source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Interfacing a 3.3V output to 5V inputs I have BASYS3 board which outputs 3.3 V, however my sensor (pir sensor) works with 5v. I also have a 5v supplier but I'm not sure how to connect these 3. I don't want to damage my BASYS3 as well so I'm reluctant to try anything. How can I connect these 3 on my breadboard? Thanks. Edit: This is what I'd like to do basically: But the sensor does not work with Basys3's 3.3v output. Normally it does not work when I try to connect vcc and ground pins to the 5v power supply and the output pin to the fpga. datasheet for my power supply: https://pdf.direnc.net/upload/3-3v-5v-breadboard-guc-karti-datasheet.pdf datasheet for pir sensor: https://www.mpja.com/download/31227sc.pdf datasheet for basys3 fpga board: https://reference.digilentinc.com/_media/basys3:basys3_rm.pdf <Q> Normally it does not work when I try to connect vcc and ground pins to the 5v power supply and the output pin to the fpga. <S> It probably needs the same GND. <A> The PIR sensor has a 1K resistor in series with the output so you should be able to simply add a 2K or 1.8K resistor to ground from the output to get about 3.3V/0V. Test it with a multimeter before connecting it to the FPGA board. <S> The grounds must be common between the FPGA board and the 5V supply for the sensor. <A> As mentioned in another answer, two devices can communicate only when sharing a common reference. <S> Find a +5V somewhere to give power to your PIR. <S> If your BASYS device does not have a +5V output, then you need another power supply. <S> In this case, even 12V would do (the PIR accepts from 4.5 to 20 volt). <S> The power supply has a GND pin and a +V pin. <S> Again, connect the GND pin to the two GND pins of the two other devices. <S> The +V pin goes in the only place it can go: the +PowerIN of the pir. <S> ANOTHER THING: <S> when using logic (digital) levels, you can always put resistors in between. <S> For example, you have to connect an output to an input? <S> Resistor values range normally from 100 ohm to even 10k, depending on the application, internal resistance (or impedence) of input and output, but 1k should always work. <S> If it does not work, at least you does no damage. <S> FORGOT to say: probably a 3.3V output drives correctly a 5V input anyway <S> - it is the contrary that can be problematic (but in this last case a resistor can do, even if it is not the most beautiful solution).
| From what I see in the datasheet of your PIR, it requires 5V (4.5 to 20) as power supply, but its logic output is 3.3V, which seems the same level of your BASYS board. If the BASYS board has a power output of +5V, you can use that and you are done. So, definately you can safely connect them provided the following: Connect all the GNDs of every device together. Well, connect them via a 1k resistor, it will work the same but it will not fry your devices in case of errors.
|
Why do we not use true sine waves in power inverters instead of PWM? These days it seems all power inverters use variable PWM and an H-bridge to generate the signal which drives the output transformer. Why do we not use a pure sine wave oscillator and amplifier instead? It seems to me the technical complexities of PWM are much greater than a simple sine-wave. But I cannot find a single example of an inverter which uses a sine wave oscillator. Therefore, I'm assuming there are very good reasons for not using such a design. Can anyone explain what those reasons might be? <Q> It's as simple as that. <S> PWM mimics a true sinewave with a fraction of the losses (maybe 5 to 10% of the power output) <S> albeit with some harmonic distortion that is removed using filters (lossless types in the main). <S> Just compare the class AB amplifier (a linear amplifier with very little distortion) with a class D amplifier (using hard switching MOSFETs and PWM): <S> - Extracts from this website by MAXIM . <A> PWM allows the output switches to be fully on or fully off. <S> The power dissipated in the switch is given by \$ P = <S> VI = <S> I^2R \$ <S> where V is the voltage across the switch, I is the current through it and R is the switch resistance. <S> Let's look at an output stage using IRLZ24N MOSFETS (chosen at random) and running on a 20 V supply. <S> The datasheet says that the on-resistance of the device is about 60 mΩ. Assume <S> an output load is 2 Ω <S> so 10 <S> A peak current. <S> Switch open: \$I = 0\$ <S> so <S> \$P = 0\$ . <S> Switch closed: <S> \$P = <S> I^2R = <S> 10 <S> ^ <S> 2 <S> \times <S> 0.06 = 6 <S> W\$ . <S> Now consider your sine generator. <S> When the sine is have way up the curve there will be 10 V across the switch and 5 A through the load. <S> \$ P = <S> VI = <S> 10 \times <S> 5 = 50 \ \text <S> W \$ . <S> This means wasted power and a big thermal management problem. <S> We use PWM for efficiency. <A> The losses in an amplifier are significantly higher than in switching schemes like PWM. <S> For high quality sinusoidal output one can combine the two approaches e.g. like shown in this paper: G. Gong, S. Round and J. W. Kolar , "Design, Control and Performance of TrackingPower Supply for a Linear Power Amplifier" <A> It's basically because we have no solid-state way to reduce voltage without dissipating heat. <S> When a solid state switch is fully on it conducts lots of current at almost no voltage drop, and when it is fully off it blocks full voltage at nearly zero current so losses are low. <S> Anything in between it behaves like a resistor. <S> So to avoid lot's of heat and power loss we only use solid-state switches in full on or off in power applications. <S> This rules out the simplest method of producing a sine wave for high power applications which requires a gradient of output voltages. <S> If you want to make a sine-wave while still using the switch only ever in full no or full off, then it becomes more complex than simple PWM because you are still PWMing to maintain efficiency in the solid state switches, but now you are adding on extra filtering afterwards to turn it into a sine wave. <S> If you can come up with a solid-state method to reduce energy coupling between two points while maintaining high efficiency then you can reduce voltage without incurring losses, similar to how the coils move past each other in a generator and overlap to varying degrees producing different amounts of coupling. <S> If you figure that out, then you can produce a graduated output without incurring losses much the same way a spinning generator is able to make a sine wave without incurring losses. <S> Then we will have efficient, simple, straightforward high power sine PWM. <S> You will also probably win a Nobel prize.
| To generate a true sine wave from a DC bus requires a linear amplification system and, this adds up to a lot of power losses (maybe around 35% of the power output).
|
Is there any difference between being ill and sick? I can say I'm ill or I'm sick . But what is the difference between the usage of these terms? I've heard that one can use sick for longer-term and ill for shorter-term, but is that really correct? How are these terms different for native speakers? <Q> While those might mean the same for the laymen, from a medical point of view, there is a difference between illness and sickness. <S> Medical sociology has long made the distinction between illness and sickness. <S> Illness is the objective diagnosis that an external impartial observer is able to make based on the constellation of symptoms which the patient presents. <S> Sickness is the social role that the patient adopts as the patient and other concerned stakeholders, in relationship with the patient, interpret the meaning of the illness. <S> From what I get of it, someone might see themselves as sick (with the social/role aspect of it) but not actually be ill (in a medical sense). <S> Also, this paper might provide some useful reading. <A> From a British perspective, I'm ill is more common and general term for when you're unwell. <S> Being sick can refer to actually throwing up or vomiting, but it can also be used for being generally unwell. <A> The formal range of meanings for each word is more or less the same, but they carry different connotations and usage. <S> It may vary from region to region, but in the USA, it is fairly common to use ill for longer or more serious issues, like cancer, and <S> sick for more immediate things, like the nausea involved in cancer treatment. <S> Additionally, sick is used in some idiomatic expressions where ill would not fit native sensibility. <S> “I am sick and tired of X,” is used to mean that somebody's patience is worn out. <S> No native speaker would ever say ill and tired in this case. <S> Likewise, if someone were to drink too much and vomit, one would say, “He got sick.” <S> To get sick is so strongly connected with vomiting that you can even say, “He got sick on his shoes,” or “She got sick last night,” for instance and there will be no ambiguity among native speakers in the USA. <S> Likewise, to fall ill is never worded to fall sick . <S> To us, that would be just odd. <S> Either word might be used to describe someone’s mental illness, such as “He is sick in the head,” or “He is mentally ill,” though the phrase “mental illness” sounds right to us, and you will probably not often hear an American, at least, use the exact phrase “mental sickness.” <A> Sickness refers to the way one feels. <S> Illness often makes one feel sick, so the terms are often used interchangeably in colloquial speech. <S> But, one can be ill without being (feeling) sick. <S> Likewise, one might feel sick after, say, seeing blood, without being ill. <A> A related Australianism. <S> Having a day off work - for the stated reason of being too ill to attend - <S> is known as chucking a sickie . <S> You would never call it 'chucking an illie'. <S> To the question: the biggest difference is for definitions involving nausea in which case sick is used exclusively. <S> Hence sicking up . <S> Additionally, the colloquial meanings (ie not strictly related to being unwell) tend to use sick . <S> For example, sick and tired (see Ryan's ans.); fully sick (meaning really good ); sick to death (worse than sick and tired); you make me sick (you are disgusting, obnoxious or offensive to my sensibilities). <A> In Indian context both can be used interchangeably. <S> But there is a subtle difference between the two. <S> Sick could be used if someone is annoyed by one's act or behavior. <S> He'd be rather sick than feeling illness by the deeds of that person. <S> Likewise if someone has done something wrong to me, then I'd be feeling sick. <S> Whereas ill means that a person has been acquired by the disease. <S> So it might be possible that, the person might be feeling sick(feeling frustration due to suffering). <S> So this is the difference between the two. <A> A native speaker would interpret them as having the same meaning. <S> You could say "I'm ill," or you could say "I'm sick". <S> "I'm ill" could be classed as more formal language. <A> Being ill refers to both long-term and short-term diseases or ailments. <S> It's more formal. <S> Being sick refers to short-term or temporary ailments, such as vomiting etc. <S> Besides, 'sick' is an attributive adjective , i.e., you can use 'sick' before a noun; but you cannot use 'ill' before a noun in the sense of ailment . <S> " <S> The boy felt sick and went home after the third period. <S> " <S> "I've been ill with the flu for the past few days." <S> "The mother took care of her sick child." <S> ILL has some other meanings : (1) evil/wicked : <S> Ill men conspire against him. <S> (2) morally reprehensible : It's ill to keep a lady waiting. <S> (3) <S> harsh/cruel <S> : I dislike his ill manners. <S> SICK has the following meanings : (1) in bad taste : That is a sick joke. <S> (2) tired of / annoyed with : I am sick of that song. <S> (3) in poor condition : My job prospects are pretty sick.
| Illness refers to a medical condition. But I've seen that generally people conversing in colloquial language uses the both the terms interchangeably.
|
How would a native speaker understand "Time flies like an arrow"? “Time flies like an arrow” is often cited to illustrate problems with computer aided language processing. It is also an example of how ambiguous English can be. But is it really so ambiguous? How would it be understood by a native speaker? <Q> The sentence 'Time flies like an arrow', with or without context, is very unambiguous to the native speaker. ' <S> Time' is the subject, it metaphorically 'flies' as fast and without stopping 'like an arrow. <S> But the phrase is often accompanied, either before or after, by Fruit flies like a banana. <S> which is word-for-word parallel, but <S> not exactly by part of speech. <S> The parallelism is both strange and funny on its own (it makes banana seem to fly, as a fruit, in the manner of the arrow), but also reflects on the pair 'time flies' (which are presumably a strange kind of fly). <S> Time flies like an arrow <S> Time (Subject) flies (verb) like an arrow (prepositional phrase modifying 'flies') <S> Fruit flies like a banana <S> Fruit flies (subject) like (verb) <S> a banana (object). <S> But with respect to the other sentence one could say Fruit (subject) flies (verb) like a banana (prepositional phrase). <S> It is this sentence that is the most ambiguous. <S> not the 'time flies' sentence. <S> The latter parsing is not at all expected and so would not be understood naturally by a native speaker. <A> Time flies like an arrow. <S> is an old idiom that means time passes quickly, subjectively. <S> Hurry up with your life because it will end before you notice. <S> Now the pun and the problem: Time flies like an arrow. <S> Fruit flies like a banana. <S> No, there are no insects named "time flies". <S> But there are very common insects called Fruit flies. <S> The tiny insects appear almost magically on any less-than-fresh fruit, and definitely speed up the process of rotting. <S> Bananas, which go bad exceptionally quickly are one of their favorite foods. <S> (One interesting note: They are also a favorite target of study of genetics, with a 4-day life cycle and a set of very distinct features.) <A> The confusion in language processing comes because software might not catch the dual meaning of like in the full sentence ( Time flies like an arrow. <S> Fruit flies like a banana. ). <S> I am not a native speaker, but I assume most people would understand it unambiguously: something abstract, such as time, or a non-rational entity, like a fruit, can not "like" something. <S> There are many possible - some <S> rather contrived - interpretations of the full sentence, but most speakers would not have difficulties understanding it. <A> Is it really so ambiguous? <S> There are many possible interpretations of the sentence <S> Time flies like an arrow. <S> Here are some of the more obvious ones: <S> Time passes quickly, as an arrow flies quickly through the air <S> You should time the speed of flies in the same manner as you would time the speed of an arrow <S> You should time the speed of flies in the same manner as an arrow would time the speed of flies. <S> You should quickly time the speed of flies, as an arrow flies quickly through the air <S> How would it be understood by a native speaker? <S> This particular meaning is due (in my opinion) to these reasons: <S> "Time flies" is a common idiom <S> meaning "time passes quickly". <S> Similes are a common part of speech, so "like an arrow" is a reasonable way to understand the second part of the sentence, especially given that arrows do indeed "fly" through the air. <S> Further, to say that something "flew like an arrow" is not an uncommon way of saying that something flew straight and true towards a target. <A> At the heart of English grammar is the relationship of subject + verb (or SV). <S> I suspect that native English speakers are primed to recognise and process that relationship until something else occurs which forces another understanding. <S> In 'Time flies like an arrow', 'Time' can easily be S and 'flies' can easily be V. <S> In 'Fruit flies like a banana', 'Fruit' starts off being S and 'flies' V, but then things go awry, forcing a re-evaluation: 'Fruit' becomes a noun modifier, 'Fruit flies' a subject NP and 'like' the verb. <S> Now, 'Fruit flies' is just as much a subject as 'Time' is, but it takes (very, very slightly) more processing time to recognise it as such, so native speakers <S> first prefer 'Fruit' as the subject, and not 'Fruit flies'.
| Time flies like an arrow would be understood by native speakers to mean "time passes quickly, as an arrow flying through the air goes quickly".
|
Large, huge or big communities? When I talk about many people, like community, what should I use? A large community A huge community A big community In my native language (German), we use just one word for that: groß . What is the difference in English? <Q> I think all of the examples sound like good English, although the quantity expressed is slightly different. <S> A large community [of people] and a big community [of people] both seem to reflect a good sized quantity, while a huge community seems to imply that it is much larger when compared to other sizes. <A> Per this NGram, large is far more common overall than <S> big and huge put together, so in any context where you're not sure which word to use, treat large as the default. <S> Also note that parents normally introduce their children to big before <S> large (probably because it seems phonetically simpler and more distinctive). <S> So in later life people may see big <S> as slightly childish/informal, where large appears more "grown-up"/formal. <S> I suggest avoiding huge unless you really want to emphasise abnormally large . <S> But as @barbara says, there are many alternatives in that case ( enormous, gigantic, vast etc.). <S> It's also worth noting that in casual speech, people often use "quirky/unusual" alternatives such as humungous, ginormous, thumping . <S> It's best to avoid those unless you're in company where you notice others doing it. <S> The only "rule" I can think of to help decide when it's better to choose big over large is that big becomes more likely in contexts which are more metaphorical (as opposed to "literal", when you're talking about the physical size of something). <S> Thus, there's nothing to choose between a big man and a large man , because that's simply the literal sense. <S> But in... That was big of him <S> (he did something noble/generous). <S> It was a big disappointment (it was very disappointing). <S> He's just bigging himself up <S> (he's trying to make himself appear more important than he really is). <S> ... <S> large would never be used. <S> With OP's specific noun community , the metaphoric "stretch" isn't actually very great (large/big!), and there's really nothing to choose between large and big . <S> Of course, there will be plenty of exceptions to my above "rule" (as in the relatively recent BrE slang giving it large , being noisily aggressive). <S> So just think of it as a "slight tendency". <A> In this context, I don't believe there is a big (sic) difference except that large community is probably the most commonly used, and huge community the least <S> commonly — but it doesn't sound odd. <S> Huge is a little informal, so you probably wouldn't hear it used in the news or read it in formal publications too often. <A> If you change the noun from "community" to "group", then "big group" and "large group" mean (to me) the same thing, although "large" is a bit more formal. <S> (To get even larger, there are "enormous" and "gigantic", though those terms are used more often to describe objects rather than collections of things or beings.)
| A "huge group" would imply something larger than a "large group".
|
Is there a general rule how to create feminine words? Is there a general rule how to create feminine words? For example feminine from waiter is waitress , from actor – actress , etc. So, generally the ending -ess means the feminine form. But I’ve never heard feminine forms for writer, programmer, designer etc. Is there a rule by which a native speaker would create feminine forms? Or is creating feminine forms simply not so important for native speakers? <Q> As with most things in English, no, there isn't a general rule. <S> Some words in -er have feminine counterparts in -ress . <S> 1 <S> And most words that end with -man can be feminized by changing it to -woman . <S> But for any given word, the only way to tell whether such a feminized version exists is to look it up in the dictionary. <S> Note also that there is a tendency towards using one word for all genders. <S> Sometimes, this involves using a genderless equivalent: police officer instead of policeman/policewoman , or flight attendant instead of stewardess , for example. <S> Other times, it involves using the traditionally-male word for all genders: for example, actor for both male and female, instead of actor for male and actress for female. <S> 1 <S> Some -er occupations (used to) become -ster, <S> e.g. baxter <S> = female baker, and brewster <S> = female brewer (of ale). <S> These terms went obsolete so long ago that most people these days don't even know that baker once had a feminine version. <A> Words with distinctly feminine forms are usually old. <S> Words that signify an occupation that formerly was exclusively male, or didn't exist in earlier times, seldom have feminine forms, and indeed, the use of feminine forms (even if they do exist) is dying out. <S> However, if a word does end in -ess, it almost certainly refers to a female occupation. <S> Some words ending in -ess, being generally associated with females, have no (or very rarely used) male counterparts, for example "seamstress". <A> I can't speak for other English speaking nations, but in 21st century America just making an effort to draw a distinction between genders is all too often considered offensive. <S> That having been said, I find a certain charm to gender specific terms. <S> Guess I'm just 'old fashioned'. <S> Unfortunately English, especially Americanized English, has a tendency to outright steal words from other languages <S> so spelling in English isn't as easy as some more orderly languages. <S> Even so, here are a couple of pointers: If it ends in "-tor" then drop the -tor in favor of a "-trix" <S> So "aviator" becomes "aviatrix" and "administrator" <S> becomes "administratrix" If the word ends in "-ter"then drop <S> the -ter <S> in favor of "-tress" So "hunter" becomes "huntress" and <S> "enchanter" becomes "enchantress" <S> And if all else fails you can try just hanging <S> a "-ess" off the end of the word: So "lion" becomes "lioness" and "author" becomes "authoress" <S> But these are not rules you can count on because "protector" can become "protectress" and don't even bother looking for "actrix" in your spell check dictionary! <S> There are a few other suffixes that indicate female gender but the rules of spelling get even more obscure. <S> Such as "farmer" becomes "farmerette" and "wolf" <S> becomes "she-wolf". <S> What can I say- besides "Good Luck!" <A> It isn't that important, and some words can't be feminised, such as the ones mentioned in the question. <S> People would normally attempt to use, if possible, a genderless word so as not to cause possible offence, <A> I read classical literature as a hobby. <S> Here's my understanding of the suffix ess. <S> Prince is to princess. <S> Duke is to duchess. <S> Master is to mistress. <S> Emperor is to empress. <S> Baron is to baroness. <S> Count is to countess. <S> These are titles of British aristocracy. <S> I, personally, would assume the suffix ess fits well with titles given to a person of nobility. <S> There are some exceptions that I've read. <S> Lioness is the female lion. <S> It probably comes down to what is pleasing to the listener. <S> The word actor is a gender neutral word that defines an occupation. <S> I, personally, wouldn't feminize any words that are gender neutral. <S> Make any sense? <S> Hope this helps.
| In other words, you can't really go about creating feminine equivalents of random occupational words; you can merely use feminine equivalents, if they exist.
|
What is the difference between “nope” and “no”? What is the difference caused by using “nope” instead of ”no”? Is it used because “nope” sounds better and not straight like “no”? In some situations, it feels like nope is better to use than no even though it adds 2 more characters. What is the reason why many use it? <Q> From here , they have no difference in meaning; but nope is more informal, only used in a sense of opposite to <S> yes (or yup ). <S> Also, nope is not used often in writing. <S> You wouldn't say "there were nope errors", for example. <A> The first and most important point to note it <S> that it's very informal (more so than using contractions such as my <S> it's there, for example). <S> The main reason for using it at all stems from that "extreme informality". <S> It normally conveys a relaxed attitude on the part of the speaker. <S> Depending on context, it can be more or less emphatic than "No". <S> You only use nope <S> to mean [my answer is] " <S> No" – it never replaces no in any other contexts. <S> And you wouldn't normally use it where you want to be very emphatic (shouting "No!" <S> at the top of your voice). <S> Which example illustrates a defining characteristic – "Nope" isn't often followed by an exclamation mark! <S> Finally, I'd echo John Lawler's words: "nope" occurs only as a one-word answer to Y/N questions . <S> That's to say, a written form such as: <S> "Nope I don't want to" doesn't look right. <S> We expect a full stop (or at the very least a comma) after "Nope" because in real-world speech there always would be a pause there. <S> But that doesn't happen with: <S> " <S> No I don't want to!" <S> because it's perfectly possible to speak those words without pausing appreciably after "No" (without necessarily placing extra stress on "don't" , either; I just italicised it as one possible enunciation). <A> "Nope" is informal. <S> You wouldn't usually want to use it, for example, answering questions for a job interview, but it would be an appropriate answer to a friend's question " <S> Have you seen that movie yet?" <A> Nope should never be used in a professional context e.g. it should never be used as an option for web site or search engine users to select as a response to a question, because it makes the company using it look un-professional and rude to their customers. <S> The use of the word nope by Google and others <S> makes me cringe so much that I will never click on it in response to a question. <A> Nope is used informally, normally during chat where you want to give a quick, fluid answer to a question without halting it like 'No' would. <S> They both mean the same thing, and 'Nope' is very rarely written. <A> I agree with the person who says that nope is dismissive and slightly rude <S> and I would add that a text nope feels rude to the recipient. <S> It feels like a "final" no. <A> I think the context has a lot to do with how the word Nope is perceived: Somebody asks you for something. <S> - Will you do something for me? <S> - Nope. <S> << Rude <S> Somebody asks for information. <S> - Is your name Sam? <S> - Nope. <S> << Playful / informal <S> Maybe the word Nope implies a casual, relaxed attitude, which in some cases may come off as dismissive. <A> Nope is an informal variant of one of the meanings <S> No which is: 3 : <S> not so —used to express negation, dissent, denial, or refusal ( e.g. no, I'm not going) <S> Webster-Merriam <S> That is why, we can only use it for <S> Yes/No questions . <A> I think there's another nuance in meaning beyond the informal vs formal. <S> For instance: You don't think I'm pretty. <S> If someone responds "no" it is because he is disagreeing with the statement - he actually does think the speaker is pretty. <S> If someone responds "nope" it is because he agrees with the implication <S> - he really does not think the speaker is pretty. <S> It's a subtle difference, but one to note. <A> 'Nope' is a variant of 'no' (exclamation). <S> First known use: 1888 ( M-W ) <S> Phonologically, pronunciation can explain where the P came from. <S> Suppose someone asked you a question and you said 'No'. <S> You'd usually pause after saying 'No' (exclamation) with your lips already positioned to articulate a P, that's why most people articulate a P. <S> That's called excrescent P . <S> (Sometimes producing a little puff of air is for emphasising 'no' while leaving it unreleased indicates lazy and sloppy speech.) <A> I think there is a subtle difference between emphatic and dismissive or terminal. <S> And I think that nope is often used in the latter two ways. <S> Think of how the lips must close together and <S> this gives nope its terminal feeling in a physical way. <S> Pursed lips. <S> Can't pry them open. <S> Not going to change.
| In my opinion Nope is a dismissive and slightly rude version of no.
|
How should I refer to a friend who is a girl but not a girlfriend? When I'm talking about my friend, who is a girl, but not a girlfriend, what word or phrase should I use? If the gender was unimportant, it would not be a problem. But if I want to note that the friend is female, not male, how should I say that, to avoid ambiguity? <Q> There's nothing in the language that requires you to characterize with a noun. <S> You can frame your discourse much less awkwardly with constructions like: <S> My friend Sidney? <S> she'll be there, too ... <S> I have a friend, Sidney, <S> her command of English is amazing ... <S> There's this girl, Sidney, friend of mine from school ... <S> You know my friend Sidney, Ed's little sister ... <S> My friend Sidney's pregnant ... <S> Talk about the person, not the role, and Great Mother English will take care of you. <A> My female friend is a perfectly acceptable and understandable way of putting it. <S> A slightly more awkward phrasing that I have also heard is My friend, who is a girl... . <A> In written English, you could use girl friend rather than girlfriend . <S> According to Wiktionary, the former means a female friend, whereas the latter means a female partner. <A> If you are a male, the phrase "female friend" works. <S> If you are a female, the phrase "girlfriend" is actually acceptable, though somewhat uncommon depending on region. <S> But English speakers tend to be unspecific unless the conversation requires you to specify your friend's gender. <A> For example, "My friend Sidney is helping me move. <S> She'll be here in an hour." <S> "Female friend" or "girl friend" is grammatically correct, but it calls a lot more attention to gender, which can be awkward. <S> (If you talk about your male friends as "friends" and your female friends as "female friends," it implies that they're somehow a different kind of friend because they're female.) <A> You might say "my friend <her name>", if her name is unambiguously female. <S> That avoids the problem without being specific about her gender. <A> It's not unusual in this situation to dispel ambiguity by further specifying the origin or current context of your friendship. <S> This can be done with a simple compound of the context and the word friend (alternatively, 'partner' or possibly 'buddy' - although this is more commonly applied to men). <S> Examples: family-friend school-friend drinking-buddy bridge-partner <S> If you wish to make gender obvious, then it's best to use a pronoun to do this. <A> My platonic lady friend. <S> This states that you are just friends. <S> Platonic says your just friends and avoids lady/female friend being interpreted improperly. <S> As suggested by J.R. as well, you can say: She's a platonic friend. <S> Here gender is shown by the pronoun she. <A> If it's just some girl you know, try: <S> A friend of mine, her name is Hildegart.... <S> or: <S> Hildegart, a friend of mine... <S> if it's your girl, use: <S> My girlfriend Hildegart is giving the ... <A> A friend who is a girl may be either "a girl friend" or "a girlfriend" . <S> Girlfriend - sex = girl friend. <S> Girl friend : <S> - It means there is an empty space for someone more special. <S> Girlfriend :- It means there is no space for someone else to be more important. <S> The same explanation occurs with 'boy friend' and 'boyfriend' .
| Probably the easiest and simplest way is to just call her your friend and refer to her with a female pronoun.
|
What are the connotations of the word 'disorder' for a native speaker? What connotations does the word disorder have for a native speaker? Does it sound very negative or rather neutral? It's still better to describe phenomena such as ADHD as mental illness, but it still sounds too negative to me. <Q> It depends significantly on the context. <S> In terms of ADD and ADHD , the fact that they are abbreviations generally removes any connotation that disorder may hold because ADD and ADHD are very common terms that people have tended to directly associate with the condition in question. <S> If, however, disorder were to be spelled out in terms of a clinical diagnosis, there might be a small negative connotation, but generally speaking, I do not think it would be very significant. <S> On the other hand, if you were to say he has a mental disorder , that is very negative and might well be considered to be bordering on rude. <A> For something to be a "disorder", it must not follow the correct "order". <S> This can suggest that it is somehow "unnatural", since it does not follow the "natural order of things". <S> And no one likes to be told they are unnatural. <S> This is especially the case when referring to a medical disorder. <S> I get the impression that the phrase "mental disorder" is slowly disappearing from medical language, the same way previous phrases thought to be offensive have, such as "mentally retarded". <A> The word “disorder” has so many uses in so many contexts, <S> it’s hard to say what kind of connotation it has. <S> In a specific context, though, it can have a specific positive or negative connotation. <S> In the phrase “disorderly conduct”, it suggests drunkenness or being a deadbeat. <S> In the sentence “Entropy is a measure of disorder”, it can suggest interestingness as well as death: zero entropy means adhering to a dull, rigid pattern, too dull and rigid to support life; but death is the result when entropy gets too high, because too much disorder is also incompatible with life.
| In general, the word "disorder" does carry a very negative connotation.
|
Is there any other neutral word for homosexual male than gay? Is there any other neutral word for a homosexual male? The word gay is, I think, quite neutral, but it sounds very funny to me because in German it's the imperative from 'go'. So, you say 'geh' (spoken as 'gay') if you want someone to go out. <Q> From Wikipedia : The most common terms are Gay (both men and women) and Lesbian (women only). <S> [...] Some organizations (e.g. Safe Schools Coalition ) discourage the usage of homosexual in everyday usage, as it might sound too clinical: <S> Homosexual <S> : Avoid this term; it is clinical, distancing and archaic. <S> Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adj.). <S> When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms <S> gay and lesbian are preferred, at least in the Northwest. <A> In the English language, all other words meaning homosexuality would be considered offensive to almost all. <S> The only neutral word is gay, and this never used to mean homosexual <S> - the meaning changed, albeit a long time ago. <A> During the 1960s (at least in the United States), the discussion (and practice) of sex exploded, following introduction of birth control devices such as the pill. <S> As a result, there were a number of "cross over" words used to accommodate the new volume of dialog. <S> Two of those words, queer and gay, were used to describe homosexuality. <S> The acceptability of these words derived from their previous connotations. " <S> Queer" meant "strange" prior to the 1960s. <S> So when used to describe homosexuality, it had the connotations of "strange" sexuality (from a heterosexual point of view). <S> "Gay" had the much more pleasant connotaton of "happy" in its earlier usage, so it is much more "neutral" in its new context. <S> There is no more positive word than "gay," and few, if any, that are even as "neutral."
| I think the most neutral word is indeed gay , which can be used for both sexes (even though gay woman is not widely used, in favour of lesbian ).
