source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Can I "fix" clothes? Can I use fix for talking about clothes? For example : My mother fixed the hole in my jeans. Or is there a better verb I should use? <Q> ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ). <S> Another common term is to patch , meaning to apply a piece of cloth as a patch (sense 1). <S> Reweaving or invisible mending are more-subtle fixes. <A> Although fix is entirely valid, a native speaker would probably use the verb mend when talking about clothes: <S> I've mended the hole in my socks. <S> I'm mending this tear in my jacket. <S> I need to mend my shirt before tomorrow. <A> You can, <S> but I don't think it's commonly used that way. <S> It's better to use a verb specific to the activity, such as mend, patch, sew, alter, etc. <S> Also you are better communicating what actually occurred rather than generalizing. <A> Yes you can! <S> You can fix your clothes or repair them or mend them and can find out it by googling. <S> About a better verb <S> I doubt because people use all three.
| As noted in previous answer, phrases fix clothes , repair clothes , and mend clothes are used.
|
How do I politely turn down other people's gestures? I live with two roommates and often we have lunch/dinner together. One thing that happens frequently my roommates offering me something and me turing it down. It often goes like this Friend : Dude have some garlic bread. Me : I don't want it, you eat/go ahead.(awkwardly) Does it sound odd to native English speakers? What would the appropriate reply be in this context? <Q> “I don't want it, you eat” definitely is odd; a native English speaker would add it after eat . <S> “You go ahead” is natural enough. <S> Less-awkward phrasings include “Thank you, no”, “Thank you, but no”, “No, thanks”, “I don't care for it”, “I don't care for any just now”, etc. <S> In many dining contexts, “I don't want it” is slightly rude, because it can imply the food is bad, and such implication spoils the dining experience for others. <S> Of course, if the food is definitely and obviously bad, less delicacy is needed. <A> If this is in the context of shared dinner, but without any more specific prompt from you (such as "I'm not full yet"), then to answer in kind (which is to say, informally but politely), you say "I'm good," "Nah, I'm good," or "I'm good, thanks though." <S> Saying "you go ahead" is super awkward since he wasn't asking if he could have some. <A> I am quite often offered things I don't want at that moment, by people offering 'transport' on the street or wanting me to buy sarongs. <S> As saying 'no' constantly doesn't feel good to me, I just smile and say 'thank-you' - and move on. <S> They get the message that I don't want what they are offering - but my 'thank-you' at least lets me graciously acknowledge that something was offered, without the feeling of constantly rejecting everything! <S> ~I suggest you do the same - smile, say thank-you, but then don't take it. <S> Acknowledge the offer. <S> If they try to foist it on you again, you can smile, nod (by which I mean, gently gesture towards the table surface with your head), and say 'thank-you - maybe later' (hold up a flat palm here if needed) - again with the downward nod. <S> In this way, hopefully, you can train them, and also, feel gracious, in your response.
| You can nod a bit with a downward motion to show you want them to put the plate down, as you are smiling.
|
Asking for a person: "Could I speak 'to'/'with' Kristina?" If one is asking for a person, what should s/he say—1 or 2? Could I speak to Kristina? Could I speak with Kristina? <Q> Both speak to , and speak with are used. <S> Can I speak to Susan? <S> Can I speak with you for a minute? <S> In both the cases, the meaning is "have a conversation with somebody. <S> " <S> The difference is that speak to (or talk to ) is less polite, since it put the emphasis on one doing the conversation, while speak with (or talk with ) is more polite, since it doesn't put the emphasis on just one doing the conversation. <A> In the UK at least, the choice would be number one. <S> There seems to be a USA/UK difference here. <S> I have not heard anyone other than Americans say speak with and it sounds really weird and unusual in the UK. <A> Both are fine and: <S> mainly UK <S> "Can I speak to Dan please? <S> " <S> mainly US <S> "Can I speak with Scott please?" <S> source: Cambridge Dictionary
| People normally just say speak to or talk to .
|
Is there a neutral way to ask a question about a fact? When somebody asks "Is Christmas tomorrow?" I suppose that whoever is asking thinks tomorrow is Christmas; if somebody asks "Did she say the truth?" I suppose that person thinks she didn't tell the truth; if the question is "Is the sun green?" I assume that whoever is asking sees the sun as green. Is there a neutral way to ask a question about a fact, and avoid that whomever is listening makes implications? <Q> Here's a slightly neutral way to pose your questions <S> When is Christmas? <S> Is her opinion correct? <S> What’s the color of the sun? <A> I believe the (entirely unnatural) court-style of asking questions fits the bill: <S> Were you, or were you not at the place of crime at 9PM on 7th February? <S> Is it, or is it not true that tomorrow is Christmas? <S> Did she, or did she not say the truth? <S> Note you're unlikely to hear it outside a courtroom - this form is used strictly for this neutrality you're asking for, to prevent objections of the opposing side against "guiding the witness". <S> A way to state you really don't know either way, is to ask "if the asker knows" - it is quite neutral too but it concentrates more on the fact of unavailability of the information than on staying unbiased: <S> Do you know per chance if tomorrow is Christmas or not? <S> or more likely, lesser-known pieces of knowledge: <S> Do you have any clue if GCC 4.7.0 supports i8 CPU extensions yet? <S> Do you happen to know whether Mikhail Gorbachev is still alive or not? <S> (it would be weird to hear this form asking for something about everyone knows, like whether tomorrow is Christmas or not.) <A> I think most such implications come from the nature of the question. <S> If I ask, "Is Sally telling the truth?", the fact that I'm asking the question implies that I think she may not be. <S> If I ask, "Is tomorrow Christmas?", I suppose that as Christmas comes only once a year, the question implies that I think it is. <S> Though in that case, I think the implication would depend a lot on the context. <S> Like, "Of course the office will be closed tomorrow." <S> "Oh, is tomorrow Christmas? <S> " <S> In that case I'd think the person had lost track of the date, but now that he's been told that the office will be closed he is expecting a yes answer. <S> But, "The boss said he's getting us all new computers tomorrow." <S> "What, is tomorrow Christmas or something? <S> " <S> Here I'd assume the real and expected answer is no. <S> There are plenty of times you could ask a question like that with no implication. <S> Like if someone asked, "Is tomorrow a company holiday?", he probably genuinely doesn't know and neither a yes nor a no would be a surprise. <S> In the extreme case, there are "rhetorical questions", questions that are asked with a clear implication that the questioner already knows the answer. <S> Like, "Don't you think my new girlfriend is beautiful?", or "Are you an idiot?" <S> In either case, the questioner has already decided on the answer. <S> The purpose of the question is not to gain information. <S> In the first case he expects you to express agreement with the conclusion that he has already reached. <S> In the second he is simply insulting you, and he might just as well have said, "You are an idiot. <S> " You know that that's what he meant.
| We don't normally ask if what someone says is true, normally we just assume that what people tell us is true, so if you ask, you're implying that you doubt it.
|
Word for group of noisy people I was studying, and I heard noises coming from the other room. I went there, and found that they were just happy, laughing, joking and congratulating as somebody had been engaged. Which word can I use to describe what was happening in other room? <Q> I don't know a single word that would replace "a group of noisy people". <S> There's a whole bunch of adjectives that could describe that group of people - amongst synonyms of <S> noisy <S> (bolding ones that would match the situations best),: chattering, disorderly, ear-popping, ear-splitting, loudmouth, rackety, raising Cain, raising the roof, rambunctious, riotous, rowdy , screaming, tumultous/tumultuous , turned up, uproarious and quite a few nouns to describe the situation - synonyms of ruckus disturbance, big scene, bother, brawl, commotion , disorder, disruption, fray, fuss, hubbub , racket, stir, turmoil, upheaval, uproar <A> I think loud crowd can be a good term for it or a loud room or loud people . <S> Surely as StoneyB said your question doesn't make it clear what you mean of "to describe what happening in other room" <A> Not exactly a commonly used word these days, <S> but I think most english speakers would still know what it means as it still gets used in writing fairly often. <S> You can have raucous crowds, a raucous party, raucous laughter, etc. <S> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/raucous <A> Gaggle - Group of noisy people <A> You have a few options to describe a noisy group of people, depending on the context of your thought. <S> You might choose different words depending on whether or not they bother you, for instance. <S> If you do not find them annoying. <S> these tend to have a positive connotation: party celebration <S> soiree <S> fete <S> e.g. I would definitely rather be at that soiree than studying; <S> how jovial! <S> If you do find them annoying, these have a negative connotation: cacophony circus sideshow <S> horde <S> clamor mob <S> gaggle racket <S> e.g. May <S> that spiteful, wretched horde be smote by mighty Thor so that I might read in peace... <A> As mentioned in previous answers, mob, gaggle, cacophony could be used, if you are looking in context of people who gossip loudly, "Klatsch" is a germanic word, which could be used.
| They were a raucous group!
|
'Come to'/'Come in': what is the difference? Consider these expressions: Come to my room. Come in my room. When I came in the lobby/corridor in the evening, there were tons of people gathered around for X. When I came to the lobby/corridor in the evening, there were tons of people gathered around for X. Can anyone explain to me whether there is any difference between come in and come to in this context? Because of my native language, I tend to use come in rather than come to . <Q> For different circumstances you would use different forms. <S> Here are some instances. <S> • “Come to my room”: <S> While away from your room, you tell a person to come with you to your room; or via telephone, tell someone to come to your room. <S> • “Come in my room”: <S> Standing outside the door of your room talking with someone, you ask them to come in to continue a discussion. <S> But typically it would be stated more briefly or at least differently: <S> “Come in”, “Come on in, let's sit down”, etc without mentioning the room, since it is right there anyway. <S> Note, into is a likely prospect when the room is mentioned. <S> • <S> “When I came in the lobby in the evening, there were tons of people gathered around...” <S> : This form is inappropriate; use into instead. <S> I'd use into for going into a lobby from inside a hotel. <S> • <S> “When I came to the lobby in the evening, there were tons of people gathered around...” <S> : <S> I'd use to for going to a lobby in a hotel, from elsewhere, but typically no real distinction will be made between use of to and into in this context. <S> • <S> “When I came to in the lobby in the evening, there were tons of people gathered around...” <S> : This form is appropriate if you passed out and are regaining consciousness. <A> My understanding of the difference in the two prepositions, "in" and "to": <S> In the room = being inside the room; to enter the room. <S> To the room = <S> being in the proximity of the room, but not necessarily inside it. <S> Come to my room might mean to come and knock on the door, etc. <A> Come to is equivalent to approach or arrive at .
| Come in (or come into or come in to ) is equivalent to enter .
|
What is the difference between "look at" and "look to"? I've heard/read/seen both "look at" and "look to" (and "look up at" and "look up to"). Is there a difference between the two? When should I use one over the other? <Q> The difference between the two phrases is that both can be used in the literal sense (to look in the specified direction), "look to" and "look up to" also have a figurative meaning. <S> The literal meaning: <S> Look at that, Henry's taking his first steps! <S> Look to your left and your right before crossing the street! <S> Look up at the sky, it's Superman! <S> Look up to your right <S> , there's a green bird at the very top of that tree! <S> In all of these sentences, "look [x]" is being used to mean " <S> look in the direction specified." <S> This is the literal meaning of the phrases. <S> However "look to" and "look up to" also have figurative meanings. <S> You can say you "look to" someone to find answers or advice, for example: <S> In her first few weeks on the job, Monica often looked to her boss for guidance. <S> This doesn't mean that she literally looked at him, but that she went to him for advice when necessary. <S> "Look up to" also has a figurative meaning. <S> Tommy had always looked up to his baseball coach. <S> He was tough but fair, and taught the team a lot. <S> Tommy had wanted to be just like his coach when he was a kid. <A> Whether you use look at or look to is not determined by direction or purpose, but by the nature of what you are looking at or looking to. <S> Specific: <S> Look at the big grey elephant. <S> Look up at the stars. <S> Look at me, I'm Sandra Dee. <S> Non-specific: <S> Look to your left and look to your right before crossing the road. <S> Sometimes look to and the other variants are used in connection with people or physical objects, but any such usage is idiomatic. <S> This example might illustrate the difference: <S> When I have tricky technical problems to solve, I look at StackOverflow. <S> When I have tricky technical problems to solve, I look to StackOverflow. <S> The look at example means: I browse the StackOverflow website. <S> The look to example means: <S> I rely on the entire StackOverflow ecosystem, which includes the website but also includes the users, the culture, and so on. <A> To look at means to see something on purpose, <S> that is, something that you actually want to see. <S> Thus, looking at you implies willingly turning my head towards you so that I can see you, while seeing you is almost unavoidable: if you are in my presence, I'll see you no matter what I do. <S> But I won't be looking at you unless I want to. <S> To look to is another way of saying to count on someone . <S> So, I'm looking to you for help <S> means <S> I'm counting on you for help . <S> Thus to look at and to look to mean two different things. <S> To look up at simply means to look at something that is in a higher position than you are. <S> If you want to see a bird in the sky, you will have to look up at it. <S> To look up to means to respect , while to look down on means to disrespect .
| Look at means to direct your gaze at specific objects or persons, whereas look to means to direct your gaze at something non-specific: To look up to someone is to see them as a role model, or to view their behavior as a higher standard which you would like to achieve.
|
How do native speakers say 'the light bulb has stopped working' Lets say, I want to tell my roommate that one of the lightbulbs has stopped working, I usually say The light bulb is gone or broken down . I did some search related to these expression and it seems that they are not very common and will sound odd to the natives. <Q> In the U.S., at least, it's not uncommon to hear: <S> The light bulb is burned out . <S> The expression can be found in writing sometimes, too. <A> I'm also in the U.S., and I agree with J.R.'s answer, but I also find myself saying: The [light] bulb went out. <S> "Went out" is more general, so you can say "the lights went out" during a power outage even if the bulbs are still fine, but if I say a bulb went out, it usually means I need to replace that particular bulb. <A> I'm in the UK and the most common expression I hear (and use) is that "the bulb has blown". <S> I'm not sure why we say this, <S> when it doesn't really blow, it just burns out, but it seems pretty common around here <S> (NW England). <A> As a native speaker of British English, I'd say The bulb's gone . <A> I am 42 years old and from the east of England. <S> I learned English from people born before the 2nd world war in general. <S> People used to say "fused" because of the similar mode of failure. <S> A old fashioned light bulb and a fuse share a lot on common. <S> Both have a fine wire encased in a sheath. <S> Both fail in a similar way. <S> The wire breaks inside. <S> Hence fused. <S> Sometimes light bulbs do shatter when they fail. <S> In that case it would be more appropriate to say the bulb has blown. <S> When light bulbs shatter as the failure mode then there has probably been a power surge. <S> If you are interested I can tell you more about tungsten light bulbs and old style wire fuses. <A> I'm from the U.S. and have heard multiple ways used commonly. <S> If you are holding a light bulb that no longer works because the filament is broken you could say: This light bulb is burned out. <S> This light bulb is blown out. <S> This light bulb is dead. <S> If someone wants me to fix a light that won't turn on, they'd typically point at it and say: That light bulb burned out! <S> That light bulb has blown out! <S> That light bulb has died! <S> That light bulb went out! <S> Typically I am in a better mood if they say "Would you fix it, please?" afterward. <S> I've heard "...has burned out" and "...died" with about the same frequency, but "...blew out" seems less common. <S> Also, "That light bulb went out!" <S> is common, but I've rarely heard it used to describe the broken state of the bulb, "This light bulb went out. <S> " makes sense to me, but "This light bulb is gone out." or some other similar construction for the present-tense would seem unusual to me. <A> The bulb's (has) fused! <S> This is what I've always heard and used. ' <S> blown' sounds strange and american. <S> I supose 'the bulb has gone/ <S> the bulb went' needs some thought before being understood.
| I would say the light bulb has "fused".
|
Differences between "mandatory" and "compulsory" What is the difference between mandatory and compulsory ? Are they synonyms? Can they be used interchangeably especially with regard to something you must do? Writing the essay is a mandatory task. Writing the essay is a compulsory task. <Q> Compulsory (“Required; obligatory; mandatory”), mandatory <S> (“Obligatory; required or commanded by authority”), and obligatory (“Imposing obligation, morally or legally; binding”) have related and similar meanings. <S> There are many examples where one of those words could be used in place of another, but in some areas, set phrases arise; for example, compulsory education , compulsory service , mandatory minimum sentences , mandatory retirement , obligatory treatment . <S> For further examples, click the book links at ngrams for compulsory,mandatory,obligatory . <S> Also see ELU question <S> Are the words “mandatory,” “obligatory,” and “compulsory” interchangeable? and similar questions at other sites ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ). <S> The differencebetween page is quite informative: <S> Mandatory and Compulsory are two words that are often confused when it comes to their meanings and connotations. <S> On the other hand, the word ‘compulsory’ is generally used in the sense of ‘essential’. <S> This is the main difference between the two words. <S> It is important to note that anything that is mandatory has the quality of binding the doer to the work. <S> On the other hand, anything that is compulsory has to be essentially done without postponement. <S> The word ‘compulsory’ often refers to things or requirements. <S> On the other hand, the word ‘mandatory’ often refers to conditions. ... <A> The authors of the Oxford Learner's Thesaurus argue that " compulsory is used especially in the contexts of education, business, and employment. <S> Mandatory is used especially in the context of the law. <S> Obligatory is often used to talk about rules and laws relating to safety, for example in sport or the workplace." <S> Obligatory can also be used humorously. <S> It is almost never used in the attributive position. <A> Compulsory comes from compel - which means to make something happen. <S> Mandatory comes from mandate - which means to say something shouldhappen. <S> Obligatory come from obligation - which is means something isexpected. <S> So compulsory has more of a sense that it will be enforced with some sort of punishment.
| The word ‘mandatory’ is generally used in the sense of ‘binding’. Strictly speaking, there is some difference between the two words. The authors of the Longman Collocations Dictionary add that mandatory is more formal than compulsory or obligatory and sounds stronger.
|
What does "grab a hit" mean in this context? Audiences expect spicy and sometimes dark narratives, but because the networks are still in the business of not offending mass audiences, they cannot even grab a hit when it comes lurching through the door. What's the logic here? Why cannot audience grab a hit? And who is lurching through the door? I am very confused. <Q> This basically means: Since the networks are trying to be careful, they don't buy a hit show when one (hit show) is brought to them. <S> "Grab a hit" is referring to the networks buying a great show. <A> It is not the audiences that “cannot grab a hit”, but the broadcast networks. <S> (In that New York Times article, the sentence before your quote is <S> “Think about the box that the broadcast networks are in.”) <S> In the U.S. at least, “over-the-air” broadcast networks – using FCC-controlled portions of the electromagnetic spectrum – are subject to more-restrictive standards than are cable networks. <S> ( 1 , 2 ). <S> As such, they are “in the business of not offending mass audiences”. <S> “They cannot even grab a hit when it comes lurching through the door” means that they cannot sign up a show about zombies that, for example, shows “a pack of zombies ... <S> lustily feasting on human innards”. <S> Zombies often are portrayed as lurching about as they walk. <S> To <S> lurch <S> is “To make such a sudden, unsteady movement”. <A> "Hit" refers to a "hit show." <S> The sentence means that even if a potential "hit show" idea came "lurching" or "charging through the door" (so to speak), the networks would not be capable of "grabbing" or using it. <S> That's because their desire not to offend people has made them too timid to recognize an opportunity that "knocks on the door."
| The audience wants an exciting show, but the networks are trying so hard not to offend anyone that the network won't take a chance on a show that will (probably) be a big success.
|
Can I say "copied-and-pasted"? As far as I understand copy-and-paste is used to mean the operation of copying, and pasting.If somebody did that, can I say (for example) the following? She copied-and-pasted what I wrote on my blog, changed some words, re-ordered some phrases, and then published that on her own blog. <Q> This stems from the fact that most people seem to say "copy-paste" rather than "copy-and-paste" nowadays. <S> So yes, your sentence makes sense and is correct, but more common would be these: We don't have time to retype it, just copy-paste it and let's go! <S> I didn't want to type the whole page by hand, so I found the book online and copy-pasted the relevant section. <A> It's much more common to hear: <S> She copy-and-pasted what I wrote... <A> I think we don't even need to mention "paste'. <S> If we use the word "copy" only then it will also mean as copy-paste. <S> e.g. If I am reading a blog in which blogger has used the content from my blog then I can comment as "Mr. ABC has copied the content of by blog". <S> It means that Mr. ABC has copied from my blog and pasted for his usage. <S> This comment is based on my own understanding, if am mistaken then please rectify. <A> "Copied-and-pasted" would be the adjective form. <S> " <S> Copied and pasted" is a phrase containing two past-tense verbs. <S> "She copied and pasted a copied-and-pasted comment."
