‘can be also’ or ‘also can be’？?

can also be

No, we won’t hate you.

Welcome to Fluther.

”...can also be” is the most natural wording for an English speaker.

We generally enjoy these.

@tianxiaweigong We are happy to help you. Please feel free to ask more questions. Language questions are interesting puzzles.

I disagree with @CWOTUS and @Zissou.

To my ear both phrases are the same.

I find “can also be” most familiar

I would say “can also be” or “also can be.” They have slightly different rhythms. I think the first one might sound a little smoother, and the second one might put a little more emphasis on the word “also” itself, but it’s not too much of a difference either way (at least, I don’t think it is).

I would not say “can be also” >> although I think it’s grammatical, it’s not typical syntax.

I’m team “can also be”.

And yes, please do continue asking grammar questions. Thank you for trying to parse our ridiculous language.

I don’t think both have the same meaning. If you’re saying “airflow can also be determined” you are suggesting alternate method for measuring air flow. If you’re saying “the airflow also can be determined” then you’re essentially suggesting usage of Bernoulli’s equation which includes airflow measurements.

Putting the adverb (“also”) in the middle of the two parts of the verb is standard, but it’s not a terrible error if you don’t. Sometimes there’s a reason to vary it. And it’s fine to ask.

But how about omitting the space before your question mark? If you put the question mark right at the end of your question, with no space before or after, we won’t see two question marks with spaces around them. Much tidier (and more accurate) that way.

I think our language is wonderful and not ridiculous. And I appreciate your efforts to master it.

the usual order is “can also be determined”, but “also” should only be included in the sentence if another method for determining the air flow has been previously mentioned or discussed in the article or paper concerned. I think your questions are useful to us who are so accustomed to our language in appreciating just how complex and difficult that language is to wrestle for those not born to it.

”....useful to WE who are so accustomed to….”

Just because it’s out there now, I too think that our language is wonderful, but it can also be pretty ridiculous.

But as to the previous jelly’s self-correction:
“useful to us, who are so accustomed to our language”

It is ridiculous when approached from the outside. Of course, as is true with everything, those on the inside regard the language as “elaborate but elegant”. Look at that “useful to” clause above once more. The “us” would be fine if “who are” is removed. And there are just far too many insufferable quirky little rules to our language road guaranteed to exasperate the hell out of anyone trying to acquire the language. I have friends who earn handsome livings editing correspondence from Chinese
applicants and business people to U.S. schools & firms.

I love our language, because I’m naturally proficient at rulesets. I like when the rules are the rules except when they’re not, and I find the exceptions to the rules interesting.

My eight year old utterly hates our language as written. He’s got a very mathematical brain, where rules are rules are rules, and the fact that “cough” has a “G” and not an “F” in it drives him completely bananas.

You’re in for a good time with him. Enjoy it. His youth is brief and will recede faster than you can believe.

Can also be.

@stanleybmanly, no, you were right the first time: it’s “are useful to us who are so accustomed.” Common error, understandable error, but error.

It’s a relative clause. The relative clause is “who are so accustomed.” The pronoun is “who,” and its antecedent is “us.” Pronouns agree with their antecedents in number and gender but take their case from the clause they’re in. “Are useful to US”: “us” is the object of the preposition “to.” It’s “us” no matter what comes after it. We do not say “useful to we.”

In the relative clause, “who” is the subject of the verb “are,” so it’s nominative.

 
I don’t know of any other language group that routinely and even smugly expresses contempt for its own language. Why do we do this? Because some people have scored humor points by spotlighting inconsistencies? Come on. It might be tricky in places and even seem illogical, but it isn’t fit for mockery and scorn.

English has certain complexities and irregularities because it has absorbed structure and vocabulary from so many sources, but that is also its beauty and its strength. And I have talked with non-native speakers who have said that English is by no means the hardest language they’ve learned.

And no comma because it’s restrictive. It’s limiting the meaning of “us” to those who fit the description “are so accustomed.”

You would hear the same construction in everyday English all the time if the nouns and pronouns in our language were inflected (if they changed form according to case), but most of them aren’t. In the first paragraph here, “to those who fit the description” is exactly the same construction, but because the word “those” doesn’t change depending on how it’s used, you don’t hear it. The personal pronouns do change, and so they force us to notice grammar that we can afford to ignore most of the time.

I stand (gratefully) corrected. With a gun to my head, I could not have listed the grammatical reasons for shifting from us to we. Reading “us” tripped a switch, and that’s all it took. Yours was the gentlest and most tactful correction I’ve probably received in my long impetuous life. My wife would be furious if she caught you doing that. “Slap him hard and take his haughty ass down a peg.”

“Can also be” sounds right.