|
Is "thru" for "through" acceptable? "Tho" for "though"? I've been told that in American English, sometimes words ending in -ough are written -u : for example thru instead of through . Is this correct English, or is it simply a common error? If it is correct, what are the rules for this spelling? <Q> As a speaker of American English, I would understand what was meant by thru for through , but I would find it very informal. <S> The Oxford Dictionary entry supports this, saying that it is: chiefly North American; informal spelling of through. <S> The rule, however, isn't that words ending in <S> -ough are shortened to -u , but instead in very informal writing the last vowel sound of a word is used instead of the proper ending. <S> This gives through → thru because of the final "oo" sound, but also abbreviated forms <S> though → tho or although → altho because they end in "oh" (as in "cold"). <A> "Thru" is correct (however very informal, not a very good idea, and only used when space is at a real premium — e.g. road signs, technical drawings) English, but -u is not a shortened way of -ough except in words that derivate from through (e.g. breakthrough ). <S> From memory, I can recall although , enough etc. <S> where -ough can't be replaced by -u ( althu , enu etc.), since in those words -ough doesn't have a /u/ sound. <S> (However, although can be shortened to altho , as noted in a comment — however, Wiktionary and other dictionaries register it, noting that it's quite informal.) <A> Shortenings you are more or less likely to see for "-ough" (most are, as previously noted, considered at best very informal and at worst a severe case of bad spelling): through, breakthrough <S> → u cough <S> → off enough <S> → uf tough, rough, slough (verb) <S> → uff slough (noun) <S> → ew/ue borough, though, although, thorough → o furlough → ow (as in "low") <S> plough <S> → ow <S> (as in "how"; "plow" is now the common spelling) <S> hiccough <S> → up ("hiccup" is now the common spelling) <S> A couple of "ough" words are never shortened due to either the word's low frequency, variability of pronunciation, or to any replacement being a collision with another word: sough, dough, brough, bough, trough . <A> Thru is a very informal spelling that is never used in print or school. <S> Through is probably not the best way to spell it in textspeak, because textspeak avoids long traditional spellings. <S> But in formal and semi-formal (anything but the most informal) you should avoid using such simplifications unless you are in a place where you've seen others use it. <S> For example, if you use thru here at ELL, it won't be considered a misspelling but will definitely be considered too informal. <A> only in American English. <S> In British English it is an incorrect spelling, and students in Britain would expect to lose marks in exams for using it.
| It is worth noting that "thru" is a valid (and indeed, common) spelling
|
Is "indices" or "indexes" the plural of "index"? I've heard both plural forms of index , indices and indexes . I usually use indices when referring to the computer science term for database index , but I'm not sure if it is correct in that context. Are both indices and indexes correct? If only one of them is correct, which one? <Q> Both are correct , though there are some specific usages as pointed in another answer; Google Ngrams suggests that indices is slightly more used than indexes . <S> For American English we have (in both charts, indices <S> is blue and indexes is red): <S> For British English we have: <A> OED states : <S> Forms : Pl. <S> indexes <S> (also 16 index's ) and indices /ˈɪndɪsiːz/ . <S> Etymology : <S> < Latin inde , indic-em , plural indicēs , the forefinger, an informer, sign, inscription. <S> [...] <S> In current use the plural is indices in senses 8, 9, and usually in other senses except 5, in which indexes is usual. <S> And the respective senses are: (5): <S> index in the end of the book etc. ; (8): mathematical index, and (9): 9. <S> In various sciences, a number or formula expressing some property, form, ratio, etc. of the thing in question. <A> Both indexes and indices are correct . <S> A question like this can be settled by checking a good dictionary. <S> I checked my answer by going to OneLook.com , a great starting point for many online English dictionaries. <A> Unfortunately, the problem goes far beyond this particular noun to pretty much all nouns of direct Latin descent. <S> As people study Latin less and less, the use of Latin plural forms is slowly eroding. <S> In general, the more a word has found its way into common usage, the more likely that the English plural has replaced the Latin. <S> For example, "status" is both the singular and plural form in Latin, but "statuses" is common even though it sounds awkward. <S> We all speak of "an agenda", when actually "some agenda" is correct in the Latin sense; one of a group of agenda is an "agendum". <S> Similarly, one item of data is a datum, but we rarely say "the data are on the way." <S> I don't see "fora" in place of "forums" except in forums that I would never join. <S> :) <S> On the other hand, we generally say "appendices", I suspect primarily because "appendixes" sounds funny. <S> I see both "curricula" and "curriculums". <S> Further, though, I never see "genuses", always "genera", and likewise for "quantums" vs. "quanta". <A>
| Both are correct, though indexes is more commonly associated with the index reference of a book, while indices tends to be used with numerical symbols and ratios.
|
How does the grammar work in "here be dragons"? Why is the phrase here be dragons not here are dragons ? Is this a special grammatical form? If so, what is it? I found a related ELU question on the topic . <Q> I thought I'd add this as well, just for those who are inferring that "Here Be Dragons" is an inference on the illiteracy of the scholars during the middle ages. <S> I've separated it out from the other answer because it's not a direct answer to the question. <S> Anyway, "Here Be Dragons" is actually just an example of Old English (it is invalid modern English)- <S> in particular it's just an inversion of a sentence in the Old English sentence ordering. <S> In particular Here Be Dragons <S> Is an inversion of <S> [if] here, there Dragons are <S> In much the same way that in Jack and the Beanstalk the sentence Be he alive or be he dead <S> , I'll grind his bones to make my bread is an inversion of the sentence <S> [if he is] alive or dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread <S> Now "If here, there dragons are" is a word ordering that is no longer valid (although the word order should be familiar to German speakers which has the same sentence structure as Old English), and that is why the sentence "Here Be Dragons" is no longer valid. <S> Note that the subjunctive form in English is still there <S> , so we can construct our own sentences to show that this is still valid English so long as we shuffle the word order around: <S> I must insist that you be here by 9 am tomorrow for a debrief. <S> I agree with the recommendation that komodo dragons be here in the public part of the zoo where visitors can see them. <S> So anyway, long story short is that "Here Be Dragons" used to be valid English, but no longer is. <S> Its use idiomatically is used to insinuate "oldness" rather than "illiteracy". <A> I haven't been able to discover exactly where the notion arose that Ancient Mariners inscribed their maps with “Here be dragons”, “Here be demons”, “Here be treasure” and the like legends (the earliest use I've found dates to 1892, and clearly speaks of this use as an established fact). <S> But I feel reasonably certain <S> that Here be was not intended to represent illiterate speech but either period or regional dialect. <S> Be for all persons and numbers in the present indicative is supposed to be characteristic of West Country speech, and Devon in particular has strong traditional connections with sea-faring folk <S> : “Drake, he was a Devon man”, and the stock “pirate speech” of Hollywood is the generic dialect which theatre people call “Mummerset”. <S> The same conjugation is found in 19th-century “historical” novels and mock-mediaevalism: ”This is a strange shaft,” said the lad, looking at the arrow in his hand. <S> ”Aye, by my faith!” <S> cried Bennet. <S> “Black, and black-feathered. <S> Here is an ill-favoured shaft, by my sooth! <S> for black, they say, bodes burial. <S> And here be words written. <S> Wipe the blood away. <S> What read ye?” <S> —Stevenson, The Black Arrow , 1888 <S> “I tell thee, Brother Nicodemus, thy offences are numberless as the weeds which grow by the way-side. <S> Here be many who have much to say of thee : —speak, Brother Ulick!” <S> —William Clarke, Three Courses and a Dessert , 1830 <A> The subjunctive mood is a flexible grammatical instrument for expressing different gradients in thought when referring to events that are not stated as fact. <S> I.e. "here be dragons" means "here are supposed to be dragons (as they say)", not just "here are dragons (a true fact)". <S> The grammar is perfectly legitimate for 500 years ago. <A> Deliberate misspelling is very common in literature. <S> Cacography is deliberate misspelling intended to convey humorous sense or just exaggerating someone's illiteracy. <S> See also Sensational spelling . <S> It has similar effect, but using literate, but rare or dialectal spelling of a word or phrase. <S> In this particular case, it is ridiculing about pirates who were usually illiterate when they made maps of their treasures. <A> "Here be dragons" is an idiom used to denote dangerous or unexplored territories, in imitation of the medieval practice of putting dragons, sea serpents and other mythological creatures in uncharted areas of maps. <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_be_dragons <S> It is only ever used in its grammatically incorrect form as an idiom meaning "this is uncharted territory", or somewhere that is unexplained and to be avoided, particularly in the context of a map or a place that is out-of-bounds or unexplored. <S> For example, this map is taken from XKCD (a online, English-language computer-related comic strip) which references the "here be dragons" idiom in the top right: <S> Be careful when using this idiom. <S> It is very informal, and can lead to offence in some circumstances. <S> (e.g. "Don't talk to the people on the floor below - there be dragons down there <S> " may cause offence to people from the first floor who overhear). <S> If you intend to say literally "There are dragons at this location", you would use the grammatically correct forms <S> There are dragons here. <S> Or the active form: <S> Dragons are here.
| In "Here be dragons", "be" is an archaic subjunctive plural form.
|
If twins are always plural, how do I refer to a single twin, or how do we count twins? I've learned that twins in English are always plural, e.g. there are the twins . Then how do we count twins? If there are four people coming, those are two twins? There are two twins ? What if there are two people coming, who are twins. There are one twins ? Or still There is one twin ? My misunderstanding stems from the fact that the Dutch word "tweeling" (singular) refers to a single pair of twins (two people), and "tweelingen" (plural) would imply at least two sets of twins. <Q> You say there is one twin . <S> Twins, when referred to as a set, require an s , just like most other groups of objects. <S> There are the twins. <S> There is a twin. <S> There are the cats. <S> There is a cat. <S> And so on. <S> In the case of the four twins, you could say this: Here come the four twins. <S> If you wanted to be more precise, you could say this: <S> Here come [the] two sets of twins. <S> Saying there are the twins does not imply any specific number, although many people would assume that there are two, since twins come in sets of two. <A> Remember that twins always come in pairs, i.e there are always two of them. <S> So four people would be two pairs of twins . <S> To say 'one twin' implies that you are talking about just one of the persons in a pair. <A> A "twin" is one of a pair of twins. <S> One set of twins refer to two people who were born together. <S> Several such pairs can be referred to as several sets of twins. <A> By definition twins are two individuals (in the case of creatures) born at the same time. <S> I hear people say things like <S> "We have two twins in our family and both are identical boys. <S> " What two twins actually means it that there are 2 sets of twins, or 4 individual people. <S> When there is only one set of twins to say two before the word twin is redundant. <S> (Unless of course there are 2 sets of twins) <S> So to answer your question twins are a pair or two things/people/animals. <S> So you'd say,"This <S> is my brother Matt. <S> We're twins. <S> " If it's just Matt then he would say, "Hi I'm Matt. <S> I'm a twin. <S> My brother's name is Max. <S> He'll be here later" <A> Twin has a couple of meanings: a set of two and only two identical things, a set of two people who were born at the same time, or a single person who is part of a twin <S> So twin in singular form will usually refer to a set of two, and two twins will mean four things or four people. <S> The third meaning is not very common unless someone is describing themselves or context heavily suggests the second meaning. <S> But in that case, twins would refer to two people, not two sets of people. <S> Here is a very contrived example with four people (Alice, Bob, Charlie and Danielle): <S> Alice: Didn't I see someone exactly like you five minutes ago? <S> Bob: Yes, I'm a twin. <S> Alice: What's your brother's name? <S> Bob: My twin brother is named Charlie. <S> Alice: <S> Hey Danielle, did you know Bob and Charlie are twins? <S> Danielle: <S> No, I didn't.
| Two people would be a pair of twins .
|
What size is a division? At my university, located in Sweden, the division of X is a sub-part of the department of Y . My colleague, a native speaker, claims that this is entirely wrong; he says divisions should be the largest unit. Is a division normally a smaller unit than a department , a larger unit, or can it be either way? <Q> It's really up to the person who designed the system. <A> Short answer: there is no uniform convention even within American English for those two words, and I suspect within other dialects there isn't, either. <S> Your friend is correct, so far as the US Government goes, but really, it stops there. <S> In my US-based corporation founded almost entirely by Americans and those who have learned American English, it is exactly the opposite. <S> We have big divisions (US, Europe, Asia) and smaller departments (Human Resources for the US division). <S> There are some general patterns, though. <S> For example, in the US, an office will be a smaller unit than a bureau (even though bureau is the French word for office . <S> Again, this is a pattern, and not a rule. <S> Even in the US Government, the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) is part of the Department of Homeland Security and has within it both offices and divisions, and divisions of offices, and offices inside divisions. <S> In this sort of usage, offices probably have more specific tasks than divisions, which probably group tasks together... <S> but really, it's the government, so one only expects so much "rhyme or reason" in its organization. <A> Well to start with let's think about the root of the word: if you have a division, that means something was divided . <S> So literally, what you said is exactly correct: a division is anything which is a sub-part of something else. <S> As to the size of a division in practice, I really don't think there are any rules for that. <S> You can call it a division, a group, a department, a section... <S> There are any number of appropriate terms that could have been used for the divisions at your university. <S> It just depends on the person who named it. <S> The important thing is just that an entire organization as a whole cannot be a division; <S> ie. <S> the university itself cannot be a division because it is a whole. <S> A division is a piece of a whole, not the entire thing. <A> This naming concept is different in different places. <S> Generally, you would have a division in a department, with division being the smaller group. <S> It is up to the system designer however.
| As far I know, division does not necessarily need to be directly below the largest unit.
|
What is the American street naming convention? What sets apart a street, an avenue, a road (rd.), an alley - a way, and whatever forms of communication tracts I missed - that appear as part of street names on city maps in the US? <Q> Way and road are the least specialized of the words you presented, and they both mean a path leading from one place to another, esp. <S> for use by vehicles. <S> Streets and avenues are rather ambiguously used—in some places, avenues run east-west and streets run north-south. <S> In other places, they are simply part of the name of the road in question. <S> Sometimes, avenue is used for wider roads. <S> Sometimes it isn't. <S> Alleys are easily defined, however; they refer to a narrow passageway behind or between buildings. <S> Other words, such as boulevard, are just as ambiguously used as avenue and street . <S> Technically, a boulevard is a bit wider than your average street or avenue, though. <S> It's all a mess, really, and in the end they're all just roads, save for alley , perhaps. <A> There is no consistency at all in the designation of roads, avenues, streets, lanes, ways, or other paved surfaces in (most of) the U.S. <S> Even their traditional meanings (lanes are narrow passages, avenues are broad) are no guide. <S> The word at the end "street","way",etc is just part of the name, to be remembered instead of deduced. <A> Boulevards are generally wide roads that extend for quite some distance, and can be isolated at times like a highway. <S> Avenues are generally the largest kind of road in a city Streets are like avenues, but usually a bit smaller, and may, depending on the city, be perpendicular to avenues. <S> Roads are smaller than streets and tend to be found on the outskirts of cities or in the suburbs/country. <S> Alleys are narrow roads, usually in the city, and not often meant for driving Ways <S> are small roads, usually in the suburbs or country. <S> Keep in mind <S> these are just guidelines and not all streets/avenues/etc. <S> adhere to this. <A> I think as time goes by, these increasingly tend to be more alike. <S> A street is usually a place (but can be as long or longer than an avenue) <S> A road, usually leads to places (but as cities grow, are more like streets) <S> An alley usually comes to an end, or its just a narrow road (typically small for cars) <S> is more of a big area surrounded by big streets (as a place with trees and flowers) <S> A court is usually a very short street leading to a court of houses or something like that
| Avenues are big long streets that usually cut through very large areas (cities or even states A boulevard in modern days
|
Would a native speaker append "or" to a statement to turn it into a question? I hear it all the time from my colleagues: But that's correct, or? However, my colleagues are all German, and in German, one can turn a statement into a question by adding oder (which means or ). Does this sound natural to a native speakers ears? <Q> Generally speaking, it cannot turn a declarative statement into a question. <S> Examples of where it would be properly used are: <S> Do you want to go to the movies, or ...? <S> [the mall] <S> Would tuna for lunch be ok, or ...? <S> [no, I'll have salmon instead] <S> It is important to note that typically, or would only be used followed by a trailing ellipses. <S> More common are yes <S> and no , which can be used to turn declarative statements into questions, such as: <S> She found $20 at the beach, no? <S> ["didn't she" is another acceptable alternative to "no" here] <S> He had lunch yesterday at McDonald's, yes? <S> Either way, whether you use yes or or or <S> no , such usage is generally accepted in speech and in informal writing, but not in formal writing. <A> A very common equivalent in English is right . <S> For example: <S> Aber das ist wahr, oder? <S> Is directly equivalent in English to: <S> But that’s correct, right? <A> A question can end in or , however that is used as a prompt to the answerer, asking if there could be another solution. <S> Other than that, this wouldn't be used this way. <A> It would imply that the questioner is open to some other answer as an alternative to the one implied in the question or context. <S> t would never be used in formal writing. <A> It's possible, but the more natural expression would be ... or something?... or what? <S> as in <S> Do you want to see a movie or something? <S> Is this correct, or what? <A> waiwai's answer is very good and detailed, but I have something else I'd like to add. <S> Judging from the question and some other comments, I'm thinking that the closest English construction to the original German is "or not". <S> So she found the shell on the beach, or not? <S> As you said, the "or" in german is use to change a declarative into a question. <S> "So she found the shell on the beach" is a perfectly acceptable declarative sentence; in English the "or not" is appended to the end to change it into a question. <S> To use your original example, <S> "But that's correct, or not?" <S> would be a perfectly acceptable English construction. <S> So that answers your question, or not? <S> ;) <S> As others have suggested, "right" can also be used in these situations, as can "yes" or "no" <S> (depending on whether the statement was positive or negative). <S> But this seems to be the closest construction to what you mentioned in the question.
| Or can be used to extend questions where there are other options not being mentioned that the respondent can fill in. This doesn't doesn't sound right to me, a native speaker, and a native speaker wouldn't do this. In speech, especially if the or trails off expectantly, this would be a fairly natural usage. It seems to me that the only difference is that in German the "not" is implied, whereas in English it has to be stated outright.
|
Would saying "if" in place of "whether" be a big mistake? For example, in the expression "I don't know whether I'm coming or going", would saying if in place of whether be a big mistake? Would doing it in written English be an error too? <Q> In certain situations, they have different meanings. <S> For example: I don't know whether I should arrive on Friday or Saturday <S> I don't know if I should arrive on Friday or Saturday <S> The first sentence implies that the person will arrive, but they are not sure when. <S> The second sentence could be read that the person might not arrive at all. <A> Formally, if should be used when you have a conditional sentence and where whether should be used when you are showing that two alternatives are possible. <S> In the sentence asked, both are correct. <A> In the questioned sentence, "if" can be used to imply that the person saying it may not be either coming or going, but could be standing still, or even running around in circles. <S> "Whether" implies that "coming" and "going" are the only possibilities. <A> If could be used in place of whether . <S> They would have the same effect, and the same meaning. <S> So no, it wouldn't be a big mistake. <A> I find that if is commonly substituted for whether in informal English (the reverse does not happen). <S> This is one of my personal bugbears: I try to get it "right", but in practise most people are happy to let it slide.
| In general, if and whether can be substituted for each other.
|
English questions with what/where/why instead of what/where/why does I've learned that to phrase a question in English, one should use do + infinitive. However, I've also seen constructions like what brings the future? or what says the constitution? . Are such constructions conditionally correct? Or are they simply wrong, but commonly occurring? If they are correct, under what circumstances are they so? <Q> I agree with @Mark Robinson. <S> The introduction of do in questions ( What do you think? ) <S> and in reference to the past tense ( Did he swim? ) <S> is a relatively modern. <S> Because the usage without the grammaticalized do is more archaic, it also sounds more formal to our ears, but was not originally formal. <S> It was just English. <S> Now, we use it to heighten the question's intensity, or poetic purposes, or just for verbal flare. <S> It is perfectly comprehensible to native speakers, so the only concern in using it is whether its oddness will be appreciated as you hope in any particular situation. <A> A sentence with "do" is more common, and almost never sounds odd. <S> A sentence like <S> "What say you?" is mostly used for special effect, perhaps in a poetic environment. <A> They are older ways of saying stuff. <S> They aren't used much today except for a few cases as you mentioned. <S> For instance, “what brings the mailman?” <S> or “what says the man?” <S> as well as “what say you?” <S> which is occasionally used on legal dramas.
| You can use those phrases, however they aren't commonly used for most things.
|
Difference between "alright" and "all right"? Is there any difference between " alright " and " all right "? I can find both forms in different articles (especially on the Internet), although all right seems to be more common. I was wondering if both forms are acceptable or whether it is some sort of difference between American and British English or just a common mistake? <Q> Language is always changing, and most often in the direction of simplification. <S> You can even see the evolution happening before your own eyes. <S> "All ready" became "already" ; "all right" is in the process, through usage and repetition, of becoming "alright" (if not in fact "a'ight"). <S> It is already accepted as an informal alternative to "all right" and I predict that it will supplant the two-word version altogether (!) <S> except in the most formal writing (e.g., academic papers) within the lifetimes of many of us. <A> I would say that yes, there are contexts where only "all right" is acceptable. <S> As an example: Are any of the answers wrong? <S> No, they are all right i.e., all of them are correct. <S> I have found that alright seems to be following the example of all ready vs. already and all together vs. altogether. <S> In both cases, as I did above, one could add the phrase "of them <S> are" to each of the former terms and make it completely clear what is meant, whereas each of the latter terms have entirely different meanings. <S> Alright has come to mean acceptable, okay, and safe, as in "the kids are alright" - very much a comforting phrase if there has been some kind of accident or the like! " <S> The kids are all right" in that same context would have an extremely confusing connotation: the kids would not all be correct after an accident. <S> I would also like to point out that the way a word or phrase achieves acceptance and legitimacy is by usage, and "alright" certainly has this on its side! <A> It seems that historically, all right was the only accepted version. <S> Alright is more recent, and can either be seen as a shortened form of all right , or can have a slightly different meaning. <S> Something that is all right is in order, and we are at peace with it. <S> Something that is <A> I checked four dictionaries and they all agreed that "alright" is an informal equivalent of "all right." <S> However, informal doesn't mean wrong; it merely means informal. <S> Thus, "alright" is perfectly acceptable in informal contexts. <A> Alright is technically incorrect, but common, and therefore, proper grammar. <S> It is used informally, as well as in situations where space isn't abundant, for instance, on signs and Twitter tweets. <S> It is also used in quotes within many stories due to its commonness of use. <A> On top of answers of others — there are contexts where only "all right" is accepted, and I don't mean formal/informal. <S> — <S> Are there any left-threaded bolts in the bin? <S> — <S> No, they are all right.
| alright can be seen as simply satisfactory.
|
Difference between "even if" and "even though" When I was at university, my English teacher used to insist a lot on the difference between these two expressions, telling us that even if was to be used when introducing a hypothetical situation ( Even if I knew where John is, I wouldn't tell you), whereas even though was to be used as a concession or admission ( Even though I know where John is, I won't tell you). A few years have passed since my university days, and I'm under the impression that this kind of distinction is no longer made. Even if seems to be prevailing, and even though is less frequently found either in texts or in speech. Is my feeling correct? Has the difference between the two forms been cancelled? <Q> I think what your English teacher told you is right, as far as it goes; but there is a middle ground it does not address, where either may be used. <S> I imagine that very often this is what you are hearing. <S> The even clause may be neither hypothetical nor concessive <S> but 'occasional'—that is, it may refer to a condition which is sometimes true and sometimes not. <S> In such a case you might use even if or even though , because both are contextually equivalent to even when : You should eat breakfast every morning, even if/though/when you're hung over. <S> Even if/though/when he's sometimes over my head, I enjoy Prof. Sartorius' lectures. <S> In formal contexts you would probably adjust these sentences a little to fit the conjunction more precisely: ... <S> even though you may be hung over <S> Even when he's over my head ... <S> But those are niceties which are not required in ordinary conversation. <A> I don't think the difference has been cancelled or the meaning of those expressions has changed: from a cursory search, both still hold their meaning ( even if = <S> whether or not - but not always, note a comment below / even though = despite ). <A> To the best of my knowledge it is still used this way exclusively. <S> I have not heard it used anyway <S> other then this, nor can I find a reference to such usage. <A> The Touchstone series English book, Level 3, that I have explains the two this way. <S> Example: "I know you don't like musicals <S> but you may enjoy this one". <S> The word "but" was substituted for "even though" (Even though I don't usually like musicals, I loved this one.) <S> "Even if" means "whether or not". <S> Example: <S> "Even if you don't like musicals, you might enjoy this one." <S> OR, "Whether or not you like musicals, you might enjoy this one."
| "Even though" is similar to "but" or "despite the fact"; therefore, when using this term in a sentence one should be able to substitute the phrase "even though" for one of the alternate words, which means you may have to change the sentence structure.
|
Is "Bunch of people" a valid phrase? Some time ago I was told that use of the expression bunch of people is incorrect. Apparently, bunch should not be used along with people meaning group of people . But the problem is that I can hear that expression from lots of people, especially non-native English speakers. Can you please explain whether bunch of people is correct or not and why? <Q> I'm a native speaker of English, and bunch of people does not sound wrong to me, nor do I suspect, to most native speakers (academics excluded; see below). <S> The Corpus of Contemporary American English reports it used about a fifth as often as "group of people", which is certainly somewhat promising as far as it being "correct". <S> But I can't really say whether or not it is correct without knowing why the person who told you it's incorrect said that. <S> Just in case, though, I checked the OED since it is far more knowledgeable than me, and interestingly enough, this seems to be of relevance: 3. <S> A collection or cluster of things of the same kind, either growing together (as a bunch of grapes), or fastened closely together in any way (as a bunch of flowers, a bunch of keys); also a portion of a dress gathered together in irregular folds. <S> 4. <S> fig. <S> A collection, ‘lot’. <S> Also, a company or group of persons. <S> Definition 3 is the one that we're usually dealing with, and it seems to fairly clearly imply that bunch of people doesn't work, since people don't grow together (twins, triplets, etc. <S> excepted) and usually aren't fastened together. <S> Definition 4 seems like it would work, but every usage it cites has bunch in isolation; it was never used in the form bunch of people . <S> I didn't see any other relevant definitions, so bunch of people may not be formally correct after all; <S> either way, group of people is much more common and appears to be uncontroversial in usage. <A> Yes, the phrase bunch of people is not wrong; in fact it's very right. <S> The phrase is very popular in its informal use. <S> However, phrases such as a group of people or a crowd of people are preferred in formal meetings. <A> There is one time when you can use the term “bunch” when referring to a collection of people. <S> That would be if you say something on the lines of : <S> My brother and his bunch are crazy about football. <S> Any other circumstance will have you using terms like array , collection , group , etc. <A> A bunch of people is informal phrase for many people - not organized as a group. <S> Examples of use <S> : You come to work late by two hours, and a co-worker informs you "A bunch of people called asking about you. <S> It seems there's some kind of emergency." <S> - They were not an organized group, he simply received a number of questions over the phone and in person. <S> You organize a party. <S> "If the room is not big enough, a bunch of people will fit in the garden" - it's less than "a lot" and definitely less official than "many" which would sound somewhat stiff in this context. <S> At a shop: We had a bunch of customers in the morning <S> but later the tide subsided a little. <S> - there were lots of customers. <S> Note <S> this will not hold with other contexts of bunch in relation to people. <S> "My bunch" will be my group of friends. <S> "They are a funny bunch" - they may or may not be a group, but they are fun. <S> Also, these bunches will be usually smaller than the "bunch of people" mentioned earlier - five friends will be a bunch, but five customers waiting for the shop to open, not really. <A> Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English has bunch as group of people, informal in no. 2: a friendly bunch of people. <S> I think it can be used in a negative sense in certain contexts.
| It might be that it's considered rude to think of people as a bunch —I disagree, but if that's the case, whether it's right or wrong is going to depend on your specific audience.
|
"In" and "on": How can I decide which one to use for vehicles? Examples: In a car, van, etc. On a bus, boat, motorcycle, etc. How can one decide which preposition to use? Is memorization the only way or is there a better way? Note: People generally explain this by either distinguishing between open and closed vehicles or between large and small vehicles. However, the examples I've given defeat both explanations. <Q> The only way to be sure is to memorize. <S> However, you can use guidelines to make the right choice 90% of the time or more. <S> If there is no compartment involved, you get ON it. <S> (bicycle, motorcycle, skateboard, etc.) <S> (Note: partial compartments, such as those of convertible cars or open-topped boats, count as compartments; pretty much anything where the vehicle at least partially surrounds you.) <S> Oddly enough, if the transportation is large enough to allow you to move around freely, you also get ON it. <S> (Bus, train, large boat, passenger plane, etc; anything with an aisle or walkway.) <S> Otherwise, you almost certainly get IN it. <S> (Car, personal aircraft, canoe, etc.) <S> Thus, you would get IN a speedboat, but get ON a cruise ship, even though both are boats and both are enclosed, because the speedboat is small enough that although you can probably change seats without difficulty, you can't really move around freely inside it. <S> As a counterexample, even though a van may be large enough that it does have an aisle and you can move around freely inside it, <S> if you call it a van, you get IN it. <A> Besides the great @Hellion's answer, there is another consideration (#3 in the list below). <S> This article suggests there are three relevant factors : <S> Normal position (sitting in or ability to walk on ); Size of a vehicle relative to a human body; Regularly scheduled nature of the transportation; <S> Here's the quote: <S> Consider <S> "She left that morning on a van." <S> Suppose there were a scheduled van service between a central location and some factory on the outskirts of the city. <S> Now it sounds a bit better, doesn't it? <A> As you mentioned, you can use in for getting inside a vehicle (e.g., get in the van ), and you can use on for getting atop a vehicle (e.g. get on the bike ). <S> The one exception to this seems to be when you use on as a shortened form of on board , hence: get on the train, get on the plane, get on the bus, get on the ship . <S> Anytime someone can reasonably ask, "Is everybody on board?" <S> – or if there is a boarding process – then you can use on instead of in . <A> I read that if you can't stand up, you are IN. <S> In a car, in a cab, ON the bus, on the plane. <S> But that's not right, because you are in the elevator and you are standing up... <A> In gives a sense of being enclosed. <S> On is more open. <S> In a car, van (smaller space more tightly closed) <S> On a bus, airplane, cruiseship, boat, ferry (larger communal space where you could walk if it's not crowded) <S> On a motorcycle, horse, bicycle (open to the air -- you are literally on it) <A> I don't think the current answers are sufficient. <S> "I am on the bus." <S> But the word "in" is appropriate for the bus driver, who is not making use of this service: <S> "Where were you the night of the murder?""It couldn't have been me, I was in the (driver's seat of the/my) bus. "
| The word "on" implies a service that is being used.