| "Copied-and-pasted" would be totally understandable, but more often I hear "copy-pasted."
|
What is the term for music without singer voice? In Portuguese, instrumental music is the version of a piece of music without a singer's voice. Is this the same term in English? I don't know if there is a specific word because, for example, when searching about the music transcript we need to search for lyrics . <Q> Yes, a vocal song can have an instrumental version, in which the lyrics are missing. <S> Instrumental can mean two things: a "karaoke" version with the vocals removed; or a song which was written without vocals in the first place. <S> Incidentally, some people insist a "song" must have vocals. <S> These people use the word "piece" to refer to a song without singing, which is traditional and etymologically correct. <S> In common use, people use "song" to refer to instrumental songs as well. <S> How is this relevant? <S> If you're talking about an instrumental metal group or the instrumental version of a pop song, people say "instrumental song"; if you're talking about classical music with no singing, people usually say "piece". <S> A "backing track" is a track without all the instruments for a musician to play over, which is somewhat different. <S> A guitarist may have a backing track consisting of bass and drums that they play over. <A> Not exactly-- <S> instrumental music refers to a song that is designed to be played by only instruments. <S> The original version of an instrumental song has no singer, it is played by instruments only. <S> The word you're looking for is karaoke . <S> A karaoke song refers to a version of a song that usually has lyrics, where the singer's voice has been removed (and is specifically produced for people to sing along to it). <S> Something which might also be of interest: <S> A capella is the opposite of instrumental ; it contains the singer's voice only, and no instruments. <A> In English there are a few terms for this, but the most common term is backing music or backing track , although instrumental music is also usually unambiguous. <S> Note that the opposite (i.e. vocals but no backing) is usually called a cappella .
| When referring to a song whose vocals have been omitted so that someone else can sing to the backing music, the usual English term is karaoke music or a karaoke track .
|
How is the "'s" related to the death of a person or of an animal "Camel hair" is, among other things, the hair of a camel. Since we talk about "sheep's wool" or "lamb's wool", why don't we use the " 's " after camel in the case above? Perhaps some historical reason might exist, but, as a not native of English language I'm wondering if I have to learn all the cases in reference to any specific animal or if there exists some guidance, if not some rule, helping to understand this problem. For example, if the separation of an animal's part implies its death, can I be sure that the " 's " has to be dropped, as in the case of "calf skin"? If this is a real rule, could we extend it to human beings? For example, if one—a doctor, for example—talks about my heart, after my death , should s/he say "Carlo's heart" or "Carlo heart"? <Q> You are assuming a relationship where none exists. <S> This has nothing to do with the animal's death. <S> "Camel hair" is the name given to the textile fiber obtained from a camel. <S> It's as simple as that. <S> They could have come up with another name for that fiber — like angora from rabbits, cashmere from goats, etc — but they didn't. <S> It's called "camel hair" as in "a camel hair jacket." <S> That doesn't preclude you from using the possessive form for a camel's hair (as in "the camel's hair was long and matted). <S> Incidentally, a sheep's wool literally refers to the wool of a sheep. <S> You can also get wool from goats (commonly called cashmere or mohair), rabbits (angora)… and, yes, even camel hair is a type of wool. <S> Saying sheep's wool is simply used to disambiguate it — and there's nothing wrong with referring to the material as "sheep wool". <A> I'm not aware of a rule about “if the separation of an animal’s part implies its death [then] <S> the “_’s” is dropped, as in the case of calf skin ”. <S> If such a rule exists, it is not used consistently. <S> For example, ngrams for elephant tusk,elephant's tusk shows similar counts (in recent years) for both terms, and the linked book references show similar usage (similar meanings) for both. <S> Ngrams for cow horn <S> ,cow's horn is weighted slightly more in favor of the proposition, but in recent years both terms have been used with similar frequency. <S> Note, elephants are killed for their tusks in most cases, but cow horns are obtained without killing the cow, in most cases. <S> In short, there are many exceptions to the “rule”, and the exceptions go both ways ― <S> ie, 's being used for fatally-obtained items, or not being used for nonfatally-obtained items. <S> Regarding “Carlo’s heart” or “Carlo heart”, <S> the latter phrase would not be used to refer to your heart in any way I'm aware of. <A> No. <S> In the case where the 's is dropped, we are referring to the animal in it's mass noun form as an adjective of the object, for example: <S> Before it was made illegal, piano keys were often made out of elephant tusks. <S> In this case, elephant is an adjective to tusks meaning that the tusk in order to distinguish it from any other particular type of tusk, such as a walrus tusk . <S> When the 's is employed, we are referring to the tusk in the possessive sense, for example: <S> We went to see Nelly the elephant at the zoo. <S> We were very impressed at the size of the elephant's tusks. <S> In this case, elephant's tusks is merely the tusks belonging to the elephant - in this case Nelly the elephant at the zoo. <S> Note that this is in no way related to the death or otherwise of the subject: <S> When we went to the zoo we were impressed by Nelly's tusks . <S> In the classroom we learned that elephant tusk is a very durable material. <S> Later we learnt that one of Nelly's relatives called Joey the elephant had been killed for his elephant tusks . <S> The poacher had been captured and the elephant's tusks were on display.
| You simply have to know that the material that comes from a camel is commonly called "camel hair."
|
Is there any difference between 'get away' and 'run away' in this context? For these expressions The whole movie was about him getting away from cops. The whole movie was about him running away from cops. Both run away and get away mean escape, but does get away fit in this context? <Q> Both verbs make sense in your context, but they mean slightly different things. <S> Getting away implies success: like FumbleFingers said, the movie probably ends with the character still on the lam. <S> It also implies, albeit to a lesser extent, that the cops initially had custody of the character, which he escaped. <S> Running away does not imply success. <S> I don't know if I'd go so far as to say it implies failure , mind you, but I wouldn't be as hopeful about the eventual fate of a character who was running away as I would be about one who was getting away. <S> Running away also does not imply escape: he could have started off in police custody, or he could have started off free as a bird, we don't know which. <S> In other contexts, these verbs may or may not be interchangeable. <S> For example, teenagers run away from home to get away from an abusive parent, but not the other way around. <A> Yes, it's suitable in this context. <S> get away (from someone or something) to escape from someone, something, or some place. <S> compare to <S> run away : <S> run away (from someone or something) to flee someone or something <A> To run away specifies <S> how somebody or something got away, in this case, on foot. <S> Here's an example: <S> The robbers got away before the police arrived In the above example, the past tense of to get away is used. <S> Because the speaker does not know how the robbers got away from the police, the speaker uses the verb to get away to let people know that he doesn't know how the robbers got away. <A> get away means do some thing bad and not be punished for it, and run away <S> means go quickly away from a place.
| To get away is ambiguous , you don't have to specify how somebody did it, and usually you use it if you don't know.
|
"Aim" vs "Goal" whats the difference? Is there any difference between "Aim" and "Goal"? I often seen while filling the Resume or Bio-data, there were two fields as: Aim: Goals: <Q> In general, aim, goal, objective can be considered synonyms, but consider these Google Books results: <S> long-term aim 197,000; <S> short-term aim <S> 32,500 long-term goal 255,000; short-term goal <S> 471,000 long-term objective 115,000; short-term objective <S> 161,000 <S> I think what that tells us is that aims tend to be more general, vague, non-specific, long-term , compared to goals , which are more likely to be specific, short-term targets ( objectives are somewhere in between, or more accurately, they simply have no relationship with this distinction). <S> Thus, you're more likely to have <S> a long-term strategic aim/objective which is broken down into component goals in pursuit of that aim , rather than a goal which is achieved by meeting several subsidiary aims . <S> But this distinction is nowhere near a "rule", and few would see anything odd in reversing the usages. <S> In the context of a resume or curriculum vitae, I'd probably use objective , if for no other reason than it sounds a bit more formal/professional. <S> EDIT: <S> Regarding the point about goals being more associated with short-term aims, I think it's worth pointing out that a goal in ball/puck game contexts ( soccer , say) is just one step towards the aim / objective (to win the game). <S> A bit like Winning the battle not the war . <A> From my computer dictionary(WordWeb): <S> Goal <S> The state of affairs that a plan is intended to achieve and that (when achieved) <S> terminates behaviour intended to achieve it <S> The place designated as the end <S> Aim Move into a desired direction of discourse Intend (something) to move towards a certain goal <S> The action of directing something at an object <A> Aim is determined course <S> I set to achieve my target <S> Example: I plan to get B.E. degree to become an engineer.
| Goal is the target that I want to achieve Example: I wish to become an engineer.
|
What is the difference between "an answer" and "the answer"? I've run into one of those cases again where both the definite and indefinite article seem to work. And that makes me very confused as it makes it harder for me to grasp the concept of the articles. Here are some sample sentences that I found on the internet. At the outset of the interview students were told that if they did not know an answer they could say "pass" and move on to the nextquestion. It is always a good idea to go over the test to make sure that youanswered every question. If you do not know the answer , guess.You may get the right answer or partial credit. It can be a reasoning exercise in which the student has to figure out an answer on her or his own. The teacher-librarian serves as a guide to help students figure out the answer on their own. Are the articles in these sentences interchangeable? So if you are not talking about any specific answer (you don't know what an answer can be), do you use a or the , or it doesn't matter? Again, the answer seems to be more common, according to my research, so is it more idiomatic? <Q> If a particular question could have multiple answers, you would use an answer . <S> If a particular question has one answer, you would use the answer . <S> However, if you have multiple questions (as in your interview example), you have multiple answers (not necessarily per question - each may have exactly one answer or many answers). <S> In this case you would use an answer , since there is more than one answer in the interview (but not necessarily more than one per question). <S> To address your examples: At the outset of the interview students were told that if they did not know an answer they could say "pass" and move on to the next question. <S> There are multiple questions in an interview. <S> It's possible they will each have only one correct answer; even in that case there are many answers throughout the interview. <S> It is always a good idea to go over the test to make sure that you answered every question. <S> If you do not know the answer , guess. <S> You may get the right answer or partial credit. <S> This one, I expect, is contributing to your confusion. <S> Each question on the test has a single answer, but the test has many. <S> The first sentence talks about the test as a whole, where it can be understood that the second and third sentence talk about a particular question (without making the transition very obvious, other than using "the answer" and "the right answer"). <S> It can be a reasoning exercise in which the student has to figure out an answer on her or his own. <S> It's a reasonable expectation that a reasoning exercise may have multiple correct answers (or no <S> correct answer at all), and that each student will likely come up with something different. <S> The teacher-librarian serves as a guide to help students figure out the answer on their own. <S> This likely refers to the general case of a student having a question. <S> The student wants to find the answer to the question (or possibly an answer ). <S> For the general case of an unknown/unspecified question, the answer is usually used (at least I would, and that seems to be what I've seen), although an answer would also be correct. <A> There are two kinds of questions: those with only one right answer (The president of what South American country died a few days ago? " <S> Venezuela" is the answer ) and those with more than one (Who played James Bond in the 007 movies? <S> " <S> Sean Connery" is an answer , as is "Roger Moore", as is "Pierce Brosnan", etc.). <S> Questions that are open-ended, e.g., What is the best way to end the slaughter in Syria's civil war?, also have many answers, but they're all speculative; however, if that's an interview question and you have no answer for it, then it's possible and correct to say <S> If you don't have an answer , say "pass" and move on to the next question . <S> The quote you give is a bit confusing to me, too, because it doesn't tell the reader what kinds of questions are being asked. <S> If they're all multiple choice, they should all be the answer . <S> If they're all open-ended questions or questions with more than a single answer, they should all be an answer . <S> But so many writers these days don't bother proofreading what they've written to ensure that it says what they want it to say and what they mean to say, and too many don't mean what they say. <A> As a native speaker I definitely see a difference between using an answer and the answer , but as always it depends on the context. <S> And the other suggests 'an answer' in the sense of just a response. <S> An answer <S> This <S> I would interpret more like a response and not necessarily having a grounding in true or false. <S> For example, after a job interview they might say: Please give us an/your answer by next week. <S> But they wouldn’t ask for 'the' answer because its not a true/false scenario. <S> Whereas in a test or exam the examiner would be looking for the answer, meaning the answer that is valid. <S> He calculated that 32+7 was 52, which wasn't the answer. <S> Also this can be used to show a desired response. <S> She said she wouldn't marry him, not the answer he wanted. <S> This nuance is perhaps a difficult one. <A> A(n) <S> in this context is used to refer to a random object from a group and it implies there are several to choose from. <S> The in this context is used to refer to a specific object that is unique, or you want to distinguish it from the rest (making it unique). <S> For example, you do not refer the following words with a(n) because they are unique: <S> The queen of England <S> The sun <S> The fast Ferrari (because it is fast and a Ferrari) <S> However if you just want to pick a generic object you use a(n): <S> A fish in a pond A nice car driving by A good hike <S> Let's break down your example with this knowledge. <S> They did not know an answer. <S> The answer is unknown to the students, so an is used because there is no specific one stated. <S> If you do not know the answer. <S> Here somebody <S> does know an answer so it is specific, and the is used. <S> the student has to figure out an answer. <S> We don't know what the answer of the student will be <S> so we use an . <S> The teacher-librarian serves as a guide to help students figure out the answer. <S> The teacher-librarian knows the answer , so you use <S> the because that person knows a specific answer.
| The main difference is that one suggests an absolute answer, something that is the truth or 'the right' answer.
|
Expression similar to 'as always' in this context? For these expressions As always I am feeling nervous before my speech. As always X player scored more than half of his team's points but still lost. Can anyone suggest to me any phrase which I can use instead of As always in this context. <Q> There are a variety of different phrases you might want to choose. <S> As always , my flight was delayed. <S> As per usual , my flight was delayed. <S> My flight was delayed. <S> Typical . <S> (idiomatic, passive aggressive) Just typical . <S> My flight was delayed. <S> (idiomatic, passive aggressive) <S> As ever , my flight was delayed. <S> Once again , my flight was delayed. <S> FumbleFingers also suggested the following great alternatives: <S> Unsurprisingly , my flight was delayed. <S> True to form , my flight was delayed. <S> Most of these are very similar, but be careful - <S> some are more passive aggressive than others. <A> You could use as usual or, in the first example, as it usually happens to me . <A> I am feeling nervous before my speech, as I always do . <S> As is inevitable , I am feeling nervous before my speech. <S> As ever , I am feeling nervous before my speech. <S> As standard , I am feeling nervous before my speech. <S> There are probably a lot more, but all of the most natural ones have been covered already.
| In the second example, you could use as it usually happens , which can also be used for the other sentence.
|
"My friend gave it to me" vs. "I got it 'off'/'from' my friend" Could one replace, whitout changing in meaning, "my friend gave it to me" with "I got it off my friend"? Searching on Internet I came across several instances of "I got it off my chest", but, alas, I found practically no notable hits for "got it off [my]( a person )". Does this mean that "I got it off my chest" is idiomatic English, so we cannot extend "got it off" to person cases? What does it happen if one uses "from" rather than "off" in "I got it off my friend"? <Q> To get something off your chest is an idiom. <S> It basically means "talk about something that is upsetting you". <S> As for I got it off my friend --- in the UK at least people will understand this (and use it themselves), but it is informal and is not really proper English. <S> In an informal spoken setting you could happily use it, but I wouldn't use it when writing. <A> "Got it off my friend" , from my region (or maybe era), can mean that you stole it from your friend. <S> "I got it from my friend" or "My friend gave it to me" are the clearer choices. <S> For what it's worth, the difference between the two is that "My friend gave it to me <S> " implies it is now yours. <S> "I got it from my friend <S> " could mean that they loaned it to you. <A> No, not without changing the meaning.
| When you say "I got it off my friend," we know that the item came from your friend, but it is ambiguous whether or not you took it with your friend's permission.
|
What word should I use instead of 'having a word'? Let's say my shirt has been ruined by a dry-cleaner and I am very furious about it, so I am going back there. My friend asks me where am I going. I can say I am going back to the dry cleaner's to have a word with him about my t-shirt. What I want to say is that I am going there to criticize or to yell at him for ruining my shirt, To say ' to have a word with him ' seems very polite and using confront seems very violent, but I might be wrong. What is the correct/more appropriate word here for to have a word ? <Q> While it is typically used to mean to have a (brief) private conversation with him , it's also a common euphemism for exactly what you want to say. <S> A similar phrase that is possibly more appropriate is to have words with . <S> Note the change from a word to words . <S> This expression typically implies a harsher, more critical tone. <A> In this context, have a word is completely appropriate. <S> A slightly more formal way to say the same thing would be: <A> “To have a word with him” is a correct phrase, but apparently less expressive than you desire. <S> • <S> remonstrate , “To object; to express disapproval” <S> • <S> reproach , “To criticize or rebuke <S> someone” • <S> admonish, berate, castigate , censure, chastise, excoriate and many more synonyms, as found in Wikisaurus and in onelook.com or in dico Idiomatic flea in one's ear also is possible: <S> “I'm off to the dry cleaner's to put a flea in his ear about what he did to my t-shirt.” <S> Also pick a bone with : “I'm going to go pick a bone with that dry cleaner about what he did to my t-shirt.”
| To have a word with him would be correct in the context. I am going back to dry cleaner's to complain to him about what he did to my t-shirt. A few alternative verbs that spring to mind include • upbraid , “To criticize severely” or “To reprove severely; to rebuke; to chide” etc.
|
Froth and foam, which one is preferred? Tonight, while having a cup of hot-chocolate, me and my friends had a little discussion about the foam/bubbles/froth formed on the top of the drink. While I said that it should be referred to as froth , they were referring it to as foam . Now, all my childhood, I was told that foam is used with reference to their origin because of soapy liquids; I can't accept that it should be foam. My dictionary shows the same meaning for both the words and hence, my question: Which of the two words, froth and foam is preferable when referring to bubble formation in drinks? <Q> Froth is more common, although both are acceptable. <S> Note that one exception is that when talking about beer one would normally use the word head , for example: The head of my pint of beer was white. <S> That pint <S> I had the other day <S> was awful. <S> It was 50% head ! <S> Note that foam is not used exclusively when talking about soapy liquids: <S> A bath sponge and the head on a glass of beer are examples of foams. <S> In most foams, the volume of gas is large, with thin films of liquid or solid separating the regions of gas. <A> From my 10 years experience in a coffee shop, I'd say the distinction is that froth is more accidental, but foam must be created. <S> You can make a kind of froth by shaking a jug of (very) cold milk before pouring, but to make foam usually requires steam injection or using a blender which can introduce more air into the mixture. <S> So, if you're ordering in a coffee shop, ask for foam rather than froth . <S> It's a very slight difference, and nobody will think it odd to say froth . <S> But the word foam pays a little more respect to the labor involved. <S> It's just a little bit more courteous. <S> Since you asked. :) <A> Both words can be used interchangeably in casual conversation. <S> I’ve encountered the word “froth” more often in specialized writing. <S> This article is describing an Italian technique of creating a perfect cup of cappuccino. <S> Both words are used. <S> You can learn to properly froth the milk. <S> Correctly frothed milk = <S> microfoam = <S> wonderful cappuccinos <S> The pouring consistency runs from completely liquid for latte art <S> If the foam becomes thicker, like soft peak beaten egg whites, <A> It appears as if foam is more common in this context in published works: A Google search for milk with foam returns about 9 times more results than milk with froth while hot chocolate with foam returns about 2.8 times as many results as hot chocolate with froth .
| Proper cappuccinos and lattes require microfoam—a pourable, virtually liquid foam that tastes sweet and rich. Thus, I think we can conclude that, at least in common usage, foam is more widely used in this context. Both terms are perfectly acceptable in this context. A foam is a substance that is formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid or solid.
