are correct, because expect, think, and know can all take tensed complement clauses:
- I expect/think/know that [John will reply to your email]. (no. 1)
- I expect/think/know that [he will reply to your email]. (no. 6)
so the complement clauses with will are tensed clauses, not infinitive clauses.
That means that the reason why you can't say no. 4 is that you must use he and not him in
- He will reply to your email.
Fourth, on the other hand, the complements with to are infinitive clauses, not tensed clauses.
To is a marker of an infinitive; it's not a verb but a complementizer, and it doesn't mean anything.
And the subject of an infinitive must be objective -- him, not he -- so that's the reason no. 5 is bad.
The sentence below works because expect, tell, and want can all take infinitive complement clauses:
- I expect/told/want [him to close the window].
This is a fact about the verb expect, by the way.
If you try the tensed (that) clause examples with tell or want instead, you'll get ungrammatical sentences, because tell and want can't take tensed clauses with that. And if you try the infinitive examples with think or know, the same thing will happen, because think and know can't take infinitive complements.
Grammar is not about words following words; grammar is about constituents, mostly clauses.
Get that right and the rest will follow.
Best Answer
If you want to include a similar phrase in your reply email just for fun, you can use the following Latin phrase:
ab ovo usque ad mala
It's basically the same thing as soup-to-nuts, except that it literally translates to "from the egg to the apples". This was the typical main meal in ancient Rome, where the phrase was created.