|
What's the accepted way to use "criterion", "criteria", "criterions"? In many publications, especially IT related, I find lots of expressions with criteria e.g. What is your criteria ... What are your criteria ... What are your criterias ... English dictionary says that criteria (or criterions ) is a plural form of criterion . However, I never found sentences like " What is your criterion ... " or " What are your criterions ... " Can you explain what is the correct usage of criteria . Are criterions and criterion still in use in modern English or they have become obsolete ? <Q> That's just the way it is, if you want to sound educated. <S> Consider that it's an awfully erudite word to throw around in an illiterate manner. <A> Criteria is a bit of an unusual word—while it is formally considered plural, it is often used as if it were singular. <S> Using it as singular, though, is considered nonstandard, so beware of that. <S> Criterion is uncommon and criterions is rare, but neither are so rarely used that I would consider them obsolete. <S> So What are your criteria? <S> - OK - are goes with plural words <S> What is your criteria? <S> - <S> maybe OK - <S> if you're comfortable with criteria being singular <S> What is your criterion? <S> - OK - criterion is always singular—but remember that someone might have multiple criteria <S> What are your criterias? <S> - not OK - if/when criteria is treated as singular, is it used as a mass noun <S> What are your criterions? <S> - OK - but rare <A> Since the word is of Greek origin and I am Greek <S> I can definitely say that criterion is singular, and criteria is plural exactly as in Greek, unlike other Greek words used in English which are completely embedded in the English grammar (like idea, problem, system , and photography ). <A> Criteria is used in business/office communications, for instance in Tender and Quotation requests. <S> The main place I see it used relates to employment offers which will often contain a document detailing the Selection Criteria, and one of the main parts of the application will be responding to these criteria. <S> Criterion , in my experience, is rarely used outside of discussion involving the criteria that the criterion is part of. <S> For instance, the employment application might say: "As mentioned in the first criterion, I can ...", or "I have responded to the marketing criterion as well as the public relations criterion in this paragraph as they ...". <S> There is nothing erudite about the use of either the plural or singular in this context.
| Criteria is plural, criterion is singular.
|
When do we double the consonant before '-ing' affix? My son is learning how to spell. He is doing a good job listening to sounds and working out spelling that way (which doesn't work for many words, but at least a lot of common ones), but although he's gotten the -ing chunk, he frequently misses doubling letters in these words. Is there a guideline for when the end consonant is doubled? He's working on these sorts of words: riding sitting skating writing getting <Q> Are they still teaching the old 'long/short' vowels? <S> If so, here's the rule: <S> If it's pronounced with a 'short' vowel, double the final consonant. <S> It may help make this clearer if you explain that a vowel before a doubled consonant is (almost) always short. <S> Then write the /-ing/ forms out 'wrong' and invite your son to pronounce them the way they look: ride riddingsit <S> sitingskate <S> skattingwrite writtingget geting <S> As Renan points out, it gets more complicated when the final syllable of the base form is unstressed; but it looks like your son hasn't gotten that far yet. <A> For verbs ending in 'el' such as travel, cancel, chisel, excel, fuel, funnel, grovel, label, marvel etc, remember that British English requires a double 'l' as in 'travelling', whereas American English does not. <A> From here , you double the consonant when: one-syllable words: if the word ends with a consonant-vowel-consonant pattern (sit -> sitting, get -> getting). <S> two-syllable words: if the stress is on the second syllable (begin -> beginning). <S> For your other words (ride -> riding, skate -> skating, write -> <S> writing) <S> the e is dropped and replaced by ing . <A> We have verbs whose final letter <S> -e <S> is silent, e.g., to hope . <S> When -ing or -ed is added the letter e is dropped to avoid clumsy spellings such as hopeing or hopeed . <S> If we wrote hop and hoping we would not see whether hoping is from the verb to hope , or to hop . <S> That is the reason for consonant doubling after short and stressed vowels(a e i <S> o u) <S> + one consonant. <S> Consonant doubling also occurs with long and stressed vowels as in to refer and referring and with unstressed vowels (only special endings) as in to travel / travelling (American spelling: traveling ).
| If the syllable before the /-ing/ is pronounced with a 'long' vowel, leave the final consonant single (and delete any final silent /e/)
|
Can you reply "you too" to wishes such as "Good luck"? Suppose someone is saying to you: I wish you Merry Christmas! or Good luck! Is it meaningful to reply "You too"? Or should you respond "Same to you"? <Q> [Merry Christmas to] You too! <S> This is entirely valid spoken English (it's very informal in written English), but be careful of when you don't want to return the greeting in its exact form. <S> For example, the following is fine when both you and your friend are heading home from work: <S> Have a safe trip home! <S> You too! <S> But the previous conversation is wrong (but usually obviously and inoffensively wrong) if the first person is not travelling home, for instance if the second person were leaving the first's house after a visit. <S> In such a circumstance, one would normally have to think of an alternative response, for example: <S> Have a safe trip home! <S> Thanks! <S> Have a great evening! <A> As an American English speaker, I would have no trouble interpreting a reply of "you too!" <S> if I told someone "good luck! <S> " <S> It functions the same as "same to you". <S> When it comes to a holiday greeting, though, I have more often seen it where people add the "you too" to the original greeting. <S> For example: Person A : Merry Christmas! <S> Person B: <S> Thanks, merry Christmas to you, too! <S> If you'd prefer a simple rule, then "you too!" is acceptable on its own but it might make more sense when it's paired with the original greeting. <A> This makes sense only if the one giving you the good wishes is in the same situation as yourself. <S> For instance, if someone wishes you a Happy Birthday, it's nonsensical to say 'You too!' <S> unless they happen to share the same birth date. <S> If someone wishes you 'Merry Christmas', it's a reasonable assumption that they are Christian, or that they do at least recognize and celebrate the Christmas holiday, so it's fine to respond with 'you too', or more properly, "Merry Christmas to you too!" <A> You too! <S> is colloquially used; one can consider using The same to you! <S> or A Merry Christmas to you too! <S> for much formal events.
| "You too" is an abbreviation of a repeat of the sender's statement, for example: Merry Christmas!
|
Why is "a Japanese" offensive? When talking about a person from Japan, why is it offensive to say "a Japanese" rather than "a Japanese person"? The English language Wiktionary says (person in or from Japan): The singular “a Japanese” is less common than locutions using the adjective, such as “a Japanese person”, and is considered potentially offensive by many speakers. but doesn't explain why it is offensive. Allwords.com says Note: many people object to the usage of this sense in singular form, and it is now more frequent to see a person in or from Japan referred to by using the adjective Japanese. Rather than "a Japanese," you will frequently see "a Japanese person."'' but again, there's no explanation. <Q> I found an answer in this article: 「私は日本人です」は、I am a Japanese. <S> それとも"I am Japanese? <S> In English there is a distinction between nationalities that end in 'ian' like Canadian or Italian and those that end in 'ese' like Japanese or Burmese. <S> Those that have the 'ian' can say 'I am Canadian' or 'I am a Canadian' interchangeably, but usually in English the 'ese' ones don't use the 'a' when they're referring to people--unless it is being used as an adjective. <S> You could say "That is a Japanese person" (where Japanese is an adjective describing the word 'person') <S> This convention also applies to nationalities that end in 'ish' as well, as in 'I am British' or 'I am Scottish' --though <S> Scotland is a different case because they could say, "I am Scottish" or "I am a Scot". <S> I don't really know why this convention exists, but saying 'I am a Chinese' to a native speaker would be very strange for them. <A> 'A Japanese' implies the Japanese person is a thing, and not a person. <S> This is what deems it offensive. <S> If the race requires an an, it is no longer offensive - due to the lack of bluntness in the phrase. ' <S> An American' isn't offensive. <S> As well as this, a native speaker would think that 'He is a Japanese' sounds incorrect - <S> it fails to flow, whereas ' <S> He is a Japanese person' does. <A> Because apparently there is a factoid on the Internet, either based on or sustained by an article in China Daily , ( viewable here ) <S> that claims that the ending -ese is used in English only for certain Asian peoples (examples include Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese) and it then makes an unfounded historical argument to assert that this shows that English and/or English speakers (and other Europeans, by using the corresponding ending in their languages) are "racist" towards these peoples. <S> However this claim can be rebutted by showing that the ending -ese is used for non-Asian peoples, including Portuguese, Maltese, Viennese, Milanese, etc. <S> And, anyway, the usage note at Wikitionary lacked any verifiable citation and has been changed to something more sensible: <S> Usage notes <S> As with all nouns formed from -ese, the countable singular form ("I am a Japanese") is uncommon and often taken as incorrect, although it is rather frequent in East Asia as a translation for the demonyms written 日本人 in Chinese characters (Japanese kanji). <A> Here is another theory based on historical linguistics: I think the offense partly comes from it not being grammatical. <S> The same is true for "French", "English" or "Welsh". <S> These are older nationality adjectives. <S> (Slightly over-simplifying, the -ish/sh/ch ending is Old English; the -ese ending is French; the -ian/an is Latin, which, counter-intuitively, is often used more recently to make nationality adjectives in English.) <S> The older words (-ish/-ese) are adjectives, nouns referring to the language, or collective nouns referring to the people (eg the English, the Portuguese, the Japanese). <S> Many of these have different words for individuals (eg a Spaniard, a Scot, a Swede). <S> The newer words (-ian/an) are adjectives, nouns referring to the language, or nouns referring to individuals (eg an American, a German, an Ethiopian). <S> So referring to "a Japanese" would be like talking about "a furniture". <S> Also, there is a derogatory sense of words ending in "-ese", as we can see in words like "legalese", "officialese" or "educationese", but it's difficult to say whether the suffix "ese" is intrinsically derogatory, or whether it became derogatory because of anti-asian discrimination. <S> To add confusion, some of these adjectives have come into English from other languages (French or Late Latin) and some have been made in English. <S> When countries have appeared or come into view needing an adjective, using Latin has been the default. <S> Also adding an "n" may be natural for countries ending in "a" such as Korea or Malaysia. <S> But Asian countries have often had "ese" applied, such as Taiwanese (who used to be called Formosan) and Vietnamese. <S> More interesting still is Congolese, which used to be Congoese, but was replaced by the French word Congolais. <A> The real reason is that "Are you a Japanese?" <S> signals stereotypical thinking. <S> It suggests that you have a shelf in your mind for "the Japanese" and you want to make sure you're putting them where they belong. <S> It sounds discriminatory and hence offensive in a world increasingly affected by political correctness .
| 'A Japanese Person' implies the Japanese person is just that - a person, and is therefore considered fine for use.
|
Understanding difference between "intense" and "intensive" "Intense" and "intensive" are two different words : If you are putting forth an intense effort, your work is “intense”: “My intense study of Plato convinced me that I would make a good leader.” But when the intensity stems not so much from your effort as it does from outside forces, the usual word is “intensive”: “the village endured intensive bombing.” Is there any way to understand why the word ending in "se" has one meaning, and the word ending in "sive" has another meaning? <Q> The reason these two words have different endings is because they grew from two different root words in Old French, which helped form Old (and Modern) English. <S> Intense came from the French word intensus , meaning "stretched, strained, tight". <S> Intensive came from the English word intend , which in turn came from the French words entendre and intendre (essentially the same word), which means "to direct one's attention to". <S> Interestingly, both of these French words have the same Latin root word intendere , which is literally "to stretch tight", but entendre took a separate path in terms of connotation and meaning and developed into the word we have now. <A> Intensive is something that is intense. <S> Intensive is usually used to talk about something outside of you, whereas intense commonly refers to something you felt, or did. <S> Sourced From here on Dictionary.com <A> BAD: The government has embarked on an intense industrialization programme. <S> GOOD: <S> The government has embarked on an intensive industrialization programme. <S> intense = strong or very great; extreme: 'intense heat', 'intense pleasure', 'intense pain' <S> , 'intense competition' intensive = concentrated: 'an intensive English course', 'a period of intensive training'
| Simply put intensive is used to talk about something that is sustained, where as intense is more linked to feelings.
|
Is it common to use "gonna" in written English and even in business English? Gonna is a short form of going to . That sounds a little bit like slang. Is it common to use it in written English and even in business English? <Q> Gonna is informal; you can use it in written English, but it is not normally used in business English. <A> "Gonna" is an informal contraction of "going to". <S> It's used in informal speech. <S> And, of course, in written dialogues in novels/etc. <S> So, while there's nothing stopping you from using it wherever you want, I suggest you only use it in informal writing if you want to have it in a dialogue. <S> Never use it in formal English. <A> Never in writing, unless you are writing dialogue in a novel. <S> And never in a job application! <S> It is slang, use it in informal speech, text messages, only with people you know.
| While informal writing is, well, informal (and thus the rules are loosely defined), I've never seen "gonna" in writing, except in SMSspeak.
|
How are words ending "-ology", "-onomy", "-ography" pronounced? My English teacher often corrects me on the correct pronunciation of these suffixes. She says these should be pronounced with the stress on the first O. I have heard many educated folks pronounce it with no stress at all. I have also heard that the vowel O should be pronounced as "au" rather than "o". What is the actual pronunciation of these suffixes, both in British and American English? <Q> In both American and British English, there is an emphasis on the first O, but not too much. <S> For example, "astronomy" is pronounced: "as" like "us" (or sometimes "ass" from "class") "tr" from "trim" "on" from "marathon" "om" like "um" "y" like "ee" from "tree", but shorter <S> However, in Indian English, I have heard many people pronouncing it astrOHnomy, basically giving the O in "astro" the same emphasis as the O in "micro" and tacking on the "nomy" (rhymes with "mommy"). <S> This is completely different from the pronounciation above, and is wrong in American/British English. <A> I can't think of a single prefix that works for all three suffixes <S> so I'll give two examples (in Standard American English). <S> 'geology' and 'geography' <S> both have the accent on the first 'o'. <S> gee AH gruh fee, gee AH luh gee (in IPA, /dʒiy 'ɑ lə dʒiy/, /dʒiy 'ɑ grə fiy/ 'astrology' and 'astronomy' also both have the accent on the first 'o'. <S> uh STRAH luh gee, uh STRAH nuh mee. <S> In IPA, /ə 'strɑ lə dʒiy/, /ə 'strɑ <S> nə miy/ <S> I don't see any difference for educated speakers. <A> These suffixes all have three syllables; the vowels are what's important here. <S> The stress in all cases is on the first vowel. <S> In US English, this is the vowel pattern: <S> "o" pronounced "ah", stressed "o" or "a" pronounced more or less as "uh", <S> unstressed "y" pronounced as "ee", unstressed <S> Another suffix following this pattern is "-opathy". <A> Always when having a question about the pronunciation I use Cambridge dictionary which provide the options of the pronunciation in <S> British and American spoken English. <S> See here: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/pronunciation/english/urology <A> Most long words have the stress on the third last syllable. <S> So it is as'tronomy, as'trology, ge'ography, ab'surdity, phi'losophy, 'liberty etc. <S> Here you have some stress pattern of English words <S> https://www.englishclub.com/pronunciation/word-stress-rules.htm <S> In point D the wbsite says long nouns ending in -cy/gy/phy/ty have stress on the third syllable from the end.
| So your teacher is right, stress the first 'o'.
|
What is the difference between "hug" and "embrace"? What is the difference between hug and embrace ? Hug: Squeeze (someone) tightly in one's arms, typically to express affection. Embrace: Hold (someone) closely in one's arms, esp. as a sign of affection: "Aunt Sophie embraced her warmly". Is it only about strength or are there more subtle differences I don't quite grasp? <Q> The main difference is the level of affection shown in each. <S> You would hug a family member or close friend as a sign of being pleased to see them, but you would embrace a lover, wife/husband or boy/girlfriend. <A> To "embrace" can also mean to adopt a philosophy -- "She embraced shopping therapy with great enthusiasm." <S> "Hug" wouldn't make sense in that context. <S> When applied to personal contact, the answer about level of affection is apt. <A> embrace can also be used in other contexts (for instance, when someone accepts/converts to some religion, we say "he embraced Islam"). <S> hug, though, is merely a physical action, to get someone in arms. <A> The Oxford English Dictionary recognizes no difference between hug and embrace in their primary meanings, and neither does not the source you are apparently quoting. <S> I think the answer that says <S> Now, hug may have a wider application, as in the bear hugged the man before it killed him (!) <S> (Note: we would not use embraced as a synonym in that sentence); nevertheless, regarding human hugs and embraces, I'll say there may be some trend or thought in some people's minds, but this is not set in stone. <S> The Oxford English Dictionary defines <S> hug <S> I. 1. <S> a. <S> transitive To clasp or squeeze tightly in the arms: usually with affection = <S> embrace <S> It also notes the figurative usage: I. 1. <S> d. <S> figurative <S> To cherish or cling to (an opinion, belief, etc.) <S> with fervour or fondness. <S> however, I agree that nowadays I have probably only heard embrace used in this way. <S> But the OED does not mark this as obsolete or archaic or anything. <S> Then there is the usage meaning 'to cling to', used for ships and other things such as pathways. <S> 4 transitive (orig. <S> Nautical) <S> To keep as close as possible to (the shore, etc.); to ‘cling to’. <S> Embrace does not have this last meaning, as far as I am aware. <S> Interestingly the etymology that the OED gives for hug is..."unknown". <S> As for embrace , the OED provides 1 a. transitive To clasp in the arms, usually as a sign of fondness or friendship. <S> There are many figurative uses, including 2 h. <S> To adopt (a doctrine, opinions, religion, etc.); often with the notion ‘to accept joyfully’. <S> Also, to attach oneself to (a party, cause, etc.) <S> which is similar to one of the figurative uses of hug . <S> But as for the literal meaning in terms of to clasp in the arms , there is no description in the OED that says that one is more affectionate than the other. <S> Indeed, the OED flatly states <S> hug = <S> embrace . <S> So feel free to embrace your friend or relative and hug your lover.
| The main difference is the level of affection shown in each is being too strict regarding hug and embrace .
|
How does the "Dalai Lama walks into a pizza shop..." joke work? On YouTube, there's that famous joke the Dalai Lama didn't understand — and neither did I. It even made headlines in my part of the world, and on some of the sites I frequent, yet nobody ever bothered to explain it. I am at a loss. I suppose pretty much every non-native speaker will have trouble getting it. The Dalai Lama walks into a pizza shop and says "can you make me one with everything?" Is this some sort of pun? Double-entendre? A top-voted comment on YouTube says, "The joke is based on ambiguities of an expression, not the ideal joke to crack with a foreigner." Well, duh. Thanks for nothing. I looked up every single word of it in several dictionaries, including can , shop , one , make , with , walk , and each of these has a multitude of meanings, and I have no idea how they work together to create something funny. <Q> This is indeed a pun. <S> To make someone something can mean "to create something for someone", as in, I made her a sandwich . <S> But it can also mean "to change someone into some thing or state", as in, <S> I made her angry; Zeus made her (into) a cow . <S> To be one with something is a spiritual expression meaning... <S> something spiritual. <S> When people say they are one with the universe , they mean they experience some sort of supernatural bond with the entire universe. <S> Don't ask me how it works. <S> Here everything is equivalent to the universe . <S> This is known as nondualism . <S> The Dalai Lama is known for his spirituality. <S> But one can also stand for one pizza , as in can you make me one [pizza] with [all available toppings] <S> : <S> everything means "every topping/ingredient you have that you can put on a pizza". <A> Explanation <S> So, if you look at the statement again, the Dalai Lama asks them to "make him one with everything". <S> Read one way, it seems as if he is asking the pizza shop to give him spiritual enlightenment . <S> While, in reality, he may be asking for a pizza with every topping . <S> Not a good joke. <S> Although to me that joke is hilarious , it is not a good joke in the universal sense. <S> Most jokes require a certain background, a certain experience. <S> But this one requires too many. <S> For this one, (i) <S> you must have encountered the Buddhist idea of merging or unifying with the universe, expressed using the idiom <S> become one with (which in other contexts is not common); and (ii) <S> you must have encountered pizza in the American style, with loads of different topping choices, ordered using a preposition phrase headed by with (as in " with pepperoni and mushroom "); and (iii) <S> you must have been in a pizzeria that has as one of the choices on its menu the indecisive glutton's non-choice consisting of a megacombo of all available toppings (by no means all pizza restaurants give you that option), so that " everything " is a possible topping choice. <A> It can be read as: can you make me one pizza with every topping on it. <S> Or: can you give me a spiritual connection with everything within the universe. <S> Being "one" with something means that you are connected to it in a spiritual sense. <S> Can you make me "one" with "everything". <S> The dalai lama is an extremely spiritual public figure, who has made a life journey towards enlightenment and becoming "one" with the universe. <S> ( as in the joke) <A> An addition to the previous answers: <S> The Dalai Lama walks into a pizza shop and says "can you make me one with everything?" <S> Actually, this is only half of the joke. <S> The rest of it comes with the seller's reply when the Dalai Lama, seeing his fifty dollar banknote been pocketed by the seller, asks him for change: <S> "Change comes from within." <S> Here, the wordplay is based on the different meanings of the word "change": <S> a) <S> the money that is returned to someone who has paid for something that costs less than the amount that they gave; b) the result of something becoming different (in the context of Buddhism — positively different). <S> In this regard, the seller's reply matches the adage known to every follower of Buddhist religion: <S> "A genuine change must first come from within the individual, only then can he or she attempt to make a significant contribution to humanity" ( the link ). <A> Yes it's a pun on <S> make me one with everything . <S> The Dalai Lama has spent his whole life in the pursuit of oneness with himself and the universe, yet here he is asking a humble pizza restaurant to do it for him <S> : can you make me one with everything ? <S> He is of course referring to a pizza with all the toppings, rather than any spiritual oneness .
| So this is indeed a pun .
|
Are British words jarring in US English? In particular, I don't mean mere alternate spellings like colour , honour , but words that are entirely different: using lift instead of elevator , fridge instead of refrigerator etc. What is the common outlook on using them in plain informal speech in the US? What are the chances they won't be recognized at all? Will they be seen as pretentious? Weird? Unwelcome? <Q> AFAIK most Americans know the British equivalents for their words, and vice versa. <S> It wouldn't be considered weird - an American would just assume you were British, or learnt British English. <S> It wouldn't be considered unwelcome either, by the vast majority of Americans. <A> I think there is a chance that some of the less common words would not be recognised at all between the AmE and BritE, but it does depend on what sphere the words are from. <S> The common ones are fairly well known, others not so: From cars: Trunk, boot. <S> Hood, bonnet. <S> Rocker panel, sill etc From culinary: Bitter sweet chocolate, plain chocolate. <S> Tomato sauce, crushed tomatoes. <S> Tomato paste, tomato puree. <S> Cilantro, coriander. <S> And so on. <A> In general, I would say no, but there are some exceptions. <S> The first time I encountered a sign in a public place saying "toilet," I felt it was quite crude. <S> Americans would only use that word for the actual fixture, preferring restroom for such contexts.
| Some people even use them (some Britons use the American words).
|
Why "about" in "she kept walking about the room"? Regarding the sentence She kept walking about the room. Is that ok to use "in" instead, as in She kept walking in the room Why is "about" used in this sentence? Is there any difference to between "about" and "in"? (The above question was asked to me) <Q> The definition of "about" is Used to indicate movement in an area <S> While "in" is Expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else <S> So, here, "about" is more specific. " <S> She kept walking about the room. <S> " brings up a mental image of a woman pacing around a room. <S> " <S> She kept walking in the room" brings up a mental image of a woman walking in a straight line in a room (to me at least) <S> Aside from this, "she kept walking in the room" has another meaning-- "she kept entering the room", which is a completely different situation. <A> I can't agree "about" <S> can be viewed as a separate word. <S> Instead, I would say it is an idiom , a phrase that cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements, like "what's up" can't be viewed as "what's" + "up". <A> In would imply she is entering the room. <S> Entering into the room.
| The meaning of "to walk about" is "to walk with no particular goal" . About implies that she has already entered the room and is now walking around inside the room.
|
Pronunciation of "beaches" and "bitches" For me it is often hard to distinguish between these two words while speaking. The t in the bitch is almost neglectable in speech. What is the correct pronunciation of these two words? <Q> English spelling is crazy, these two words are pronounced identically except for the first vowel. <S> Don't worry about the 't' at all, it's not really a separate sound. <S> In Standard American English (the British and other varieties of English might have slightly different vowels): 'beaches' = <S> beeeeeeee - chez, The 'eeeee..' <S> sound, when exaggerated, is like when you clench your teeth and smile, very tense and long. <S> In IPA , it is /bij <S> tʃiz/ <S> 'bitches' = bih - chez. <S> the 'ih' sound is very relaxed and short. <S> In IPA, it is /bi tʃiz/ <S> I hope that clears up the pronunciation of the vowels. <S> As to the 'tch' vs 'ch', they are written differently but pronounced the same; the 't' is not really pronounced separately from the 'sh'. <S> An example is better: 'ditches' vs 'dishes': these two are pronounced identically except for the consonant in the middle. <S> The middle consonant in the first word is pronounced ike the first and last consonant in 'church'. <S> There's no separate 't' sound, you sound out a 't' and a 'sh' at the same time. <S> The technical terms for these are 'fricative' ' (for 'sh') and 'affricate' ' for a combined 'stop' and fricative sounded out at the same time. <S> (please pardon the technical vocabulary but these are very precise concepts that have a precise vocabulary to go along with them. <A> The "itch" vowel is IPA /ɪ/ , which is slightly more open and back than the "each" vowel, /i:/ . <S> See this chart of all the IPA vowel signs courtesy of Wikipedia: This may help if you can locate the vowels of your native language and figure out the "feel" of the three directions (close/open, front/back, and rounding) shown on the chart. <S> If you're already able to distinguish bit/beet, just add a "ch" at the end.) <A> Bitch ~ pitch bitches ~ pitches beach ~ <S> peach beaches ~ <S> peaches <S> I believe there is an American (possibly Latino, but I'm guessing) beeet -ches pronunciation, similar to how stinking becomes steeenking - <S> as in "we don' need <S> no steeenking baadges" - but I digress. <S> In general usage, bitches and beaches sound as different as pitches and peaches. <S> disclaimer: I speak Australian
| The "t" is a red herring - even if there are some dialects that pronounce the consonants differently or break the syllables differently, the most reliable distinction (at least in American English) is the vowel, which you'll have to learn for other word pairs as well (bit vs beet, for example.
|
How can one differentiate between "who" and "whom"? Many times, I've been asked the difference between "who" and "whom". I myself know the difference, but it is hard to explain to others. What is the easiest way to explain it to those with a basic understanding of English? A mnemonic (if possible) would help. <Q> But the distinction produces a number of inconsistencies , and it has confused even such native speakers as William Shakespeare, the translators of the King James Bible, and Daniel Defoe. <S> 1 <S> Fortunately for the English learner, in modern informal English, you don't need to distinguish them . <S> For instance, who can be used as both a subject and an object (as an interrogative): <S> Who subject of "[i]s" 's there? <S> They sacked who object of "sacked" ? <S> Who object of "to" will the task be assigned to? <S> and similarly when it heads a relative clause <S> : <S> Give it to anyone who asks for it. <S> Give it to the employee who it's assigned to. <S> "Whom" will generally still be used when it immediately follows the preposition it is the object of. <S> But such constructions are uncommon in informal English, since pied-piping of prepositions is used only in formal registers. <S> "Whomever" is essentially unused, with "whoever" used even immediately after a preposition <S> : Give it to whoever object of "to", subject of "asks" asks for it. <S> Give it to whoever object of "to", object of "picks" the computer picks. <S> 1 <S> That is, the distinction was never widely observed in detail. <A> You asked for a mnemonic; here’s a simple one: <S> Use <S> who in places where he fits. <S> Use <S> whom <S> in places where him fits. <S> Use <S> whose in places where his fits. <A> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away , English used to have noun cases . <S> Generally, cases where the rules by which a noun changes. <S> When a noun was a primary actor in a sentence, it was used in a nominative case . <S> However, if a noun was an object of some action, other cases were used. <S> Consider: <S> My brother is a doctor - here, "brother" is a primary subject, so nominative case was used; I give an apple to my brother - here, "brother" is not a primary actor, so the noun used another case. <S> Usually, dative ; I see my brother - here, "brother" is a direct object of an action, so the noun was in objective case. <S> There are many resemblances of former use of noun cases, and the most prominent example is pronouns : <S> Nominative "I", but objective "me"; Nominative " <S> who", but objective "whom" Hence, the answer to your question: Who is used when you are talking about the subject (actor): <S> Who broke the window? <S> Whom is used when we are talking about an object of a certain action: With whom are you going to a school? <A> Who is Subject Oriented Interrogative pronoun and <S> Whom is Object Oriented Interrogative Pronoun. <S> Usage of Who:- 1) <S> It can be used in place of subject to interrogate. <S> Ex- <S> i) <S> Who are you? <S> ii) <S> Who taught you to talk like that? <S> 2) It can also be used as a subject of a clause. <S> Ex- <S> i) <S> This is the person who was searching for you. <S> ii) <S> Anybody who would like to climb the hill may come forward. <S> Usage of Whom:- 1) <S> It can be used in place of object to interrogate. <S> Ex- <S> i) <S> Whom do you want to leave with? <S> ii) <S> Whom is this present for? <S> 2) It can also be used as a object of a clause. <S> Ex- <S> i) <S> This is the person whom I told you about. <S> 3) <S> Whom is always the correct choice after a preposition . <S> Ex- Katrina is the girl with whom I am going to date. <A> I taught this to my students in a very simple manner just last week. <S> Who broke the vase?Whom <S> did mother call? <S> In the first sentence, the work is done by the unknown person ' <S> who'. <S> It is in active voice. <S> Hence, we use 'who'. <S> In the second sentence, 'mother' does the work. <S> The verb refers to the object. <S> It is in passive voice. <S> Hence, we use 'whom'. <S> In other words, if the unknown entity does the verb, use 'who'. <S> If the verb is done on the unknown entity, use 'whom'.
| In modern informal usage Traditionally, who and whom are distinguished: who is used as a subject, whom as an object. Who (as well as derived forms like whoever ) can be used in all positions.
|
What is "cultural capital" and what role does it play in learning the language? My English teacher once jovially remarked that if I were to ever fully understand literature texts by native English writers, I would have to have cultural capital . He went on to add that I wouldn't exactly understand what the term means precisely because I don't have some in the first place. A quick Google search led me to a Wikipedia article on the term. From whatever I can sense from the article, I figured it refers to the cultural background that a native speaker gets from their upbringing. It seems to me that without cultural capital, one cannot pickup inside-jokes and other little nuances that require cultural immersing. How close am I in the understanding of the term and what good does it provide in terms of better learning the language? <Q> You are definitely on the right track. <S> A good example would be pop culture references. <S> Another is region specific stereotypes or traditions. <S> If a foreign national was spending time in America and had no knowledge of the politics of the country, it may be very confusing to hear someone referred to slightingly as "such a liberal". <S> The speaking party may assume that their listener knows all the connotations associated with "liberals" in the USA, but without some "cultural capital", the visitor may not. <A> A capital in this context means the sum of wealth, savings, assets. <S> The "cultural capital" is the sum of your knowledge about culture, skills related to culture, gained sensitivities. <S> You read books, appreciate art, discuss non-obvious facets and symbolics of it, learn its history, importance, influences, dependencies. <S> Become more cultured yourself, and hone your skills both in creation and in appreciation of culture. <S> This all builds your cultural capital - and the more you have of it, the more difficult and sophisticated art you can recognize. <S> For most people Picasso's paintings are a random mix of shapes without meaning. <S> You need significant cultural capital to really understand the genius contained within them. <S> Do not confuse with "Cultural capital of [a country]". <S> In this meaning, Capital is used as the Main City. <S> While Rome is the official capital city of Italy, Venice is its called its cultural capital. <A> KenB has pretty much got it. <S> I just want to add to the 'what good does it provide in terms of better learning the language?' <S> part of the question. <S> As to the correct use of the language , 'cultural capital' plays very little part. <S> Your teacher mentioned understanding literature texts , which is a different matter. <S> The literature of a culture might contain instances of cultural reference points like those mentioned in other answers, without providing an explanation. <S> You need the cultural capital to understand the meaning behind these references in the literature, but not to understand the language and how it works.