|
"Whether or not" followed by two alternative words But more than any specific piece, I love the feeling Gaultier collections (both RTW and HC) convey. They’re always lighthearted, upbeat and joyous. Whether or not one actually likes or dislikes the collection , the infectious joie de vivre of Gaultier work is undeniable. (The New York Times) Yes, language is not logic, but I'm wondering if it is okay English to say "Whether or not one actually likes or dislikes the collection"? What is the reason to add "or dislikes' after 'likes' in that construction governed by "Whether or not"? Emphasis? Can anybody explain? <Q> Adding both possibilities makes the sentence sound more neutral. <S> For example in the following sentence: This is an expensive painting, whether or not you like it. <S> the whether or not you like it sounds almost passive aggressive challenge to those who don't like the painting, saying that it is expensive even though you might not like it. <S> In contrast, the following sentence: <S> This is an expensive painting, whether or not you like or dislike it <S> Comes across as much more matter of fact. <S> The painting is expensive, and the fact that it is expensive is independent of you liking it or not. <A> There is no good reason to add “or dislikes” after likes in that sentence. <S> Any of the following forms is better: Whether one likes or dislikes the collection, ... <S> Whether one actually likes the collection or not, ... Whether or not one actually likes the collection, ... <S> Even if one doesn't like the collection, ... I listed those in descending order of preference. <S> “Or not” always strikes me as redundant directly following whether but in this case “Whether one actually likes the collection, the ...” doesn't work properly and isn't a serious possibility. <S> Edit: <S> FumbleFingers suggested “the writer probably wanted to make sure he [1] covered the third possibility (you neither like nor dislike it)”. <S> I'm inclined to doubt that that was a concern, because if it had been, the writer could have written “No matter what one's opinion about the collection” or “No matter if you find the collection good, bad, or indifferent” etc. <S> instead of a phrase in which the “no opinion” possibility is so obscure. <S> [1] Note, the article ( Paris Arabesque , NYT 28 Jan 2009) is by Cathy Horyn; the quoted passage is from a comment by “Chase” <A> Generally speaking it's best to express your idea in the least number of words possible. <S> Generally speaking "whether or not" is redundant. <S> I also fail to see the point of the word actually. <S> I recommend one of the following clauses: Even if one dislikes the collection, ... <S> Regardless whether one likes the collection, ...Whether one likes or dislikes the collection, ... <S> My personal preference is the second clause. <S> It's shorter than the 3rd option and better conveys the intended meaning than does the first clause.
| The clause "Whether or not one actually likes or dislikes the collection, ..." is not only redundant but also wordy.
|
More natural term than "printed book" I came across someone saying "printed book, kindle, and [iPad]". Is "printed book" a natural term? Are there any better synonyms? <Q> Before computers and e-readers, there were other types of non-print media on which one could read a book: microfilm and microfiche , for example, and photocopy. <S> Book used to mean printed book when I was a kid half a century and more ago. <S> Now it's necessary to distinguish between printed and electronic versions of "books". <S> Many of my foreign friends in Taiwan own Kindles, iPads, and tablets, so they read ebooks. <S> A few diehards still buy paperback books, and one or two still buy hardcover books. <S> As J.R. says, there isn't a current standard for the natural term, but I don't find anything unnatural about printed book or print book . <S> When people learn that one of their friends has a book and want to borrow it, they always have to ask whether it's a printed or electronic version, what the format is, and whether it's DRM-protected. <A> I prefer paper copy <S> but there's nothing inherently wrong with printed book . <A> Using the term "a Printed book" will raise some eyebrows if you use it on a regular basis. <S> However, the person you came across wanted to distinct ebooks from normal books, which are very different. <S> Because of that, he used the adjective printed to make a distinction between electronic books on the kindle and ipad and those that are made out of paper. <S> The usage is correct in this context. <S> Some other ways to make the distinction clear could be: a physical book a real book <A> But in isolation, it would sound rather strange. <S> One might say "Did you read it in print, or electronically?" <S> But again, this manner of expression requires a contrast. <S> For an actual paper edition, one could say "hardbound" or "softbound", but that's probably too specific. <S> "Print edition" could be a substitute if it's really necessary to identify the physical medium without comparing it explicitly to something else. <S> (This reminds me of the neologism "analog watch", which didn't exist until direct-reading electronic watches became popular.)
| In the OP's given context, "printed book" is perfectly natural, since it's contrasted with other options.
|
Usage of "mad" and "crazy" in conversational english? From English movies, I have got an impression to signify that a person is mentally ill, it is said "He is crazy " and that a person is angry upon somebody is signified by "He is mad on her". Although mad and crazy are synonymous, they are almost used the same way I have mentioned. Is it true? If it is, how far? <Q> "Mad" vs "crazy" brings in one of those numerous differences between U.S./American English and British English . <S> Your meaning will be understood, but native speakers of different backgrounds may take a moment to process which word you use. <S> The phrase "he is quite mad" indicates a state of complete mental instability. <S> (The phrase " mad hatter " comes from the fact that mercury was once used in making felt, meaning that hatmakers who worked with felt would gradually experience mercury poisoning.) <S> However, an answer at English Language/Usage indicates that the use of "mad" in the sense of "intensely angry" actually dates back as far as the 14th century. <S> This would seem to indicate that it is not specifically an American usage, though it is generally thought of this way now. <S> "Crazy" is not a clinical term, but it can be used to describe mental illness. <S> More often in today's English it describes foolishness, as in "you must be crazy to try such a thing!" <S> The speaker in this case does not actually think her listener is actually mentally disturbed. <S> TL;DR: <S> Neither term would be used by professionals to describe mental illness in modern contexts. <S> Both are acceptable in colloquial use. <A> In US usage, mad is colloquially used for 'insane' mostly in established compounds like madhouse and madman , and in proverbial phrases like mad as a hatter and mad as a March hare . <S> Its primary sense is 'angry', as in your example (which, however, should be mad at her ). <S> It is not so strong as angry : it's usually used to express milder or temporary 'annoyance'. <S> Mad is synonymous with 'insane' only in fairly formal or literary contexts. <S> Crazy is the ordinary colloquial term for 'insane', and has its own fixed phrases: crazy as a loon , crazy up the yin-yang , crazy jealous . <S> Both are also used colloquially as approbatives or approbative intensifiers, as is indicated in the link provided by EnglishLearner. <A> In American English, mad and crazy can both be used to describe mental illness by exclaiming <S> Are you mad?! <S> (it is usually asked after some strange or blatently stupid act). <S> When the phrase Are you mad? <S> is used inquisitively, it means the asker wants to know if the person is upset. <S> You could say He is mad at her. <S> or I am mad at the world. <S> Conversely, saying I am mad about you. <S> or I am crazy about you. <S> signifies a strong attraction towards the person. <S> Crazy can have many meanings: <S> Mentally ill, as you pointed out. <S> John thinks the sky is green. <S> He is definitely crazy. <S> Parties, spontaneous fun, daring behavior. <S> John is crazy. <S> He parties all the time. <S> Using it to describe the opposite sex, with the connotation that they are clingy, possessive, or overly authoritative. <S> Meme example <S> Used to express disbelief or awe. <S> That was crazy! <S> That guy just drove through a red light! <S> The other answers also have good alternative meanings for crazy.
| "Mad", in British English, usually means "mentally ill".
|
What does "Don't take my words at face value" mean? What does "Don't take my words at face value" mean? <Q> It's a metaphor. <S> The metaphor has long since passed into regular speech, so most people aren't conscious of making it, but it's there nonetheless. <S> The face value of a bank note (or coin, postage stamp, etc.) <S> is the value printed on the item. <S> A five-dollar bill claims to be worth five dollars, so that's its face value. <S> In other words, the face value of something is its apparent worth ; its real value may not be the same as its face value. <S> Applying this term to words, if you take someone's words at face value , you're not questioning their apparent worth. <S> You're assuming that the words are worth what they appear to be. <S> As a result, you don't question them or examine them closely to find any flaws, inaccuracies, or untruthful statements. <S> If you don't take their words at face value , the opposite is true. <S> You haven't assumed their words are correct or truthful. <S> You might question them or examine them closely to find flaws, inaccuracies, or untruthful statements. <S> Sometimes this phrase is used to imply someone might be wrong ; in other cases, this phrase is used to imply deceit or trickery . <S> Which implication is appropriate probably depends on context. <S> Let's look at your context: <S> Don't take my words at face value. <S> If I tell you not to take my words at face value, I'm probably telling you I might be wrong, not that I might be tricking you. <S> Why? <S> Because if I were trying to trick you, I probably wouldn't give you any warning! <A> " Someone might say this if they are unsure that what they are saying is completely true; they may just be guessing. <S> The phrase may also be used to encourage someone to conduct their own research to verify the validity of the information rather than just accepting it as fact, even if the person who says it knows that they are right. <S> Additionally, it may mean to look for insights that are not stated explicitly. <A> It's a tricky little idiom, isn't it? <S> What it means is that what something might appear to mean - it's "face value" - is not exactly what it may actually mean. <S> For instance, if someone says, "You look tired, are you sick?" <S> The "face value" is not assuming a hidden meaning, and so the statement would be assumed to mean "the person thinks I look ill and they are genuinely concerned". <S> But sometimes people are being passive-agressive, and what might appear to be concern is intended as an insult or an attempt to make you feel insecure. <S> To not take someone's words at face value is to look deeper for hidden meanings or veiled intent. <S> This is closely related to "reading between the lines", which means to look for a hidden meaning. <S> Edit <S> : Note that this phrase is often intended to mean something slightly different, because not everyone interprets it the same way! <S> Example: <S> WiseGeek: What does it mean to take something at face value <A> It means that the words the person is using don't match what would be the obvious meaning implied. <S> The person is probably exaggerating, or is being sarcastic. <S> For example, if you did something that was clearly inappropriate (such as accidentally insulting someone), and I told you, "Nice one," my intended meaning is actually the exact opposite of the obvious meaning. <S> I would not be giving approval for what you just did, but rather would be giving disapproval. <A> A simple explanation to this idiom is that something can be said or unsaid, basically, if I explained something, i would have to explain it in a way that the others understood, so there might be flaws in the way I told them, <S> so it could mean that I have confused them, but not intentionally. <A> Bu saying that you are not taking someone’s word at face value, it can be done in efforts to protect oneself. <S> If you do not truly know this person and they have not proven to be trustworthy, then you may not take their word at face value because there is that chance that they have not spoken the truth in their story. <S> With that being said one might expect proof in what this individual is saying to back his word, in efforts to gain your trust.
| "Don't take my words at face value" may mean "Don't blindly accept everything I say as fact.
|
"On one hand" not followed by "On the other hand" Reading the following articles on The New York Times, I observe that the journalists use the phrase "On one hand" through their pieces. The Freedom of an Armed Society by Firmin Debrabander. Modifying a Child's Behavior Without Resorting to Bribes by Bruce Feiler. Just after having read in those article that phrase, I expected to find afterwards its counterpart counterpoint "On the other hand". But neither I found. So, the question is: Is it okay English or good English style to use in a piece "On one hand" without using subsequently its counterpart counterpoint "On the other hand" in the same piece. Could the lack of "On the other hand", after having read "One one hand", confuse the English reader? <Q> Good question! <S> Very observant of you to notice this little oddity. <S> What is going on is that "on one hand" is meant to convey that there are two opposing issues that are closely related. <S> It would be highly odd, for instance, to say "On one hand, I hate ice cream!"...and say nothing else. <S> But saying "on one hand I hate ice cream, but everyone else loves it so much" would be fine. <S> In both examples they use words like "but" and "and yet" to reference what is "on the other hand" - you aren't required to use the phrases in verbatim pairs. <S> "On the other hand" thus acts as a linguistic shorthand. <A> “Could the lack of "On the other hand" after having read "One one hand" confuse the English reader?” <S> Starting out with “On one hand” and failing to later offer an alternative via “on the other hand” is evidence of bad writing and sloppy work by the authors and editors of those articles. <S> However, I suspect that many readers don't notice the missing alternative; apparently even the authors and editors didn't notice the problem. <S> If the missing alternative isn't noticed – that is, if the introductory phrase “On one hand” drops from view as so many noise words do – then the reader doesn't get confused. <S> But a more-careful reader may have problems! <A> No, it's not confusing when the words "on the other hand" is missing. <S> What would be confusing is if the counterpoint were missing entirely. <S> And in both of the articles you link to, the counterpoint isn't missing ; it's simply introduced with different words. <S> Is it good style to introduce the counterpoint with that specific phrase? <S> Arguably, but it's never been obligatory, and as a reader you shouldn't be confused if it's phrased another way.
| The phrase is being correctly used so long as one mentions at least two sides of an issue. This is not uncommon, and I don't consider it an error.
|
"within this year" vs "by the end of this year" If I'd express the thought that the plan will be published at anytime before the end of this year, which of the following two sentences that I should use? 1) The plan will be published within this year. 2) The plan will be published by the end of this year. <Q> If I were writing or speaking this, I wouldn't use either sentence. <S> Therefore, that's what I'd say. <S> It's easy enough to say and write things clearly if you're as specific as possible. <S> Avoiding ambiguity isn't all that difficult and usually doesn't cost too much (i.e., doesn't add too many extra words). <A> Arguably #2 <S> by the end of more strongly implies that it'll more likely be nearer the end than the start, just as it emphasises more the fact that there is a schedule that will be kept to. <S> Per my comment, many people (including myself) would take <S> The plan will be published within the year. <S> (rather than this ) to mean sometime in the next 12 months (often with the implication it'll probably be nearer the end of that period). <S> Using this year means the current year which will end on Dec 31st. <A> Both examples in the question are legitimate ways to say a plan will be published sometime before the end of this year. <S> A number of ways of saying about the same thing are listed below. <S> The list contains forms from the question and from previous answers, besides some forms I added. <S> The plan will be published in 2013 <S> The plan will be published this year <S> The plan will be published 4th quarter <S> The plan will be published within the year <S> The plan will be published before year end <S> The plan will be published within this year <S> The plan will be published before the year ends <S> The plan will be published by the end of the year <S> The plan will be published before the year is out <S> The plan will be published by the end of this year <S> The plan will be published by the end of this calendar year Forms 1, 2, 5, and 9 are direct, accurate, not ambiguous; <S> I recommend using a form like 1 or 2 . <S> Form 3 is a bit jargony, and also pins the publication date to a specific quarter of the year. <S> If that is accurate, you can use form 3; or might revise it to (eg) <S> “The plan will be published 3rd or 4th quarter”. <S> I regard form 4 as direct, accurate, and a not-ambiguous reference to the current year. <S> By contrast, a previous answer claims it refers to the 12 months ahead instead of to the calendar year. <S> Form 6, with its “within this year” phrase, strikes me as clumsy and unnatural. <S> Form 7 is not as good as form 5; I'd recommend against form 7. <S> The “published by” phrase in forms 8, 10, and 11 is bothersome. <S> It is a little like saying the end of the year is going to publish something. <A> You could use either of: <S> The plan will be published within the year. <S> The plan will be published by the end of the year. <S> Most people would interpret by the end of the year to mean sometime in December, while "within the year" would allow a broader range of dates between now and the end of the year. <S> In other words, if your told me you expected to publish within the year and ended up publishing in August, I'd think you were as good as your word. <S> But if you said "by the end of the year" and published in August, I'd think, "Wow, you really beat your estimate." <S> Within this year is not idiomatic English.
| I infer that you want to say that The plan will be by the end of this calendar year , that is, no later than 31 December 2013. Both versions are perfectly valid, but I'm inclined to think the #1 within version would be less common.
|
Is "She's a corrigible flirt" a proper positive form of "She's an incorrigible flirt"? She’s an incorrigible (incorreggibile) flirt. She's a corrigible (correggibile) flirt. In Italian language "incorreggibile", used like in "1" case, is a 'negative' word for which, strictly speaking, the 'positive' form doesn't exist. In fact, in Italian language one cannot use the "2" sentence because it sound awkward. I'm not sure why, but I think that this happens because "1" example is a bit idiomatic. Furthermore, always with regarding to Italian language, I'm not able to think of another word, different from "correggibile", that can express the 'positive' form of "incorreggibile". So, I'm wondering if, in English language, "corrigible" can be used to express the 'positive' form of "incorrigible" in "2" case. If not, does another word exist? Or, in this case, are English and Italian similar? <Q> Corrigible literally means correctable, while incorrigible literally means uncorrectable. <S> From this, you might conclude that the two words are opposites. <S> However, most speakers don't think of incorrigible as defined in terms of corrigible . <S> In fact, I would venture to guess that many speakers aren't familiar with the word corrigible at all! <S> The two words have their own idiomatic patterns of usage, and they don't correspond in manner or frequency. <S> If you did say corrigible flirt , I think it would be interpreted in one of two ways: unidiomatic or incomprehensible; or wordplay, coining the word anew as a back-formation from incorrigible . <S> This sort of wordplay happens all the time, as when people re-invent the word gruntled (from disgruntled ). <S> It works <S> because gruntled is an obsolete English word few people are familiar with. <S> Likewise, corrigible is relatively unknown, and though it's not quite obsolete, it isn't generally used in this fashion. <S> Because of this, I'd expect corrigible flirt to be interpreted as either novel or mistaken. <A> There's nothing grammatically or semantically incorrect about "She's a corrigible flirt". <S> Here's a quote from a 2008 handbook on law , which I found using Google Ngram Viewer: <S> "The first dimension represents the evaluation of the options from the perspective that the offender is corrigible , and the second dimension represents the evaluation of the options from the perspective that the offender is incorrigible ." <S> [My emphasis.] <S> (from Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision <S> Making [p 139]) <S> Most instances of corrigible are, as kiamlaluno says, not used for people but for errors or institutions. <S> In the 2006 book Presbyterians Being Reformed <S> : Reflections on What the Church Needs (p. 69), the author says: The church is corrigible. <A> The only difference I can see is that corrigible is not necessarily used for a person (or it is not used for a person).
| I cannot comment on corrigible flirt , but corrigible means "capable of being corrected, rectified, or reformed"; its meaning is the opposite of incorrigible , which is used when a person is not able to be corrected.
|
What do we call the process of cutting pencils down to expose more lead? We call the following a pencil cutter. But what do we do with it? Do we cut the pencil ? Cutting the pencil sounds odd to me, like it means actually we are cutting the pencil into pieces which is not something we do. So what do we do with it? EDIT - In case anybody is in doubt what I mean to ask, here is an image of the process I want to know about. What is this process called? <Q> We don't call it a pencil cutter, we call it a pencil sharpener <S> and we use it to <S> sharpen the pencil. <S> This, too, is a pencil sharpener : <S> This, however, is not a pencil sharpener but a pencil sanding block , used to put a finer point on the pencil: <A> The black stuff in the middle of a pencil is called graphite . <A> Just to provide a little diversity, let me mention that in some variants of English, e.g. Irish English, people often talk about paring the pencil, and call the device a pencil paper . <S> I am not sure how widespread this is, however. <S> (In fact, according to this link http://www.thejournal.ie/pencil-parer-sharener-topper-burning-question-1180841-Nov2013/ the term <S> pencil topper is also popular in Ireland.)
| This is a pencil sharpener , which is used to sharpen pencils.