| Many of the nuanced phrases and figures of speech in a language come from an intimate knowledge of the culture surrounding it. It's usually applied to money, valuables, wares and other sellable property - company's capital is the value of all its assets.
|
When to use "some" instead of "a" You were just having some dream. and You were just having a dream. Are both correct? What is the difference, if any? <Q> Yes, both are correct. <S> In your first example some is being used in an informal way. <S> There are two plausible interpretations for some . <S> The first possibility is that some means the dream is remarkable in some way (meaning 6 in the above link). <S> It takes the place of <S> a <S> and adds this extra meaning to the sentence. <S> So You were just having some dream! <S> Is pretty much the same as saying You were just having a remarkable dream! <S> When you use <S> some in this way, you must put emphasis on it. <S> Another example could be: <S> That is an apple. <S> vs <S> That is some apple! <S> Where the apple could for example be tastier than normal. <S> The other possibility is that some means <S> a but in a dismissive way (meaning 2. <S> in the link I provide). <S> So You were just having some dream. <S> Could be interpreted as <S> You were just having a dream, don't worry about it. <S> or You were just having a dream, it is of no importance. <S> Another example would be: <S> A- <S> Who is that on stage? <S> B- <S> Oh, just some roadie. <S> Because B doesn't think the roadie is of interest. <A> A would normally be used in this sense because there was only one dream. <S> Some would normally be used when there is an indeterminate amount, e.g. "You were just eating some food." <A> 'Some' is used when the quantity of the object in question is either not countable, is unknown, or is not important. <S> So you should say some sugar , some coffee , but not some dream , because dream is singular and therefore countable. <S> However, you can say some dreams to indicate more than one dream, but where the exact number of dreams is not significant.
| Some , used in this way, indicates that some attribute of the thing is surprisingly different to normal.
|
Are "stress" and "distress" interchangable? Are the words distress , and stress interchangeable? I have heard them used in the same place, but are they the same? He was very (stressed/distressed) about his co-workers thoughts of his idea. <Q> In other words, the two words are (or rather, can be) grammatically interchangeable, but not semantically . <S> He was very stressed about what his co-workers thought of his idea. <S> This means he was feeling tension, strain, and/or worry about what his colleagues thought. <S> It's even possible (unlikely, but possible) that his co-workers approved of his idea — perhaps approval means more work for him, or something. <S> See definition 2 or 4 here . <S> He was very distressed about what his co-workers thought of his idea. <S> This means that he was outright upset by his co-workers disapproval <S> : their negative opinions caused him psychological suffering . <S> As you can see, at least in this particular case, the difference between the words is kinda-sorta one of degree: distress is a worse feeling than stress . <S> But there are other differences: for example, you can be " under stress", but you can't be "* under distress". <A> No, they are not. " <S> Stress" (in this usage), means "psychological tension". <S> While one can be stressed and distressed at the same time, it is not always necessary. <S> Simplest example: "Damsel in distress" is never "Damsel under stress" <A> In the context here, I'd say 'Stress' is meant as defined by the NHS, meaning "the feeling of being under too much mental or emotional pressure." and distress, as defined by dictionary.com , means "great pain, anxiety, or sorrow; acute physical or mental suffering; affliction; trouble." <S> (there are other definitions for both words). <S> Under these definitions, there may be cases where the two words are interchangeable. <S> However, for the most part they do mean slightly different things. <S> To use your example, to say "He was very stressed by his co-workers thoughts about his idea" would indicate that the man in question was maybe worried by his colleague's thoughts and felt put under pressure by them, but "He was very distressed by his co-workers thoughts about his idea" would mean that he was very upset and/or hurt by them. <S> Whilst the two sentences still have broadly similar meanings, the second sentence is a lot stronger than the first. <S> Therefore, although both would make sense, 'stress' and 'distress' aren't entirely interchangeable here.
| "Distress" is anxiety, sorrow, or pain. There are indeed some contexts where either word could be used, but they mean different things.
|
"An hour" or "a hour" Which indefinite article should precede hour — a or an ? an hour a hour Does the usage of an vs a depend on the pronunciation — a history , a hobby , but an hour , an honor ? <Q> Does the usage of <S> an vs <S> a depends on the pronunciation: a history, a hobby , but an hour, an honor. <S> Yes. <S> I wrote a blog post about an vs <S> a on the EL&U blog some time ago, and it covers a wide variety of other cases that you might be interested in. <A> An hour is correct, because "hour" begins with a vowel sound. <S> A vs. <S> an depends on pronunciation, not spelling. <S> Some notable cases: A/ <S> an NIC (network interface card)--proper spelling depends on prounuciation... <S> "A nick" vs. "an N-I-C" <S> A/an herb. <S> " <S> An erb" in most regions. <S> "a herb" (with pronounced H) in some <A> You are correct in your assumption. <S> The usage does depend on the pronunciation. <S> If the subsequent word starts with a vowel sound, then the previous word must be an . <S> If the word starts with a consonant sound, then the previous word is a .
| If a word begins with a vowel sound, then the correct article is an ; otherwise, if it begins with a consonantal sound, the correct article is a . Because hour is typically pronounced with a silent h , an hour is correct.
|
Usage of "Rain check" From time to time I hear the phrase rain check . For instance I have to take a rain check on that. I would say that means I have to get back to you on that issue. How do I use that phrase? What does it mean? Where does it come from? I always think while hearing rain in rain check that it sounds a little different than the word rain . Is it pronounced differently? It sounds like rai-n check . But I could be wrong. <Q> I to have to disagree with your interpretation of that phrase. <S> "I have to take a rain check" <S> is not the same as saying "I have to get back to you." <S> For example, this would be wrong: <S> Where is that report I asked for? <S> I have to take a rain check. <S> — <S> Incorrect <S> To "take a rain check" <S> is to turn down an offer that you expect (or ask, or demand) to be made available again at a later date. <S> For example: The item on sale is no longer in stock. <S> Can I get a rain check for that? — <S> Correct <S> This is a more idiomatic usage: <S> Would you like to go out on my boat? <S> I'll have to take a rain check! <S> — <S> Correct - or - Can I get a rain check [for that]? <A> The term originated when American baseball games were suspended or halted because of bad weather, and a "rain check" was issued to paying spectators entitling them to attend a future game at no extra cost. <S> The term has been extended by merchants whose supply of a particular item has run out, to allow a customer to purchase the same item in the future, at the same price as the currently unavailable item. <S> So yes, it does mean <S> "I'll get back to you; I can't deal with it now." <A> Taking a rain check is a polite way of saying "no" to an invitation, especially in American English. <S> You can decide to take a rain check when there is an invitation open to you. <S> For example: Your friend asks, Would you like to go to my poetry reading? <S> and you don't want to go. <S> You can answer, Sorry <S> , I'll have to take a rain check. <S> You might use <S> I have to take a rain check on that to mean that you are busy and you have to respond to someone later, <S> like if someone asks, want to chat? <S> This works if a response like not right now, thanks would also make sense. <S> But, if your boss asks you to do something, it might not be appropriate to say I have to take a rain check on that , because this is not a social invitation you can say "no" to without explanation. <A> In other words, it’s a way of saying that you would have very much liked to accept the offer <S> but you cannot and hope the offer will be extended again. <S> So it is as if you wanted to attend the baseball game or buy the object at the store (as per the original uses of the term) <S> but since you can’t, you hope you will by given another chance at a later date. <S> Sometimes it’s <S> just a polite dismissal, but a hurried or dismissive tone may give that away. <A> rain check <S> If you say you will take a rain check on an offer or suggestion, you mean that you do not want to accept it now, but you might accept it at another time. <S> I was planning to ask you in for a brandy, but if you want to take a rain check, that's fine. <S> (Collins Dictionary)
| A rain check (this dictionary entry also has pronunciation) is a ticket that can be used later if a game, show, etc. is cancelled because of rain Rain checks started with rain, but now stores may give a rain check at other times, like when a product runs out during a sale. As an American who has heard and used the term countless times, I would like to say that it is generally a warm way to decline an offer.
|
Difference between "clean" and "clear" What is the difference between "clean" and "clear"? clean verb[with object] make clean; remove dirt, marks, or stains from: clean your teeth properly after meals I cleaned up my room (as noun cleaning) Anne will help with the cleaning clear make or become clear, in particular: [with object] remove an obstruction or unwanted item or items from: the drive had been cleared of snow Carolyn cleared the table and washed up Why does one clean teeth, but clear the drive? How to decide which one to use? <Q> You can think of it this way: something that is cleared can still be dirty . <S> For example, if the floor is cluttered with things such as toys and papers and whatnot, you can clear the floor by removing everything from the room. <S> However, all those things probably left dirt or stains about. <S> Next, you would have to clean <S> the floor to remove those. <A> you're stating that the table was dirty before, and now it has been polished; if on the contrary you say: I've cleared the table <S> you are stating that it was encumbered with materials (it does not matter whether wanted or unwanted), which made it difficult to use it. <A> Clear means to remove stuff from something. <S> For instance: I cleared the counter. <S> This implies that the counter had stuff on it. <S> This cannot be used in place of cleaned when it refers to making less dirty. <S> I cleaned the counter. <S> This is typically used to show making less dirty. <S> However it can also be used to mean cleared, however it cannot go both ways in this instance. <A> Also they can be used to present status. <S> 1) <S> Clean: <S> Assume a cop is examining a suspect for possessing illegal arms but nothing was found. <S> Then he would report to his boss as: " <S> He is clean boss." <S> 2) <S> Clear: <S> In army generally, "all clear" is used to tell the status of a secured site. <S> "All clear, Go Go Go!!! <S> or "Sector Clear, team B move ahead." <A> Clear and clean are basically defined by what is being cleared or cleaned, and how. <S> To "clear" a table is to remove "large" objects from it, such as plates, silverware, napkins, etc., basically things that can be picked up with a hand. <S> To "clean" a table is to remove "small" objects such as dust, food particles, crumbs, sauce, etc., for which you need a rag and some soap. <S> A tooth is a small object, and things that are removed from it are "cleaned." <S> A drive is a large (hand holdable) object, and things are "cleared" from it. <S> A room can be "cleared" of large objects such as furniture. <S> Or "cleaned" if the reference is to dust, dirt, papers, etc.
| I think that you normally use the verb "clean" to talk about removing dirt, stains and similar things from objects or surfaces; as you correctly said, "clear" indicates the removal of objects or obstructions; for example, if you say: I've cleaned the table
|
When does one write a number as words and when as digits? I think I heard somewhere a rule that says "numbers up to twelve should be spelled out, numbers above can be written numerically" but not only do I not remember if that was exactly how the rule went, I'm fairly sure the source wasn't really reliable. So, can you tell me whether - in a common text, not legalese, not calculations, nothing unusual - I should use digits or letters? Is it true you should write "eleven" but "13" in a literary text? Also, I'm pretty sure that, even if it's true, there must be exceptions. If I'm right, can you name them? <Q> For this question, I'd go to The Chicago Manual of Style . <S> Their general rule is, for non-technical contexts, "spell[] out whole numbers from zero through one hundred and certain round multiples of those numbers." <S> Exceptions using digits: dates: 8 January 2012 numbers referring to parts of a book: table 23 on page 4; chapter 11 volumes, distances, other physical quantities: 15 kilometers; 6 cubic feet; 3 tonnes; 10 degrees of arc; ... <S> (but if the context is non-technical, words can be used) <S> Exceptions using words: when the value is approximate: seventy-five million at the beginning of a sentence: Two hundred fifty visitors ... <S> (but sometimes it's advisable to rephrase, such as if a year starts a sentence) <S> The actual list in Chicago is much longer and more complicated. <S> Chicago also recognizes the practice of using digits rather than words for any value ten or greater. <S> Usage is really rather flexible -- so consider the context you're working in, and try to be consistent. <A> There is a nice article 10 Rules for Writing Numbers and Numerals <S> The main rules: <S> Spell small numbers out. <S> (My rule: <S> Up to twelve - thirteen is a composed word and long ) <S> Don’t start a sentence with a numeral. <S> Centuries and decades should be spelled out. <S> If the number is rounded or estimated, spell it out Form another source <S> Be consistent within a category. <A> I've seen cutoffs of 10 and 20 and 100. <S> I'm not sure if there is a fixed standard.
| I've heard different numbers from multiple sources on this matter.
|
Can I say to mail me referring to e-mail? Can I say someone to mail me when I'm referring to sending me to an e-mail? I'm aware of other meaning of the word mail , but is it nowadays used in older meaning? In many languages mail and e-mail are synonyms. Would an average native speaker younger than 40 also understand it that way? <Q> ("Mail me when you are ready."), and as noun as synonym of email , such as in the following sentence: "You have got mail." <A> You can ask someone to mail you, but should you? <S> Please mail me the file <S> doesn't sound right to me. <S> If we usually email each other and don't use postal mail, I would understand what you mean. <S> But, I might be confused for a moment, or stop to think that it sounded awkward. <S> Even though mail as a noun sometimes means electronic mail, mail as a verb like in mail me usually means postal mail. <S> There are not any examples in the COCA <S> (Corpus of Contemporary American English - a set of recent spoken and written language samples) where mail me seems to mean email. <S> The use of mail might be changing or might be different for people whose English is not in the samples in COCA. <S> But it is a safe choice to write email instead, as in: <S> Please email me the file <S> If you want to choose a different word, send is common, as in send me an email , <S> send her a text , or send us the information . <S> Maybe because I hear and see send so much more than mail , please send me the file sounds normal to me. <S> It would not confuse me (if we usually send emails and not postal mail). <A> It has been used that way, most markedly by AOL back in the early '00s, but is really isn't used that way, at least in the US, or at least in the parts of the US where I have lived. <S> Some people may understand your meaning, others wouldn't. <S> If you were to ask me to "mail" something to you, I would be confused, and take a few seconds to catch on. <S> But if you said "email", I would immediately know what you mean. <S> So ultimately, it's a matter of clarity. <S> Use "email". <S> It isn't saving you any time to say "mail" instead, and you probably save time, since you don't need to wait for the other person to catch on.
| Mail is also used as verb to mean "send an email"
|
If I can skype someone, can I chat someone? I can say I've skyped someone. But when referring to chat, such as ICQ, is it correct to say that I've chat someone, with the meaning that I've sent someone a message on chat? <Q> What you are talking about is called " Conversion " in linguistics (turning one form of a word into another) and more specifically "Verbification" in the case you are asking about (changing non-verbs into verbs). <S> So specifically answering your question — <S> Yes, you can Skype someone, but you won't likely hear "chat someone" in correct usage. <S> Even "Skype someone" is somewhat new and would likely only be considered acceptable usage in informal circles. <S> That is simply by convention simply because one came into common usage, while the other… hasn't. <S> Honestly, there are no rules that determine when a noun can become a verb. <S> It is simply a matter of when it becomes common enough usage to become acceptable. <S> You can "phone, fax, or text me" but you can't "cell, smartphone, or iPhone me" — <S> Strange right? <S> Wait, it gets crazier <S> — You can "bus someone" across town, but you wouldn't "plane someone" across the country. <S> You can "gun someone down" but you would not "pistol someone down. <S> " You can "hammer a nail" but you wouldn't "screwdriver a screw. <S> " You can "milk a cow" but you can't "egg a chicken." <S> Fortunately, you can search the web to determine if something has become common usage , but be sure to use canonical or at least well-vetted sources (newspapers, books, articles, etc), not chat, street talk, or forums… which are more prone to slang and unconventional language use. <A> No, you cannot say I have chat someone. <S> You could say I chatted with someone. <S> Using the term <S> I've skyped someone is informal <S> and I would only use it when communicating with friends, if even then. <A> One wonder of the English language is that any word can be verbed. <S> It's very colloquial, but will be understood. <S> More correct would be: <S> I chatted with [someone]. <S> They have slightly different connotations. <S> I have chatted Bob. <S> This suggests that you sent a chat request to Bob; he may or may not have responded, and a conversation ensued. <S> I have chatted with Bob. <S> This suggests that you and Bob engaged in a mutual chat conversation. <S> Another use of the word chat would be: <S> I chatted up Bob. <S> This would mean you spent a long time chatting to Bob, likely for the purpose of obtaining favor. <S> Many people peruse bars to "chat up the girls." <A> In my understanding, when you say "I've skyped someone" you are referring to the act of "calling someone", which then is understood as speaking with someone. <S> Chatting would be the act of speaking itself, so both are not comparable. <S> Now, that being said, "I've skyped someone" is incorrect, but understood, as "I googled this or that" is. <S> "I chat someone" is both incorrect and senseless. <A> As others have mentioned, English does have a great tendency to change words into whatever part of speech is required, including verbification. <S> Thus, the brand names <S> Skype and Google easily give rise to the verbs skyping and googling , respectively. <S> However, this tendency has limits. <S> Namely, the language tends to resist changing a word into something that already exists. <S> Successful coinages are successful because they fill a void; if there is no void, there's no point inventing a new word for it. <S> Chat is already a verb, and has been one since long before computers were invented. <S> Therefore, there is no need to invent an awkward transitive <S> "I chatted him" when there is already the well-established intransitive "I chatted with him". <S> That said, not having a point doesn't always prevent people from inventing words anyway. <S> In a sense, googling is a pointless coinage, because there was already the perfectly good verb searching . <S> There's no rules or even predictability about this: some coinages take off, others inexplicably don't. <S> (And in fact you will sometimes find people using "chat" with a direct object, sometimes even with a different shade of meaning than it would have without a direct object. <S> It's just that these usages have an extra "that sounds wrong" obstacle to overcome.) <S> All you can do, especially as a learner, is to follow established practice as much as possible: if you hear multiple native speakers use a particular expression, it's probably fine to imitate them, but it's generally best if you don't go around inventing usages of your own, <S> at least not until you're very, very comfortable with the language. <A> If you say, for example, "I have chatted to a few women on the Net," it means that you exchanged messages in real time over a computer network with one or more users. <A> Yes that is proper, but remember you must double the t at the end. <S> For instance: I chatted with my friend on AIM <S> and he said "hi". <S> However you must use " with ", to be proper, as skyped isn't actually proper, but slang, but very common in informal usage.
| You can say: I [have] chatted [someone]. Yes, you can say.
|
A single term for city and town, but not village? Is there a single term (word or phrase) for city and town, as opposite to village? In my language there's no distinction between city and town, so having one word for both of them is quite natural (of course there are small towns and big towns - cities). <Q> City is probably the word you want. <S> Perhaps municipality in more technical or legal contexts. <S> Even a small town will have city limits <S> --that is, the geographic border of the municipality's legal jurisdiction. <A> Urban area . <S> That's awfully technical and specialized, also not entirely overlapping the set of cities/towns. <S> In English it's usually written as City/Town and there are no common words to bundle these two. <A> An urban area, refers to a non-rual area. <S> This would be your cities and your towns, but not villages.
| A city is a legal entity, and can be large or small. The term village is not used often, at least not in American English, and when it is used, it often refers to a part of a city or town, or a neighborhood.
|
Is "down" not meaning "below" (e.g. "down the line") formally acceptable? One of my biggest issues when learning the language was when I heard people saying "down there" or "down the line" when referring to a counter or a line in a bank, respectively, for example. That just didn't make sense to me. Translating the words, it never would, but in informal language, this is one of the most common expressions used in the English language. Is that usage of the word down formally correct? <Q> Formally, yes - it is correct. <S> Down can be used as a preposition , such that: Down can be used to indicate movement from a higher to a lower position <S> They went down the mountain Or at a lower or further level or position on, in, or along: <S> He ran down the street <S> She is down the other end of the line. <S> Down is defined as a preposition in a number of dictionaries, see here and here . <A> If by “formally correct” you mean “acceptable in formal discourse” — <S> FOR ADVANCED STUDENTS: <S> Down derives from an Old English expression meaning “from the hill” and had as its initial sense, according to the OED (the emphases are mine): <S> I. Of motion or direction in space. <S> 1. <S> In a descending direction ; from above, or towards that which is below ; from a higher to a lower place or position ; to the ground. <S> It is applied to any degree of descent, from a vertical slope to the slightest slope as in a nearly level river valley, and thus passes into sense 2, in which the descent may be entirely imaginary or conventional . <S> … <S> 2. <S> To some place which is conventionally viewed as lower in position ; in the direction of a current, or with the wind ; from the capital to the distant parts of a country ; away from a university ; from the House of Lords to the House of Commons or ‘lower house’ ; to a lower or inferior court of law, etc. <S> That sense 2 is already documented in 1200. <S> And it’s just the second of 22 senses the original OED (1897) distinguished in the bare adverb , before it got to fixed phrases and to prepositional uses. <S> (There are more senses in the Supplements, and I’d be willing to bet still more in the current online version.) <S> One of the prepositional definitions and an accompanying citation are relevant here: 2. <S> Often with no implication of actual descent : <S> To (or at) what is regarded as the lowest part of ; along the course or extent of. <S> … … 1878 <S> Mod. <S> Traffic passing up and down the line. <S> You must not ask English prepositions and adverbs of position or direction to behave strictly literally or logically—they have far too much work to do. <A> A straightforward way to consider the usage of down <S> you referenced is by considering a log book. <S> Each event that happens is recorded on the next line, creating a linear relationship through time. <S> So down is essentially a term used to refer to an item or event that is farther down some linear progression. <S> For example: "Down there" could be interpreted as, "continue moving down the list of counters until you get to that one." <S> "Down the line" could be restated as, "continue moving from person to person in the line until you get to that one."
| Yes, it’s an ordinary metaphorical extension of down employed as a preposition, and according to the Oxford English Dictionary it’s been perfectly acceptable for over a century and a quarter.
|
What's the difference between "either" and "neither"? What's the difference between either and neither ? Can you provide me some examples? <Q> Either means any one of two possibilities, whereas neither means none of them. <S> For example: John: Would you like something to drink? <S> Jane: Either Coke or Pepsi would be fine. <S> Here, Jane would like something to drink—specifically, John can get her a Coke or a Pepsi. <S> Generally, either excludes both options—John should not get her both a Coke and a Pepsi. <S> However, if the conversation were to go along these lines: John: Would you like coffee or tea? <S> Jane: <S> Neither, thanks. <S> Here, Jane does not want any of the two options offered her—she does not want coffee, and she does not want tea. <S> Both either and neither should only be used when there are two options. <S> If there are three or more, analogous words would be any and none . <A> "Either a , b , or c " usually means "one of a , b , or c , but not more than one. <S> " <S> Neither a nor b " usually means "not a , and not b ". <A> Neither: Not any of those. <S> Either: <S> Any of them. <S> For example: Would you like a Pepsi or a Coke? <S> When you respond with either , you mean that you'd have any of those. <S> On the contrary, when you respond with neither , you mean that you wouldn't like to have any of those. <A> Basically, Either is used for Affirmation and <S> Neither is used for Negation <S> For eg:- 1) We can either go to beach or to the hillstation 2) <S> We can neither go the beach nor to the hillstation
| Either usually means one, but not both (xor), whereas neither usually means none.
|
What is the saying to use when someone has long worked for an accident to happen? What is the English saying/phrase to use when someone has long worked for something bad to happen to him? For example he was so long involved in risky activities, or he was treating other people badly, so that it was to be expected, that sooner or later he will pay for it. <Q> Another expression which is commonly used, particularly in press is disaster waiting to happen as in the following: <S> He was so much into alcohol that he was a disaster waiting to happen . <A> Before the bad event that has been worked for: <S> He's sailing close to the wind <S> He's skating on thin ice <S> He's his own worst enemy <S> He's cruising for a bruising After the event has happened: <S> He's only reaping what he sowed <S> He should have seen it coming <A> To ask for trouble or "to look for trouble" is an idiomatic expression, meaning "to seem to be trying to get into trouble; to do or say something that will cause trouble." <S> It is often used in continuous tense (when you are doing it at the given moment): <S> Stop talking to me that way, John. <S> You're just asking for trouble . <S> The guard asked me to leave unless I was looking for trouble . <A> Other idioms or sayings about reaping what you sow include: • “ <S> You have to pay the piper ”, which means one must face the results of one's actions. <S> Examples of use from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs include: <S> You can put off paying your debts only so long. <S> Eventually you'll have to pay the piper. <S> You can't get away with that forever. <S> • <S> “ What goes around comes around ” means <S> “A person's actions, whether good or bad, will often have consequences for that person” <S> • “ <S> Every bill comes due” appears in various forms, for example <S> Every bill eventually comes due , The laundry bill comes due , When the Bill Comes Due ... , etc. <S> Also, the word karma is relevant; one of its senses is “The idea that one reaps what one sows; destiny; fate”. <A> For "he was treating other people badly", you could say "he got his just rewards" or "he got his comeuppance" or even "payback is a bitch, isn't it?".
| He had it coming is a very popular expression used to denote that the person is himself to blame for the bad things happening to him. You'll have to pay the piper someday. There are a lot of expressions to indicate that what has happened to someone should not cause any surprise due to their previous behaviour.
|
Walking up/down a level road/street Is walking up/down the road/street applicable if the street is not sloped? I think I heard something about "with/against the numbering of houses" but I'm not sure if it's correct. Also, if that were correct, why is walking down the street more popular than walking up the street? <Q> I don't think there's a specific rule involved here. <S> Which of the two one would use is more debatable, and somewhat depends on each particular person's point of view. <S> For example, one way, as you've mentioned, is to chose by house numbering: the way in which the numbers are ascending can be considered "up the street", and the way in which they are descending can be considered "down the street". <S> Or maybe you can consider the direction in which the street is more... <S> erm... <S> fashionable to be "up", and the other one to go "down". <S> I would say that in general, if used unrelated to the elevation, these phrases can mean the same, and can be used depending on your own preferences. <S> Also note that "down the street" will always be understood, which I believe is the reason for it's popularity comparing to "up the street". <A> To keep it simple: There is no rule regarding road vs. street. <S> The only case I can think of where it may be important is perhaps when referring to a dirt road or rural/back-country area, in which case perhaps "street" is less common, but certainly there is nothing wrong with it even then. <S> There really is no rule regarding up vs. down the road. <S> You can head "up the street" even if you're going downhill, and "down the road" when there's actually an incline. <S> It's a very casual phrase, and no one will call you out on it, because no one takes the time to stop and think "Wait <S> , is there a hill here? <S> Am I going up or down the hill? <S> Are the numbers increasing or decreasing? <S> Which way is up, dang it?! " <S> TL;DR <S> Any of the four combinations works. <A> Simple answer – yes, you can say such things, even if the street is not sloped. <S> The dictionary supports such usage: down <S> ( prep. ) <S> at a point further along the course of (something) : he lived down the street . <S> [NOAD] down ( prep. ) at a point somewhere on a road, path, etc. <S> in a direction away from you : they live somewhere down Park Avenue . <S> [Macmillan] up ( prep. ) at a further position on : a shop up the road <S> [Collins] up ( prep. ) <S> further along (in any direction) <S> [Wiktionary]
| It is perfectly fine to use up/down the street/road if the street is flat.
|
Meaning and usage of ain't Sometimes I encounter ain't , but I really don't know how to translate it properly. What does ain't stand for? If I really wanted to use it, in which contexts would you say it's acceptable using it? <Q> Ain’t is <S> a negative present-tense form of the verbs be and have employed in all persons and numbers: <S> I ain't <S> we ain'tyou ain't you ain'the <S> / <S> she/ <S> it ain't <S> they ain't <S> It represents a coalescence of the ordinary spoken contractions of <S> not and the three relevant forms of the two verbs: am not ⊲ <S> a’n’t ) <S> are not ⊲ <S> a’n’t ) <S> is not ⊲ <S> i’n’t ) <S> ⊲ e’n’t/ha’n’t ⊲ orthographic ain’t/hain't have not ⊲ <S> ha’n’t ) <S> has not ⊲ <S> ha’n’t ) <S> It is used <S> wherever be not is used: as a copula, in progressive constructions, and in passives; and where have not is used as an auxiliary, in perfect constructions. <S> Ain’t is not slang (which means, roughly, a fairly novel usage employed by an ‘in-group’ as a token of their ‘in-ness’) <S> but a colloquialism which was at one time used virtually universally. <S> You find it very often in 18th- and 19th-century plays and novels, in the mouths of persons of high social standing. <S> However, it aroused particular hostility among 19th century schoolmarms, who assaulted it ruthlessly and succeeded in painting it as the mark of illiterate speech. <S> Accordingly, it should not be used in formal contexts except as an ironic nod to the vernacular. <S> It is still very common in speech, but regarded as sub-standard rather than merely non-standard. <A> Ain't is used as a regular negated form of be or have, and supposedly sometimes do: <S> I ain't no tractor. <S> = <S> I am not a tractor. <S> I ain't got no tractor. <S> = <S> I haven't got any tractor. <S> It's also used <S> like there isn't, by common omission of there from <S> there ain't. <S> Ain't no tractor here. <S> = <S> There isn't any tractor here. <S> And in case you hadn't guessed, dialects that use <S> ain't stereotypically use negative concord as well. <S> —Jon Purdy ( link ) <A> The definition here says it all. <S> To summarise: <S> Used also as a contraction for are not, is not, has not, and have not. <S> ... <S> It may be that these extended uses helped fuel the negative reaction. <S> Whatever the case, criticism of ain't by usage commentatorsand teachers has not subsided, and the use of ain't is often regardedas a sign of ignorance. <S> · But despite all the attempts to ban it,ain't continues to enjoy extensive use in speech. <S> Even educated andupper-class speakers see no substitute in folksy expressions such as Say it ain't <S> so <S> and You ain't seen nothin' yet . <S> So, basically, it's slang, but there are times when no other word fits. <S> I'd use it sparingly except in very informal situations.
| Ain't: Contraction of am not. I wouldn't use it in a formal situation, except to quote a title.
|
How might a native speaker refer to an object when they can't recall its real name? Is there a short word in English for some small device or part, which the speaker has no idea what it is really called? I mean something more sophisticated and humorous word or phrase that saying 'that something'. <Q> I like thingamajig , thingamabob or whatchamacallit . <A> One word to use is whatchamacallit . <S> See e.g. the Wikipedia entry or the Wiktionary entry . <S> I've never seen it in written text, but I've heard people use it and used it myself. <S> Example sentence: <S> Can you pass me the whatchamacallit? <S> , <S> I've lost my whatchamacallit , etc. <S> Compare Dutch dinges , French truc . <A> There are lots of informal variations on it - "thingy", "thingamajig", "thingamabob", etc., and lots of semi-nonsensical words like "doohicky", "whatchamacallit" (a corruption of "what do you call it"), etc. <S> The potential problem with all of these is it kind of rubs it in your audience's face that you don't know what it's called. <S> "Hand me that... thing." <S> It comes off weak and uninformed. <S> Three safer options are "bit" (slightly informal), "part" (most general, formal), and "component". <S> (For that matter, you could even use "one". <S> "Hand me that one.")
| The most general word for "thing I don't know the name for" is "thing".
|
What can I say politely when something bad happens? I am looking for a short phrase that I can say when something bad happens. For example, when my mouse breaks or my computer is hanging. I know the expression damn it but I need something more polite. <Q> As mentioned, darn or dang <S> are the closest approximations of damn , and crap also works, but other common alternatives include: shoot geez man! <S> what the heck! <S> (or hell , <S> but that's closer to cursing) <A> What you're looking for is a minced oath version of "damn it". <S> You have many options. <S> The most common are: <S> • <S> dang it <S> • darn it <S> • dern it <S> If you just want an interjection you can use when things go awry, the possibilities multiply. <S> • shoot (instead of shit ) <S> • <S> shucks (instead of shit ; though note that "oh shucks" has a different meaning than "oh shit") <S> • <S> • <S> gosh (instead of god ) <S> • what the hey (instead of " what the hell ") <S> • <S> oh my lord (instead of " oh my god ") <S> • fricking (instead of fucking ) <S> • <S> oh fudge (instead of " oh fuck <S> ") <S> There are also some expressions that aren't really a minced variant of anything more explicit, but are used in the same sorts of situations. <S> The one that comes to mind is " oh dear ", but the stereotypical southern grandma could probably list a lot more. <A> One could borrow expressions from fictional characters: <S> Spoken forcefully, they can express extreme exasperation, yet be fit for the ears of children. <S> "Drat" also works, though it is probably dated. <A> "Dang it" is the exact same meaning, except less intense. <S> As stated above you can say crap, but some might find that inappropriate (small children). <S> Furthurmore darn it is also useable. <S> Or for a similar meaning, you could also say "Oh, No!". <A> Darn it is the less intense version of <S> damn it <S> .There <S> 's also crap , which is the less intense version of the s word. <A> 'Bugger' is used a lot in this corner of the world (Australia/NZ). <S> It is probably about the same 'politeness level' as damn it (and was even the running gag word in a nationally shown Toyota commercial ) - though I expect this would be less so if people looked up the definition. <S> As the link shows, it is definitely used in the type of situations you describe.
| If you want to stay as close as possible to "damn it", just without the objectionable "damn" in there, you can use almost any single-syllable word that starts with D. heck (instead of hell ) "Oh, bother", from Winnie-the-Pooh "Rats", from Peanuts
|
"Most simple" or "Simplest" Should I use most simple or simplest to indicate something cannot be more simple? Can I use both? Is one prefered? If simplest - how is that pronounced? (Is the e silent?) <Q> Both are somewhat correct, but it's better to use simplest . <S> This is called the superlative in grammar. <S> It can be used by either adding the word "most" before the adjective, or by modifying the adjective with the suffix "-est". <S> If you care about the rules, here is a quote from oxforddictionaries.com : <S> The superlative is formed in different ways according to the length of the base adjective. <S> If it has one syllable, then the letters -est are added. <S> If the word has three syllables or more then the word most is placed before the adjective: most attractive. <S> Words of two syllables vary: some add -est and some use most. <S> Some even do either, for example clever. <S> Spelling: adding -est If the word ends in a consonant, add -est (quick becomes quickest). <S> Words of one syllable with a short vowel sound and ending with a single consonant, double the consonant and add -est (sad becomes saddest). <S> With words of one syllable ending in ‘l’, you normally do not double the ‘l’, but cruel becomes cruellest. <S> If it ends in ‘e’, add -st <S> (late becomes latest). <S> If it ends in ‘y’, change the ‘y’ to an ‘i’ and add -est (happy becomes happiest). <S> emphasis mine. <S> Also, if you look it up in the dictionary (e.g. here ), you will see "simple - simpler - simplest". <S> More than that, Simplest is also used more often that "most simple", you can see a clear tendency at this ngram <S> (Sorry, it's small when added here as a picture. <S> The blue line is "simplest", and the red line is "most simple"): <S> It is pronounced as \ˈsim-p(ə-)ləst\ , so you can pronounce it either with 3 syllables, or just 2 if you omit the first ə . <A> 'Simplest' is correct, but I think 'most simple' has come into use because of similar pronunciation concerns as yours. <S> Neither are incorrect. ' <S> It is pronounced sim plest (sɪmplɪst). <A> Beginning a statement with "The most simple ...", might be a more appropriate usage for purposes of giving emphasis to "most", over burying it at the end, within "-est".
| Most simple' is less simple, so I prefer 'simplest'.
|
What does 'the very next day' mean? In the song, Last Christmas , I heard the phrase "But the very next day." I'm not sure what it was supposed to mean, but from context I guess it's the day after Christmas Is it grammatically correct to say "very next"? Something is next or is not next. Can something be 'more next' that something else? Can something be 'very next' or just 'a little next'? <Q> It is grammatically correct to say "very next". <S> Very next day means the day after a certain event happened or happens. <S> For ex - John was not able to go to school that day but the very next day he recovered and went to school all fine and dandy. <S> Instead of returning to London three days later, as he said he would, he came back the very next day . <A> Very is used for emphasis, not just to mean in an high degree (which is the meaning it has in very big ). <S> It is also used in phrases like the very best quality , her very own apartment , and the very beginning of the book . <A> You are correct in assuming that you can't be more next than something else. <S> I'm assuming you're referring to the song "Last Christmas", and the line <S> Last Christmas I gave you my heart. <S> But the very next day, you gave it away. <S> In that situation, adding the "very" is an informal way of stressing how quickly it happened. <S> Also keep in mind <S> it's the following day, so December 26th, not Christmas Eve. <A> Very here means <S> true and is ultimately derived from Latin verus , "true". <S> ODO definition <S> It's only used in set phrases such as "very next day", "his very own", "the very beginning" and so on, and emphasises <S> that it was actually the next day; actually his own; right at the beginning.
| It means same as the next day but with an emphasis (to denote the short time period) and is used only in time-sensitive contexts and not every time one wants to refer the next day.
|
Is there a special word for the numbers 11 to 19? In my language (Ukrainian), there are special words describing amounts between 11 and 19. They are constructed in a similar way as the numerals, but do not specify the numeral itself: Це коштує надцять тисяч ("this costs over-teen thousand" — meaning, "too expensive") Я вдома вже кілька надцять хвилин ("I'm at home a few- over-teen minutes already"); Is there a special name for amount between 11 and 19 in English? The reason why I'm asking is that I'm thinking in these categories, and I don't want to use less-specific words if there's a better term for it. I know that a person of that age is called a teenager . But I haven't heard the word teens to describe amount. I've also heard a dozen , which literally means 12 , but I have the impression that it is sometimes used to say about 12 . Am I right, and are there other words describing such amount? <Q> Different languages divide up the world differently - this is one of those cases where the languages don't have equivalent terms. <S> The word teen or teens is close , but it has two limitations: <S> "Teen" refers only to 13 - 19; it cannot refer to 11 or 12. <S> Recently, the term "tween" has been coined to refer to the ages 10-12 for this very reason. <S> "Teen" is most often found in reference to abstract ranges such as ages , years , temperatures and the like. <S> So while we might refer to a "temperature in the teens" to mean a temperature between 13 - 19 (C or F), it's less common to refer to use it with concrete objects. <S> It would be unusual or even wrong to say "I have teens of apples". <S> Since there is no specific term, you should instead use constructions such as: Eleven to nineteen <S> In the low two digits About 15, 15 or so, around 15, 15 give or take... <S> More than ten but less than twenty <S> Ten-something <S> ( I think this is more understandable and common than the alternative 'tensomething' ) <S> There is a slang term that is close to the meaning and usage, but its use may be marked in certain contexts and <S> it is informal: umpteen ; "It'll cost umpteen thousand dollars." <S> Or finally, reword your statement to avoid the situation <A> I don't think there's a word in English that means between 10 and 20. <S> You might as well say "somewhere between 10 and 20" , or, if that's too long, you might try "15, give or take." <S> One set of terms that has come into vogue relatively recently includes words like thirtysomething or fortysomething , which were initially used to describe a person's age, but I suppose those words could be borrowed to describe an amount as well, such as, "We caught twentysomething fish last weekend." <S> However, this would be considered an informal and unconventional use of such terms; when such words are included in the dictionary, there is often explicit mention of age . <S> At least in the U.S., the term thirtysomething entered the mainstream vernacular along with a hit television series by the same name. <S> Used conversationally, I don't think many people would bat an eye when hearing such words, but the words are far from officially established. <S> So, I wondered if one might use "tensomething" to go along with twentysomething, thirtysomething, etc. <S> However, there don't seem to be any instances of that word in published works . <S> When I Googled "tensomething," the first tensomething hits were twitter handles and message board names, but, sifting through those results further, I did manage to find a few uses of the word, mostly by bloggers who were referring to someone of that age, like these: <S> I love the spice girls, they totally rocked my world when I was tensomething . <S> There he was, this geeky, <S> gawky little tensomething wandering dazed and confused around his native North Carolina, with half his head full of Boz Scaggs and Eric Carmen... <S> although I did find one person who used the word in the sense you are looking for: <S> This has happened to meh liek tensomething tiems. <S> [sic] <S> So, if you want to follow the lead of one careless typist, you have your precedent. <S> Use tensomething . <S> However, don't expect much support from the dictionaries at this time. <A> Even though it's not a single word and not very common, you could use in the tens (or other uses, like tens of millions - which is reasonably common). <A> Based on your explanation, one English term you may be looking for is "ten-odd. <S> " <S> The modifier '-odd' follows a round number. <S> "Ten-odd" can mean more than ten but less than twenty; for example: "We waited on the platform for ten-odd minutes before catching the train." <S> However, the postpositive '-odd' more generally means "somewhat more than" that particular quantity; for example: "I am a programmer analyst with twenty-odd years of experience. <S> " It largely depends on the context. <S> However, "Я вдома вже кільканадцять хвилин" would probably best be translated as "I've already been home for well over ten minutes" ('well over' denotes 'much more than'). <S> And I think the best translation of your first example, "Це коштує надцять тисяч," would probably be " <S> This costs umpteen thousand (dollars)," as has already been suggested, since the essential meaning is that it is too expensive. ' <S> Umpteen' denotes 'an indefinitely large number.' <A> The temperature can be referred to sometimes as being "in the teens", or "in the low teens". <S> A quick reference on a website (first thing on Google)
| English does not have a word referring to this range specifically.
|
To live in village or on country? Speaking about someone from a rural area, should we rather say "he's living in village" or "he's living on country"? Country as a word has other meanings, such as the entity including the whole territory, so I'm cautious when this word is concerned. But that's only my feeling, and I'm not a native speaker. <Q> Where I'm from, in the central U.S.... <S> He lives in the country. <S> This means he lives outside of all city limits. <S> His nearest neighbor is possibly a mile away. <S> He lives in a village. <S> This would be unusual in the U.S., where the word "village" is rarely used. <S> You might get some funny looks, but would probably be understood to mean he lives in a small town; or perhaps in an old/Victorian neighborhood of a larger city. <S> He lives on the outskirts. <S> This would mean he lives in, or very near the city, but near the city's edge. <S> He will have neighbors, and there will be a few stores near by, but it's not a particularly urban area. <S> He lives in the suburbs. <S> Similar to outskirts; perhaps slightly more urban connotations. <A> One would live in the country in distinction to the city , regardless of the specific political entity inhabited. <S> The country and the city may be seen as opposite ends of an axis representing the spectrum of urbanization, with the suburbs occupying a midpoint. <S> This sense of "country" is not related to the meaning of "country" as a national polity. <S> Which sense is intended by the speaker must be taken from context: <S> Do you live in the country? <S> — <S> Do you live outside of an urbanized area? <S> Do you live in this country? <S> — <S> Do you live here in Canada, or in some other country? <S> Asking if someone lives in a village changes the character of the question. <S> One is no longer asking about a relative level of urbanization, but if someone lives in a specific type of political entity. <S> This is particularly the case with "village," which is a relatively rare designation for a U.S. municipality (New York is the only state where it is commonly used). <S> It would be common in many parts of the country, however, for a local to ask if someone lived in the "city" as opposed to the "county"; someone with a Baltimore, Maryland mailing address might live in the City of Baltimore or in the County of Baltimore, and pay different taxes and receive different public services as a result. <A> There is an odd (to me, anyway) tendency in the US to use "village" to denote an area of a city. <S> More recently, it's a marketing ploy to make somewhere sound more appealing, I would suggest. <S> I live not far from a "village" which is nothing more than a new shopping development and devoid of homes. <S> A few miles away is another "village" which is a housing development and devoid of shops. <S> In British-English, however, it denotes a small cluster of dwellings in the country/countryside which, although possibly self-sufficient (general store, post-office and eleven pubs, etc) is obviously not a town. <S> I spent most of my life living in villages and never grasped the cut-off points where a hamlet becomes a village and a village becomes a town - or a when a town becomes a city, for that matter. <S> Living in the country doesn't necessarily denote they also live in a village as they might live in an isolated home or farm. <S> I had never heard the Australian definition of "on country" before. <S> Duly noted, but I suspect this might be unique. <A> In Australia, the term "on country" has a very specific meaning. <S> Indigenous Australians have a special relationship with the land, regarding it as a living entity that needs special nourishment and care, and with which they have a special bond. <S> They would never think of living and working "in the country", just as you wouldn't live within a living being -- they live and work "on country". <S> Various indigenous programs -- like the "Working on Country Programme" reflect this usage.
| Over in the UK, if someone lives "in a village", they live in the country.
|
When should "like" be used rather than "as" in a comparison? In Italian, "spies like us" becomes spie come noi , and "do as you like" becomes fai come preferisci . In both the sentences, the translation of like , and as is come . This causes some problems to the Italian native speakers, who tend to use the English like instead of the correct word. In which cases is it correct to use like ? I am not referring to like used as verb, but to like used as preposition/conjunction. For example, is it correct to use like in the following sentences? I am interested in a general answer, not an answer limited to the following examples. Do like we do. Like you wish. She is tall like your sister. She did like you said. <Q> In my opinion, none of the above sentences are correct. <S> Like can be a preposition, and is used before nouns and pronouns to talk about similarity. <S> For example: He ran like the wind. <S> or A person like you knows that..." <S> As , on the contrary, is a conjunction. <S> For example: Nobody knows her as I do. <S> or <S> In 1939, as in 1914, everybody seemed to want war. <S> It is true, however, that in informal English, like is frequently used as a conjunction instead of as , so the first sentence <S> "Do like we do. <S> " could be heard. <S> The third sentence is wrong because you are making a comparison and in this case as is the only one you can use. <S> If on the contrary the concept which you want to convey is that the girl is tall and that your sister is tall too, then like is perfectly fine, but you need a comma to separate it from the first part of the sentence (that is, <S> "She's tall, like your sister." ). <S> Finally, you normally also use as when talking about the function or the role of something. <S> For example: He works as a waiter. <S> or Don't use that knife as a screwdriver. <S> Disclaimer: <S> The grammar explanations and most of the examples are taken from Swan's "Practical English Usage". <A> When comparing attributes, use "like": Spies like us. <S> There are many spies, only some of them are similar to (or like) us. <S> She is tall, like your sister. <S> Both your sister and "she" are tall. <S> She is tall as your sister would also be a correct sentence, but it means that she is equally tall, or possibly taller--not just they are both "tall." <S> In your other examples, the two words are synonyms, although "like" is less formal--possibly even technically incorrect, but widely understood. <S> Do like we do. <S> / Do as we do. <S> Like you wish. <S> / <S> As you wish. <S> She did like you said. <S> / She did as you said. <A> That question is difficult to answer as the function word like is extending its use, probably because "as" has too many uses and a lot of people don't want to analyse whether a preposition or a conjunction is needed. <S> Here language is moving. <S> But in correct language "like" is an adjective, used as a preposition and "as" is a conjunction. <S> But "as" can also be a preposition as in " <S> As a young man, Eliot had studied art in Paris". <S> Here "like" would make no sense.
| It is used before a clause and before an expression beginning with a preposition.
|
Should "bring a plate" be taken literally? When someone is told to "bring a plate" to a picnic in Australia, does it literally mean just bring a plate? Or should they be bringing something else as well? <Q> The term "bring a plate" <S> means that you bring some food along to the gathering to share with everyone. <S> It doesn't have to be on a plate, <S> it can be any dish - and in general it's food that is ready to eat straight away. <A> No. <S> You do not want to turn up with just a plate - ie a piece of crockery. <S> This can be either a sweet food such as pikelets or chocolate crackles; or savoury, such as triangle sandwiches, potato salad etc. <S> Less common is to bring a large dish, such as quiche or salad that needs a bowl rather than a plate, and <S> even less common is to bring something that would serve as an entire course, ie roast lamb with vegetables. <S> Not entirely unknown, just less common. <S> As a meme, bring a plate arose as western social gatherings in Australia traditionally revolve around cartons of beer and meat being cooked on a barbecue with the occasional salad. <S> Bringing a plate added some involvement for the womenfolk, and the food kept the kids from going hungry - allowing the men longer time to keep drinking. :-) <A> This is an example of synecdoche , a figure of speech which uses part of a thing to mean the thing itself. <S> In this case the word plate (or, in other locales, the dish ) means a plate of food . <S> Synecdoche is used frequently in English. <S> This is equally true of other languages. <S> That can create a challenge when learning a new language, because it is not easy to imagine all the ways a word might stand for a part of something else. <S> “ Synecdoche ” at Wikipedia “ Synecdoche ” at Simple Wikipedia
| Bring a plate is to bring a plate of food that can be eaten from said plate.
|
What is the word for the words which are not spoken, but should be understood? I want to know the word which means any word which is not spoken/written explicitly but should be understood. Example: Person A has misbehaved with his parents. So somebody close to person A, say his wife, said "Don't you have any education of decency that you should not misbehave with your parents, left in you?" The italicized parts are not said explicitly because it is clear from the context and is unnecessary to mention. <Q> Implicit Any communication contains <S> explicit and implicit parts, the ones said/written and ones meant, but not passed literally. <S> In the example the speaker implies the subject should not misbehave with their parents. <S> This is pretty general <S> but then it conveys the essence - to imply <S> something is exactly the activity of conveying something without saying it, but the noun - Implication has broader meaning, so that won't quite do as the name of the activity. <S> There is also Innuendo <S> but that's an entirely different way of conveying hidden meaning - the speech is about seemingly entirely unrelated subject and only by following the flow of metaphors you reach the hidden meaning - not what happens here. <S> And of course in the end there's the plain meaning . <S> It doesn't exactly follow the "implicit" line - if you say "could you pass the salt please" <S> you mean you want to have the salt passed to you, no hidden motives. <A> I'm in the U.S. <S> When I was in school, we learned about "Understood Subjects" like the unspoken "You" in commands like "Come here". <S> In ELU (another stackexchange site) I have seen "elided" used to mean words that are left out because they are understood. <S> Understood <S> Elided <S> (This is where we get our word "ellipsis", the three dots, "...") <S> Implied <A> Tacit: def. <S> understood without being openly expressed. <S> I was reading Emma by Jane Austen when I read a word I didn't know, tacit, and I looked it up. <S> Check dictionary.com if you want to, but that is where I got this definition of tacit. <S> Implied is also a good fit, but I believe tacit is a notch closer.
| I also agree that "implied" is a good word for this, as suggested by SF. The speaker meant to stop the subject from misbehaving by parents.
|
Villages and hamlets in US native parlance How common or uncommon are the words village and hamlet in US native parlance? In the small discussion following this comment , one user said that the word village is not a word we use here , but another one said There are villages in the US! I live in one, and it is inside a town. . There is a Wikipedia article Village (United States) that discusses some of the formal issues. I've always taken village as a translation of the Dutch word dorp , a concentration of human settlement ranging from a few dozen people to a few thousand, in a rural area, not connected to any town or city. Here is a nice example with the village of Rougon in the French Alps (photo from Wikimedia Commons): What would such a settlement be called in the US? Do such settlements even exist in North America? Can a place with between 10 and 1000 inhabitants be called a (small) town rather than a village? From this Wikipedia article comes the quote Eighty-nine percent of the cities in Nebraska have fewer than 3,000 people. . Are those really cities ? P.S. I'm pretty sure the word village in the UK and Ireland matches the meaning that I'm thinking of pretty much. <Q> The term 'village' is common in some parts of the US, and rare or marked in others. <S> In some States , 'village' is a formal designation for a settlement smaller than a city, for a neighborhood within a city, or for a historical area. <S> So if you ask native speakers from the US about 'village', their answers might vary depending on where they are from, and they might not be aware of different usages in different parts of the country. <S> It's a big place; although the shared language can make it seem smaller there are still distinct regional vocabularies. <S> The term 'hamlet' is rare throughout the US, except in reference to the Prince of Denmark. <S> There are probably a few places that use that name, but it would carry a markedly antique connotation. <A> Some current uses of the term "village" in the US: <S> In some older cities, at least on the east coast, some areas originally built around a small commercial center and later incorporated into expanding cities are still called villages, and that is part of the locally recognized name. <S> Example: in Rhode Island, Pawtuxet Village is divided between the cities of Warwick and Cranston, and still has a thriving mercantile center. <S> In New England, some old waterfront communities are referred to either informally as villages, or have a historic district with the word "Village" in the formal name. <S> Example: <S> Edgartown Village on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. <S> Historical "reconstructions". <S> Example: Old Sturbridge Village, Massachusetts. <S> A fancy name for a large shopping center. <S> Example: in Baltimore, Maryland, one of the first large regional shopping centers was called Edmondson Village; this name was later extended to include the surrounding neighborhood, but the shopping center came first. <A> For the most part in the US, a large collection of people and buildings is a "city" and a smaller collection is a "town". <S> As Mark Beadles says, each state has specific legal definitions. <S> These may depend on population and/or on specific formalities about how the place is organized politically. <S> I think every state has a legal definition of "city". <S> Some call other places "villages", "towns", maybe some other terms. <S> While we generally think of a "city" as a place with at least tens of thousands of people, many smaller places are legally considered "cities". <S> I think to most Americans it sounds funny to call a place with 1,000 people a "city", but it's recognized as the technical legal term. <S> To most Americans, "village" has a certain old-time, quaint connotation. <S> We generally think of a "village" as a picturesque, out-of-date, foreign place. <S> We also talk about primitive people living in a "village" of mud huts or some such primitive accommodations. <S> I grew up near a town that was officially called the "Incorporated Village of Northport", but no one referred to it as a "village", it was always a "town". <S> Some places call themselves a village when they want to bring picturesque images to mind, to attract tourists or shoppers, for example.
| In other States village is not formally used, and is simply an informal or quaint term for a small town.
|
Usage "in spite of" and "despite of" What are the difference between these two prepositions: "despite of" and "in spite of"? And what is the general usage of this two: choose in different situation, followed by etc. <Q> The only difference between in spite of and despite is the ‘of’. <S> You don't use "Despite of the reason ". <S> You use "Despite the reason " Despite the pain in his leg he completed the marathon. <S> It seems to me "in spite of" is a slightly more elaborate form, to be used in more fancy, most formal writing. <S> " <S> Despite" is not informal but not quite that elaborate. <S> edit: as mcalex mentions, "Despite of" (and even "In despite of") is not incorrect, it's just an almost dead archaic form . <A> As per this reference from Lawless English : "Despite" means "even though," "notwithstanding," or "regardless of. <S> " It's the opposite of "because of/due to," and can be used with a noun or gerund. <S> She had difficulty communicating in French despite all her years of study. <S> We lost the game, despite the fact that we practiced all week. <S> Despite not having an umbrella, I walked home in the rain. <S> " <S> In spite of" means exactly the same thing and is used exactly the same way as "despite." <S> She had difficulty communicating in French in spite of all her years of study. <S> We lost the game, in spite of the fact that we practiced all week. <S> In spite of not having an umbrella, I walked home in the rain. <S> So, they can safely be used interchangeably. <S> You may notice that in all the above examples, "despite" has not been used with "of" <S> but it can definitely be used in certain contexts such as this: <S> A large number of ladies, both from this City and abroad, who had come out, despite of the driving rain-storm, were in attendance, and occupied seats in the galleries. <S> And again here, it is absolutely interchangeable with "in spite of". <A> To me, while they, in many cases, can be used interchangeably, the choice of wording can imply a subtle shift in meaning. <S> spite <S> : Ill will or hatred toward another, accompanied with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart; a desire to vex or injure; petty malice; grudge; rancor. <S> So I would use in spite of in a case like: "I went downtown to the party in spite of my parents' warning that it wasn't safe." <S> In other words, use in spite of when your attitude is: Warning be damned, I'm doing it anyway. <S> I thumb my nose at your so-called warning. <S> Despite doesn't seem to have that same desire to irritate or be contrary behind it, and can be used when an action is taken that may fly in the face of information which would argue against it. <S> So I would use despite in a case where I wanted to emphasize the decision rather than the motivation behind it. <S> If I said instead, "I went downtown despite my parents' warning that it wasn't safe. <S> " I would be saying that I considered my parents' advice but concluded that either the risk was worth it, or that the risk was overstated or that the three friends I was going with were big enough to protect me, etc. <A> This has been covered in an EL&U question , which pertains more specifically to the sytax of the two, rather than the difference. <S> Basically, they mean the same (both options have been suggested as being the more 'formal'), and general usage says you should only use 'in spite of', or 'despite' (but not 'despite of'). <S> However, the 'despite of' usage is not illegal, though it is fairly rare, and as they suggest in the EL&U answer, something that you only bring up when you get caught out doing it accidentally. <A> I do agree that the two; 'despite' and 'in spite of', are "interchangeable'. <S> However, the "subtle distinction" mentioned earlier, in itself, makes it a matter of fact that they are not the same because not even the word 'interchangeable" means "the same". ' <S> in spite of', suggests a connotation to a degree of contempt or rebellion. <S> Where as, 'Despite' is usually more of a neutral contradiction within a circumstance. <S> Examples of proper usage: <S> "I'm going to marry him in spite of his extensive criminal record." <S> "Due to his extensive criminal record, we will not employ him despite his impressive resume. <S> "or simply: "I will not marry her despite the children we have together." <S> "I will marry him in spite of the amount of times he cheated" 'in spite of' is a preposition to be used in front of a negative instancesand 'despite' is used when contradicting a positive instance. <S> These ought not be confused with the infinitive verb "to spite", which is meant as a direct rebellion: "I punched him in the face to spite him." <A> I think the two words can be used interchangeably depending on the messege the user intend to send; the 'verb' here connotes the "power" of any fo the two. <S> Spite could mean rebellion in real sense but could also connote courage or boldness depending on the usage
| "despite" and "in spite of" are synonyms. In spite of has the connotation of doing something with a bit of rebellion or desire to irritate as a motivation.
|
Difference between "resultant" and "resulting"? I came across a person practicing English saying that the Fukushima nuclear plant suffered a disaster after a powerful earthquake and a "resultant tsunami". I would have normally written it as a "resulting tsunami". Wiktionary lists both words as adjectives, and I can't see any difference in meaning. Is it ok to use either word? Does "resulting" sound more natural, possibly because it's more common? <Q> Resultant can both be used as noun and adjective. <S> Example- 1) <S> The resultant savings were considerable. <S> (Works as ADJECTIVE ) <S> Example- 2) <S> The resultant of mechanical forces pulling in different directions. <S> (Works as NOUN ) <S> Whereas Resulting is only used as Adjective . <S> Example- <S> His ignorance for his health led him to the resulting fever. <S> In the context you cite, either of the words can be applied as adjectvie. <S> Both are clear in meaning. <S> As far as the term natural goes, in this case (Comparison between resultant and resulting) there is too tiny a difference between them to label one as more "natural" and it is purely an individual's choice. <A> Talking of how frequently those words are used as adjectives, this is the result I get from different corpora. <S> |---------------------------------------|----------------------|---------------------|| <S> Corpus | Freq. <S> of "resultant" | Freq. <S> of "resulting"||---------------------------------------|----------------------|---------------------||Corpus of Contemporary American English| 939 | 5135 <S> ||British National Corpus | 426 | 1357 ||Corpus of Canada English | 180 | 882 ||Time Magazine Corpus | 161 | 955 ||---------------------------------------|----------------------|---------------------| <S> The Time Magazine Corpus gives also information different years, and it says resultant has its highest frequency in 1930s (37), and its lowest frequency in 1990s/2000s; for resulting , its highest frequency is in 1960s (210), while its lowest frequency is in 1920s (32). <S> As comparison, Resultant 's frequency in 1920s is 33. <A> Both words would have more or less equivalent meanings. " <S> Resultant" sounds more technical, and I don't encounter it often in non-mathematical contexts. <S> The second definition given by Mistu4u is also pretty obscure; I've almost always heard "vector sum".
| As adjectives, both the words have the same meaning.
|
Word meaning "harmful to learning"? Something that damages productivity is counterproductive . What would be the word for something harmful to your learning process? For example, teaching you wrong, so that later you must first unlearn the wrong knowledge before you learn it right? Say, a book for little children contains some words badly misspelled for humorous purposes, but since it's the first contact of the children with these words, they learn them that way, thinking this is the correct spelling, and later they have trouble learning the right spelling at school. <Q> Counterproductive does not mean "harmful to productivity", it means "having the opposite of the desired effect" . <S> So the word can also be used in reference to learning or indeed to any endeavor that has a goal. <A> In my line of work, flight simulation and training, this is called negative training . <S> A teaching device of any kind, whether it is a flight training device, or anything else, must be carefully designed so that it does not impart negative training . <S> See this USAToday article that talks about it <S> : If Renslow and Shaw had tried to use a simulator to practice recovering from a stall — when a plane's wings stop producing the lift that keeps a plane airborne — it would have given them a dramatically misleading picture of how their plane behaved. <S> "It's negative training ," says Jack Ralston of Bihrle Applied Research, a Hampton, Va., firm that specializes in creating realistic simulators. <S> The way airline training simulators portray stalls now is "so benign it gives the pilot a false impression of what the aircraft actually behaves like." <A> One word that is very commonly used in this sense is detrimental . <S> It can be used more generally than just within learning, as it literally means "harmful" or "tending to cause harm", and it is often used in other ways (e.g. "detrimental to your health"), but it works well here. <S> Detrimental has the implicit meaning of "not only does this not help, but it in fact creates more problems". <S> So I would say that the words in that book are detrimental to the child's learning process. <A> However, there are other phenomenons relevant to this question. <S> For example, False friends are pairs of words or phrases in two languages that look or sound similar, but differ significantly in meaning. <S> An example is the English <S> embarrassed and the Spanish embarazado , which does not in fact mean "embarrassed" but rather "pregnant". <S> Another example is Ukrainian магазин [mɑɦɑ'zɪn] which means "shop", unlike English magazine .
| The spellings you describe would be "counterproductive" to learning spelling. It is misleading .