|
What is the word for describing something old? What is the word for something that is dysfunctional because of it being old and in use for a very long time? I was having a conversation with my friend yesterday about the earphones I use with my computer: Friend: Your earphones are horrible, one side does not work and voice is also disturbed. Me: What do you expect? I have been using them for the past two years, this is how long they last. When I was imagining this conversation about keys, I described keys as rusty, which will imply that they are old. Is there a word along the same line for dysfunctional cars, computers, or something similar? <Q> What do you expect? <S> I've been using them for the past two years. <S> They're worn out ! <S> For many objects, there are alternative words, but they're less general: <S> For your car example, I'd say dilapidated . <S> This word works best for larger, more complex objects. <S> A house or car can be dilapidated, but the phrases ? <S> dilapidated keys and ? <S> dilapidated headphones <S> sound weird to me. <S> You can also say a car is broken down , but only if it doesn't actually move. <S> For keys, I agree that rusty works, but only if they're actually rusty. <S> If they're worn down, I'd say they're worn . <S> Sometimes you don't need a special word. <S> I might complain about my broken old headphones. <S> You could also say they're in a state of disrepair , but it doesn't sound very conversational to me. ? <S> This symbol means " This phrase is of dubious acceptability. <S> I suggest you avoid this phrase. " <A> You might get some mileage out of describing them as legacy hardware . <S> Computer geeks will get it; I'm not sure how much currency it will have outside of that domain. <S> You could also describe them as old school , which is a generally positive expression that means they are from another (older) generation, but were respectably good at the time. <S> Old school is a more modern way of saying antique . <S> If your earbuds are antiques, then they were probably among the first ones made. <S> If they are antiquated, that means they are extremely out-of-date, but probably still functioning to some degree. <A> In addition to previously-suggested worn out (“Damaged and useless due to hard or continued use”) and dilapidated (“Having fallen into a state of disrepair or deterioration, especially through neglect”), and the less-appropriate antiquated (“old-fashioned, out of date”), consider the phrases run down (“being in poor repair : dilapidated”) and beat-up (“(chiefly of an object) <S> Worn out by overuse; in a state of disrepair”). <S> Note, run-down is more often used to describe poor-condition houses, buildings, and neighborhoods than to describe small items like headphones. <A> For technology, you can describe it as broken down , outdated , worn out , deprecated (software only), dated , or dead / dying . <S> What do you expect? <S> I have used them for two years; they are dying on me. <A> While most commonly used to refer to people, 'decrepit' also can mean just what you are describing. <S> Definition 2 from Merriam-Webster shows: 2. <S> a : <S> impaired by use or wear : <S> worn-out b : fallen into ruin or disrepair <S> That online dictionary actually uses a car in their example of <S> decrepit as well: <S> My decrepit car barely starts. <S> I hope this helps! <A> outdated. <S> (Headphone speakers have advanced rapidly in the last few years). <A> I've seen media reports which talk about out-of-date technology, so old <S> it's dysfunctional, describing it using expressions like dinosaur tech . <S> More generally, in the UK there is an expression, old hat , used of anything considered outmoded , in the sense of being perceived as having antidiluvian or prehistoric origins. <S> And applied not just to machinery but anything, even figures of speech. <S> This was the name of an inventor (the term scientist is not really appropriate), who was a popular tv personality in the UK in the 1950s, who cobbled together machinery which worked after a fashion. <S> Still used of any equipment that looks to have an element of DIY about it. <S> Britain also uses, or used until recently, the term steam driven for any technology which was so old as to be rumoured to have come out of the Ark (Biblical references still being in use among the older generation).
| In general, you can say things are worn out . A very British phrase is the term Heath Robinson , for use in describing an invention that is a bit ramshackle due to its antique origins.
|
Multiplication: names of some mathematical symbols As far as I know, in Italian mathematics books, the symbol for multiplication can take several forms: B × 3 B · 3 B * 3 (rare) I'm not sure of having ever seen case 3 in English books, perhaps because "*" is not used in the English mother tongue in this sense. Also, in English mathematics books I sometimes see B . 3 In reference to mathematical contexts, what are the names of the symbols I used in 2 and 4? <Q> For example, × is often referred to simply as the multiplication sign , but if you need to distinguish scalar from vector multiplication, you might refer to it more specifically as the cross multiplication sign , vector multiplication sign , or something similar. <S> In your second example, the ・ symbol is called dot . <S> The product of two numbers multiplied using the dot operator is the dot product . <S> In some contexts, you might call it the scalar multiplication sign . <S> Outside of programming, we usually only use <S> * for multiplication when we can't type × . <S> The * symbol is usually called the asterisk or star , though if you're using it as a multiplication sign, you might call it that, instead. <S> The last example appears to be using a period. <S> Like <S> * , I assume this is simply because they couldn't type ・ . <S> I could call this a period, but more usefully, I could call it whatever it represented: in this case, I might call it dot , since it's standing in for ・ . <A> It depends on context. <S> For scalar values (all "normal" numbers that we know and love are scalar), all of those operators are the same, and are called multiplication , and the operator is called the multiplication operator , or much less frequently as the times operator . <S> When reading the equation "3 x 2" out loud, natives would typically use the following forms: <S> Three times two (common usage) <S> Three <S> multiplied by two (common usage, formal) <S> Three by two (in common use by people who do a lot of math, vernacular informal). <S> Three timesed by two (primarily British English in my experience. <S> Less common than "times"). <S> For non-scalar values, the operator × and · do different things, and so different vocabulary is needed to distinguish them. <S> For "A × B" <S> (often miswritten as "A x B"), the following phrases might be used: <S> A cross B <S> A <S> crossed with B <S> The cross-product of A and B <S> The operator is called the cross-multiplication operator . <S> For "A · B" (often miswritten as "A . <S> B"), the following phrases might be used: <S> A dot B <S> A <S> dotted with B <S> The dot product of A and B <S> The operator is called the dot product operator . <S> "A * B" is generally not used in mathematics or formal writing. <S> It is used because typing middot and cross-multiply quickly on a keyboard is hard, and period and <S> letter-X have alternative meanings in many computer programming languages (for example is "3.2" <S> == 32/10 or is "3.2" == 6?). <S> For this reason, asterisk (*) is commonly used as a "poor man's ×" to symbolize multiplication. <S> One other thing to bear in mind is that in English math textbooks, it's fairly rare to see multiplication ever explicitly denoted by an operator at all (particularly in education above about age 15); "A * B" is much more commonly written as just "AB" <A> I think 1. <S> and 3. <S> are generally used in math. <S> 2. is likely to be handwritten or in books. <S> I have never seen 4. <S> When we speak the expression, we usually say B times <S> three <S> so if B = 5, then B times three equals fifteen. <S> As already mentioned, the symbol itself is called the multiplication sign.
| The precise name of a symbol in mathematics sometimes depends on what you're using it for.
|
Which is the appropriate word here : 'wish' or 'want'? I read the two sentences below and I am confused as to which one is more appropriate. I wish you to be mine. I want you to be mine. The word wish refers to desire and the word want refers to need . Now I do not understand if both are proper or not. Any suggestions? <Q> I agree with all of the answers that have been posted so far; but I think an important factor has been overlooked. <S> The expression <S> I wish [PERSON] to [VERB] &c <S> is for all practical purposes dead in Present-Day English. <S> COCA , the Corpus of Contemporary American English, "contains more than 450 million words of text and is equally divided among spoken, fiction, popular magazines, newspapers, and academic texts. <S> It includes 20 million words each year from 1990-2012. <S> " <S> Over that period it records only 24 uses of <S> I wish you to . <S> Of these, 1 is a quotation from Cardinal Newman (1801-1890); 1 is from an interview with an Afghan diplomat; the remaining 22 are from works of fiction, all of which are either historical novels or quasi-historical fantasies . <S> In contrast, COCA finds 118 instances of <S> I wish you would and 221 instances of <S> I wish you were , both collections including many spoken, journalistic and academic uses. <S> And it finds more than five thousand instances of <S> I want you to . <S> The results from BNC , the British National Corpus, are similar. <S> As user3169 says, wish implies "something that may not be likely to occur, or something that is not likely to be within one's control". <S> Consequently, it is no longer used with indicative clauses, only with 'subjunctives': counterfactual and hypothetical propositions. <A> Wish can be a desire or need, but is implied to be something that may not be likely to occur, or something that is not likely to be within one's control. <S> For example I wish I were a millionaire. <S> If I wish upon a star, it may come true. <S> I am wishing for a bicycle for Christmas. <S> (This depends on the action of another person, which I cannot control.) <S> Also wish is used more in emotional contexts, like <S> I wish you were mine, because I love you. <S> For example I want a new computer. <S> You could say I want you to be mine <S> but it would likely to be considered emotionally detached, as in <S> I want you to be mine, because you are rich. <A> I think it's worth pointing out <S> that - no matter if we are wishing or wanting - the expression "be mine" can easily sound creepy, possessive, or insecure. <S> It's okay on a valentine (because we don't interpret everything in a valentine as literal fact), and it might be okay in a song (because we sing lyrics akin to poetry, not how we'd talk at the lunch table). <S> If I were to approach a woman and say, "I want you to be mine," there's a decent chance I'd be answered with a restraining order instead of a date. <S> If we're talking about "appropriate" conversation, I'd have to recommend: <S> I'd like to go out with you sometime. <S> or: I'd like to get to know you better. <S> before I'd use either of the two options listed in the question. <S> That said, if I had to choose between the two verbs in the context of a budding relationship, I think want <S> sounds more demanding than wish . <S> Wish conveys a spirit of wistfulness and pining; I'd say it's close in meaning with: <S> I'm longing for you to be mine. <S> Want in this context sounds more primal or perhaps immature - like a child about to have a tantrum if he doesn't get his way. <S> I want you to be mine might work in the context of a movie script, just before a steamy lovemaking scene, but I'd strong caution anyone against using the word "want" in the context of revealing emotional desires in casual conversation, especially for the first time with someone of the opposite sex. <A> As others have said, "wish" is normally used for things outside your control, often for things that are unlikely to ever happen. " <S> Want" is more general, but typically implies that it is within your control and is achievable. <S> If you say, "I wish I had X", you are indicating that there is little or nothing you can do to get it. <S> You would like to have it <S> but it is beyond your power. <S> So if you told a girl, "I wish you to be mine", this would imply that you don't think it's going to happen, like she is from a different culture or social class, or someone with her money, good looks or whatever could easily find a man more desirable than you. <S> But "I want you to be mine" implies that you believe this is a realistic possibility. <A> Imagine yourself across a street and suddenly a Ferrari zooms off. <S> Then you would say: "I wish I had one."Because <S> this car is far beyond your reach (as in money). <S> Now say something achievable passes by, then you will use"I want one."
| On the other hand, want is more of a logical or physical desire or need, that is implied to be something that may occur, or is within one's control to occur.
|
What does "scaredy" mean in 'Don't be a scaredy cat'? Don't be a scaredy cat. What does scaredy mean in the given sentence? Can I use it singly or is it always paired with cat ? Does it refer to someone who is a coward or is shy? That is, would it be correct to say that "he is a scaredy cat" ? And is it considered impolite or offensive? <Q> The word scaredy doesn't exist on its own. <S> The phrase scaredy cat first appears in print in Dorothy Parker's The Waltz, published in 1933, and she's usually credited with coining the term. <S> Thus, it is used with the word cat attached to it. <S> Though, there has also been another cartoon titled Scaredy Squirrel , but it still isn't used for the phrase. <S> Yes, it is used explicitly to <S> depict someone as timid or <S> refer to someone who is afraid/coward . <S> I'm not sure that it is applicable to one's shyness too. <S> Your usage of scaredy-cat in the following <S> He is a scaredy cat. <S> is perfectly correct. <S> Yes, it isn't polite to call someone a coward; but it is correct. <A> Scaredy means afraid . <S> " Scaredy cat " is an idiom. <S> It's two words, but no one I know uses scaredy without adding cat . <S> Without cat , you say either "He's scared" or "He's (a) chicken". <A> It is a phrase that is used together, not alone. <A> Scaredy cat is a term used to describe someone as being scared of doing something. <S> It is most common among younger audiences, and is rarely used after teenage years. <S> It is very informal. <S> When used to describe someone who you are not friends with, it can be impolite and offensive. <S> If adults are using the term, it is not so much an insult as it is a way to tease them, as Dream Eater's answer suggests. <S> As an idiom, both words are required to express the meaning. <S> " <S> He is a scaredy cat " is the correct usage of the phrase. <S> If someone is shy, they may be hesitant to do an activity that causes fear. <S> So yes, it could be used by someone to poke fun at the shy person.
| Scaredy cat means a person who is afraid a lot.
|
Can candidacy be used to refer to a person? Candidacy is usually referred to the qualification required for a candidate to apply for a specific post. However, does "Candidacy " sometimes refer to the person as well? Can I say "Candidacy for this open position"? Is that acceptable for a native speaker? <Q> Candidacy does not refer to persons: it is a status attributed to persons, the fact or manner of being candidates, not the candidates themselves. <S> Thus, one may say that “X announced her candidacy”, meaning that she has assumed the status and undertaken the role of candidate for an office. <S> When the newspapers discuss her candidacy <S> they are not talking about the candidate herself but about such matters as the manner in which her campaign is run and her likelihood of achieving the office for which she is campaigning. <S> Likewise, candidacy does not refer to the office for which one is a candidate: it is the status of being considered or considerable for the position. <S> Accordingly, in announcing an opening it is not referred to as a candidacy : that is the status of the persons who apply for the opening. <S> The institution does not advertise a candidacy , but a vacancy or position or appointment or some such thing, and it does not seek candidacy , it seeks candidates . <S> In some cases, candidacy is officially defined. <S> For instance, in many universities a graduate student who has satisfactorily completed a required curriculum (and the required paperwork!) is formally admitted to candidacy for an advanced degree. <S> This doesn't mean that the student has earned the degree, only that she is now regarded as worthy of being considered for the degree and is now admitted to the advanced studies in which she may actually earn the degree. <S> So in advertisements for academic positions you will sometimes see things like “Doctorate or candidacy required”, meaning that only persons who have achieved at least candidacy for the doctoral degree will be considered for the appointment. <A> Candidacy or Candidature is a noun and it means the whole process of applying for (a position) . <S> You could say Candidacy for this open position <S> but it would not be referring to a person. <S> The proper form would be: <S> His candidacy for this open position was surprising to all. <A> You can say, "He announced his candidacy for mayor", meaning, he said that he was running for the office. <S> You can also say, "He is now a candidate for mayor". <S> But you can't say, "He is a candidacy for mayor". <S> It's <S> function in a sentence is similar to the word "laziness". <S> You can say, "He admitted his laziness", which is parallel to " <S> He announced his candidacy. <S> " But you wouldn't say "He is a laziness". <S> "Candidacy for this open position" is a title and not a complete sentence, so it's not clear exactly what the role of the word is there. <S> If the point is to say that we are now seeking people to fill this position, I might say "Candidates sought for this open position". <S> "Candidacy" doesn't mean "qualification required to apply". <S> You wouldn't say, "Four years experience is a candidacy for the accountant position" or anything like that. <A> Yes you can do that. <S> Candidacy means "the state of being a candidate". <S> It is used in a way when somebody is going to compete for a post. <S> Like: 1) I gave wholehearted support to her candidacy. <S> 2) <S> He is expected to announce his candidacy. <S> But when you are giving advertisement like you said, you would probably go with: Need candidates for Customer Care post. <S> However if you are inclined to using "candidacy", you may say: Candidacy for telemarketing executive required for Customer Care post.
| "Candidacy" refers to the state of being a candidate, not to the person.
|
'any' vs. 'all' in "the best of 'any'/'all' generation[s]" All I ask is a chance to prove I'm as good as the best of "any" generation. All I ask is a chance to prove I'm as good as the best of "all" generations. Both 1—quoted from The New York Times—and 2—mine—sentences are grammatical, I hope, but are "any" and "all" really interchangeable in the case above? <Q> Both of the sentences sound a little weird to me, I think it is the "good as the best" part. <S> Or maybe it is my confusion on how, empirically, would you compare yourself <S> cross-generationally? <S> That aside though, I don't think there's a remarkable difference between "best of any generation" and "best of all generations." <S> EDIT: <S> @Mitsu4u is correct in that the meaning of the sentence changes with the use of all ; its meaning implies that you would be comparing yourself to the best person since the beginning of time. <S> A more natural-sounding phrase overall might be: <S> All I ask is a chance to prove that my worth matches that of the best of any generation. <A> It sounds weird to me because I read the sentences with different meaning: 1 . <S> All I ask is a chance to prove I'm as good as the best of any generation. <S> Here it sounds like you're comparing yourself to the best people from any generation. <S> 2 . <S> All I ask is a chance to prove I'm as good as the best of all generations. <S> Here it sounds like you're comparing yourself to the best generation . <S> You're a person, though, not a generation, so that's silly. <S> I have to assume that's not what you meant and reinterpret the sentence, which I find a bit awkward. <A> If someone is "as good as the best of any generation", then you're saying that you could pick any generation that has ever been, pick the best person of that generation, and the speaker is as good as that person. <S> If someone is "as good as the best of all generations", then you could take the people who were the best of all the generations that have ever been, and the speaker is as good as all of them. <S> Both ideas mean essentially the same thing.
| Both sentences mean pretty much the same thing.
|
What is the meaning of "imbibe the imbibements"? Though no statistics are available, it is probably safe to asssume that few of them regularly drop their butts and boogie to rock music, and that even fewer imbibe the imbibements which were easing the inhibitions of Lee Atwater`s audience. Can anybody explain what "imbibe the imbibements" precisely means in the sentence above, quoted from the Chicago Tribune? Does there "imbibement" consist of a non material substance? <Q> No, "imbibements" consist of a material substance--alcohol. <S> The word is a playful derivation of the verb imbibe , made using the suffix -ment . <S> Most often, -ment forms nouns that refer to an act or process, forming (for example) <S> enlightenment from enlighten , or investment from invest ; if it were used in this sense, then you could refer to an act of imbibing as an "imbibement". <S> However, this derivation uses a slightly non-standard sense, instead forming a noun that refers to the object of an action or process; in other words, an "imbibement" is that which is imbibed , namely, alcoholic beverages . <S> I consider this word non-standard, and I recommend you avoid it if your goal is to speak Standard English. <A> To "imbibe" is to drink, usually used when referring to drinking alcohol. <S> I have never heard the word "imbibement" and I don't find it in a dictionary. <S> I'm guessing the writer just made it up as a playful object of the verb "imbibe", so it would presumably mean "alcoholic beverages". <A> I couldn't find 'imbibements' in a dictionary, except in Urban Dictionary (not an authoritative reference): <S> Imbibements often refer to beverages, especially of the alcoholic type.
| I'd guess that imbibe the imbibements is just a fancy way of saying 'drink', and 'imbibements' refer to 'drinks' (most likely alcoholic).
|
What similar words can I use for 'chemistry' in the context of sports? Consider this expression: Chemistry between player X and player Y helped their team to win the championship three times in a row. Even though team X has got tons of great players, still they never win anything as there is no chemistry between their star players, they all play individually . Can anyone suggest similar words to 'chemistry' in this context? <Q> The first one being just a pair of players there are terms like alignment , rhythm , harmony , synchronicity , and magic that would seem appropriate. <S> Teamwork , collaboration , unity , and cohesion would be more appropriate for the second since this is talking about a larger set of players. <S> X-Factor can be a bit more tricky as each person has part of the recipe here and not all of it since the idea is that these players coming together brought great success. <S> Rapport would likely require one to have the understanding that this is within the context of playing the game together rather than just having an understanding within communications. <S> In the second context, another phrase one could use is that, "The whole is more than the sum of the parts," as the idea is that a team with chemistry can do more than what each player could do alone. <A> I would replace chemistry with either coordination or Unity. <S> Coordination/Unity between player X and player Y helped win the championship 3 times in a row. <S> Even though team X has got tons of great players, still they never win anything as there is no coordination/unity between their star players, they all play individually. <A> in the UK it is not uncommon to hear the phrases <S> player X and player Y have a good understanding . <S> or player X and player Y have a good partnership . <S> These are especially common in the context of football (soccer) <S> but it wouldn't be out of place to use them in non sporting contexts either.
| If you want a term for both, collaboration would be my suggestion. As for Matt's suggestions: Spark could work as, "The spark between Jordan and Pippen helped their team to win the championships for the Chicago Bulls."
|
What does 'maybe' mean before 'would'? Five minutes to go. Harry heard something creak outside. He hoped the roof wasn't going to fall in, although he might be warmer if it did. Four minutes to go. Maybe the house in Privet Drive would be so full of letters when they got back that he'd be able to steal one somehow. Three minutes to go. Was that the sea, slapping hard on the rock like that? And (two minutes to go) what was that funny crunching noise? Was the rock crumbling into the sea? One minute to go and he'd be eleven. Thirty seconds... twenty ... ten... nine -- maybe he'd wake Dudley up , just to annoy him -- three... two... one... (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) I guess would in the highlighted sentence is used ‘to express a wish.’ If it is right, what does maybe mean? Maybe he wished to wake Dudley up, seems somewhat funny. <Q> Maybe he'd wake Dudley up, just to annoy him. <S> The above means that Harry had an uncertain plan/wish, which was not put into effect by him. <S> In other words, waking Dudley up was just a passing thought, a virtual simulation, that ran through Harry's mind. <A> maybe he'd wake Dudley up, just to annoy him. <S> See it is an idea that came to his mind as a wish, but he intended not to do that. " <S> Would" is used here to express that he will do something in future (it happened in past of now). <S> So, ... he'd wake Dudley up, just to annoy him. <S> it means "He will surely wake Dudly up" (in past of now). <S> But he did not actually intend to do so. <S> It was just a quick thought. <S> So "maybe" is used to make the sense a "wish" or "possibility". <S> So when the sentence is rewritten as: <S> maybe he'd wake Dudley up, just to annoy him. <S> it consists of the whole sense i.e. he is not surely going to Dudly up, but he is just having a quick thought of it. <A> "Would" is a conditional wish, i.e. it is a will , but with a "but" or "if" attached. <S> I would do that <S> but... <S> I would do that if... <S> The would implies that the circumstances are either uncertain, or not suitable, so that the will may not be carried out because of the circumstances.
| The maybe implies that the will is uncertain - he is not sure he even wants to.
|
Determining someone's gender from their name A Japanese person was asking how to tell the gender of someone based on their name. Someone else claimed that if it ends in "a", it's usually female, and if it ends in "o", it's usually male. How reliable is this rule? I suspect it's only true of names derived from Italian, but I could be wrong. Assume that the names are of people of European descent in western countries such as America, Britain or Australia. <Q> There's no infallible way of divining someone's gender from their name. <S> I once knew a woman named "Robert", not "Roberta". <S> Evelyn Waugh, a British novelist, was a man. <S> Bela Lugosi was a male actor. <S> I'm sure others can come up with far more names like this than I can. <S> There are many "unisex" or "androgynous" names shared by males and females alike in the Western world. <S> Same goes for Chinese and even Japanese names. <A> Short answer: you can't. <S> There is no reliable rule that will cover all the various languages and exceptions and parents who name their daughter Maxwell and their son Andrea. <S> Longer answer: <S> The bad news is, the -a vs. -o ending rule has so many exceptions that it's useless. <S> Bella is female, but Bela <S> (well, technically Béla ) is male; Andrea is male in Italy but female elsewhere; Luca is male in Serbia but female in Hungary; Consuelo is female; etc. <S> The good news is, there are some tools you can use. <S> Some European countries publish lists of names that can be registered on birth certificates. <S> Most of those lists are gender-specific, as in parents are not allowed to choose a masculine name for their daughter or vice-versa. <S> Thus, if you know what country a person is from, you can look up their lists of registerable names and figure out the person's gender. <S> An image search can sometimes be useful: plug in the given name and check if the pictures that come up are mostly men or mostly women. <S> There are baby-name sites (or books) and gender-guesser websites that will give a gender for given names. <S> Make sure to check a couple of different sites, though, because some of them can be very wrong. <S> However, the bottom line is that even after all your best efforts and web searches, you simply will not be 100% correct, because Parents Are Crazy. <S> And they're increasingly getting crazier - in the US, even traditional masculine mainstays like Charlie are starting to skew female. <S> So the only foolproof method to determine a person's gender is to ask . <A> If the name begins with "Mr" it's a male, if it begins with "Ms", "Mrs" or "Miss" it's a female. <A> It's tricky. <S> In my opinion, we can't predict gender based on names alone, as the same names can be named for both genders at times. <S> There are so many names that can be named for both genders. <S> On many occasions, it's not possible to determine gender based on name alone. <A> In addition to the answers already posted, there is an extra spanner in the works. <S> Even if names were unambiguously male or female, and had an easy, infallible way to determine which was which, there is still ambiguity. <S> If their name is the name they were given when they were born, it would only represent the gender that a person seemed to be at the time they were named. <S> With gender being the mental identity of a person, it doesn't have to match their physical sex. <S> Therefore, a person who identifies as female could have a name like "Bruce". <S> Throw in the possibility of people legally changing their name and/or physical sex, and there is really no way it can be relied on for identifying the physical sex of a person. <S> This must be true for any language; not just English. <A> There are many exceptions. <S> Many names are used by both genders. <S> Here is a list of male names and a list of female names . <S> The -o and -a rule is generally accurate. <S> From these lists you can see there are few, if any, male names ending in -a, while there are quite a few ending in o, and vice versa for the women. <S> This will not always be the case.
| It's often possible to determine gender from a person's given name, but not always.
|
When is 'h' silent and when is it not? When is 'h' silent and when is it not? For example, we pronounce Thailand as Tailand . Also, Lufthansa is pronounced Luft/Hansa . In both cases th is not pronounced as it usually is. Can anyone give me a generalization of when an h is silent, and when we need to separate th and only pronounce t ? <Q> That seems to answer the superficial reading of your question. <S> So you have to learn the exceptions as they come along. <S> Usually they turn out to borrowings from French, like 'honest' But your examples seem to be about 'th'. <S> In general, in English, 'th' is almost always pronounced as a single sound, the lisping tongue-between-the-teeth hiss. <S> So you have to learn the exceptions as they come along. <S> For your two examples, they are both borrowings from foreign languages and spellings are decided on arbitrarily, sometimes based on the original spelling (as in the case of German) or by accepted correspondence between the writing of the original language and English (or sometimes someone just makes it up and it sticks). <S> Since the 'th' sound is rare in all the languages of the world, and English is one of the few with that sound, the rule of thumb for you would be, if reading English, if you see a 'th' spelling, if it looks non-English, it's probably pronounced like 't', but if it looks native English, it's probably the lisping sound. <A> I can think of only one rule for th not being pronounced as [θ] or [ð]. <S> If t and h are part of separate syllables, then they are pronounced separately, e.g. lighthouse . <S> The h may or may not be silent in such cases. <S> If <S> both t and h are in the same syllable, they are pronounced as [θ] or [ð] except in a few cases. <S> These are rare exceptions that you will have to learn individually, as there is no rule for them. <S> Additionally, there is no rule to determine whether h is silent; these are exceptions that you will have to learn individually as well. <S> However, in words similar to or derived from a word with a silent h , <S> the h in the similar or derived word is usually also silent, e.g. honor , honorable , honorary , etc. <A> There are few rules to identify a word with silent H. <S> Often, words beginning with W. Few examples are why, white, what, when, where. <S> Etc. <S> Sometimes in words with C, G, R, Ex before the H. C - school, chorus, echo, chemistry. <S> G - ghee. <S> R- rhinoceros, rhyme Ex - exhibit, exhausted.
| In general, there is no rule in English to tell you when to pronounce the 'h', but it is rarely silent.
|
meaning of ‘calculated' in this context He comes in last: I am not looking at the arch, yet I see him enter. I try to concentrate my attention on those netting-needles, on the meshes of the purse I am forming—I wish to think only of the work I have in my hands, to see only the silver beads and silk threads that lie in my lap; whereas, I distinctly behold his figure, and I inevitably recall the moment when I last saw it; just after I had rendered him, what he deemed, an essential service, and he, holding my hand, and looking down on my face, surveyed me with eyes that revealed a heart full and eager to overflow; in whose emotions I had a part. How near had I approached him at that moment! What had occurred since, calculated to change his and my relative positions? (Jane Eyre) What’s the meaning of ‘calculated’ in the example? <Q> It means "planned or intended for a specific purpose". <S> Like, "We entered all the numbers into the computer and it calculated the results. <S> " When someone says that an action that a person took was "calculated to do X", he means that it was very carefully and deliberately planned, like the person had turned the whole situation into a math problem and then calculated how to get the desired outcome. <A> Rather than in any way indicating calculation or planning, calculated here serves as a synonym of apt or likely . <S> OED 1 shows the following two senses of calculated : Reckoned, estimated, devised with forethought Fitted, suited, fit, apt; of a nature or character proper or likely to. <S> [eg] 1722 <S> De Foe ... <S> The state of life that I was now in was ... <S> perfectly calculated to make a man completely happy. <S> It is the second sense that applies in the quoted passage. <A> I think that last sentence could be rewritten like this: <S> What are the things calculated to change his and my relative positions that happened since that moment? <S> I hope this is what you were asking and that it makes sense :)
| The most common meaning of "calculate" is to find the result of a mathematical problem.
|
Difference between "Let someone taste" and "Have someone taste" I tried a new recipe for coming guests. After cooking I let my sister taste it . Can I also say, "I had my sister taste it"? I don't know the difference of these two sentences in terms of meaning. Is there a big difference? Which sentence is more appropriate? <Q> In English, "have" is a very flexible word that can be used in a variety of contexts. <S> I can have freckles on my face, I can have cake for dessert, and I can have a dead battery in my car. <S> Furthermore, we can have parties, conversations, naps, arguments, elections, and children. <S> Getting back to your question, we can also have a taste of the soup. <S> There's only a small difference in meaning between "let my sister taste it," and "had my sister taste it," although "let" carries a connotation of allow or permit , while "had" might imply a little insistence on your part. <S> In other words, had she asked for a taste, and you said yes, then "let" might be a better word to use. <S> However, if you weren't sure the soup tasted satisfactory, so you wanted your sister to give a second opinion, then "had" might be a better word. <S> My sister thought the soup smelled delicious, so I let her taste it. <S> I thought the soup tasted funny, so I had my sister taste it. <S> Incidentally, yet another way to word this would be: <S> After cooking, I let my sister have a taste. <S> which combines both of those words, and would sound perfectly natural to a native speaker. <A> The distinction here can be important. <S> After cooking I let my sister taste it. <S> Implication: <S> She wanted to taste it, you allowed her to. <S> After cooking I had my sister taste it. <S> Implication: <S> You wanted her to taste it, e.g. to give you feedback on its quality, and she agreed to. <A> As J.R. says, "have" is a verb with many meanings. <S> But in this context, "to have someone do X", it means to encourage or require or request the person to do X. <S> That is, the other person may or may not want to do this, but you are asking or forcing them to do it. <S> To "let someone do X" means that they want to do it, and you are giving permission. <S> So if your sister said, "Hey, that looks good. <S> Can I try some? <S> ", you could "let" her taste it. <S> But if you say, "I'm not sure if this came out right, and I don't want my guests to be disappointed", you could "have" her taste it. <S> That is, in the first case, she wants to <S> and you are permitting it. <S> In the second case, you want her to <S> and she is agreeing to. <S> Of course in a real-life case, it may be that you want her to taste it <S> and she wants to taste it (or whatever the action under discussion is), <S> and so either word is appropriate.
| The phrases are similar, but not the same.
|
What word can I use for 'preview' in this context? Let's say I am talking to my friend about some rock band or restaurant and describing how much better it is, compared to some other band. I say You think this album is good, wait until you hear the album Y. Compared to Y this album is just a preview . If you enjoyed the X show or Y restaurant, then you will definitely like Z. Compared to Z, X or Y is just a preview . In chat WendiKidd suggested opening act . <Q> I think preview is not the word you're looking for because the purpose of a preview is to give you a peek at exactly what you will be getting with the full thing. <S> In other I expect the full show, for example, to be exactly like the preview except that I will get to see the whole thing. <S> And if it's not like the preview <S> then I will feel that the preview was misleading. <S> @WendyKidd's <S> Almost any metaphor can be used if it's set up correctly. <S> If X is a house, Y is the Taj Mahal. <S> Sometimes the setup is implicit. <S> If you're talking about fine dining restaurants, You might say: Compared to Lutèce, Le Cochon is just McDonald's. <A> In the stated context I don't think you're going to get any better than opening act . <S> From a different medium, and perhaps more generalizable, you might consider prologue . <S> In the theatre a prologue ‘sets the stage’: introduces the basic premises and most important characters, establishes the audience’s fundamental expectations and swiftly creates a sense that the main action which follows will be important and engaging. <A> Consider teaser , in its sense “A short film or quote meant to draw an audience to a film or show”, particularly for the music album example. <S> For the restaurant example, one could try “this is just a snack...” or “this is just a taste compared to...”. <S> For a more-formal tone, consider foreshadowing and presage (“An intuition of a future event; a presentiment”). <S> Phrases like a mere shadow or a pale shadow might be used, although the latter is most often used in descriptions of something formerly much better than it once was, rather than of something that will get much better later.
| Opening Act is a good metaphor to use when talking about a band.
|
At the time of speaking, no relation to present My friend asked me, "Have you ever paid the money as a penalty?" I paid some money as a penalty, but that was long ago; it won't effect the present. What should I say? I have paid. I had paid. I paid. <Q> Let's make up some details, so the difference between these sentences will be clearer. <S> Suppose that it is January, and last September your university sent you a bill charging you a $50 fine for registering late. <S> They sent you another bill again in November, raising the fine to $75 because you were late paying it. <S> If you still owe the money you will not be allowed to register today for this semester. <S> Your friend asks: Q1 : <S> Have you paid that fine? ... <S> you answer: <S> A1 : <S> You answer using the present perfect for two reasons: 1) Your friend's question used the present perfect, and we usually match the tenses in question and answer. <S> 2) <S> The present perfect expresses a past action which establishes a present state. <S> You understand, because your friend uses the present perfect, that she is asking about your current status, and you answer with a statement about your present status. <S> Note, however, that if you want to tell her when you paid, you must employ the past tense, because now you are speaking of the event relative to that date: <S> Q2 : <S> Have you paid that fine? ... <S> you answer: <S> A2 : <S> Yes, I paid in December. <S> Suppose now that your friend asks: <S> Q3 : <S> Did you pay that $75 fine? ... <S> perhaps you answer: <S> A3 : <S> Yes, I paid it. <S> In this case your friend is not asking about your present status but about a past fact; so both of you use the past tense. <S> However, it is also possible that you return a different answer: <S> Q4 : <S> Did you pay that $75 fine? ... <S> and you answer: <S> A4 : <S> No; I didn't pay the extra $25 because I had paid the $50 fine in October. <S> Both of you are talking about your past action relative to the November bill, and you cast that in the past tense, as in Q3/A3; but when you add information about something which happened before November, you must cast that in the past perfect . <A> Since you are answering a question, which uses the present perfect, your answer should be "Yes, I have." <S> or "No, I haven't. <S> " You could also simply answer with "Yes." or "No." <S> If then you want to add when it happened, you can add "It happened time ago." <A> The question is incorrect. <S> It should be: <S> "Have you ever paid money as a penalty?" <S> In fact, it should be: <S> "Have you ever paid a fine ?" <S> (fine (noun): <S> "3 a : a sum imposed as punishment for an offense b : a forfeiture or penalty paid to an injured party in a civil action" <S> Your answer should be: <S> Yes. <S> or Yes, I have. <S> or Yes, once I paid a fine as a penalty, but that was a long time ago. <S> It shouldn't be important now.
| Yes, I have paid it.
|
Reason for starting with capital letter "DURSLEY!" he boomed. Uncle Vernon, who had gone very pale, whispered something that sounded like " Mimblewimble ." Hagrid stared wildly at Harry. "But yeh must know about yer mom and dad," he said. "I mean, they're famous. You're famous." "What? My -- my mom and dad weren't famous, were they?" (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) What’s the reason that “Mimblewimble” starts with a capital letter? <Q> It could be argued that it is capitalized because it is the beginning of a "sentence", though really it is just a single word, and a made up, gibberish word at that. <S> In this case, there really is no concrete rule about whether to capitalize or not. <S> Since it's a made up word, it could be a proper or improper noun, a proper, full sentence quote (requiring a capital) or simply an excerpt (not requiring one), both at the discretion of the author. <A> A sentence, even a quoted sentence, should begin with a capital letter. <S> This is true even if the sentence is short and/or not grammatically correct. <S> For example: He whispered something that sounded like, "It is sunny out." <S> We are quoting a sentence, so it should be capitalized. <S> He whispered something that sounded like, "Sunny out." <S> It's not a complete sentence, but we still capitalize. <S> We normally capitalize exclamations by the same reasoning: He shouted something that sounded like, "Hooray!" <S> But if we are quoting an excerpt from a single sentence, then we don't normally capitalize. <S> He insisted we leave "in the morning". <S> This case is ambiguous because it's a nonsense word, so we don't know if it's supposed to be a complete sentence, an exclamation, or just a fragment. <S> I would have capitalized it also, as it seems like the implication is that it's quoting the entirely of what he said, which would presumably be construed as a full sentence. <S> But it's debatable. <A> For example if we say the following :: This has definitely been my best birthday yet. <S> We start with a capital letter using the normal sentence grammar rules. <S> Now when we put this into a quote. <S> It becomes:: <S> He whispered to his mother, "This has definitely been my best birthday yet." <S> It stays the same. <S> All sentences must start with a capital letter. <S> The only reason to not start with a capital is if you are talking about something whose proper/common name starts without a capital letter. <S> For example :: iPhone usage in Canada has now surpassed Android in statistics. <S> This would remain the same in a quote, example : He said with authority, "iPhone usage in Canada…" <S> In the case above, since the person is mumbling, we're not sure what he said. <S> Therefore we assume a capitalization of the sentence. <S> If we knew that he was talking about say iMax 3D, there could have been a non-capitalized sentence.
| Quotations should start with capital letters since those are sentences themselves. In this case, it seems that capitalization was a rather arbitrary decision.
|
Meaning of "First day of week" in different countries "First day of week", as shown by calendars in general use, is different depending on country. Example: (Monday) versus (Sunday). What is its meaning/use in countries where English is an official language (e.g. USA, UK, New Zealand, Australia, India, South Africa, Malta, Ireland, Canada)? I am looking for an answer similar to "In [country] it is Monday, whereas in [country] it is Sunday. Also in [country] it is Sunday, while in [country] it is Monday. ..." Thus, maybe just take a look at your calendar and tell me what you see (and where you are located). Related: http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/week.php , "What is the first day of the week?" (which neither gives a list). <Q> The most official resource is probably the Unicode CLDR Project . <S> It has this to say: <! <S> -- <S> Note, this firstDay is for the first day of the week in a calendar page view. <S> --><!-- <S> The first workday of the week (after the weekend) is distinct, and can be determined as the day after the weekendEnd day. <S> --><firstDay <S> day="mon <S> " <S> territories="001 AD AI AL AM AN AT AX AZ BA BE <S> BG BM BN CH CL CM CR CY CZ DE DK EC EE ES FI FJ FO FR GB GE GF GP GR HR HU IS IT KG KZ LB LI <S> LK LT LU LV <S> MC MD ME <S> MK MN MQ MY NL NO PL <S> PT <S> RE RO RS <S> RU SE SI SK SM TJ TM <S> TR UA UY UZ VA VN XK" /><firstDay <S> day="fri <S> " <S> territories="BD MV" /><firstDay day="sat <S> " <S> territories="AE AF BH DJ DZ EG <S> IQ <S> IR JO KW <S> LY MA OM QA SD SY" <S> /><firstDay day="sun" <S> territories="AG AR <S> AS AU BR BS <S> BT BW BY BZ CA CN CO DM DO ET GT GU HK HN ID IE IL IN JM JP KE KH KR LA MH MM MO MT MX MZ NI NP NZ PA PE PH PK PR PY SA SG SV TH TN TT TW UM US VE VI WS YE ZA ZW" <S> /><firstDay day="sun <S> " territories="GB" alt="variant" references="Shorter Oxford Dictionary <S> (5th edition, 2002)"/><weekendStart day="thu" <S> territories="AF DZ IR OM"/><weekendStart <S> day="fri <S> " <S> territories="AE BH EG IL IQ JO KW LY MA QA SA SD SY TN YE"/><weekendStart <S> day="sat <S> " <S> territories="001"/><weekendStart day="sun <S> " <S> territories="IN"/><weekendEnd <S> day="fri <S> " <S> territories="AF DZ IR OM"/><weekendEnd day="sat <S> " <S> territories="AE BH EG IL IQ JO KW LY MA QA SA SD SY TN YE"/><weekendEnd <S> day="sun <S> " <S> territories="001"/ <S> > <S> The 001 comes from here and as far as I understand it refers to all regions not explicitly listed. <S> Also here is a more readable version of the current project release: https://unicode.org/cldr/charts/34/supplemental/territory_information.html <A> The first day of the calendar week may be either Sunday or Monday, depending on the country. <S> However, the first day of the regular work week is Monday. <S> Additionally, Sunday is said to be part of the weekend regardless of whether it is the first or last day of the week. <A> Maybe the first day of week depends on religion rather than the country. <S> Generally, because of different religions, the first day of week is different in different regions or countries. <S> For example, Saturday is the first day of week in Egypt; Sunday in Japan; Monday in China; Sunday to the world of Judaism; Friday to the world of Islam; and so on. <S> Additionally, the ISO prescribes Monday as the first day of the week with ISO-8601 for software date formats. <S> And more and more English dictionaries define Monday as the first day of week—otherwise, does weekend make any sense? <S> For more information, we can refer to the Wikipedia article Names of the days of the week . <A> The list of countries where English is an official language is very long. <S> Looking at just the ones you list in your "for example", here's what timeanddate.com 's calendar generator has to say: <S> Australia: <S> Sunday <S> Canada: <S> Sunday <S> India: Sunday Ireland: Monday <S> New Zealand: <S> Sunday <S> South Africa: <S> Sunday <S> United Kingdom: <S> Monday <S> United States: <S> Sunday Timeanddate.com doesn't include Malta for some reason, so I checked a tourism website <S> and it says Monday.