|
"Its" and "it's" - how to remember? What is a good mnemonic rule that an English learner can use to remember the difference between its (possessive adjective: a team has started its lunch ) and it's (verb: it's raining )? <Q> I'm not sure of how good a mnemonic this is, but it's always worked for me. <S> When proofreading, I simply remind myself: <S> You can't remove an apostrophe when it's taking the place of a letter . <S> So, when I say: It's supposed to rain tomorrow. <S> I recognize that "It's" means "It is", so I leave the apostrophe in. <S> But when I type and proofread: The house is losing it's foundation. <S> [sic] <S> I realize that "it's" <S> does not mean "it is"; it means "the foundation belonging to it", so I remove the apostrophe: <S> The house is losing its foundation. <S> If you don't like my method, it's easy to find lots more on the subject . <A> You just know that it's stands for <S> it is , two words. <S> Its is just a single word, like my , your or his . <S> When reading, you just see if it is a single word or two words "linked" with an apostrophe. <S> For writing, you may employ this mnemonic: <S> I'm crying and saying, " it's not my fault!" <S> A tear will resemble to write it with an apostrophe. <A> Preface <S> This is a new answer (Jan 2015) to a two-year old question (Jan 2013). <S> I revived this thread because I believe this provides a best-of-class answer that complements the well-deserved selected answer by J.R. . <S> It's a tall order to come in so late with such a bold statement. <S> I only ask that as you assess the value of this answer (for better or worse!), to keep in mind that this is relatively new, and so this has not received the same benefit of attention as answers given two years ago when the question was first asked. <S> Answer <S> Until now, there has been no gold standard, easy-to-remember mnemonic that helps someone generate the correct form-to-meaning of its vs. <S> it's . <S> So I created a mnemonic device specifically for this answer. <S> It's short, clear, and easy-to-remember. <S> This is the mnemonic device: <S> It's <S> That's it! <S> That's the mnemonic device: <S> It's . <S> If you can remember that, then you can remember what it means. <S> Don't believe me? <S> Just watch. <S> Question: <S> What is that thing <S> I just told you to remember? <S> What is it, if you break it into its parts? <S> Answer: <S> Just look at it (below). <S> Doesn't that look like a pronoun? <S> Followed by apostrophe S? <S> Is that so hard? <S> it 'spronoun apostrophe SIt's a pronoun followed by apostrophe S. <S> Let's do that again. <S> It's <-- <S> What is that thing to the left? <S> It's a pronoun followed by apostrophe S. <S> Put it all together! <S> It's <S> What is that? <S> It's a pronoun followed by apostrophe S. <S> It is <S> a pronoun followed by apostrophe S. <S> So <S> It's means <S> "It is" . <S> And its is the possessive pronoun. <S> Explain it please! <S> This mnemonic device is powerful because it uses a combination of auditory and visual cuing (along with some common sense) all the way through. <S> (See link and link .) <S> The word <S> it's cues the recall of "the sentence" (#3 above) describing what <S> it's is. <S> You know you have to write that sentence with the apostrophe. <S> And that sentence demands the "it is" interpretation! <S> Now you know <S> it's means " <S> it is" and conversely, its must be the possessive form. <S> This mnemonic should be spread to the four corners of the English speaking world! <S> (And, of course, credit given to CoolHandLouis. :) <A> Its and my is "just one word". <S> "A team has started its lunch." <S> If I can substitute its (one word) with another possessive adjective <S> my (one word), and the resulting phrase is grammatical then there is no need for the apostrophe e.g., <S> A team has started my lunch " <S> my lunch" is grammatical <S> so no apostrophe is required (the possessive adjective, its , is 'just one word'.) <S> "Today it's raining" When we substitute it's raining (or its ) with <S> my we get: <S> Today my raining . <S> "My raining" as a phrase is not grammatical so it's is the correct spelling (two words; it + is ) <S> Today it is raining = <S> it's raining. <S> Further examples: <S> (thinking 'yes' or 'no' for grammatical and ungrammatical) <S> The company has lost _ _ licence. <S> The company has lost my licence ---- <S> > <S> grammatical --- <S> > <S> my ('just one word') --- <S> > <S> its Check to see if _ _ gone <S> Check to see if my gone <S> ---- <S> > <S> ungrammatical ---> we need two words --- <S> > <S> it's (it + has) <S> The reef shark chases _ _ prey through the coral ... <S> chases my prey through the coral ---- <S> > <S> grammatical --- <S> > <S> my ('just one word') --- <S> > <S> its This isn't my book, _ _ Fernando's. <S> This isn't my book, my Fernando's . <S> ---- <S> > <S> ungrammatical ---> we need two words --- <S> > <S> It's ( <S> It + is) <S> The dog is eating _ _ dinner. <S> The dog is eating my dinner <S> ---- <S> > <S> grammatical --- <S> > <S> my ('just one word') --- <S> > its <A> Another not-quite-mnemonic method of remembering. <S> This may not be helpful to people who have no exposure to English poetic forms: <S> I learned to keep them straight by keeping in mind the poetic form, 'tis. <S> It's <S> is ..... <S> the same as 'tis . <S> ' <S> Tis the season to be jolly .... <S> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune 'Tis but a scratch <S> These all mean the same as <S> it's . <S> Conveniently, they are written with the same four characters, rearranged - move the apostrophe and the t to the front, and you go from <S> it's to 'tis. <S> The possessive its is not a synonym for 'tis , so it cannot be rearranged in the same way, so it doesn't have an apostrophe. <S> So the "mnemonic" is again: <S> It's <S> is <S> ..... <S> the same as 'tis . <S> Emphasize the bold parts to give it a lilting rythm.
| It's a pronoun followed by apostrophe S.
|
Is ending a sentence with a preposition acceptable? When I learned English at school, I was taught that I should not end a sentence with a preposition. Is it correct to end a sentence with a preposition? To avoid starting a sentence with a conjunction, I don't write sentences similar to "I miss you. And your kisses." Is there a similar way to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition? <Q> Carefully avoiding terminal prepositions has been, for at least a generation, a dead letter. <S> There are doubtless people my age who still practice it; but nobody except a few cranks think it a defensible ‘rule’. <S> It survives in public consciousness largely because dogmatic ‘descriptivists’ enjoy using it as a stick to whack ‘prescriptivism’. <S> There are, to be sure, times when ending on a preposition is undesirable—for instance, if you want to end a sentence on a ringing call to action—but that's a musical consideration, not a grammatical one. <S> And with particle verbs , where the particle-that-looks-like-a-preposition may be moved after the object, it’s a bad idea to move it so far away that the reader or hearer loses track of the connection. <S> See SF's comment below. <S> Be guided by your ear in speech, and by the authors you admire in writing; and if you are so happy as to achieve publication, fall in with whatever your editor requires. <A> Ending sentences with prepositions is controversial to some. <S> This rule was taken from Latin, and that is probably the rule that you were taught. <S> However, imposing rules of Latin grammar on English usage is nonsense. <S> You should avoid usage such as "Where are you at?" because "at" is superfluous. <S> It should be, "Where are you?" <S> However, "Where did you come from?" is acceptable. <S> The alternate form, "From where did you come?" would seem awkward to a native speaker. <S> At least in formal writing, it is best to avoid ending sentences with prepositions as long as there is an alternative that is not terribly awkward. <A> No prepositions at the end of sentences? <S> That is a rule up with which I shall not put. <S> ~ <S> W. Churchill <S> * <S> somebody had to <S> This has been well hashed out in its own right by the EL&U guys , and also dealt with in related questions such as this and this . <S> (The latter link contains an awesome example sentence that ends in 5 prepositions ~ <S> Mother, what did you bring that book that I don't like to be read to out of up for? ) <S> Also taken care of by Oxford , and Merriam-Webster , so it's the same for BE & AE. <S> The M-W link for some reason is in video form, but you get a fairly concrete answer within 21 seconds. <S> So, in short, feel free to end your sentences with prepositions, from aboard, through to without via inside out. <S> It's perfectly legal. <A> One preposition placed close to its verb <S> is okay to end a sentence with . <S> But avoid it if you bring more than one preposition, or a preposition placed very far from its verb to end your sentence with up . <A> Strictly speaking a preposition is a word that is placed before an object ("pre" + "position"). <S> If the word appears at the end of a sentence it is by definition not a preposition. <S> So what is such a word?A brief history: If you go back to the ancient Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language, from which many languages of Europe and South Asia come, there was no such thing as a preposition. <S> There were only particle words that expressed relationships between verbs and objects (our modern prepositions derived from these particles). <S> In Latin the concept of particles disappeared almost entirely with these words becoming prepositions and adverbs. <S> In the Germanic languages (which English belongs to) these particles still exist, though they are a bit different from PIE. <S> Basically words are not necessarily strictly prepositions but can be used more flexibly than in Latin, French, Spanish, and the rest of that language family. <S> When the study of grammar came to Britain it was based on Latin and French, both of which lack a concept of particles (at least in the sense that German and English have them). <S> So the early grammarians disdained the idea of seeing words that can be used as prepositions also being placed at the end of clauses and sentences. <S> They deemed this bad grammar, which was of course untrue. <S> Ever since this myth has persisted and even today some English teachers still teach there students that it is better to have an awkward, clumsy sentence than to end it with a "preposition".
| Sometimes it is correct to end a sentence with a preposition, but not always.
|
What are the differences between "to talk" and "to speak"? Both verbs "to talk" and "to speak" refer to the same action. Is their meaning exactly the same? When is more appropriate to use one, or the other verb? <Q> Using speak , tell , say , and talk is a very common problem for ELL. <S> @Siddhartha and @Em1 gave great answers, so let me quickly list only those aspects not mentioned by them. <S> So, I have some meaning to convey. <S> How do I know which word to use? <S> Ability <S> — if it's about ability, "talk" is preferred: " cats can't talk ", " <S> when I'm drunk I lose my ability to talk ". <S> Note that "speak" is allowed but is less popular; <S> Languages — use "speak" : " I speak English "; <S> Action — covered in answers above; both words can be used; "speak" is mostly about single-direction, while "talk" usually refers a conversation (and is less formal); Express information — use "say" or "tell" : " <S> I told her that I love her ". <S> Here, "I love her" is the information being expressed. <S> "Say " can also be used, but it connotates a single-time action. <S> Compare: " I said that the discussion is over and hung up the phone. " <S> Consider this sentence: <S> I can see they are talking , but I don't know what they are saying . <S> Here, you see an action , but you don't know or don't understand the meaning of the information others are exchanging. <S> Wide topic, narrow topic : <S> use "say" or "tell" if the topic is narrow <S> or it's about a small piece of information: <S> "I told her there is a party tonight" ; use "talk about" or "speak about" when the topic is wide: <S> "We are speaking about history" . <S> There's also an idiomatic construct, "talk politics" that omits "about ". <S> Conversing during an extended period of time : use "talk about" or "speak about" , as above; Imperative usually follows the rules above, but due to an extended popularity, here's a brief: Extended time or dialogue — " Talk to me." <S> Long monologue — <S> " Tell me about your problem." <S> Short monologue — <S> " Say something!" <S> Requesting a certain attribute of speaking process — <S> " Speak slowly please." <A> In hope not to talk nonsense , here's my summary: <S> Both words have a quite broad set of definitions with subtle differences. <S> When referring to a conversation between people there isn't a significant difference and both words can be used interchangeably. <S> You can speak and talk to someone about something. <S> I talked to him yesterday. <S> May I speak with you for a minute? <S> If a conversation, however, is rather a discussion, talk <S> might be the better choice. <S> We need to talk. <S> If a "conversation" is directed in one way only, e.g. giving a speech or speaking on the radio, than you should go with speak . <S> He spoke at the conference. <S> When referring to the usage and knowledge of languages, talking means just to use words and speaking means to be able to use a particular language. <S> Many sources states that talk a language is simply wrong <S> but you will find definitions on that in several dictionaries though. <S> I speak English and German. <S> I can't understand him because he talks Mandarin. <S> I can't speak any more because of a throat injury. <S> And as Siddhartha mentions in the other answer, speak <S> is more formal than talk . <S> Could I speak to the director, please? <A> There is little difference between the two words. <S> Speak verb [no object] say something in order to convey information, an opinion, or a feeling. <S> Talk verb [no object] <S> speak in order to give information or express ideas or feelings; <S> converse or communicate by spoken words. <S> Speak is more formal, but it also gives a sense of one-sided communication . <S> Therefore, when the President is giving a speech, we don't say: <S> The President talked about XY issues. <S> [Example 1] <S> We say: The President spoke about XY issues. <S> [Example 2] <S> Although, if the President is discussing these issues, we may use talked (Example 1).
| Speak can express the ability to use your voice. These two words can often be used interchangeably.
|
using "next" to days of the week This question reminded me of a debate I have with non-native English speakers. If today is Thursday and I say that something is to happen "next Saturday", does that mean the "Saturday in two days" or the "Saturday in a week and two days"? Alternatively, if today is Thursday and I say "next Monday", does this mean the "Monday in 4 days" or the "Monday in a week and 4 days"? Similarly, using "this Monday" and "next Monday" have always been confusing to me as to which Monday it is depending on what day it currently is. <Q> "This Saturday" surely does mean the closest Saturday in the future. <S> But "next Saturday" has become ambiguous. <S> I've been asked more than once when I used the expression whether it's meant to be the Saturday in this week, or in the week after. <S> (I would usually mean the week after, but if today is Sunday, I might use "next Saturday" to mean the Saturday six days from now. <S> So I find myself being inconsistent.) <S> Even more subject to confusion is "the Saturday after next", which I'd assume means "the second Saturday from today" -- <S> but I'd want additional confirmation, since not everyone seems to make the same assumption. <S> Regarding "this Monday" and "next Monday" ( <S> or indeed any day of the week), the interpretation does seem to differ depending on what day it is today. <S> If you're making an appointment, I'd suggest confirming the date. <S> Edit: <S> Inspired by comments, the closest next Saturday can also be identified as "this coming Saturday", and the next following Saturday, as "Saturday week" or (as I learned it) "Saturday a week". <S> As the comments indicate, accurate identification still depends on a (possibly explicit) agreement between speaker and listener. <S> (Bias: native speaker, of an "older generation".) <A> Most of the people would think the following way: <S> Today is Monday (28/1/2013) and "this Saturday" would mean the approaching Saturday (2/2/2013). <S> Today is Monday (28/1/2013) and "the next Saturday" <S> would mean the next Saturday after the approaching Saturday (9/2/2013) . <S> BUT Some of them may be confused and they might want to be clear. <S> So they may say "Do you mean this Saturday or the next Saturday?". <S> Then you have to clarify once more. <S> So this is peoples own opinion on this. <A> " <S> That is what "this Sunday" is short for. <S> If you say, "next Sunday" it is referring to the following after a previously stated Sunday, or the following Sunday after "this Sunday" with the understanding that person you are talking to knows what this Sunday means. <A> Next means next. <S> The house next door isn't eight houses down the block. <S> It's beside your house. <S> Next Saturday is the next one coming up. <A> I am so confused about this and reading the comments <S> confirmed how varied the understanding of "next week " is. <S> I emigrated from Soith Africa to Australia 20 years ago and had several misunderstandings in my first few years about the meanings of "next week" and "just now" . <S> I think I meant the earlier day and Australians meant the week later day. <S> Now picture this scenario which made me go and look up about this...an old university friend from South Africa who emigrated to UK 30 years ago sends me a Skype txt saying he can't chat today (my Sunday , his sat pm) <S> but can we chat "next Tuesday". <S> I don't know what he means given how my usage has changed and how his usage may have chaged in UK. <S> I think my only way to be clear is to ask if he means in about 2 days time or about 9 days time.! <S> Ken in Oz
| If today is Sunday (or any day) and you say, "This Sunday" it means "this coming sunday.
|
Is "snows" ever used as noun? In Italian, nevi (the plural of neve , "snow") is used in some expressions, such as l'uomo delle nevi (a.k.a. Yeti), and le nevi dei Pirenei . (The last expression is referring to the Pyrenees, but I could use it when referring to any mountain belt.) Is snows ever used as noun (even if in set phrases), or is it never used as noun? <Q> Yes, "snows" can be used just like this in English. <S> A classic of English literature is Hemingway's story "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" . <A> 'Snow' is what is called a 'mass noun'. <S> Like 'water' or 'traffic', it already describes a collection of things (a mass) and so there isn't likely a number of such items, just some of it. <S> ' <S> The snow that fell overnight was deep' is correct. <S> ' <S> The snows that fell overnight were deep' is incorrect (or poetic) <S> You can however talk about multiple instances of water, 'the glasses of water' which can be said grammatically as 'the waters in those glasses' but that is a strange transformation, almost poetic, and surely to be avoided in speech and most writing. <S> The same goes for 'snow'. <S> ' <S> The snows that fell in each of the towns were deep.' <S> works and occurs, but is a somewhat strange way to say it. <S> One would more likely reword it to avoid the strange plural. <S> 'The snow that fell in each of the towns was deep.' <S> or to emphasize that a snowfall occurred in a number of towns, and though the depth was different in each one, the amounts were all deep. <S> ' <S> The different amounts of snow in the towns were all deep.' <S> sounds much better. <S> So the answer is yes, 'snows' can be used as a plural noun but it is not common and is not natural sounding. <S> So if you are translating from a language with plural snow, you should reword to avoid the plural. <S> For a comparison here is the google nGram comparing 'the snow' and 'the snows' : <A> Yes, snows may be used as a noun. <S> However, when it is, it is not simply the plural of snow . <S> Snow is itself a "mass noun", meaning a singular form that refers to a large collection of small things. <S> The plural refers to episodes or events involving snow. <S> In other words, snows refers to several instances of "snow falls". <S> The heavy snows on the north side of the mountain frequently cause avalanches. <S> A similar case is a word like sand , where the singular noun for actually refers to a large collection of grains of sand, but you could refer to "the barren sands of Africa" and people will understand various different deserts full of sand rather than just one. <A> Yes, it is an English word. <S> It is occasionally used in the way that Mark Beadles described. <S> However it is usually used in sentences such as, " It usually snows between November and March. <S> " <S> See Google Ngram Viewer: <S> snows, it snows, the snows, of snows : <A> Most translations of François Villon’s poem, “Ballade des dames du temps jadis”, use snows in the refrain, where “Mais où sont les neiges d’antan” becomes “But where are the snows of yesteryear?” <A> Such "instances" may take place on separate days, "the SNOWS of Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday," or in different places, the SNOWS of New York City, Boston, and Philadelphia."
| "Snows" would be plural, and therefore a noun, when referring to INSTANCES of "snowing."
|
Is "Can I help you" a suitable expression for offering help to a stranger? A friend of mine, who is local to Japan, noticed someone from abroad with a folding map who looked lost, and would like to know whether or not she could say "Can I help you?". She had overheard the expression "Can I help you?" while inside stores, but she doesn't know whether it sounds natural for English speakers. Is it natural? Does it matter that she's not a staff member being paid to provide a service? If not, are there better alternatives? <Q> Not only is it acceptable, it is also used quite frequently. <S> You can also use other phrases such as " May I help you? ", " Do you need help? ", or " Would you like some help? ". <S> However, " Can I help you? " is probably used more often than other forms. <S> See Google Ngram Viewer <S> : Can I help you, May I help you, Do you need help, <S> Would you like some help : <A> "Can I help you" is perfectly fine for an informal situation like this. <S> Other phrases you may use include "Are you lost?", "Are you looking for something?". <A> "Can I help you?" is a perfectly acceptable way to offer help to a person, for which the formal equivalent is "May I help you? <S> " <S> The latter is also politer way to offer help. <S> In my English classes, I was taught that can is used for capability, while may is used for permission. <S> The difference doesn't seem to be perceived from all people, nowadays. <S> A friend of mine (who is American) would use <S> can also for asking about permission, offering help, or asking for help. <S> A native speaker would hardly understand questions similar to "Can I help you?" as asking about capability. <A> It is natural and correct, BUT it does not sound completely natural when said by a stranger by itself. <S> It literally can mean help in any way, so if the person was not lost for example, could interpret that as "nosy". <S> ("No, leave me alone" type of reaction) <S> In the situation described, it would sound better to say: "Hi, can I help you? <S> Are you lost?" <S> "Hi, are you lost?" <S> "Are you lost? <S> Can I help you?"
| "Can I help you" by itself is used more often when greeting somebody that walks into an establishment or when speaking to somebody you already know.
|
Difference between "Trip", "Travel", and "Journey" Are there any significant differences between words trip , travel , and journey (nouns)? Are those interchangeable words or are there any specific expressions which uses one of them but not another? <Q> These three words can be synonyms, but have slightly different connotations. <S> I will travel to Washington DC. <S> ... <S> but not always. <S> In common speech (at least as far as I am familiar), when used as a noun, it is used in its plural form: <S> How were your travels ? <S> Compared to the substantially equivalent sentences: <S> How was your trip ? <S> How was your journey ? <S> One could also ask How was your travel ? , but it this would have a more specific meaning, for instance, "How was your flight from New York to L.A.?" as opposed to "How was your entire journey, and the time you spent in L.A.?" Trip and journey are more closely interchangeable, and vary mostly in duration, distance, and formality. <S> A trip can be a short journey. <S> One can take a trip to the store, but it would be unusual (except in poetic exaggeration) to take a journey to the store <S> A journey would often imply a longer (in terms of time and/or distance) trip, perhaps to multiple destinations, or with a greater sense of unknown. <S> A journey may not be fully planned out ahead of time. <S> A business conference to Seattle would probably be described as a trip , whereas a family vacation road-trip from Nebraska, through the Colorado Rockies, camping in Nevada, then stopping in Las Vegas and returning through Oklahoma and Kansas, might be described as a journey . <S> Often, in colloquial English (at least in the U.S.), trip is far more commonly used than journey , even when describing long/epic travels. <S> Both trip and journey can also be verbs, but when used as verbs they are not interchangeable. <S> To journey is to engage in the act of journeying: <S> We journeyed to the Grand Canyon. <S> However to trip is to cause someone to stumble or lose their balance. <S> She tripped the thief with her cane. <S> I tripped over the dog. <S> To trip up has the additional connotation of causing someone to blunder: <S> The reporter tripped up the senator. <S> There are also some additional cases where trip and journey cannot be interchanged in some common expressions: A guilt trip <S> A high brought on by recreational drugs can be called a "trip." <S> Trippy -- slang; reminiscent of the "trip" (high) brought on by recreational drugs; especially LSD <A> Are there any significant differences...? <S> Yes, there are. <S> The context defines. <S> I would suggest the following rule of thumb: <S> Simply as a process of going from one place to another — use travel ; <S> Travel by air nowadays is cheaper than before. <S> Short journey or business journey, usually with a specific place denoted , also when the process of going is more important than the destination — use trip ; <S> If your time permits, take a boat trip to the Samui island. <S> After receiving an annual bonus, I went on a trip to Thailand. <S> I'm often away from the office on business trips. <S> Long distance or short but regular one — use journey ; <S> Did you have a good journey? <S> On my journey to work, I listen for music; Going to several places in a sequence, or going with an organized group — use tour ; <S> I went on a tour of France. <S> A long distance on ship or space — use voyage or cruise ; <S> His voyage around the world took three years. <S> A voyage through space. <A> For one, travel is more commonly used as a verb than a noun. <S> You won't really hear someone say "I'm going on a travel ", but you'll often hear people say "I'm going on a trip " <S> Journey , however, has a more epic and grandiose connotation associated with it. <S> These may span several months and thousands of miles. <S> Historically, journeys occurred more often when there weren't modern forms of travel and one had to walk from one side of the continent to another. <S> Take for example "Journey to the West", a popular work in Asian cultures about traveling to another continent to obtain the scriptures. <S> This journey was long and epic, and had multiple adventures within in. <S> As such, journey is less used in modern day, but you may see it more in works of fiction.
| First, travel is usually a verb... There are small differences between these words. As for trip and journey , trip usually refers to a small casual outing that can be anywhere from a few days to a few weeks.
|
How sophisticated does the word 'occidental' sound for the average native speaker? The word oriental is quite widely used. But its counterpart, occidental is not so popular, at least I don't hear it so often. What's more, my contact with English is mostly by technical documentation, or documentaries, where many words considered sophisticated are widely used. How would it sound like for an average native speaker, if I would use the term occidental for example in occidental countries ? <Q> "Occident" and "occidental" are more dated than sophisticated. <S> The term usually used nowadays is "western". <S> "Occident(al)" might still be used appropriately in certain technical literature (anthropology?), or in the name of a publication or place, where it originated probably no later than the early 1900s. <A> The word "occidental" is less common than just "Western". <S> If you use it, you might sound sophisticated, but you might sound pretentious or just foreign. <S> I'd recommend "Western countries" or "the West" rather than "occidental countries". <A> If we compare occidental to <S> western (using countries to filter out irrelevant results), we see that western is far more widely used than occidental : <S> You are far more likely to be understood if you use western .
| It would probably sound strange, and some people would probably not even understand it, at least partly because its use is rapidly declining:
|
When is it acceptable to omit the subject "I"? Have noticed that English speakers omit "I" when they are emailing or chatting: How are you doing? Am fine. Also, this occurs often in daily/weekly reports. Have seen quite a few of them, written by nationals of all English-speaking countries: Was re-installing a workstation in a conference room; Discussed a quarterly report with X; Am on an expo in Chicago; In many languages it is fine, if the subject is obvious or it's a self-reference. Would like to know, is it grammatically correct in English? If so, where is the borderline? There's a relevant topic at ELU, "Is it poor form to start too many sentences with I?" , but it (1) discusses the opposite side of the question; (2) Suggests to write according to an intended audience or my own taste. This answer seems to be very good, but, being an ELL, am unable to re-write every sentence with a high style like "This opportunity is a good fit for..." Since in a spoken language the syllable may be very short (which is yet another problem for an ELL), let me focus on a written language only. <Q> It is very casual and informal. <S> When in doubt, I recommend that you do not use it. <S> It is quite different from Italian or Spanish, where subject pronouns can be left out; in English (and other Germanic languages), it is unusual. <S> I would interpret it as follows: <S> You are in a hurry or working on an awkward keyboard; <S> Or this text is not important; <S> Or you are consciously mimicking a casual, conversational style. <S> Because journals (not academic journals, but logbooks) and diaries are to be considered one's own notes and regularly written in a hurry, people may leave out subject pronouns more often in those genres. <S> For that reason, omitting subject pronouns has come to evoke a journalling style. <S> In many genres of texts, it is considered bad style, unless it is part of a dialogue that is meant to sound colloquial. <S> So I wouldn't use it in a novel, a newspaper article, an academic paper, an e-mail to a stranger, nor in most other genres. <A> This crops up rather frequently because some people will compose a letter similar to the way we might give an answer over the phone, particularly when we are in a hurry. <S> While I'm proofreading my email, I'll often notice I've done this – but it was generally inadvertent, and I usually change it, and add the subject, after I've noticed I've done it. <S> As Cerberus said, the language is informal. <S> Works fine in conversation but can read awkwardly on the other end. <S> Incidentally, this doesn't only occur with "I"; it can happen when the subject is "it" as well (as I showed in the last sentence of my previous paragraph – although, in that instance, I did that intentionally to illustrate a point). <A> There are two phenomena in play in your examples. <S> They are sometimes indistinguishable from each other: <S> Was re-installing a workstation in a conference room; Discussed a quarterly report with X; Am on an expo in Chicago; <S> The first phenomenon is that of very informal speak, omitting the word subject <S> I <S> (and sometimes even the verb, as in my last two examples): Am on an expo in chicago. <S> How are you? <S> Am fine. <S> Where are you going? <S> On the way to the store. <S> In a hurry, can't talk now. <S> Etc. <S> The other is the use of passive voice. <S> This may be used in formal writing, or when describing something in general, without a specific subject in mind. <S> The implied subject can be "we", "they," "I", "the boss," "the team," or anything else that fits the context. <S> These sorts of things might be seen on an itinerary (in present or future tense), the minutes of a meeting or an executive summary (in past tense): <S> (I|he|we|they) <S> Discussed a quarterly report with X <S> [Possibly] (I|he|the intern) <S> Was re-installing a workstation in a conference room; (I will|we will|they will) <S> Attend banquet. <S> (I will|the students will) Receive awards. <S> (I|the committee|the boss) <S> Assigned tasks. <A> Others have answered the part about omitting "I". <S> Let me just add that people writing informally often omit pronouns and articles, and sometimes prepositions. <S> Like, in formal writing we might say, "Bob came yesterday. <S> He helped me to set up the computer. <S> After that we worked on our presentation." <S> In informal writing one could say, "Bob came yesterday. <S> Helped set up computer. <S> After that worked on presentation. <S> " For the most part the reader can guess what the correct pronouns, etc are, though you might note that there is some ambiguity. <S> Did Bob help me to set up my computer, or did I help him set up his? <S> Etc. <S> RE beginning too many sentences with "I": <S> In general, we try to avoid using the same word or sentence pattern repeatedly because it tends to sound odd. <S> If I started to write, "I drove my car to a car dealer where the car salesman sold me a new car", I would probably rework that, maybe to, "I drove to the auto dealer where the car salesman sold me a new vehicle." <S> like everything in the world is about you. <S> For example, in business circles it is very common advice to talk about what "the team" did rather than what "I did". <S> If you are writing some sort of narrative and you find yourself writing, "I did X. <S> Then I did Y. <S> Then I did Z.", this tends to sound very repetitive and boring. <S> You should try recasting it, like "I did X. After that, Y had to be done. <S> Z was also important." <S> (Of course what alternative wording works depends on just what X, Y, and Z are in context.)
| With the word "I", there can be the additional implication that, depending on the context, it can make you sound self-centered,
|
Grammatical Implications in "Opportunity" and "Possibility" Usage a.1) You have the opportunity to go to Norfolk next month. a.2) *There is the opportunity of your going to Norfolk next month. b.1) *You have the possibility to go to Norfolk next month. b.2) There is the possibility of your going to Norfolk next month. How are these two words different in their own usage to refer to future events when they are used in sentences like those shown above? Searching on Google would prove that a.1) and b.2) are grammatical, but a.2) and b.1) are not. If so, why? <Q> First and foremost, all four of those sentences are in fact grammatically correct. <S> What Google demonstrates is that a.2 and b.1 are really awkward and therefore much less common. <S> In terms of the implications of the words themselves: Opportunity often implies that it is an offer being extend or provided to you by a specific entity or person who is providing you with means or privilege otherwise unavailable to you. <S> Sometimes there is no other party offering the opportunity, but there is always the sense of urgency, that it is a limited time deal, something that must be seized or it will be lost. <S> There is generally a positive connotation: an opportunity is a good thing, something to be excited about. <S> Possibility simple implies that it is something that can happen, either because you decide to make it happen or because circumstances cause it to happen. <S> There is no implicit positive or negative connotation here. <S> There is also no implicit implication of the likelihood of the event happening. <S> If it is possible, it may or may not happen. <S> In general, opportunities imply possibility, but not the other way around. <S> If you are given the opportunity to go to Norway, then of course it is possible. <S> But if you lived within driving distance of Norway, you wouldn't usually refer to your possibility of driving there at any moment as an "opportunity". <S> Some examples: <S> There is a distinct possibility that I may lose my job next week, but I have been given the opportunity to work at an exclusive Swedish design firm, so I'm not too bummed. <S> I really needed to talk to my professor. <S> He was a busy man, so this was nearly impossible , but I happened to see him walking alone one day, so I seized the opportunity . <S> Interestingly, this Ngram suggests that in fact the usage of "opportunity to go" and "opportunity of going" have reversed in the last 200 years, with both being approximately equal in use around AD 1890-1900. <A> Although opportunity and possibility have similar meaning, they are quite different by usage and grammar: <S> Possibility conveys a meaning that something might be true (both currently or in the future). <S> It is used with of or that : There is a possibility that our project will fail; There is a possibility of project failure; <S> Note the former is a complete sentence but latter is a bare noun. <S> It is used with a verb phrase: After graduation, I will have an opportunity to find a good job; <S> Compare: <S> Despite the possibility of storms, I decided to take an opportunity to go to islands. <S> Note that opportunity usually means what someone is trying to accomplish, while possibility is just a matter or randomness. <A> I would word your example sentences slightly differently. <S> Specifically, I'd be more inclined to use an indefinite article, and I'd probably use the prepositional phrase of you going in lieu of of your going . <S> Thus: a.1) <S> You have an opportunity to go to Norfolk next month. <S> a.2) <S> *There is an opportunity of you going to Norfolk next month. <S> b.1) <S> *You have a possibility to go to Norfolk next month. <S> b.2) <S> There is a possibility of you going to Norfolk next month. <S> With that said, your hunch is correct about how possibility and opportunity should be used. <S> Possibilities are more impersonal, and describe circumstances; opportunities are tied to something positive for an individual. <S> One might say that people live among possibilities, but they have opportunities. <S> So, I might write: <S> There's a possibility I will get a new job. <S> or: I have an opportunity to get a new job. <S> but I wouldn't swap those words in that context.