| All in all, it is not easy to say what day is the first day of week, just depending on a different point of view.
|
In cartography, what do you call the line that separates land from water? I am discussing cartographic conventions. For instance, "rivers should be blue" and "country borders should be black". In such a discussion, how should I refer to a line that separates land from a large body of water? I am looking for a single term that works for ocean, sea, lake (rivers not needed). My attempts: coast shore seaside line seaside bank Is there a more appropriate term? <Q> You can use coastline for oceans, seas, and lakes, but not for rivers. <S> You can use boundary/boundaries for rivers. <A> Shoreline is a more general term than coastline , encompassing not only oceans and seas, but lakes and large rivers as well. <A> The best word depends on the classification of the body of water: <S> The boundary between land and the ocean is the coastline (or coast ). <S> The boundary between land and a sea is the shoreline (or shore or seashore ). <S> The boundary between land and a river is the riverbank (or bank ). <S> Seaside is a more generic term, and refers to the land or attractions that are next to the sea. <S> For instance, a hotel next to the sea might be part of a seaside resort . <S> In the context of cartography, native speakers would normally refer to the boundary around continents as the coast , the boundaries of lakes and internal seas as shores and to refer to rivers directly (i.e. as rivers ), rather than riverbanks .
| The boundary between land and a lake is the shoreline (or shore ).
|
"So as to" at the beginning of a sentence Usually, in scientific literature I have found: In order to achieve something , we did something Is it possible to use the same construct with "so as to" ? So as to achieve something , we did something <Q> This is absolutely allowable. <S> I agree with J.R.'s comment that <S> So as to is less common at the beginning of a sentence, but it is definitely correct and not unheard of. <S> In order to break the tie, we had a bonus round. <S> So as to break the tie, we had a bonus round. <S> You can also flip the construction around with identical meaning, so it doesn't have to be at the beginning of the sentence: We held tryouts in order to find a new member of the swim team. <S> We held tryouts so as to find a new member of the swim team. <A> In the middle of a sentence is OK. <S> Personally, I would use <S> In order to if I wanted to begin a sentence: In order to increase my potassium levels I ate eight tons of bananas. <S> I ate eight tons of bananas so as to increase my potassium levels. <A> EDITED Yes. <S> In order to achieve something stands for as a means to (with the purpose of) achieve something . <S> So as to means the same thing. <S> And it would have the same meaning.
| In order to and so as to are synonymous. I wouldn't personally use So as to at the start of a sentence---it feels clunky and unnatural to me. You could omit it all together and phrase it like this: To achieve something, we did something.
|
the meaning of the phrase "milk run" used in tourism "Every tourist destination has its milk run. In order to survive, tour operators will have to offer holidays where visitors get away from their fellow travelers. This needs imagination and commitment, and currently many tour operators prefer to keep on with the milk run as the easy option " I don't understand the meaning of the phrase "milk run" in the above paragraph. Could you explain it and give me some more sentences for example? <Q> In WWII pilots referred to a routine mission without particular danger—a transport or supply flight, for instance, not a combat flight—as a ‘milk run’, referring to the milk delivery routine which EnglishLearner describes. <S> This sense of ‘routine’ or ‘unexceptional’ appears to be what’s in play in your example. <S> This involves tour operators in a minimum of complexity and invention: they’re mostly just doing again what they’ve done many times before, and probably dealing mostly with the same establishments they’ve dealt with many times before. <A> Can you please provide more contexts to your sentence? <S> From Wikipedia <S> The phrase "milk run" originates in American culture, with the distribution of milk bottles by the milkman. <S> On his daily route, the milkman simultaneously distributes the full bottles and collects the empty bottles. <S> After the completion of round trip, he returned with the empties back to the starting point. <S> On the round trips are either goods collected from several suppliers and transported to one customer, or goods collected from one supplier an transported to several customers. <S> In contrast to the groupage traffic, there is no handling, except to transport the goods. <S> I’m speculating here. <S> The tour operators are taking/busing the tourists to their destinations. <S> While dropping off this group of visitors at A, the operators are picking up another group of travelers and taking them to destination B. <A> A milk run <S> is a routine journey. <S> The tour operators that keep to the milk runs, in your extract, are not doing anything new, not taking the tourists off the beaten track . <S> Other examples of milk run : <S> [A parent] <S> Can you do the milk run with the kids this morning? <S> I'm running late for work. <S> [a driver looking at his assigned route <S> ] Excellent! <S> I have the milk run. <S> I can relax. <S> [Someone being questioned by police] <S> Where was I this morning? <S> On the standard milk run to work.
| The ‘milk run’ is a routine group tour where everybody goes to the same places at the same time.
|
When should I use "elections" instead of "election"? I understand that elections can be used to generally refers to elections, but can it be used to refer to elections happening in a specific case? I am asking because in Italian I would say the equivalent of "the election of the President of the Republic ," but I would say "In the last elections, none of the parties had the absolute majority, and it is able to govern." (I just translated word-by-word the sentence in Italian.) With last elections , I mean the elections that were held between February 24 and 25 to decide who will govern Italy. <Q> I would think that whether or not 'election' should be plural would be dependent upon how many people are being elected. <S> If a single person were being elected, for example in a school's 'class president' election, I would use the singular as only one election is being held: John is running against Mary in this year's Class President election. <S> However if we're talking on a broader scale where multiple people are being elected at once, such as if each population area is being allowed to vote for their representative and multiple elections are occurring at once, I would then use the plural: <S> The swing-vote states are expected to have high early-voting attendance in this year's elections. <S> As you mentioned the term general election in comments, I'd like to address that as well. <S> From Wikipedia : <S> In a parliamentary system, a general election is an election in which all or most members of a given political body are chosen. <S> The term is usually used to refer to elections held for a nation's primary legislative body, as distinguished from by-elections and local elections. <S> In presidential systems, the term refers to a regularly scheduled election where both the president, and either "a class" of or all members of the national legislature are elected at the same time. <S> A general election day may also include elections for local officials. <S> This seems a rather clear explanation, which is backed up by <S> The Free Dictionary <S> in case we have cause to distrust wikipedia: general election n. <S> An election involving all or most constituencies of a state or nation in the choice of candidates. <S> In this case I think the same rule would apply as for a standard election, just on a different scale. <S> This year's general election is quite controversial. <S> But when referring to multiple general elections, I would use the plural: <S> The last three general elections have gone the way of a single party; I hope this year we will have some change. <A> In a similar way, I could speak of my purchase this afternoon (referring to the overall transaction), or of my purchases (referring to the individual products which are bought), pointing to the same groceries. <S> In referring to a particular election of the Italian president, I would generally use the singular election , because we are referring to a solitary event. <S> We could just as easily refer to Italy's February 2013 parliamentary election in the singular if we treat the entire process as a single event. <S> On the other hand, if one considers a parliamentary election as the cumulation of hundreds of elections for individual members, speaking of the February 2013 parliamentary elections comes quite naturally. <S> The plural also works if there are multiple offices at stake, as in the U.S., which had around 513,200 directly elected government officials in 1992 (the last year in which the Census Bureau attempted to tabulate a total). <S> When everyone from president down to the proverbial town dogcatcher is on the ballot, using the plural seems more than appropriate. <A> The electoral process is an exercise of the right of suffrage. <S> Therefore, the process should be considered from the viewpoint of the electorate. <S> When referring to a choice of leaders being made by the general citizenry, it is better to use "elections," as a mass noun. <S> Consequently, it should carry a singular verb. <S> (e.g., The 2016 elections was orderly and peaceful ). <S> When in doubt, play it by ear; if it sounds right, then it is.
| When referring to a single general election (which we know to be composed of multiple traditional elections), I would use the singular: You could use either election or elections when referring to the parliamentary election, depending on whether your focus is on the aggregate process or its several components, instances, or results.
|
nothing a good beating wouldn't have cured "I accept there's something strange about you, probably nothing a good beating wouldn't have cured - and as for all this about your parents, well, they were weirdos, no denying it, and the world's better off without them in my opinion - asked for all they got, getting mixed up with these wizarding types - just what I expected, always knew they'd come to a sticky end -" (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) What’s the meaning of the highlighted part? <Q> Vernon believes that violence solves problems and that beating Harry every time he used magic would have killed the magic, or at least Harry's desire to use magic, and that he would have grown up to be a normal boy, like Vernon and Petunia's son Dudley. <S> There's a saying in English: Spare the rod and spoil the child . <S> It means that children flourish and grow up well only if they are strongly disciplined mentally, emotionally, and physically. <S> It's from the King James Version of the Christian Bible, Proverbs 13:24: <S> He <S> that spareth <S> his rod hateth his son: but <S> he <S> that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. <S> It's justification for corporal punishment. <A> They are saying that beating up Harry (or possibly a "good spanking") would make him more "normal". <S> This is a phrase that's sometimes used to say that someone needs to be disciplined by the speaker or the person's parents, etc. <S> In this context they're saying that Harry is strange, but not so strange that he couldn't be "normal" if people would "correct" him when he's being odd - so he would learn how to act like others do. <A> Physical punishment. <S> Here's the desc from wiki . <S> Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. <S> "any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light."
| This is probably Harry's uncle Vernon telling Harry that had he been spanked (beaten) very hard instead of treated like a special child, there would be nothing strange about him.
|
Upon Vs. On in the sentence? While conversing with my friend I got confused between these two sentences: It depends upon the context. It depends on context. Which one is more apt in usage and why? <Q> On and upon can be used interchangeably here. <S> It depends on context. <S> It depends upon context. <S> You add <S> the when you're being more specific about what that context is: It depends on the context of the situation. <S> It depends upon the context of the situation. <S> In this case we have specified which context (the context of the situation ) so it requires the article. <S> In practice, all four sentences mean the same thing. <S> Personally I'd be more likely to use the general " <S> It depends on context" and the specific " <S> It depends upon the context [insert description here]", but that's just personal use. <S> Any of the above are perfectly acceptable. <A> Both are valid, however as can be seen by the following Ngram, depends on context <S> is much more commonly used in modern English than depends upon context , since about 1960: <A> On is a preposition unbounded by time . <S> upon is a preposition that is bounded by time : On arrival at the station he should buy a sandwich - NB <S> there is no time/date specified. <S> Upon arrival he bought a sandwich - NB <S> it is still a preposition, but we know the event has occurred, and hence that it was bounded by time. <S> There is a clear difference. <A> On is more formal than upon , and the British National Corpus and the Corpus of Contemporary American English show it is more frequently used than upon in both British and American English. <S> However, the difference in frequency is much greater in American English than in British English.
| Both of the following sentences are correct: Both of these sentences mean that, in general, whatever "it" refers to will change based on whatever context it is in.
|
Using plural or singular verb after "neither" and "none" With reference to "Neither", "none", "no one" + [of them] + verb-s None of the above sentences is strictly correct. Neither of the above sentence/sentences is/are strictly correct. Tense choice problem The person has used are with none . This contradicts above notion of using singular with none . Which is more correct? The first sentence is perfectly fine, but I'm getting confused from the second sentence. In this sentence, how would we decide about antecedents? Can we use both sentence interchangeably? <Q> Although there are many people that claim that "none" and "neither" should always take the singular form, it's always sounded odd to me, so I decided to dig into it a bit further. <S> For example, here is an Ngram of "none of us is" / <S> "none of us are": <S> In this case, we can clearly see that "none of us are" - i.e. the supposedly "ungrammatical" form of the sentence was vastly more popular until roughly 1880. <S> In 1880 or so "none of us is" began to take hold, and in the 1920s there was a steep decline in the use of "none of us are" - perhaps in response to overzealous copy editors enforcing the so called rule. <S> Most interesting is what's happened since the 1990s, where "none of us are" has shot back to prominence, leading to the fact that "none of us are" is now the dominant form again. <S> As suggested by snailplane, here's some interesting additional reading which seems to confirm my opinion that "none/neither should take the singular" is a wholly invented rule: <S> http://johnemcintyre.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/with-malice-toward-none.html <S> http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/none-is-none-are-grammar-according-to-clarkson/ <S> The sentences are too long. <S> -> <S> None of the sentences are too long A or B <S> is the correct answer -> <S> Neither A nor B is the correct answer. <A> As this answer to a related question on ELU indicates, the supposed "rule" that none is occasionally treated as plural, but it is usually regarded as singular should be taken with a large pinch of salt . <S> Note that, for example, none of us is and none of us are both have about 1M hits in Google Books. <S> By the same token, as this answer to another relevant ELU question says, the pedantic corollary (that neither should always be considered singular too) is also widely flouted by competent native speakers. <S> Okay, there are <S> 2-3 times as many instances of neither of us is as there are of <S> neither of us are . <S> But the supposedly "wrong" form still occurs 91,500 times, and I certainly see nothing wrong with it. <S> In short, it's meaningless to say none or <S> neither are grammatically required to be treated as singular, given that native speakers don't consistently observe any such stricture. <S> It really comes down to a stylistic choice in your given context; if you want to emphasise the "plurality/multiplicity" of the "pool" of items from which none or neither are selected, feel free to use the plural verb form. <A> This is English Language Learners , where many learners are preparing for exams of English. <S> Such exams or the examiners who give them, are usually looking for formal grammar. <S> As the Oxford Learner's Dictionary says in its grammar point : <S> Neither of and either of are followed by a plural noun or pronoun and a singular or plural verb. <S> A plural verb is more informal : <S> Neither of my parents speaks/speak a foreign language. <S> In other words, although native speakers do sometimes use a plural verb after neither of , the use of a singular verb is still the expected form in formal contexts, because that is the form taught in schools. <S> And on any test of English as a foreign language, use the singular verb. <S> See also the most upvoted (and accepted) <S> answer at <S> ELU's Which is correct, "neither is" or "neither are"? <S> Besides that, to this speaker of American English, besides being more formal, the singular verb almost always sounds better and more eloquent than the plural.
| As a native speaker, I've always just gone with choosing the verb as if "none" or "neither" was not taking part in the verb choice.
|
Is it possible for an object to be both "complicated" and "detailed"? It seems to me that something cannot be both complicated and detailed. In general usage, complicated seems to be applied to things which are very difficult to understand. For example: The project's architecture is very complicated and hence it takes more time to understand. This design is very complicated. I will need more time to comprehend it. Detailed seems to mean the opposite of complicated : The documentation for the architecture is very detailed. It will be easy to understand. Ram explained the design to me in detail, so I understood it very quickly. It is my understanding that an object cannot be both complicated and detailed at the same time. If the architecture is complicated it is difficult to understand. If it is detailed it is easy to understand. The two terms seem mutually exclusive, and I am unable to see how both qualifiers can be applicable to single object. Can anyone explain to me if this is correct or not, and why? <Q> The source of your confusion seems to be an overgeneralization of the word 'detailed'. <S> You are correct that if something is complicated, it is most likely going to be difficult to understand. <S> From The Free Dictionary : <S> complicated, adj. <S> Containing intricately combined or involved parts. <S> Not easy to understand or analyze. <S> See Synonyms at complex , elaborate . <S> However, the fact that something is detailed does not mean that it is easy to understand. <S> If, as in your example, I explain a concept to you in detail, that means I go over every small portion of the concept and give you an explanation. <S> That does not mean that you understand the explanation, just that I gave it to you in detail. <S> If I were to give you a detailed explanation of a complex science experiment in a field you had no experience in, most likely the jargon and specifics of that explanation wouldn't tell you much of anything. <S> You'd still be confused, no matter how thorough an explanation I gave you. <S> Regarding the specific example of detailed documentation, there's a whole lot of extensively detailed software documentation out there that still doesn't make a bit of sense. <S> I can explain every single detail <S> but if I explain it badly, or if my audience is unfamiliar with the subject, they're still not going to understand. <S> So something being detailed does not mean it is easy to understand. <S> For that matter, something being complicated doesn't necessarily mean it's hard to understand, either. <S> It's all about the audience. <S> A complicated subject might be hard to understand for you or me, but Albert Eistein might have understood it very easily. <S> Really it's all about your audience. <S> So you have to look at both definitions 1 and 2 of the word; if something has many intricately involved parts it is complicated in the sense of the first definition, but the second definition is subjective and dependent upon who is characterizing the object as complicated or not. <S> In short, yes! <S> In fact some things are designed to be just that way. <S> Think about art (an ancient frieze or something) and consider that much of it can both have very minuscule details and also be very complicated in design (by having many intricately combined parts, which are also detailed). <A> As already mentioned, there are too many things that can be both complicated and detailed. <S> Its kind of like asking what things are both soft and smooth. <S> In either case, for certain things its possible both apply, and in other cases not. <S> But that requires more context to decide. <S> Having said that... <S> You asked, <S> For example, Practically is there any architecture exists which is complicated <S> as well detailed or is there any documentation exists which is complicated and detailed? <S> so I wonder if you are looking for a way to describe both qualities at the same time. <S> If that is the case, you can use intricate . <S> You could say The project architecture is very intricate and hence it takes more time to understand. <S> This design is very intricate . <S> I need sufficient time to understand it . <S> and The documentation for the architecture is very intricate . <S> It is not so hard to understand. <S> Ram explains about the intricate design. <S> So it reduces my time to understand the design. <S> Some examples sentences: http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/intricate which might give a better idea of the common usage. <A> You could look at the US Tax system for an example of something that is quite detailed as there are many pages written about what are the rates for people or corporations to pay in the form of taxes. <S> At the same time, the existence of accountants that study the laws would suggest that this is at least somewhat complicated. <S> If someone wanted quotes for each, here is one for each part: <S> Why are taxes so complicated? <S> notes: <S> Almost everyone agrees that the current tax system is too complicated, yet almost every year the system gets more complex, not less. <S> International taxation - Wikipedia notes the following: <S> The United States taxes its citizens as residents, and provides lengthy, detailed rules for individual residency of foreigners <S> Another idea to ponder here is to consider the concept of the universe. <S> The universe is rather detailed in the sense that one could try to enumerate all the elements within it and at the same time, it is quite complicated for all the things that are in it that are being studied so that we can understand the nature of existence. <S> While one can simply state that the universe is everything, there is quite a bit of depth to that remark.
| Something can be both detailed and complicated.
|
Is using "similarly" in this sentence correct? They all are dressed up similarly for the party. Is this use of similarly correct/appropriate? I did not get many results when I looked this phrase up on Google. I also tried the phrase with "alike" and "same" in place of "similarly" with no better results. Can anyone suggest an alternative for similarly here? <Q> This is really a question about style rather than grammar or usage or even word choice. <S> A better sentence is: <S> They are all similarly dressed up for the party. <S> or They're all similarly dressed up for the party. <S> A different word order changes the sound and rhythm of the sentence. <S> The version with the contraction is more natural and idiomatic than the one without it. <S> I agree with WendiKidd that "similarly" and "alike" are not equivalent, so "dressed up alike" neither says what you mean nor means what you want to say. <A> I think alike is a good choice. <S> They all are dressed up alike for the party. <A> From the way they walked, talked, dressed and wore their accessories. <S> orThey all looked suprisingly similar. <S> This is tough because I don't know the context or how this is being written. ' <S> They are' hints that it is happening now instead of 'they were'. <S> With their outfits, dress, and style they all looked strikingly similar.
| I don't think the usage is wrong, but it seems a bit odd sounding to me. Everyone at the party entered in a similar fashion.