| Opportunity conveys a meaning that it is possible for someone to accomplish some goal (because of the luck or changed circumstances).
|
May "garden" be used as a verb? When my hobby is gardening, what I'm doing in the free time? Can I say: "I will garden tomorrow." or perhaps: "I'm going to garden some roses." Or can I ask someone how to garden tomatoes? <Q> You may say "I will garden tomorrow", but you are more likely to say "I'm gardening tomorrow". <S> Generally, garden is used as an intransitive verb meaning "to cultivate or tend one's garden"; one may also garden a plot of ground, meaning make a garden in it, but one does not garden a plant or crop. <S> You might grow roses, or tend or cultivate them. <A> Dictionary.com suggests that garden can be a verb. <S> More than that, it can be either transitive or intransitive (used without or without an object): <S> Transitive: To cultivate (a plot of ground) as a garden; To furnish with a garden; Intransitive: To plant or tend a garden; To work as a gardener; I don't think that "I will garden tomorrow" <S> is very grammatical, but "I decided that it's better to garden tomorrow than today" seems fine to me. <A> A quick google search for "How to garden tomatoes" only turns up results on "How to grow tomatoes".
| You can use garden as a verb, such as "I will garden tomorrow", or "I like spending time alone gardening", but I don't think you can use an direct object with garden ("I'm going to garden some roses").
|
Same word used multiple times in a sentence Sentences like the following sound strange to me, and I somehow "feel" they are incorrect. I will be in the room in 10 minutes. I will go to New York to meet my friend. Is it correct to use the same word multiple times in the same sentence? If not, what are the right sentences? <Q> Neither of those sentences is incorrect, and I'd venture to say they do not even sound awkward. <S> Using the same word twice in a sentence – particularly when the word in question is a preposition – won't cause a native reader to blink twice. <S> There are even a few words in English that are used back-to-back once in a while, such as had and <S> that : The two had had an almost classic friendship. <S> ( <S> D.H. Lawrence, The Rainbow ) <S> I never could make him understand that that was what civilized people ought to do (A. Huxley, Brave New World ). <S> Common sense rules apply, though. <S> A single word used too often in a sentence will eventually start to read awkwardly, depending on how many times the word is used, how close together those words are in the sentence, and what the meanings of those words are. <S> The infamous "Buffalo sentence," for example, may be grammatically correct, but it's really just a novelty, and wouldn't be useful in any form of real communication. <S> Every once in a while, I'll read something that I've written, and think to myself, "That word sounds overused; I should find a synonym." <S> For example, I'd likely change: <S> She lived in a big house with a big garage on the outskirts of a big city. <S> to <S> : She lived in a big house with a spacious garage on the outskirts of a major city. <S> However, word overuse is a style issue; there's nothing "incorrect" about using a word too many times in a sentence. <S> Moreover, for prepositions, it's best to use the most appropriate preposition available, and using the same preposition twice – even in a short sentence – would not be considered bad practice. <S> In fact, if used properly, a little bit of repetition can create a parallel structure that is easy to follow and almost poetic to read: <S> It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. <S> There's no hard-and-fast rule; you simply need to use your best judgement. <A> Both sentences are correct and sound very natural to native speakers. <A> I thought I'd pitch in with something myself. <S> There are two super-groups of words in English: words that mostly form the semantics (i.e., meaning) of a sentence and words that mostly support the grammatical structure of the sentence. <S> Words, such as in and to are essential in forming the grammatical structure of a sentence and at the same time, they carry meaning themselves. <S> The latter (grammar words) usually have no matching synonyms and are very idiomatic in their usage. <S> Take your first sentence for instance, the first in , a preposition, indicates to the reader that a prepositional phrase is to follow (grammar) and that the action takes place within the confinement of something (meaning). <S> The second in serves a similar grammatical purpose, but carries the meaning of a duration. <S> Both are idiomatic, so there is no easy way to replace them. <S> Grammar words are usually conjunctions, prepositions and sometimes adverbs. <S> The words that mostly carry meaning are usually nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. <S> These words quite often have synonyms and can be replaced by their synonyms for stylistic reasons . <S> J.R.'s answer deals with the style topic very well, so I am not going to repeat everything there. <S> So in order to answer your question - whether it's ok to use the same word multiple times in a sentence - you need to understand these two types of words first. <S> This holds true for many languages in fact.
| It is not incorrect to use the same word multiple times.
|
"read and accepted" or "read and accept"? Is this phrase correct? By purchasing this product, you certify that you have read and accepted the Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions... Is it just me or it feels like "read and accepted" should be "read and accept" only, or is it already grammatically valid? <Q> The word have in the phrase suggests that the action has already been taken, ie it is in the past. <S> Therefore, the verbs indicate past tense: you have <S> already read (pronounced 'red') and accepted the conditions. <S> If the have wasn't there, then that clause in the sentence would be saying that you will (but haven't yet) read (pronounced reed) and accept the conditions. <S> So, the statement is grammatically correct. <S> It deals with tenses a bit awkwardly, but it is valid. <A> Indeed, "have" is the key word to understand what's going on here. <S> "Have" indicates past perfect tense, contrary to a simple past if "have" were omitted. <S> So, in this sentence, "have" applies both verbs: <S> "have read and have accepted" . <S> A programmer would say, "have (read and accepted)" if it were possible with a natural language. :-) <S> This fact has an important results in some phrases. <S> Consider: <S> You read, accepted, and did what you've been asked for ; <S> You have read, accepted, and done what you've been asked for ; <A> There is actually a reason to claim that have read and accept may be preferable. <S> The phrase "have read and accepted the Privacy Policy" is equivalent to "have read and have accepted the Privacy Policy" (the omission of the second "have" is an example of an ellipsis ). <S> This is a present perfect construction, and it means that at this point in time, the following facts are established (completed): <S> You read (in the past) <S> the Privacy Policy <S> You accepted (in the past) <S> the Privacy Policy. <S> Note that the established facts are in the past, but the situation being described is present. <S> This is the reason it is called present perfect , and this is why you can't add any time-indicating adverb like "yesterday" or "earlier". <S> However, it can be claimed that the facts that need to be established are instead that <S> You read (in the past) <S> the Privacy Policy <S> You accept (in the present) the Privacy Policy <S> If this is the case, then the "accept" part should not be in present perfect, but rather in present simple; the sentence should be "... <S> you certify that you have read and accept the Privacy Policy..." <S> (there is still an ellipsis here - you could expand it to "that you have read and that you accept"). <S> Compare this to another sentence which use the verb "be" in the present simple: "You certify that you have studied and are proficient in English".
| Most English verbs have equal Past Simple and Past Participle forms ( "accepted" vs. "have accepted" ), but for some irregular verbs , the difference is significant ( "did" vs. "have done" ).
|
"it be" instead of "it could/would be" Need we add that it be usable in the woods? This paper 1 , albeit an old one, contains an example of this odd way of writing. Where I would expect "..that it would/could/may/should/ ... be", there is nothing! I feel there is some lost information in here. Is this an ordinary way to express oneself nowadays, or is it more archaic, or "upper class"? Is there only one meaning to "it be"? A Personal Computer for Children of All Ages - Alan C. Kay, Proceedings of the ACM National Conference, Boston Aug. 1972 <Q> The sentence in question is cast in the present subjunctive , which is now almost dead even in written English. <S> However, a use which is widespread in US English (and has in the last 50 years been enjoying a modest revival in British English, too) is the mandative subjunctive , employed in clauses which complement a verb expressing an order or requirement: " <S> It is the order of this Court that you be hanged by the neck until you are dead". <S> In the passage you cite, the author has boxed himself in. <S> He starts by employing would be , which is usual with hope ; but in his second sentence he feels obliged by the term constraint to employ the subjunctive: constraint that it be . <S> And having performed that shift, he apparently understands that his final sentence also expresses a constraint: <S> What then is a personal computer? <S> One would hope that it would be both a medium for containing and. <S> expressing arbitrary symbolic notions, and also a collection of useful tools for manipulating these structures, with ways to add new tools to the repertoire. <S> Another rarely invoked constraint is that it be superior to books and printing in at least some ways without being markedly inferior in others. <S> (The previous remark seems to disallow known commercial display devices from consideration.) <S> "Personal" also means owned by its user (needs to cost no more than a TV) and portable ( <S> which to me means that the user can easily carry the device and other things at the same time). <S> Need we add that it be usable in the woods? <S> It is, to my mind, a graceless use, and should not be emulated. <S> But there's nothing actually wrong or ungrammatical about it. <A> Be is used here as a subjunctive form, because the writer refers to a hypothetical state. <S> It (whatever it is) may not necessarily be used in the woods at the moment, but he thinks it should be. <S> The subjunctive uses the plain form of the verb (the form used in the infinitive) and is invariable. <S> The subjunctive is rare in contemporary English, and, as you suggest, the same meaning is more usually expressed with a modal verb. <S> Where the subjunctive does survive it is perhaps more found in American English than in British English. <A> The paper reads: <S> Another rarely invoked constraint is that it be superior to books and printing in at least some ways without being markedly inferior in others. <S> (The previous remark seems to disallow known commercial display devices from consideration.) <S> "Personal" also means owned by its user (needs to cost no more than a TV) and portable ( <S> which to me means that the user can easily carry the device and other things at the same time). <S> Need we add that it be usable in the woods? <S> In this context, it be would be considered a shortened form of it needs to be . <S> The author must have thought that the "needs to" didn't need to be said, because that meaning could be inferred from the context – namely, system requirements. <S> When reading the entire paragraph, this language sounds natural to me, not "upper class" nor archaic. <S> If the first sentence didn't begin with: <S> Another rarely invoked constraint is that it be superior... <S> then I imagine the sentence could have been changed to read something like: <S> It must be superior to books and printing... <S> but the word "constraint" eliminates the need to use the word "must" like that. <S> The last sentence might read awkward on its own, but it doesn't read awkward at the end of that paragraph. <S> As for your last question: Is there only one meaning to "it be"? <S> I would guess not; instead, I think it would be context-dependent.
| It has mostly been replaced by simple indicative forms or, as you indicate, by constructions with would or should .
|
Phrase for states having a common border In Italian, the word for two states which share part of their border is confinante (its plural is confinanti ). For example, I could use that word for Italy and France, Spain and Portugal, or France and Germany. I would not use it for Italy and Germany, since there are two other states between Italy and Germany. Looking for a translation of that word, I find: Adjoining: adiacente , contiguo , confinante , limitrofo Conterminous: confinante The first word seems too generic, as adiacente could be said also for a street; the other word seem more specific, but I am not sure it is a word currently used. Which word should I use? <Q> When I first heard the term "common border", I thought of it used like this: Norway and Sweden share a common border . <S> But, in that contexts, all bordering states would share a common border by default, so there wouldn't be a need for a special word. <S> So I wondered if you meant, instead, something like France and Switzerland share a common border with Italy , which would indicate that, not only are they both neighboring countries, but they both border Italy on the same side. <S> However, you would not say the same thing about France and Austria, because, even though they both border Italy to the north, the border is not continuous. <S> If I'm getting the hang of this now, then two words you might consider are continuous or contiguous : <S> contiguous : sharing a common border; touching (from NOAD) <S> Edit : after reading your clarification, there are several ways you could convey that information; any of the following sound fine to me: Italy and Austria share a common border. <S> Italy and Austria are neighboring states. <S> Italy and Austria border each other. <S> although there are other viable variants as well. <A> There is not word in English that specifically means two states or countries (etc.) <S> that border on each other, but there are approximates. <S> There are several words that seem to all work just as well for this purpose, all of the form "{descriptor} states", where {descriptor} can be: neighboring - "next door" to each other (sometimes generalized to "in the same area") adjacent - directly next to each other, so <S> yes, with a shared border bordering (as @bytebuster mentioned) - same deal as adjacent <S> Each of these can be generalized to "{descriptor} {X}", where {X} can be country, state, county, district, town, backyard, etc. <S> EDIT: <S> Based on this Ngram, "neighboring states" seems to be the most common of the above three, with adjacent coming in second, and "bordering" coming in third. <S> Since "neighboring" can be a little more generalized, if you need to be understood, I would use "adjacent". <A> Bordering states <S> may be a good variant: <S> State with the Most Bordering States <S> : Missouri with 8 bordering states (Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee) and Tennessee with 8 bordering states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia) <S> Here's usage for a pair of... <S> Travel north to south , to a pair of bordering states or to international gateway cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Baton Rouge, Memphis, New Orleans, or Minneapolis / St. Paul. <A> It is used in contemporary English in technical contexts. <S> For example, the United Stated Geological Survey's book on map projections refers to the 48 "conterminous" states of the United States, to distinguish them from Alaska and Hawaii: <S> The USGS uses the Equidistant Cylindrical projection for index maps of the conterminous United States, with insets of Alaska, Hawaii, and various islands on the same projection. <S> Most Americans use either "continental" or "contiguous" instead of "conterminous", when referring to these 48 states. <S> "Continental" was correct until the admission of Alaska in 1959, but it is now technically incorrect to refer to the "48 continental" states of the United States. <S> "Contiguous" is a valid alternative.
| "Conterminous" is an infrequently used word in English.
|
Is "what the hell" considered offensive? Is "what the hell" used as just an expression, or is it considered offensive? In what situations is it "okay" to use it? If it is offensive, is there a more "polite" alternative which expresses the same feeling? <Q> Note that what the hell (or the more common and even more offensive what the fuck ) is a short form for something like... <S> What the hell is going on? <S> So just omit the "potentially offensive" bit in the middle. <S> According to context, it might be you need to say <S> "What are you doing?" , or <S> "What is that?" , but hopefully the general principle is clear. <S> Lots of people probably think of "hell" above as a "toned down" variant on "fuck". <S> You could tone it down even more by saying "What the heck" , or "What the blazes" , for example, but increasingly I think such euphemisms are seen as somewhat dated. <S> Either swear or don't - there's no point in pussyfooting around with expressions that are really just attempts to swear without literally doing so. <S> Arguably just a personal opinion, <S> but I think as a rule non-native speakers may well be judged more harshly than native speakers when it comes to "offensive" language. <S> I believe most people (not just parents) are more likely to be bothered by children swearing than by adults using the same language. <S> Whether you like it or not, it's unavoidable that many people will (consciously or unconsciously) conflate "inarticulate" foreigners with native children who are also in the process of learning English. <S> Therefore, although I can understand why people learning English are often particularly interested in learning how to use swear words (hoping to sound more like native speakers), I think this is a misguided approach. <S> Personally, I believe swearing effectively/"correctly" is quite an art - which even most native speakers never really master, because it's so much more context-sensitive than most language usage. <A> In polite circles it would be considered offensive, yes. <S> There are a couple of geographically related, non-offensive alternatives: <S> What on earth ... ? <S> What in heaven's name ... ? <S> Less offensive ( <S> but still not to be said in front of mum): <S> What the heck ... ? <S> Contrary to other opinions, I think there is nothing wrong with adding some extra emphasis to what you are trying to say, and attempting to do this while not offending the listener is an admirable goal. <S> What on earth? <S> isn't 'pussyfooting around swearing' at all - it's totally non swearing, but still gets the message across. <S> As an example, when the boss says 'what are you doing?' <S> , you'd let him know about your current tasks, but when he says 'what on earth are you doing?' <S> , you know you have to justify why you're goofing off. <A> It’s more of an exclamatory statement about a situation. <S> If you are directing this comment towards someone or using it to comment about a person’s actions, then yes it may be offensive as a form of criticism. <S> Hell is not as vulgar of a word in comparison to other “swear words”. <S> In America, the FCC permits the use of this word on TV and radio. <S> Some polite versions could be: What is happening?How <S> could <S> that happen?What were you thinking?
| No, because typically it’s not an offensive comment directed towards someone.
|
Is the phrase "suit yourself" offensive? I was using the phrase "suit yourself" quite often since the equivalent in my native language it is a legitimate way to express "do whatever you consider the best." However, when I used this phrase in a dialogue with a person from UK, I was told that it is quite impolite. I goggled the phrase for clarification, but I did not succeed much. There is an explanation at The free Dictionary which tells nothing about impoliteness at all. On the other hand, there is a discussion on ELU which implies it is impolite. There is also a link to the phrases.org which honestly confuses me. Is the phrase "suit yourself" considered impolite, or is it sometimes impolite? Has the phrase changed its tone recently (maybe due to the non-native speakers)? <Q> Sure, it can come across as rude, especially when it's uttered bitterly, and it's meant to imply, "Do whatever you want - I don't care." <S> However, in a more casual context, it's not necessarily rude. <S> Sales Clerk: <S> "...and that's the main difference between the red widgets, and the blue widgets." <S> Customer: " <S> Thanks for that information; I'd like to buy two of the red widgets." <S> Sales Clerk: "Suit yourself." <S> Even in that snippet, though, I do detect an undercurrent of "That's not the way I would do it, but, if you say so..." <S> So, I suppose something more along the lines of: Fine by me. <S> could be considered safer. <S> Still, I woudn't consider "Suit yourself" to be anywhere near as inconsiderate as something more vulgar, such as <S> "I don't give a rat's ass." <A> It can be uttered in a perfectly bland, casual manner, meaning “Do what you like” or “Do what you like, I don’t care”; or spoken with a bit more edge, may mean “That’s a stupid idea, but do what you like”. <S> None of these are rude or impolite as such, albeit disrespectful in some cases. <A> With expressions like this, much depends on the situation, the relationship between the speakers and the intonation with which the expressions are delivered. <S> However, the default interpretation of suit yourself is indeed offensive, and it’s best avoided unless you’re really sure it won’t be taken the wrong way.
| “Suit yourself” is almost never rude or downright impolite, but depending on tone may come across as snippy, judgemental, or negative.
|
How should I use "infer"? A recent question on Meta discussed advantages and disadvantages of using more advanced words in ELL. As example, this answer was used: 'A Japanese' infers the Japanese person is a thing, and not a person. This is what deems it offensive. 'A Japanese Person' infers the Japanese person is just that - a person, and is therefore considered fine for use. While the conclusion of the discussion is not related to this question, one comment disturbed me: Unhappily, both words are misused there! – StoneyB 18 hours ago Not to bundle two unrelated words and two different errors, let's focus on infers here. What is the misuse in the example? How should that word be used here correctly? <Q> To infer is to understand or realize a fact that is not immediately obvious. <S> To imply is to "say something without saying it", so to speak; when you imply something, you are indicating it to be true without ever actually saying it outright. <S> You infer what I imply; I infer what you imply. <S> So, to put it in context, the phrase "A Japanese" may imply something offensive, but <S> you , as a listener or reader, have inferred this. <A> As far as I'm aware the error here is that 'infer' actually applies to how someone responds to something that is said/written, rather than the effect of the thing itself. <S> That is to say, someone infers something when they 'read between the lines' or spots something that isn't stated outright - they don't 'infer' when they say something, so the current usage is incorrect. <S> This said, the example could be rewritten correctly like this (even if it is a bit clunky): 'A Japanese' could lead someone to infer that the Japanese person is a thing, and not a person. <S> This is what deems it offensive. <S> 'A Japanese Person' would lead someone to infer that the Japanese person is just that - a person, and is therefore considered fine for use. <S> (NB: as the question doesn't refer to 'deems', I've left it uncorrected) <S> However, in this case, I think the author was actually looking for the word ' implies ', which means that something is said (even if unintentionally), but not outright stated. <S> To use the example again: 'A Japanese' implies that the Japanese person is a thing, and not a person. <S> This is what deems it offensive. <A> Thus, I inferred from the fact that the subjects of OP's sentences were texts, not persons, that the word OP intended was not infer but imply , which means to carry or bear a sense which is not literally there—which is not explicit but implicit . <A> The NOAD reports the following notes, about imply and refer : <S> There is a distinction in meaning between infer and imply . <S> In the sentence "the speaker implied that the general had been a traitor," the word implied means that something in the speaker's words suggested that this man was a traitor (although nothing so explicit was actually stated). <S> However, in "we inferred from his words that the general had been a traitor," the word inferred <S> means that something in the speaker's words enabled the listeners to deduce that the man was a traitor. <S> The two words infer and imply can describe the same event, but from different angles. <S> Mistakes occur when infer is used to mean imply , as in "Are you inferring that I'm a liar?" <S> (instead of "Are you implying that I'm a liar?").
| To infer is to extract from a proposition or text or signal, by what we call inference , a sense which is not literally there, which is not explicit. 'A Japanese Person' implies that the Japanese person is just that - a person, and is therefore considered fine for use.
|
How should I use "deem"? In relation to question about using "Infer" I'd like to ask what is wrong with deem in this example? How to use it correctly? 'A Japanese' infers the Japanese person is a thing, and not a person. This is what deems it offensive. 'A Japanese Person' infers the Japanese person is just that - a person, and is therefore considered fine for use. <Q> It is an action taken by a sentient being. <S> So to say that some factual evidence "deems" <S> something is nonsensical, as facts are merely ideas, not people or beings with the capacity to make decisions. <S> It would perhaps be more appropriate to rephrase: ' <S> A Japanese' implies the Japanese person is a thing, and not a person. <S> This is what caused certain people to deem it offensive. <S> (Note that I also changed infers to *implies. <S> This is the subject of another question, but please research it if you don't know why I did that.) <S> EDIT: <S> Ah, I just saw the reference to the other question , re: infer . <S> And then I answered the other question. <S> So... go check that out. <A> Let us ignore the infer / imply confusion, which is covered by another question . <S> Deem means consider , and in the example deems it offensive <S> is backwards. <S> Someone must deem something offensive. <S> An inanimate object can't deem; it can only be deemed . <S> I find deem to be rather old-fashioned, and would use consider instead. <S> (Bias: US native, of an "older" generation.) <A> "deem" is one of the more overused words in undergraduate writing. <S> It isn't simply a synonym for "thinks" and its use is quite restricted to specific environments. <S> A better synonym is "consider", and you can sometimes swap the two. <S> "deem", however, is more formal and a bit old fashioned. <S> Usually, "deem" is intransitive, so it doesn't take a direct object. <S> You can say "I will take whatever action I deem appropriate", but "I deem that action appropriate" is non-idiomatic.
| "To deem" is an action of consciously deciding.
|
Is it okay to say "Yes no, I don't want to"? Is it okay to say "Yes no, I don't want to"? People seem confused by it. Is it correct? If not, why? <Q> Although the word-to-word translation of да нет is <S> yes no , the meaning is not carried into English. <S> (Quite frequently, the results of word-to-word translations do not make sense in the target language.) <S> See Russian Language & Usage: What does the phrase "Да нет" mean? <S> for information on how it translates to English. <S> In English, when people say yes no , it is usually because they changed their minds immediately after saying yes , and quickly say no . <S> Therefore, it would be better to say <S> No, I don't want to. <A> Using both "yes" and "no", especially right next to each other, is contradictory. <S> Since you are saying "I don't want to", you should accompany that with "no", so you'd just say <S> No, I don't want to. <A> In South Africa, we tend to say "Ja no" a lot (meaning "yes no"). <S> We don't regard it as being indecisive, and use it when we are agreeing wholeheartedly with something someone else said. <S> Similarly to when someone says, for example, "that band was good", and another would say, "No, it was great". <S> South Africans just add a "Ja" in front. <S> I think it is the same in English. <S> :) <S> Another example:Do you like sushi? <S> Ja <S> no I love it! <S> (Or yes no I love it)
| When you say this, it makes you sound indecisive, and confuses people; they wonder whether you mean yes or no .
|
Is rendezvous pronounced like run-they-who? I know that pronunciation in English is not very consistent, but I heard rendezvous being pronounced like run - they - who , which felt very strange. Is this really the right way to pronounce it, and how did it turn out like this? <Q> No, not run-they-who but ron-day-voo . <S> Both Modern French and Modern English got the word <S> rendezvous from Middle French. <S> It's been an English word for about four hundred and twenty years ! <S> So simply saying it's a French word <S> and we should mimic the modern French pronunciation <S> is disingenuous. <S> English spelling is quirkier than its pronunciation. <S> We've pretty much retained the French spelling (merely dropping the hyphen) but the pronunciation is quite different. <S> French "r" is very different to any of the ways "r" is pronounced in English. <S> French has nazalised vowels (the first "e" is one) but English does not. <S> (In fact it's quite possible that even the French meanings and pronunciation have drifted a little in the four centuries since English adopted this word.) <S> Both the Middle French and Modern French pronunciations are out of scope for this site for English learners. <S> (They would be relevant in a forum, or in a linguistics site.) <S> The only pronunciation I know is like "ron-day-voo". <S> Different dictionaries would render it different ways. <S> The English Wiktionary currently uses: /ˈɹɑndəˌvu/ or /ˈɹɑndeɪ̯ˌvu/ for American English and /ˈɹɒndɪˌvuː/ or <S> /'ɹɒndeɪ̯ˌvuː/ for British English. <S> Without the IPA these would be like ron-duh-voo and ron-dee-voo . <S> These suggest that the second "e" can also be reduced like the "e" in chicken. <S> But I'm not familiar with these pronunciations. <S> These are both farther from the French pronunciation and perhaps a little closer to run-they-who . <S> Anyway, I would render the pronunciation I know in IPA this way: /rɒndeɪvuː/ <S> ( ɒ is the vowel in hot . <S> In most American English accents this is usually affected by the "cot-caught merger" and is rendered ɑ in IPA.) <A> “Rendezvous” is a loan word — usually rendered like ron-day-voo ¹ — which you can listen to here . <S> Rendez-vous is the French word for “appointment” ( date , gathering ).Its <S> English pronunciation is very much alike how the French pronounce it : (The [r] is a lost cause.) <S> The [en] is that of wand , more or less. <S> The [dez] is the [de] of decorate , only slightly more acute. <S> (In fact, [ez] is é in French, but English only knows of the French è . <S> It's close enough, really.) <S> The [v] is that of view . <S> The [ou] is like the English oo ( fool ). <S> The s is silent. <S> ¹ Or run , or ran , even ren . <S> Thanks to afriza for the link, to hippietrail for etymology, and to <S> user22911 <S> for de . <A> (ron-day-voo). <S> Rendezvous comes from the French rendez-vous , meaning a meeting or appointment, and its pronunciation was very much influenced by French pronunciation. <A> <A> Well! <S> It's really very difficult for an American (all English speaking persons, in general—but not only for those) to pronounce "rendez-vous" (not "rendezvous"). <S> The same difficulties that all peoples other than those of English mother tongue generally find in pronouncing English (US or GB). <S> Why is the pronunciation of "rendez-vous" so difficult?First of all: the French (like the Germans) have a very special way of "rolling" the letter "r" . <S> You will find it very difficult if you have not learned to do so as a child. <S> See Language Guide—French Pronunciation: Consonants . <S> Also: learning the the French nasal sound is, unquestionably, a difficult task. <S> If you wish to exercise, please go to Language Guide—French Pronunciation: Nasal Vowels . <S> To resume:Do you really wish to pronounce "rendez-vous" like a real French person does? <S> Or you could be satisfied just by pronouncing it in a decent way?In <S> my opinion the second option would be all right for you, especially because your listener would laugh at you! <S> This is a sufficiently fine pronunciation for you : <S> run (of run ning) + <S> de (Letter e of demonstrate) <S> + voo (of voo -doo) <S> rundevoo
| Rendezvous is a borrowing from French and still carries with it a French pronunciation, modified to fit available English sounds: ˈrɑndeɪˌvu (like ron-day-voo ). No, it is pronounced /ˈɹɑndeɪ̯ˌvu/
|
Grammatically right way to answer the phone When you pick up the phone and someone asks for you, should you say "It is I" like you were an actor from a Shakespearean play or "It is me" like you had dropped middle school? <Q> Every sane native speaker will say ‘It’s me’ rather than ‘It is I’. <S> However, if someone asks for you by name on the phone, the normal response is ‘Speaking’. <S> Here’s what the authors of ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’ say about ‘It’s me’: . <S> . . <S> if I’m outside on your doorstep <S> and I call out <S> It’s me <S> , that isn’t an accidental slip on my part. <S> It’s the normal Standard English way to confirm my identity to someone who knows me but can’t see. <S> Calling it a mistake would be quite unwarranted. <S> Grammar rules must ultimately be based on facts about how people speak and write. <S> If they don’t have that basis, they have no basis at all. <S> As a further statement of the current position, the following quotation from ‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage’ is also relevant: <S> Traditional grammarians argued that It is I was the only correct form, whereas conversational usage has long endorsed <S> It’s me . <S> Research associated with the Longman Grammar (1999) shows that both appear freely in contemporary news and fiction, but in different constructions. <S> It’s me is far more common when the pronoun is final (i.e. with nothing following it) , whereas the opposite holds when the construction has a following relative clause introduced by who , as in it <S> ’s I who suggested it . <A> On a very formal grammatical level, I in <S> It is I is acting as a predicate because is <S> is a copula, and so the nominative case, i.e. I , is correct. <S> However, in modern English usage, It is me <S> is far more predominant, and only the most pedantic of persons would criticize you for using me in this sentence. <A> I think what you're looking for is "This is she" or "This is he". <S> There are several ways to answer the phone, but this is the one closest to what you are trying to say. <S> As others have mentioned, "Speaking" or "This is [your name] speaking" (or even "This is [your name]" are also common and acceptable. <S> But the closest to your original suggestion is <S> "This is he/she", which is very common.
| Neither "It is I" or "It is me" are used; "this" is used rather than "it".
|
Appropriate usage of "can't" and "cannot" Are there any rules for using can't and cannot since they mean the same thing, and they are used interchangeably, but they sound weird in certain contexts? <Q> This answer at ELU suggests: Grammatically, you can use can't instead of <S> can <S> not or cannot in the majority of circumstances. <S> There is an exception. <S> In wh-movement , the contraction should not be expanded unless you also change the word order: <S> Why <S> can't I have some bacon? <S> //OK <S> Why cannot I have some bacon? <S> //not <S> OK, archaic <S> Why can I not have some bacon? <S> //OK again, although formal Stylistically, the choice between can't and cannot is more complex. <S> Also, cannot might be used when you need to carefully distinguish it from can't in speech. <A> I believe "cannot" is used in the more formal aspect, whereas "can't" is used in casual discussions and conversations. <A> I believe that this is up to speaker(writer)'s discretion. <S> Though some do believe and claim that "can't" should not be used in formal speech or written form. <S> Yet they are actually incorrect because negative question tags require the short form. <S> E.g.: "He can help us, can't he?""He can help us, cannot he?" <S> just sounds like a pure evil... <S> Nevertheless, as the language rules get more and more relaxed you can find "can't" very often even in science papers/newspapers, etc... which is fine if you ask me. <S> side note:"can <S> not" (though grammatically incorrect) is sometimes used in common speech if you put big emphasis on the 'not' part, e.g. <S> : "You can NOT eat ice cream in the museum!" <S> (In this case it would be clearly pronounced written as two words. <S> Nobody would write it as "canNOT"). <S> source: foreigner living the US
| Generally, people use can't in speech and informal writing, and cannot or can not in formal writing or very formal speech.
|
"firstly ... secondly ..." or "first ... second ... "? Suppose I am enumerating reasons not to fly. Is it then correct to write/say: Firstly, I prefer the train because I can see the landscape. Secondly, I have control over my luggage, and thirdly, it is better for the environment. Or is it rather: First, I prefer the train because I can see the landscape. Second, I have control over my luggage, and third, it is better for the environment. I thought the first should be correct, but I find the second one in written texts. Which one is correct? <Q> Both styles are used. <S> In most genres, no-one will object to either. <S> However, traditionally, first, secondly, thirdly etc. is used. <S> Only pedants will insist on this usage, but it is something to be aware of, as there are many pedants. <S> See Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd edition). <S> The Oxford English Dictionary on firstly : <S> Used only in enumerating heads, topics, etc. <S> in discourse; and many writers prefer first , even though closely followed by secondly, thirdly , etc. <S> Burchfield in Fowler's Modern English Usage on first : <A> First , and firstly are both correct, since first is also an adverb. <S> So you can say: I prefer the train because I can see the landscape. <S> Secondly, I have control over my luggage, and thirdly, it is better for the environment. <S> First, I prefer the train because I can see the landscape. <S> Second, I have control over my luggage, and third, it is better for the environment. <S> The important is not mixing them, as in the following sentence: <S> First, I prefer the train because I can see the landscape. <S> Secondly, I have control over my luggage. <A> This answer at ELU suggests: <S> Go on the length principle: both have the same meaning, but firstly is two characters longer than first . <S> The language will eventually evolve to do without the longer equivalent; I'd use first . <A> From Cambridge website , mentioned: <S> When we are making lists, we can use first or firstly. <S> Firstly is more formal than first <S> So, If you are doing academic writing use Firstly, otherwise, use First for general writing use.
| Both are correct, however, there is "overcorrectness" in using firstly because it seems more like an adverb than first . We often use first, especially in writing, to show the order of the points we want to make.
|
Difference between "female" and "woman" I haven't been able to find any good articles describing rules (or patterns) specifying use of the words female and woman . Let's take the following sentences as an example: (assuming we have a man and a woman) The woman pointed the gun at the man The female pointed the gun at the man * the second sentence sounds very odd to me though. And what about male doctor ; shall we then say female doctor or woman doctor ? Can you please provide any rules / patterns (I hope there are some) specifying usage of female and woman ? <Q> The words <S> male and female are used as classifications (such as in anthropology, or medicine), and they can be used as adjectives as readily as nouns. <S> The words man and woman are more personal descriptors of individuals. <S> When using these words to describe the subjects of a scientific study, we might find either of these: •The control group consisted of 26 female and 18 male patients. <S> •The control group consisted of 26 women and 18 men. <S> You are right about how your second example sentence sounds "off", but that's because you've mixed the two words: •The <S> woman pointed the gun at the man . <S> (sounds normal) <S> •The <S> female pointed the gun at the man . <S> (sounds awkward) <S> •The <S> woman pointed the gun at the male . <S> (also sounds awkward) <S> •The <S> female pointed the gun at the male . <S> (sounds acceptable) <S> However, context could very well override that general guidance. <S> Some of the sentences I've labeled as awkward may sound funny on their own, but they could be just fine in the middle of a lengthy testimony during a courtroom trial, where a long series of questions has set up a scene - i.e., something like this: <S> "What did you see in the room?" <S> "There was a woman with a gun, and two people in the doorway." <S> "Could you tell if those two people were male or female?" <S> "Yes." <S> "And what did you notice?" <S> "There was one male, and one female." <S> "And what happened next?" <S> "The woman pointed the gun at the female." <S> I think that last sentence reads just fine in that context, because the preceding dialog has made it rather easy to follow along. <A> Female and male are useful in cases where it is not clear, or the speaker doesn’t want to say, whether or not the person referred to is a juvenile. <S> You will sometimes find them used in, for example, police reports. <S> However, where the age of the person is known, it’s preferable to use the relevant term, such as woman, girl or young woman , or <S> man, boy, lad or young man . <S> When it comes to describing professions, questions of equality influence the language we use. <S> It is advisable to refer to a doctor simply as a doctor. <S> You can always say whether the doctor is a man or a woman later in the conversation if the need arises. <A> Female is a word only defining the gender . <S> On the other hand, woman means a female who is also an adult . <S> Usage Female is rarely used, and usually used only in formal written English. <S> Woman is used quite commonly, as illustrated by your example. <S> Same for 'man' and 'male'. <A> A very similar thing happens in Japanese. <S> The Japanese word for woman is onna , corresponding to the character 女. <S> But if you simply call someone onna (for instance ano onna ... : that woman ... ) <S> it is abrupt, and offensive to that woman and the person you're talking to. <S> People do not say this. <S> The word used is onna-no hito (女の人), at the very least, or other words like josei （女性）. <S> However, in news reports, the word onna will often be used by itself to refer to a criminal suspect. <S> It is not rude in that situation, but rather it is analogous to when English-speaking police or reporters say female suspect . <S> " <S> According to the security camera footage, the female suspect entered the building at 15:03 ..." <S> " The suspect is described a female between 35 and 40, five foot three, wearing ... " <S> "There were two perpetrators, a male and a female. <S> The male was armed with a semi-automatic weapon ..." <S> But it would be strange to use female to refer to a woman in everyday speech. <S> The following are inappropriate and weird. <S> My boss is a nice female . <S> There is a female at the front desk, asking for Mr. Jones . <S> So that is the essence of female versus woman , when female is used to refer to a woman: the speaker is placing some kind of mental distance between him or herself and the subject, and not identifying with the woman as a fellow person.
| If the person concerned is not an adult but a female, people usually use girl or young woman .
|
Noun used as an adjective in "passenger seat"? A friend of mine (a native speaker of Japanese) wrote "passenger's seat", which a native speaker of English corrected to "passenger seat". Onelook.com has entries for the latter but not the former, but I wouldn't be able to explain the grammar of it. Is a noun being used as an adjective? <Q> It describes a seat that is meant to be used by a passenger. <S> Passenger’s seat , on the other hand, is the normal way of saying ‘the seat of a passenger’. <S> It means that the seat that in some way belongs to a passenger. <S> In this particular case it is an unlikely thing for anyone to say in that context, which is no doubt why your friend was corrected. <S> It would, however, occur in a sentence like this: <S> "I'm sorry, sir, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to move. <S> This is another passenger's seat." <A> Employing a noun as a modifier is very common in English, and probably the most productive structure for creating new terms. <S> The modifying and modified nouns may stand in almost any relationship: light bulb - a bulb which produces light light switch - a switch for turning a light on and off gas company - a company which distributes gas safety inspector - one who inspects for safety concens noun phrase - a phrase which functions as a noun sales conference - a conference for salespeople And a compound of this sort may compound with another noun, as either the modifying or the modified term: gas company safety inspector - a safety inspector for a gas company <A> Passenger's seat doesn't show possession although it uses an apostrophe - it shows a genitive case. <S> A possessive case and genitive case can mean the same thing and be used interchangeably when they show possession. <S> However, in this case passenger's seat doesn't mean the passenger owns the seat, but the seat is for the passenger. <S> The same thing applies to children's song ; it's not about the children owning the song, but the song being for children. <S> Therefore, it's a genitive case and not a possessive case.
| Nouns frequently modify other nouns in English, and that is the case with passenger seat .
|
"I can make myself 'understood'/'understand'/'understandable'" I don't speak acceptable English, but I can make myself understood . I don't speak acceptable English, but I can make myself understand . I don't speak acceptable English, but I can make myself understandable . Why are "understand" and/or "understandable" ungrammatical, while "understood" is not? Or, are "understand" and "understandable" in some way acceptable English when they are used like in 2 or 3 respectively? If so, can anybody explain the difference in meaning between 1 and 2 and 3? <Q> I don't speak acceptable English, but I can make myself understood . <S> Here, you are saying that other people can understand what you are saying. <S> I don't speak acceptable English, but I can make myself understand . <S> This means that you can understand what other people are saying to you. <S> I don't speak acceptable English, but I can make myself understandable . <S> Finally, the third example means that you can make yourself capable of being understood. <S> As this Ngram shows, understood is used almost exclusively in this context, while the others rarely occur: <A> The first sentence means that you can make other people understand you, and, in most situations, that is what you will want to say. <S> The other two sentences are grammatical, but they’re much less likely to occur. <S> The second sentence means that you can make yourself understand something if you really want to. <S> The third sentence means that you can speak in such a way that people will understand what you do say, but it is not a substitute for the first sentence. <A> Generally, you use the construct to make someone do something to indicate that you oblige or force someone to do as you wish, or else <S> that you <S> cause something to happen; see for example <S> My father made me stay at home on Friday night. <S> That film always makes me laugh my head off. <S> If the object of the verb is a reflexive pronoun, then instead of an infinitive form we use a past participle, because the meaning is passive; with this construct you are saying that you allow , or make it possible for you to be understood/seen/heard by others. <S> Hence your first sentence, which is very frequent. <S> In your third sentence you are using an adjective instead of a verb, which results in a perfectly grammatical sentence with the similar meaning to the first, i.e. that others can understand you, although it seems to imply some kind of effort, and it is not so frequently used. <S> Finally, the second sentence has a completely different meaning, because here it is you who manage to understand something, through clear effort on your part. <S> To try and clarify, consider the following example : <S> I made myself understand her reasons for deserting me.
| The verb to make has various meanings in English, but the sentences that you are asking about all (roughly) refer to the same grammar rule, that is of causing , provoking a certain effect.
|
Difference between "as" and "because"? What is the difference between as and because ? Which one of these sentences is correct? He stayed home from work as he was sick? He stayed home form work because he was sick? Which is correct? Are they both correct? <Q> As is used to mean because , but it is also used when two events happen at the same time. <S> In "I must stop now as I have to go out. <S> " it means because , but in "She watched him as the train passed close to his house. <S> " it doesn't mean because . <A> In some contexts, any of as , since , and because can be used. <S> kiamlaluno's example, “I must stop now as I have to go out” <S> is one such context. <S> However, I believe most native speakers would shun “He stayed home from work as he was sick”, instead preferring either “He stayed home from work since he was sick” or “He stayed home from work because he was sick”. <A> The major differences between as and because are three, in ascending order of importance: <S> As has two letters, and because has seven: point to as As has one syllable, and because has two: point to as As is often ambiguous, but because never is: 10 points to because If you care about clarity (I do), then you should never use an ambiguous word when there is a perfectly acceptable unambiguous word that can be used instead. <S> The two sentences in your question are both grammatically correct and both idiomatic native-speaker versions of the same semantic content. <S> The first is more likely in British English than in American English, to which, however, it is no stranger. <S> You might want to look at this related SE question and answer: <S> When are "because", "since","for" and "as" interchangeable? <S> And this page of advice about using as and <S> because . <S> And this well-researched Grammar Girl page. <A> I believe both are correct because both are speaking of the reason why the person stayed at home from work. <A> but if you want to emphasise or focus more on the reason, then 'because he was sick' would be correct.
| As for the sentences you used as examples, both are correct. 'He stayed home from work as he was sick' would be correct if we want to focus on the result (He stayed home).
|
Difference between "hundred", "a hundred", and "one hundred"? What is the difference between hundred , a hundred and one hundred ? Which one is correct? The book has hundred pages. The book has a hundred pages. The book has one hundred pages. I think maybe the first one is correct. Is that right? <Q> The first example is incorrect. <S> The second and third examples are both correct. <S> There is also another form, an hundred , which was common in the past, but has mostly fallen out of use. <S> See Google Ngram Viewer: a hundred, an hundred, one hundred : <A> The second or third version is correct in my opinion. <S> According to a vs. one and a hundred vs. one hundred , it all depends on the context. <S> When you say 'a hundred' or 'a million' you're just giving an order of magnitude, and the exact figure doesn't matter. <S> So much so that when you say 'a million reasons not to do this' it obviously isn't important how many exactly. <S> When you say 'one million' or 'one thousand' then you're usually being quite precise with the figure you're giving : 'I've won a million pesos at the lottery' (lucky you even though I suspect this isn't that much) or 'This village is one thousand inhabitants'. <A> Part of the answer to this depends on whether you are learning the American versus British English variant. <S> In British English, one would say That cake had one hundred calories in it <S> In American English, one would more typically say <S> That cake had a hundred calories in it <S> Additionally there are other differences between how numbers are stated in British versus American English that often cause confusion for new learners: <S> This bicycle cost two thousand, one hundred thirty seven dollars <S> Would be a valid American English number, i.e. $2137, whereas in British English one would preferentially use the form This bicycle cost two thousand, one hundred and thirty seven pounds. <S> Meaning the same number - £2137. <S> In both American and British English, you need to qualify the number with "a" or "one" when stating an exactitude, for example <S> This book has hundred pages <S> Is wrong in both American and British English. <S> However, you can use the plural form of the quantity without "a" or "one" for indefinite quantities to express an order of magnitude: <S> This book has hundreds of pages Which would be used either idiomatically to mean <S> This book has lots of pages Or precisely to mean that the book has somewhere between 100-999 pages. <A> 'Hundred' is the order of magnitude, just as 'twenty'shows the order of magnitude. <S> In the UK 'a hundred, a hundred and one, a hundred and two' etc is a common style when speaking about 100, 101, 102 etc. <S> This form is also used when writing what has been spoken. ' <S> One hundred' is also used. <S> Either form is also used for 1,000, i.e.'a thousand', or 'one thousand' etc. <S> In the US, the form 'hundred' and 'thousand' is used with without the indefinite article ' <S> a'. <S> And 'one' is similarly not used when speaking about 100, 101, 102, 1000, 1001 etc. <A> Regarding one hundred or a hundred etc, the person saying that there is a difference is right - one is used more for precision <S> but a is more common and employed. <S> "I have a thousand, three hundred and thirty-one staff" sounds better if you say "one thousand..." as it is a precision.
| Which one you use is mostly a matter of preference, although a hundred appears more frequently than one hundred .
|
When to pronounce 'e'? Many words have the silent 'e' on the end. How can I tell whether I should pronounce the 'e' or not? Is there a rule for this? <Q> Most of the time, when you see a word end in this pattern: - VCe where V represents a vowel, C represents a consonant, and e represents an ending e , then the e will be silent. <S> Here are a few exceptions: recipe, simile, hyperbole but such exceptions are very rare compared to the large number of words that follow the general guideline. <S> Also, when words have endings such as -ple, -cle, and -dle, those letters typically form a syllable at the end, as in sample, icicle, and candle . <S> If you are unsure about a word, though, you can check the pronunciation guide of any dictionary. <S> Edit : The answer I have provided here is at a basic level. <S> The "e" in words such as hope, fade, and wine is sometimes referred to (particularly at a more elementary level) as a " silent e " that changes the sound of the vowel. <S> However, at a more advanced level, linguists would differentiate between the "e" in gave , which changes the sound of the "a", and the "e" in give , which does not, concluding that the latter "e" is really the silent one, and the former "e" is not truly silent, because it affects the pronunciation of the word. <S> Really, this comes down to the matter of what the O.P. means by " <S> when should I pronounce <S> the ‘e’? <S> " If the word "pronounce" in that context means "add an extra syllable" (as in epitome ), then my answer here would apply. <S> However, if to "pronounce" in that context means "to change (or not change) <S> the sound of the vowel" (as in have vs. hive ), then Matt's answer below would be more applicable. <S> One book gets around this potential ambiguity by used the term " magic e ", but then uses the term "Silent E" in its description: <S> The MAGIC <S> E <S> When E is at the end of a word it is silent, but the vowel before it changes to a long vowel (the name of the letter). <S> The pattern of the word is usually Consonant-Vowel-Consonant-Silent E. <A> There aren't any particularly hard and fast rules in English. <S> Normally an 'e' at the end of a word is not "truly silent", but rather modifies the sound of the final constanant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_e Without silent e <S> With silent e IPA transcription slat slate /slæt/ <S> → /sleɪt/ met mete /mɛt/ <S> → /miːt/ grip gripe /ɡrɪp/ <S> → /ɡraɪp/ cod code /kɒd/ <S> → /koʊd/ run rune /rʌn/ <S> → /ruːn/ <S> These words are typically derived from French words or expressions: <S> promenade Femme Fatale minute <A> I don't think there is any general rule that can be applied in every case; you just have to know which words have silent letters. <S> A silent e is often employed to modify the pronunciation of the preceding vowel, functioning much like a diacritic would in many other languages. <S> For example, in at and ate , the a is pronounced differently. <S> In cases like this, the silent letter serves to disambiguate written words and indicate pronunciation.
| There are some words in the English language where the 'e' is "truly silent", i.e. the word is read as if the 'e' at the end were not there at all.
|
What is the word for "doing something in various steps"? The expression I am looking for is something like this: Rather than putting the whole mixture of spices at one while cooking something, put a part of it in various steps/rounds separated by a regular interval. Is using rounds correct, or should I use something else? Basically, what I want to know is what word I am supposed to use to mean I am doing something in distributed steps rather than all at once. <Q> Your original sentence is unclear to this extent: Do you mean that each spice should be put in separately (one spice at a time) or that they should all be mixed together into something like a curry powder and then added in equal fractional parts? <S> I'll assume the former (it's more rational for cooking for a couple of reasons). <S> You can say it this way: <S> Rather than adding all (of) the spices at the same time while cooking something, put them in one at a time at regular intervals, for example, every 2 minutes. <S> You can also say: ... <S> put them in (separately) step by step, ..." <S> There's no need to clutter the sentence with unnecessary terms like "rounds" and "steps". <A> A typical way of saying this is <S> I followed the recipe step by step , or I followed the steps in order . <S> I don't know a good single word for the process, although gradually , used in context, comes close. <S> It still needs a verb to make sense. <A> "Incrementally" means "do things in steps". <A> There isn't a common noun that comes to mind that means this, but several adjectives. <S> Rather than putting the whole mixture of spices in at once while cooking something, periodically add part of the mixture while it cooks. <S> Rounds or steps refer to a process, not a thing. <S> The first thing that comes to my mind with the word round is a game of some sort. <S> A situation where there are multiple people (or other entities) and everyone/each thing is taking/receiving a "turn". <S> There is an implication that everyone gets a turn, but no implication on the time that may take. <S> You only have a single thing (the dish) receiving a single action (adding spices) that is desired on a defined time frame so the word round is not suitable. <S> It does not by default <S> suggest a single repeated action over time, but rather various different actions that must be completed in sequence. <S> So in my opinion this word is not entirely suitable either. <A> In this case, I would say: Put the spices in over time , while you're cooking.
| Steps means distinct actions to take to accomplish something. Periodically or gradually probably expresses what you mean the most succinctly:
|
When is auxiliary "do" used in positive declarative sentences? Examples: "I did go home" instead of "I went home". "We did make some tea" instead of "We made some tea". "I do listen to future garage music" instead of "I listen to future garage music". Is it correct? <Q> They are correct. <S> They are used as emphasis, though; you should not use "I did go home." <S> every time you mean "I went home." <S> For example, suppose you talk to a friend of yours, and the dialog is the following one. <S> Friend : Where did you go after school? <S> You : I went home. <S> Friend : <S> Strange, Charlie told me you were going to the library. <S> You : I changed my mind. <S> Shirley told me she was going to the library too <S> and I didn't want to meet her there. <S> Friend : Michael saw you close to the library. <S> You : Going home, I turn right before reaching the library. <S> Friend : I don't believe you. <S> Somebody took my book when I was at the library <S> and I believe it was you. <S> You : Look, I did go home. <S> I did go home <S> has the same meaning of <S> I went home . <S> I really went home . <A> The sentences that you have posted are correct, but only in certain situations. <S> These sentences add emphasis to your statement. <S> All of these sentences: I did go home <S> We did make some tea <S> I do listen to future garage music (little mistake here) are usually used when giving a positive answer to a negative question. <S> For eg. <S> Do you not play football? <S> --- <S> > <S> I do play football. <A> Do is used in this way only for emphasis, and when it occurs in speech it is stressed. <S> It can also occur at the beginning of an imperative clause: ’Do go home now’, and can sometimes replace an entire imperative clause: ‘Do you think I should go home now?’ <S> ‘Yes, do .’ <S> ( Listen needs to be followed by to , <S> so it's <S> I listen to garage music. )
| It is used to put emphasis on the verb, such as to mean
|
How would a native say "just looking around" You are walking around in a shopping mall or some sort of store, even though you might buy something, you don't have anything specific in mind and you are walking around the store, to have a look. If a salesman or a saleswoman asks you if they can help you with something, how do you explain to her the whole situation — that you don't have an idea what you want, you will buy something if you like it, but you don't know what it is, and you have to walk through the entire store to see if you want anything or not? You can of course say "no", but it will be kind of rude. <Q> The phrase "I'm just looking" would not be considered rude, and I think it's a rather common way of saying it in shopping malls and department stores. <S> There's also the term window shopping , which means "looking at shop windows without intending to purchase anything." <S> That term is not merely restricted to passersby of store windows, however; people will sometimes use that expression when they checking out the merchandise in the aisles of the store. <S> That said, I'd be more inclined to tell a sales clerk <S> "I'm just looking," before I'd say "I'm only window shopping." <A> Well, usually when I'm in the situation you mentioned above, I say, " I'm just having a look " or <S> " I'm just looking around " <S> And so as to not be rude, I usually add a " Thank you " at the end. <S> This is usually enough and there doesn't seem to be one word or a short form for this, or if there is, I have never used it. <S> On the other hand, I have never encountered a problem in this kind of situation either. <S> As they say: If it isn't broke , don't fix it. <A> <A> You could say a few things like: 1. <S> I'm just looking at your products. <S> 2. <S> I'm just looking around. <S> 3. <S> I'm just seeing if there's anything I need. <S> Also like Siddhartha said "I usually add a "Thank you" at the end. <S> " <S> , Which is a good way of making sure they understand you don't mean any harm. <A> "I'm just looking" is universally understood by all salespersons that you do not need any help and would prefer them not to bother you as you are shopping. <S> You can certainly say, "No thank you, I'm not looking for anything in particular (or anything specific)." :-) <A> My father says "Just pokin' around"
| In North America, a standard reply would be, "I'm just browsing, thank you."
|
How can I tell whether "c" should be pronounced like "s" or like "k"? How can I tell whether "c" should be pronounced "s" or "k"? I always get confused and pronounce it like "s" because it looks like russian "с". <Q> ca → <S> k <S> co <S> → <S> k <S> cu → <S> k ci <S> → s ce <S> → s <S> cy <S> → s c at the end of a word → k c before <S> L or R or T <S> → kl or kr or kt <S> (ex. <S> cl <S> ap, cr oss, <S> conne ct ) <S> ch at the beginning of a word and followed by a vowel → usually as in chalk, children (Ч in Russian) <S> ch in the middle of a word (ex. echo, archaic ) <S> → usually k ch at the end of a word → almost always as in chalk, children (Ч in Russian) <S> ch followed by an r → kr tch → very similar to chalk, children . <S> look up examples and listen. <S> If you pronounce it the same as chalk or children <S> you will be approximately correct. <S> ck <S> → k ( c is essentially silent) C can also be pronounced as sh sometimes, but this is rare. <S> It is most often found in adjectives ending in -cious , such as conscious, precious, ferocious, etc, and also in adjectives ending in -cial , such as special, artificial, crucial, social, etc. <S> One major exception where c is pronounced as sh is the word ocean. <S> There are many other exceptions to the above rules. <S> You will learn them as you go. <S> As Jim points out, an excellent rule of thumb is "Except for ci, ce, and cy, <S> it's pronounced as a k . <S> " <S> With the exception of ch , of course. <S> There's also one or two words in English that begin with cn , in which case the c is completely silent. <S> But they're very, very rare scientific words. <S> There's also at least one that begins with cth , in which case the c is again silent. <A> Pretty much if c is followed by i, e, or y <S> it's pronounced like s . <S> Otherwise it's pronounced like k (except sometimes when it's followed by h and is pronounced like chalk or children ) <S> It can also sound like "sh" as in artificial . <S> There are always exceptions like arciform where it is pronounced like k , but overall I think it's not a bad rule of thumb. <A> Do you want to know if "c"and "k" sound the same?Think of some words likecliff, kitten, kettle,computer, camera, like. <S> Pronounce these wordsand <S> you will notice thatboth "c" and "k" arepronounced the same as"k". <S> It is the same case if "c"and "k" are put togetherand are pronounced as "k"- click, pluck, tickle, lucky,kick, yuck, wicker <S> (andmany words that have "c"and "k" together). <S> The difference between "c"and "k" is: <S> "C" is pronounced as "s" if it goes with the vowel letters, e and i. <S> The rest of the vowel letters goes with c and they are pronounced as"k". <S> AEIOU <S> Ca = <S> pronounced as k Example: <S> California Ce = pronounced as s Example: Center Ci = pronounced as s Example: City <S> Co = pronounced as k Example: <S> Coke Cu = pronounced as k Example: <S> Cup Want to review? <S> How to pronounce "circus" ? <S> You can notice two c's in the word"circus". <S> As for the letter "k", it hasno other pronunciation,just "k". <S> But be carefulwhen the letter "k" goeswith the letter "n" - know,knife, knowledge, knight. <S> In this case, "k" is notpronounced.
| The first c is pronounced as "s" and the second c ispronounced as "k".
|
What expression is used instead of a name, when somebody doesn't remember a person's name? Is there another expression, apart from what's-his-name (or similar), which is used when somebody is speaking of a person, but doesn't remember the person's name? I thought Vattelapesca was used in English too, but apparently it is not. I know that in American English Joe Doe , or Joe Six Packs is also used, but I think it is used when a person cannot be identified (for example, a homeless man), or to refer to an ordinary man. <Q> First of all, it's actually John Doe , not Joe Doe , and the female equivalent is Jane Doe. <S> And no, what's <S> -his-name <S> /what's-her-name is by far the most common option for referring to people whose name you can't remember. <S> The common alternative is to identify the person without using a name at all: <S> I saw that girl yesterday, that one who hit you with her car. <S> Remember her? <S> Well did -- what's his name? <S> -- your cousin -- try using a trowel? <S> Another term you will see is <S> So-and-so , <S> but this is used when the name doesn't matter, not when you've forgotten it. <S> Johnny told me that he heard from so-and-so that you can just fix that with duck tape, actually. <A> I've heard <S> Mr. X or Mrs. X used by English-speaking people, and it does not seem to be vulgar. <S> Instead, it resembles numerous positive examples from literature, music, and cinematography. <S> Wikipedia has a list of placeholder names , but they all look very informal, except, maybe, So-and-So . <A> This is Mrs. little Johnny's mum. <S> Over there is Mr. Jeff Rogers and Mr. Jeff Roger's boss. <A> (American English) <S> I've heard "So-and-so" as a replacement for a forgotten name pretty often in conversation. <S> In written English, this doesn't get used. <S> Also, "Mr./Mrs. <S> What's-his/her-face". <S> Less common, but understood and not archaic or anything. <S> Likely a derivative of "What's-his-name". <S> In certain contexts, one could use "you-know-who", but usually this is when both know the name and wish to avoid speaking the name for some reason. <S> We tend to give whatever we know about the person as replacements for a name, too, and a more diminutive way could even be "Mr./M(r)s. <S> [attribute]". <S> As an example, if I were talking about a friend of mine who never pays attention in class, I might say, "Hey, Mr. Too-cool-for-school over there just mowed my lawn!". <S> This can be done in a variety of ways, like "Ol' (Old) <S> _____", but <S> the general idea is that people tend to fill in anything they know about the person , like "that guy on the news who fell from space" ( Felix Baumgartner ), or "which president, the one on the twenty?" <S> ( Andrew Jackson ) in informal contexts.
| In lieu of what's-his-name , among teenagers you will sometimes hear what's-his-face and in more vulgar terms what's-his-fuck . You'll sometimes hear something that can be remembered about the person in lieu of their name:
|
How to use "compared to" Is the following sentence correct? This text has altered significantly compared to original version. <Q> Second, the compared to clause is very frequently encountered in statements of this sort, but it’s wordy and in the end redundant. <S> A comparison is implicit in the word altered ; and in this particular sentence it will be ordinarily taken for granted that the comparison is with the original. <S> You need say only: <S> This text has been significantly altered. <S> To be sure, if you are comparing multiple versions you do need to say which particular text you are comparing this one to; but that may be gracefully said: <S> This text has been significantly altered from the original. <S> By and large, there is no need to mention the comparison explicitly if a comparison is implicit. <S> Tim is taller compared with Carol <S> is redundant; say Tim is taller than Carol. <S> Mentioning the comparison is only required if your statement is cast in the positive grade: <S> Tim is tall compared with Carol, but short compared with Mike. <A> I would write: <S> This text has been significantly altered, compared with the original version. <S> About using compare to , or compare with , the NOAD has the following note. <S> Traditionally, compare to is used when similarities are noted in dissimilar things: "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" <S> In practice, however, this distinction is rarely maintained. <S> As per the adverb, it should be closer to the verb it modifies. <A> It is almost correct. <S> You're missing the word "the" before "original version". <S> This would be correct: <S> This text has altered significantly compared to the original version. <S> Now, to break the sentence down in more detail. <S> At some point, there was an original version of the text. <S> Since the time the original was written, it has altered . <S> Therefore the new text (in your sentence, referred to as "this text") has altered . <S> How do you know it was altered? <S> By comparing it to the original text. <S> So yes--the sentence is correct. <S> The text has altered, and you know this by comparing it to the original version. <S> I notice other answers mentioned "compared with" as well as "compared to". <S> While I don't doubt that "compared with" is correct, I would say that personally it sounds odd to me. <S> I can't put my finger on why <S> but I will say that, as a native speaker, I would use "compared to". <S> Just something that stood out at me. :)
| First, you should put the definite article before original version . To compare with is to look for either differences or similarities, usually in similar things: "Compare the candidate's claims with his actual performance."
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.