|
In a letter, what is the most polite way to ask for a quick reply? If you're writing a formal letter, and need the other party to reply as quickly as possible, how can you do it in the most polite, eloquent fashion? No matter how I try to do it, it always sounds too demanding. <Q> Although I understand that you are very busy, I would appreciate it if you could provide a response as soon as possible. <S> I very much appreciate your time . <S> My exact wording might change according to the circumstances – <S> How well do I know the person? <S> How important is it that I get timely feedback? <S> Is this the first time I'm asking, or the third? <S> What is the situation? <S> Am I planning a reception, or arranging for payments on a loan that is about to go into default? <S> Those considerations aside, the generic wording I've included at the top of my answer is about as polite as I can muster. <A> We are looking forward to your earliest response. <S> We are looking forward to a timely response. <S> We will greatly appreciate it if you can respond at your earliest convenience. <A> An early reply would be appreciated <S> I look forward to your reply <S> I look forward to hearing from you <S> Your earliest attention would be appreciated
| I would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience
|
"His/her" or just "his"? Should I use his or his/her in the following sentence? The user can determine his name. <Q> The user can determine their name. <S> According to an irreversible trend, use the universal their , avoiding the exclusive his and the clumsy his/her . <S> The Cambridge Guide to English Usage says: " their avoids gratuitous sexism and gives the statement broadest reference." <A> Just supplementing @Carlo_R.'s reply: <S> The following is from New Oxford American Dictionary <S> The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used since at least the 16th century. <S> In the late 20th century, as the traditional use of he to refer to a person of either sex came under scrutiny on the grounds of sexism, this use of they has become more common. <A> He was once acceptable when you wanted to speak of a person whose sex was not known, or stated. <S> Now, it is considered old-fashioned, and other alternatives have been used. <S> He/ <S> she Use <S> he/ <S> she <S> every time you are referring to a person for which the sex is not relevant. <S> singular their Use a sentence like the following <S> : "The user can determine their name." <S> Use the plural instead of the singular <S> In your case, it would mean to use a sentence like the following: "The users can determine their names." <S> Somebody still consider the singular <S> their not acceptable, and they rather prefer using the plural, as in the last example. <S> The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary has the following notes about this topic: <S> He used to be considered to cover both men and women: "Everyone needs to feel he is loved. <S> " This is not now acceptable. <S> Instead, after everybody , everyone , anybody , anyone , somebody , someone , etc. <S> one of the plural pronouns <S> they , them , and their is often used: <S> Does everybody know what they want? <S> Somebody's left their coat here. <S> I hope nobody's forgotten to bring their passport with them. <S> Some people prefer to use he or she , his or her , or him or her in speech and writing: "Everyone knows what's best for him or herself." <S> He/ <S> she or <S> (s)he can also be used in writing: <S> "If in doubt, ask your doctor. <S> He/she can give you more information." <S> (You may find that some writers just use she .) <S> These uses can seem awkward when they are used a lot. <S> It is better to try to change the sentence, using a plural noun. <S> Instead of saying "A baby cries when he or she is tired <S> " you can say "Babies cry when they are tired." <A> I am guessing his name refers to a user name (on a computer system), right? <S> Anyway you can turn the statement around (passive construction): <S> The ( user ) name can be determined/specified by the user. <S> That avoids using possessive pronouns. <A> "His/her" is not grammatically correct. <S> It is a shorthand which used in a kind of abbreviated dialect of English that is found in instruction manuals and such. <S> A conjunction is required: his or her. <S> The user can determine his or her name. <S> Traditionally, male examples are used in English. <S> The example person is a "he" and that is that. <S> In English, the human race is traditionally called "mankind", a person fallen off a ship is "man overboard", tending to your job is "manning your post" and so on. <S> However, that kind of speaking and writing tends to make women feel excluded. <S> So this is why we use he or she for some unspecified person, or they . <S> But here is another strategy you can use in writing. <S> Simply use masculine pronouns in some examples, and feminine ones in others. <S> In some sections of the document, make the user female and use she and <S> her <S> (consistently: do not change the user from being a he in one sentence to a she in a related sentence): <S> The user can determine her name. <S> Then in some other sections, make the user he . <S> This way you can avoid creating a sense that women are included, while avoiding repetitions of his or her , and without resorting to they and their . <S> Moreover, compared to using they , you create a more active sense that women are included. <S> Although using plural third person pronouns like <S> they and their to refer to a single person is widespread and acceptable, it does not sound quite as good as using as singular pronoun for one person. <S> At least, subjectively speaking, not to everyone.
| The use of they instead of "he or she" is common in spoken English and increasingly so in written English , although still deplored by some people.
|
Can "zero" be used to describe uncountable nouns? “There was zero courage in this verdict,” he said. ”I think this goes to the jury not wanting to make a difficult decision." I learned that mass nouns cannot be enumerated. Yes, I know that zero courage can be replaced with no courage , but, since zero is a number, I wonder whether zero courage is ungrammatical or only sloppy style. <Q> One definition of zero is 2 <S> the absence of a measurable quantity <S> However, this is a noun. <S> As an adjective , zero means <S> not any or no <S> Based on this definition, it is correct to use it to describe a mass noun to say there is none of it. <S> I've noticed that using "zero" instead of "no" is usually used to emphasize the lack of whatever it's describing. <A> OED definitions include... <S> Nought or nothing reckoned as a number denoted by the figure 0 <S> That is of the amount expressed by zero, i.e. none at all; in Math. <S> also transf. <S> applied to a value of a function corresponding to the value 0 of the variable(s). <S> Hence ( colloq. ) <S> more widely as adj. <S> in the sense ‘ no, not any ’. <S> [emphasis mine]. <S> That's to say, by traditional definitions and usage, OP is correct in saying that zero is a number - so it shouldn't be used as a quantifier , in contexts where you wouldn't use any other number. <S> But in fact it's commonly used that way colloquially (usually only in spoken informal contexts). <S> Having said that, there are restrictions on its use... ? <S> It's zero good <S> hoping people will accept this as a reasonable utterance, even in casual speech. <S> Actually, I suppose it's possible some native speakers (certainly not me! :) <S> will accept that contrived example. <S> But I'm betting the vast majority wouldn't, so my advice to learners would be to avoid the form completely and always use no instead. <S> You'll never be wrong that way. <A> It's a rhetorical flourish. <S> To a native speaker, saying zero as a synonym for <S> no is a reasonable variation from normal usage. <S> The ordinary phrasing is no courage ; that would have drawn no attention to itself. <S> Saying zero courage is emphatic: it's like saying "There was not even a little bit of courage in this verdict. <S> There was no courage at all. " <S> While zero courage in this context doesn't sound ungrammatical or sloppy to most native speakers, there are very similar phrases that no native speaker would say because they break rather than bend ordinary usage. <S> For example, nobody would say two courage . <S> That would be incomprehensible. <S> See FumbleFingers' answer for another good example of going too far. <S> You shouldn't take the example as evidence contradicting the principle that mass nouns cannot be enumerated. <S> It's evidence that zero can sometimes be stretched into an intensified version of no . <S> There is no precise general rule for when you can and can't do this kind of thing. <S> You just have to get a sense of how far you can bend the language without breaking it. <S> That can only come with (long) experience. <A> " The example is similar to yours, since both courage and inflation are uncountable. <A> Some nouns like "courage" are quantifiable but not really measurable; one could describe Fred as having "more" courage than Joe, but there's no standard unit of courage that would make it possible to say that e.g. Fred has 2.7 more couragions than Joe. <S> The lack of defined units, however, doesn't affect "zero" because zero doesn't require units . <S> If something is has a length of zero inches, zero centimeters, and zero angstroms, or zero miles, it has zero length; the units don't matter. <S> If something has a mass of zero ounces, zero milligrams, or zero tons, it has zero mass; again, the units don't matter. <S> That principle can be extended to things like "courage": it's not possible to specify any particular non-zero quantity of courage because that would require defining units, but since "zero" doesn't require units, it is possible to have zero courage.
| One of the possible meanings of zero is "the lowest possible amount or level; nothing at all"; one of the example phrases shown by the OALD is "zero inflation. The person who said zero courage is "bending the rules" of ordinary usage.
|
What tense should we use in the present time (now) to refer to an event happening during a future other event? I have planned a meeting, that will be the day after tomorrow. If now I want to tell someone about the main point of the meeting, what could I choose? During the meeting we are discussing about XYZ During the meeting we are going to discuss about XYZ During the meeting we'll discuss about XYZ During the meeting we discuss about XYZ Something else... Thank you. <Q> The meeting will be in the future. <S> Therefore, it is appropriate to use a form that indicates the future. <S> (As pointed out by Barrie England in a note, English has no future tense.) <S> Some possibilities are: During the meeting we will discuss XYZ. <S> During the meeting we'll be discussing XYZ. <S> During the meeting we are going to discuss XYZ. <S> "about" isn't necessary with discuss; it would be appropriate with "talk about", but "discuss" is a better choice for this situation. <A> To discuss something means the same thing as to talk about something, so the word 'about' is not correct to use with 'discuss'. <S> So, to go through your examples (removing 'about'): <S> During the meeting we are discussing XYZ. <S> Incorrect. <S> The meeting is in the future, and "we are discussing" is present tense. <S> You can't use the two together. <S> During the meeting we are going to discuss XYZ. <S> Correct. <S> "We are going to" talks about the future, and so is appropriate here. <S> During the meeting we'll discuss XYZ. <S> Correct. <S> We'll is a contraction of we will , which is also future tense and appropriate here. <S> During the meeting we discuss XYZ. <S> Incorrect. <S> We discuss [ <S> x] refers to a habit in this case. <S> If you have a recurring meeting in which you always discuss the same thing, you could instead say: During the [weekly, daily, etc.] <S> meetings we discuss XYZ. <A> As @WendiKidd says, I wouldn't use 'about' with discuss. <S> Either discuss or talk about . <S> Other than that <S> , I think all the sentences are correct, but "During the meeting we'll discuss XYZ" sounds the most ordinary.
| During the meeting we'll discuss XYZ.
|
Use of commas when addressing someone For some reason my brain tells me that the following sentence is grammatically correct... Thanks, John . Your gift was much appreciated. Instead of... Thanks John , your gift was much appreciated. Which should I use? <Q> John in your sentence is a noun in the vocative case ( the case used for the noun identifying the person, animal, object, etc. <S> being addressed ) which should be separated with comma(s) regardless of its position in the sentence. <S> Though modern English lacks a formal (morphological) vocative case, I use it only to accurately identify the nouns in this category. <S> Thanks, John, your gift was much appreciated. <S> John, come here! <S> Thank you, John! <A> This is a matter not of grammar, but of punctuation. <A> Both of the original poster's examples are grammatically correct. <S> They are pronounced slightly differently: <S> There is a distinct pause for breath after the period, and less of a pause after the comma. <S> The original poster should use the punctuation that matches his pronunciation. <S> When writing a letter, it is traditional to use a comma (or maybe a colon) after the salutation. <S> (There is a distinct pause for breath after the salutation.) <S> For example: Dear John, Your gift was much appreciated.
| When you address someone like this, it is usual in writing to set off the name with a comma, or a pair of commas if appropriate.
|
Comparing "atom bomb" & "atomic bomb" with "atom explosion" & "atomic explosion" Merriam Webster says that "atom" is a noun, not an adjective, albeit there is the entry "atom bomb" in which, I think, "atom" is used as an adjective. Google Books has a lot of hits for "atom explosion". For example, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists it is written: Then the aerial bomb, to strike by the thousands, followed by the atom explosion to reach the hundreds of thousands. So, while in the name of that bulletin the scientists are "atomic", in an its quote the "explosion" is "atom". When can we use "atom" in adjectival form? Are there differences in meaning between "atom explosion" and "atomic explosion"? If "atom explosion" means "explosion of the atom", why aren't "fusion" or "fission" used, rather than "explosion"? <Q> In English nouns are sometimes used as adjectives rather than using an adjective form of the noun. <S> For example, we routinely say "tin can" and not "tin's can" or "tinny <S> can", "dog show" rather than "dogs' show" or "canine show", "California beaches" rather than "Californian beaches", etc etc. <S> The catch is that there's no simple rule saying when you can use a noun as an adjective. <S> You pretty much have to learn them case by case. <S> "Atom bomb" and "atomic bomb" are, to the best of my knowledge, exact synonyms. <S> I have never heard anyone say "atom explosion". <S> It's always "atomic explosion". <S> Google Ngrams -- http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=atom+explosion%2Catomic+explosion&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share= -- shows essentially zero use of "atom explosion". <S> Whatever uses you found, maybe they are using the phrase to mean something different. <S> If not they're being very unconventional. <A> Atomic is an adjective. <S> Atom is a noun. <S> If you said The instrument measured the atom explosion in the atom smasher . <S> explosion and smasher are nouns and atom is a noun modifier. <S> It means actual atom(s) were acted on. <S> I suppose it could be one or many atoms that exploded, but I think you would still say atom . <S> In the case of The instrument measured the atomic explosion. <S> this is referring to a type of explosion, and atomic is an adjective. <S> This is the form generally used to describe atomic bombs and such that result from atomic reactions. <A> If "atom explosion" means "explosion of the atom", why aren't "fusion" or "fission" used, rather than "explosion"? <S> An explosion is always sudden and violent, while a fusion is a controlled process to get energy from atoms. <S> What you get from a bomb is an explosion, whatever process is used to obtain it. <S> As for atomic explosion versus atom explosion , I think the correct one is atomic explosion , since one of the meaning of atomic is, "related to the energy that is produced when atoms are split; related to weapons that use this energy." <S> Since the explosion is caused from the energy produced from atoms when they are split, atomic explosion makes more sense to me. <S> Atom means, "the smallest part of a chemical element that can take part in a chemical reaction."
| Atom bomb is a set phrase; you can generally use atom to mean the energy generated when atoms are split, or weapons that use that energy.
|
Looking behind or Looking backwards Let's say I go to see my manager and I when I enter his office, he is sitting with his back facing me and doing something like talking to someone who I couldn't see. How should I describe this? When I went there, I saw he was looking backwards and doing something. When I went there, I saw he was looking behind and doing something. Do they both mean what I want to describe? <Q> "Looking away" speaks more about what the person's eyes (and head) are doing and less about what the overall body position is. "Facing" is a more common way to express what you want to say, where "facing > face" = "the surface presented to view" Probably the best way to say what you describe is: <S> When I entered his office, he was sitting with his back facing me [...] <S> or When I entered his office, he was sitting with his back towards me [...] <A> You could also say When I went there, he was facing away from me and doing something. <S> As @barbara beeton says, "Looking backwards" implies that his head is twisted so that his chin is toward his shoulder, and therefore his chest is toward you but his gaze is directed at something in back of him. <S> "Looking behind" is incomplete; it requires something to be looked behind. <A> This could also be expressed as, he is sitting so that his back is turned toward you. <S> Neither of the other two sentences describes the same situation. <S> If he were looking backwards, his head would be turned, looking over his shoulder. <S> "Looking behind" requires "him" after behind. <S> It also implies that he is looking back over his shoulder, as in the previous sentence. <A> You could say When I went there, I saw he was looking away from me and doing something. <S> In your sentence, looking refers to he . <S> You did not say he was looking over his shoulder, so as I read it he is looking forward (from his point of view) or to his side. <S> Neither is behind to him. <S> I am also guessing that if his back was facing you, you could not see his face. <S> (edit) <S> As pointed out, looking away from me may depend on other factors not made clear in the original scenario. <S> But then I would ask why you are trying to say this in such different words, rather than just saying "He was sitting with his back facing me <S> and I couldn't see what he was doing." <S> To say more I think we need more information.
| "Looking away from me" implies that while his body is angled in your general direction, his gaze is directed somewhere else in the room, most likely off to the side. Your first sentence describes the situation clearly: Your manager is sitting with his back facing you and doing something.
|
Which sentence is better between “I’m OK.” and “That’s OK.” I'd like to know the simple expressions without offending others when I'm offered some help by friends, acquaintances or stangers. This is one example. Someone offers me help when I'm carrying a bag saying " Can I help you with your bag?" Another example is when I'm doing the preparation for the party, someone says " Do you need any help?" When I think I can manage, what sentence can I use? There seem to be several possible phrases as follows. Could you tell me the difference of these phrases? Thank you, but I’m good. Thank you, but I’m OK. Thank you, but I’m fine. Thank you, but that’s OK. <Q> I would say I'm OK, thanks. <S> That puts the fact that I am OK as I am (no help is needed), and then thanks . <S> OK is simple to understand; there is no problem. <S> And I prefer a simple thanks ; I think <S> thank you <S> is too formal replying to a stranger who speaks to you first. <S> Especially if someone was bothering you (asking if you needed help when it was obviously not necessary). <A> The answer may depend on where you are , geographically-speaking. <S> I'd like to provide an illustrative example, below. <S> Having spent a great deal of time in Montreal, QC, and Baltimore, MD, I notice a difference in this particular phrase. <S> I might recommend that your #1 answer <S> (Thank you, but I'm good) <S> would be heard more often in Maryland, while your #2 answer <S> (Thank you, but I'm okay) <S> would be heard more often <S> said to a friend in Ontario or Quebec. <S> Even then, your #3 answer <S> (Thank you, but I'm fine) <S> would be heard more often when spoken to a person in a position of authority or a stranger in both locations. <S> Why did I italicise <S> the more often ? <S> Simply because I think that all of these answers are acceptable. <A> Assuming that you're being offered help by a stranger in an airport or a bus or train station, and that you don't want your bag stolen, and don't want to encourage any additional conversation, I'd say Thank you for the offer, but it's not a problem if you have enough breath and don't want to be too dismissive, or Thank you <S> , I'm fine if you want to be brief. <S> The other three just don't sound right to me, but others may disagree. <A> If a friend offered help, then I’d probably say Thanks much for the offer, but I think I can manage. <A> The four examples you listed are not offensive ways to reject assistance. <S> They could be taken offensively depending on the tone of your voice and body language (by acting snobby or conceited). <S> (Thank you, but I will be ok.) <S> A blatently offensive way of rejecting assistance would look like this: <S> No! <S> Why would I need your help?
| I would say: Thanks, but I'll be ok.
|
Is "Births" correct as third person singular of "To birth"? I have this doubt now that I'm writing down a translation of a text: the word "birth" can be either a noun or a verb, but its usage in different sentences is not completely clear to me. For example, if we are talking about a dog, I could say "Dog birth" using the word as a noun, or "Dog birthing" using it as a verb, but then, if I want to use a present time verb I would like to say "The dog births", third person, singular, and its the dog who births, not her mother who gives her birth. Now back to the question, is the sentence "The dog births" correct and commonly usable, or is it better to use "X gives birth to Y"? EDIT for specific case: "The dog gives birth to a happy puppy" is the starting sentence, present form, but here the dog is the subject, while I want to be the puppy to be it, like in the bad-sounding "The happy puppy births from (?) the dog", I mantained "from the dog" just for reference to the main sentence, but the aim is exactly to avoid the "birth-giver" subject and result in a simple "The happy puppy births". We already stated (in answers and comments) that while not incorrect, its not commonly used, so are there alternatives in the sentence construction that don't need altering the present o the "birth" verb? <Q> The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for birth as a verb, and defines it as ‘To give birth to; to give rise to.’ <S> That means that in principle the form ‘births’ is grammatically possible. <S> In practice, however, it would be unusual, and you’d do much better to use the alternative you suggest. <A> Most people would find it more natural to say: The dog had puppies . <S> or perhaps: The dog delivered puppies. <S> If you look up had in the dictionary, you'll find that it means to have given birth to (although you might need to look hard to find that, because the word has several meanings; for example, this page shows it near the bottom of a very long list of possible usages). <S> Nonetheless, I believe that's the most natural and common way to say it. <S> EDIT: <S> If you wanted the puppy to be the subject, and say the sentence in the present tense, I believe this would be grammatical: <S> The puppy is being birthed at this very moment. <S> but I think that would sound a bit awkward. <S> By the time everyone figures out what you're trying to tell them it might be too late to keep using the present tense, and you'd have shift to the past: <S> The puppy was just born. <A> Since in a comment you say you want to make the puppy the subject of the phrase, then you should use "the puppy was born. <S> " That is similar to when I would say "I was born in 1970"; it means my mother gave birth to me during 1970. <A> As others have said, the verb "to birth" is much rarer than "to give birth (to)". <S> Also, "to birth" is always transitive, so "the dog births" is not a full sentence because there is no object. <S> But the main issue here IMO is one of tense. <S> " <S> The dog births puppies" is correct English but <S> probably not what you mean. <S> This is the present indefinite tense, which normally indicates something happens often, but not necessarily right now. <S> "Bob eats meat" means he is not vegetarian; "Bob is eating meat" means he is doing so as we speak (present progressive tense). <S> So you probably want "the dog is birthing puppies", or, more commonly, "the dog is giving birth to puppies".
| The word birth can indeed be used as a verb; however, that usage is somewhat rare.
|
What exactly is the difference between "cool" and "cold"? We usually hear "He is a cool guy" when referring to some hippie or a funky person. However the tone changes dramatically when cool becomes cold . We say "Her behaviour was cold" to mean someone who is unfriendly. What is the exact difference between the words in different contexts, say, temperature, demeanour, etc? Why have they developed a semantic difference despite their similarity? <Q> Originally, cool meant someone who was somewhat standoffish in their demeanour, or someone who does not get too involved - and cold was just a more extreme form of that. <S> As Bill Franke points out, the meaning of cool meaning popular or trendy probably originated with cool jazz in 1945 and began being used to describe people in the 1950s seeing a rise in usage through the 1960s and a large spike in popular usage in the 1980s and 90s: <S> For this reason, " he's a cool guy " in modern English <S> means "He is a trendy (or fashionable) person" rather than "His character is standoffish", whereas the meaning for cold never evolved to mean trendy, and retains its older meaning of someone who is very detached and unemotional. <S> If you want to use cool in the sense of someone who is slightly unemotional, you might prefer to use the idiom <S> He's a cool cat or <S> He's a cool character which both retain the old (non-trendy) meaning of the word cool . <S> Alternatively you can say something like <S> His response was somewhat cold as a less ambiguous alternative to <S> His response was cool . <A> Cold means, "without emotion; unfriendly"; cool means, "not friendly, interested or enthusiastic. <S> " <S> Cool is also informally used to show approval or admiration; that is what happens in the following sentences: <S> You look pretty cool with that new haircut. <S> It's a cool movie. <S> Similar meaning is given to cool in the following sentence. <S> A <S> : We're meeting Jake for lunch and we can go on the yacht in the afternoon. <S> B : <S> Cool! <A> I am bit surprised that all the previous answers to Sultan focus on the meaning of "cool" and "cold" as first of all referring to the personality of people. <S> To me, as a non native speaker, "cool" and "cold" are first of all something denoting temperature. <S> Just like "hot" (which can, similarly, also refer to personality or look). <S> Like a in "cool breeze", or a "cold winter". <S> In this case "cool" and "fresh" as closer. <S> Cold is something more "extreme" (say, closer to 0 °C), like ice (frozen water) or close to that. <S> ;-)
| The difference is that cold generally means that somebody is less friendly than somebody who is cool.
|
Which tense should be used after "once"? Which of the following is correct? I will update you once I reached my home. I will update you once I reach my home. I will update you after I reaching my home. <Q> Among the three samples you have provided, the middle one is correct: I will update you once I reach my home. <S> The first one is wrong because you are mentioning there that you'll do something in the future after <S> you do something in past(which of course doesn't make sense). <S> Same situation arises in the third one. <S> Again, as @StoneyB mentions: get is a much better choice here. <A> The last one is wrong, since you don't say "I reaching my home"; it would be "I am reaching my home." <S> but you don't say "I will update you after I am reaching my home." <S> " I would rather say "once I arrive home," but I think that is a matter of style. <A> According to the Cambridge Dictionary, it is actually possible to do things in the future after having done some in the past (what?!?) <S> : <S> We use once as a conjunction meaning ‘as soon as’ or ‘after’: <S> Once I’ve picked Megan up, I’ll call you. <S> Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adverbs-of-time-and-frequency/once
| The correct one is "I will update you once I reach my home.
|
Is it rude to start a sentence with "First off"? Imagine somebody is trying to achieve something, and explains you what the task is. At some point, you need to make clear what it needs to be done, since the person talking to you doesn't seem to understand what you previously said. Is it rude to start a sentence with "First off"? As another example, suppose somebody is telling you that you said something, when you didn't. Would be rude to answer with "First off, I didn't say that."? <Q> Of course they might be part of a rude statement. <S> How do I post a question on Stack Exchange? <S> First off you need to register for an account. <S> Nothing rude about that. <S> How do I post a question on Stack Exchange? <S> First off, you're a moron and no one is interested in your questions. <S> That would be rude. <S> As StoneyB indicates, the same words might be polite if said in one tone of voice and rude if said in another, etc. <A> It is no ruder or more courteous than 'First' or 'To begin with' or 'In the first place' or 'Let me start by saying'. <S> They are all perhaps a little abrupt. <S> It doesn't really matter which you use. <S> What does matter is your tone of voice and other non-linguistic cues you provide. <A> It isn't rude to lead a sentence with "first off", but take in mind a few other factors: <S> You are telling your conversation partner that you have a thing or two to tell them, and that might very well be interpreted badly: <S> "Oh wow, here he go again.." <S> It's very easy to tone "first off" in a disagreeable manner - even if you didn't mean to disagree strongly.
| These words are not rude of themselves. I'd recommend refraining from using "first off" at all, but of course you are free to use the language the way you like to.
|
"It is with extremely mixed emotions.." Whenever somebody resigns, or does something out of the ordinary, the president at our institution always sends out an email that begins It is with extremely mixed emotions that I announce the resignation of so-and-so. He's leaving to go do another job Z at institute W. I am kind of confused by this kind of statement from a higher up. What does it mean? I imagine one of the following: "I didn't really like him, so it's kinda good he left. Anyway best of luck to him." "Always hated him". Why do people phrase resignation announcements like this, and what are the goals with the ambiguity (in writing "mixed emotions", but without elaborating)? <Q> Normally, the "mixed emotions" comment is intended to be a positive one. <S> The person sending the email is stating that he's sad to see a valuable employee go but happy that the employee found such a wonderful opportunity. <S> Of course, it is entirely possible that the person sending the email isn't happy to see the person go or could care less about the departed employee's happiness. <S> But the polite fiction is that you're always sad to see an employee resign and always happy for the new opportunity the employee found. <A> <A> The mixed emotions is stating that there is more than one way to see this news. <S> It could be taken as good news and bad news <S> would be the politically correct perspective to have. <S> In a way, it could be taken as rude that someone is leaving as that could put out the perception that this isn't a good workplace. <S> At the same time, each person has their choices which should be respected when it comes to where to work. <S> Consider that someone else now has to take on this work <S> so there will be changes that weren't expected. <S> Will this person be happy taking on the new stuff or ticked about having even more to do now? <S> Consider that this person's influence may be gone and thus morale may improve because various people didn't like him and he is finally gone for another side here.
| The kindest interpretation is that the president is sorry to see the employee leave, but happy to see the employee succeeding.
|
"I had better eat something" I was talking with a friend of mine when she said, "I had better eat something and get some sleep." I thought she was saying it was better if she ate something earlier, but that was not what she meant. Why is the past tense used to say something somebody is going to do? What is the difference between "I had better eat something" and "I am going to eat something"? <Q> An englishpage.com article says the recommendation form of had better is used for future events; as in, for example, “You had better unplug the toaster before you try to clean it”, which would transform to “I had better unplug the toaster before I clean it”. <S> An englishgrammarsecrets.com article says: <S> We use “had better” plus the infinitive without “to” to give advice. <S> Although “had” is the past form of “have”, we use “had better” to give advice about the present or future. <A> Had better (as a recommendation or advice) <S> You had better unplug that toaster before you clean it, else you may get a bad shock. <S> Had better not (advice to not do something or face the consequence) <S> You had better not say anything about the accident. <S> For all these circumstances you can also use "am going to", "should do" etc. <S> You shouldn't say anything. <S> You'd better do what I say <S> or else you will get into trouble. <S> When we use "had better", it implies a definite negative effect if the advice or recommendation is not followed. <S> In other cases, if you don't follow the advice something bad may happen, but on the other hand, something good may also happen. <S> However, if "had better" is used, then if you don't follow the advice something bad will definitely happen. <A> "Had better" is an idiom that means "should" in this context. <S> M-W online says this: "— had better or had best : would be wise to", as in " You'd better (= <S> It would be wise for you to ) shut your trap if you want to live to see tomorrow". <S> Idioms don't necessarily conform to grammar rules. <S> Many, if not most, native Anglophones would say "I better" instead of "I'd better" and "You better" instead of "You'd better". <S> Those solecisms are now considered idiomatic English, just the same as " <S> He gave it to John and I". <S> Go figure!
| “I had better eat something” is not in past tense; it is a subjunctive modal expressing a recommendation.
|
"Make a point to" or "make a point of"? Is there any difference between using these expressions? She made a point of taking a vacation in Italy. She made a point to take a vacation in Italy. <Q> Made a point of Meaning :: you are making something or someone into an important topic/matter. <S> to be certain to do something <S> Please don't make a point of Sasha's answer <S> , it was not an urgent matter. <S> She made a point of sending thank you notes to everyone who attended her wedding. <S> Make a point to Meaning :: <S> act purposely or intentionally to be certain to do something <S> Two women are gossiping over a newcomer. <S> One of them says that he hasn't brought many things along with him. <S> He only has clothes and a few other things. <S> The other woman replies: "Maybe he's having his stuff sent." <S> The first one says: "I asked him. <S> Made it a point." <A> The idiomatic phrase is "make a point of doing something" which means "make sure to do something that is important or necessary. <S> " <S> In your case, the sentence would be "She made a point of taking a vacation in Italy." <A> she made a point of taking a walk each day. <S> Make a point followed by infinitive <S> is a perfectly valid expression. <S> But it's used when you want to make a statement about something. <S> For example: "The president made a point to raise those issues tonight making a clear play for..."
| In your case made a point of seems to be the correct one, which according to the NOAD means: make a point of make a special and noticeable effort to do (a specified thing):
|
How to greet in email In my opinion we should always have some type of greeting in every email. Whether it be "Hello (Name)" or "Good Afternoon (Name)" or simply "Dear (Name)", it is always nice to start your email off with a greeting. I am not very clear about when to use which kind of greeting in an email, however. Can anybody please clear up when to use 'dear' or 'Hi/Hello' greetings in emails? <Q> If you want to be polite and formal in English, then you should say something like: <S> Dear Mr. Smith: <S> Dear Ms. Jones: <S> Dear Dr. Jekyll: <S> Dear Prof. Einstein: If you want to be polite and informal, replace the colon (:) with a comma: <S> Dear Mr. Smith, etc. <S> When authors send me a manuscript, regardless what salutation they use to address me, I always start off this way: <S> Hi, Dr Jiang, <S> Hi, Prof Jou, (Almost all my clients are Taiwanese doctors and medical school professors). <S> When I write to my friends, I always start of the same way: <S> Hi, Tam, <S> Hi, Kathy, <S> This is just a stylistic choice, a personal preference. <S> For business letters other than my editing, however, I always use the polite formal style in the first examples. <S> There is no definitive answer to your question, just a recommendation that for serious and important business letters (anything not to a friend or a penpal, and anything not informal), that you use the polite formal or polite informal style. <S> You can find lots of choices in handbooks about how to write letters in English. <S> Be advised, however, that different brands of English prefer different styles. <S> The one that's best is the one you feel most comfortable with and the one that you think works best for any particular letter. <S> The more formal and more polite your initial salutation, the more emotional distance you put between yourself and the person you're writing to. <S> For friends and otherwise informal emails, the same rule of thumb applies: The one that's best is the one you feel most comfortable with and the one that you think works best for any particular letter. <S> Everyone has a different idea about what's good. <A> Greetings, Some very good suggestions have been made about when to use which sort of greeting in an e-mail. <S> I would like to point out that e-mail greetings are also contingent upon company culture : especially for internal e-mail. <S> For example, some companies recommend not even using a greeting at all since this uses up precious time. <S> For writers that only need to send one or two e-mails a day, this is no big deal; however, this can be a time-saver for people dealing in large volumes. <S> Finally, I would also like to add another greeting that hasn't been added thus far: "Greetings,". <S> An example is provided at the very beginning of my post here. <A> As Bill suggests, there is no defined way to greet via email. <S> There are methods that are widely accepted: Hello John, //informal, but can be used informal contexts, e.x. <S> when emailing a member on your team <S> Hello can be interchanged with hi or hey , or left out altogether depending on the mood. <S> Hello is the most formal of the three. <S> If you do not email the person(s) <S> often, you could substitute the greeting with Dear Dear John, It is less common to see this in email, but still appropriate and acceptable. <S> If you are talking to a group of people, you can use <S> Hello all, Hey all, Good morning, <S> Or if it is just two people you are working with directly: John and Joe, <S> If it is someone you have never contacted before, it is commonplace to use Mr, Ms, Mrs, or Dr. More on educational titles <S> Dear Mr. Lincoln, Dear Dr. Brown, <S> If you are still undecided on how to begin your email, you can mimic how they have responded to you in the past, or take a look at some of your other emails and follow off them.
| There are no hard and fast rules about what greetings (salutations) to use in email.
|
Is it necessary to use commas in lists before the conjunction? I have seen many sentences like this: "Capitalism, Socialism, and Anarchism" and this: "She was happy, and cheerful" Do we have to use a comma before "and", or is it incorrect? If it is not, then why? <Q> For two items, the use of a comma between elements of a list is forbidden I would like fish and chips <S> (X) <S> I would like fish, and chips <S> In my experience, Americans and Canadians tend to err on the side of requiring its use; British and Australian English tends to err on not using it. <S> Some people argue that the use (or omission) of the serial comma can cause ambiguities. <S> Both are right, as shown below: Ambiguities arising from omission of the serial comma <S> This book is dedicated to my parents, The Queen and God. <S> This sentence is ambiguous between: The comma is merely separating the three elements "my parents", "The Queen" and "God" and <S> this book is dedicated to all three <S> The comma is used to denote apposition, meaning that this book is dedicated to my parents, who (by the way) are "the Queen" and "God". <S> Ambiguities arising from use of the serial comma <S> This book is dedicated to my mother, The Queen, and God <S> This sentence is ambiguous between The comma denotes a list of the three elements as before and The two commas again denote apposition to suggest that the book is dedicated to my mother (who by the way is the Queen), and also the book is also dedicated to God. <S> From the Wikipedia article : The Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White's Elements of Style, the United States Government Printing Office, most authorities on American English and Canadian English, and some authorities on British English <S> (for example, Oxford University Press and Fowler's Modern English Usage) recommend or require the use of the serial comma. <S> Newspaper style guides (such as those published by The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, The Times newspaper in the United Kingdom, and the Canadian Press) recommend against it. <S> The differences of opinion on the use of the serial comma are well characterized by Lynne Truss in her popularized style guide Eats, Shoots & Leaves: <S> There are people who embrace the Oxford comma, and people who don't, and I'll just say this: never get between these people when drink has been taken. <A> As an ESL, I understood the Oxford/Serial/Harvard comma with this example: <S> Since then I've been careful. <A> Put a comma before and if it’s needed for clarity. <S> If it isn’t, don’t. <A> From the page <S> http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/020204whencommabfand.htm <S> When to Use a Comma before " <S> And" Two specific situations call for the use of a comma before "and. <S> " <S> Thefirst is created when we have three or more items in a series. <S> Thismark of punctuation is called the serial comma . <S> The second situation occurs when "and" is being used to coordinate twoindependent clauses . <S> An independent clause—also known as a mainclause—is a group of words that has a subject and a verb and can standalone as a sentence. <S> The use of the comma would also apply when any of the sevencoordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet) join twoindependent clauses. <S> In your provided phrases, you don't need to use , and anywhere.
| For lists of three or more items, the choice of whether a comma before the final and (called the Oxford comma , Serial comma or Harvard comma ) is contentious. Some people believe it should be mandatory - others forbid its use.
|
"Full blood Italian" or "full blooded Italian"? If I wanted to say I am 100% Italian, which of the following phrases should I use? Full blood Italian Full blooded Italian The reason I am asking is that in Italian, I would use the equivalent of blood . <Q> Full-blooded is an adjective (with the hyphen) meaning thoroughbred or through both parents . <S> I am a full-blooded Italian. <S> I am an Italian and a full-blood. <A> You can use either form. <S> They're both perfectly valid, and will be understood (with the caveat below about a potential misunderstanding). <S> Here are usage figures from Google Books... <S> full-blood Eskimo - 893 results <S> full-blooded Eskimo <S> - 3700 results <S> I chose to search for Eskimo rather than <S> Italian because there's another sense to <S> full-blooded that rarely applies to full-blood ... <S> He let out a full-blooded cry ... <S> where the meaning is forceful, whole-hearted (closely related to hot -blooded - inclined to powerful emotion, passionate; hot-tempered.) <S> The stereotypical Italian is often portrayed as passionate/excitable, so there's more chance of full-blooded Italian being used with / understood as that second meaning. <S> To avoid any potential confusion/ambiguity, therefore, I'd advise going with full-blood Italian . <S> You'll be slightly in the minority (but not in the wrong ), and your intended meaning will always be understood. <S> EDIT: Here are usage figures for a couple of similar constructions, showing that there's no "grammatical principle" involved in whether such "adjectival" usages are based on a noun (blood) , or verb (blooded) ... <S> soft-top car (665); soft-topped car <S> (40) warm-blood animals (3K); warm-blooded animals (190K) <A>
| Either of the following should be correct. I would say I'm a full-blooded Italian.
|
What does "I am getting confused" mean? If somebody who is speaking with me says, "I am getting confused." what does that mean? I would understand that as "somebody thinks I am somebody else," but since the topic is not that, I don't understand exactly what that sentence would mean. Is there another way of saying "I am getting confused."? <Q> "I am confused" means "I do not understand." <S> From <S> The Free Dictionary : <S> confused <S> [kənˈfjuːzd]adj feeling or exhibiting an inability to understand; bewildered <S> A more common phrasing this (in my experience) is: <S> I'm starting to get confused. <S> This is a polite way of saying you've strayed into an area that they don't understand, and would like you to explain it differently or perhaps slow down. <S> This also carries the implication that their confusion began recently; for example if you've been discussing something for an hour <S> it's safe to assume that they're not confused about everything <S> you've said, but that something you've said recently has confused them. <S> To address the source of your misunderstanding: You mentioned that your guess as to what "I am getting confused" meant was " <S> somebody thinks I am somebody else. <S> " <S> If you actually want to say "somebody thinks I am somebody else", you would say: I am often confused with Michael Jordan. <S> The with is very important; when you are confused with someone else, that means that very often people think you are that person. <S> If this is something that has happened only once, not as a recurring pattern, you could say: She confused me with [x]. <S> Or if the event is still occurring, you could say: I am being confused with [x]. <S> Though this is unlikely, because usually if someone mistakes you for someone else, you clear the matter up immediately (that is, you'd tell the person they're wrong and the confusion would end before you would turn to someone else and tell them what's happening). <A> You can confuse something with something else in Merriam-Webster's sense 3c there - to fail to differentiate from an often similar or related other ( e.g. confuse money with comfort ) . <S> But if someone is confused, that's normally in one of these three closely-related senses as given by thefreedictionary ... <S> 1 <S> : feeling or exhibiting an inability to understand; bewildered; perplexed 2: in a disordered state; mixed up; jumbled 3: (Social Welfare) lacking sufficient mental abilities for independent living, esp through old age ... <S> where obviously sense #3 is unlikely to be intended with <S> " I am confused" . <S> Sense #2 is normally only used of things , rather than people, so <S> the default interpretation for OP's example would be sense #1. <A> The speaker is basically saying I don't understand. <S> Or I am having trouble understanding what you are telling me. <S> In my experience, it is more common to hear someone in the U.S. say: <S> I'm confused. <S> But the way you mentioned that phrase is fine too. <A> Specifically "I am getting confused" indicates that they initially understood what you were trying to say (or thought they did), but <S> the more you talked the more they did not understand what you where trying to convey. <S> Generally, you would then back up a few sentences and try to explain what you meant. <S> It has nothing to do with them thinking you are someone else. <S> They have simply stopped understanding what you are talking about. <S> In this sentence "getting" means "entering the state of" or "becoming" confused.
| ; perplexed "I am getting confused" has basically the same meaning; the implication is that they are in the progress of becoming confused ("I'm beginning to not understand").
|
How to tell animals to go away? In my language we have separate words to chase off each (common) animal, like "tchibe" for dogs, "sheetz" for cats, and "ish" for birds. I can think of only one corresponding word in English: one time I saw Marge from "The Simpsons" telling her cat to "shoo". Is that the word I'm looking for? Could you use it as a mildly insulting slang (more fun than insulting) to address another person ? <Q> Shoo works for animals and people. <S> It is, as you suggested, mildly insulting to tell a person to shoo. <S> When telling a person to shoo, there is usually another form of telling them to go away accompanied with it: Shoo! <S> Go away! <S> If using it in a more playful manner, you could say: Shoo! <S> Go on, shoo! <S> Which is accompanied by the "go away" hand gesture (the opposite of "come here"). <S> The hand gesture is not required. <S> Alternatives that could be used <S> : Go away <S> Leave me alone <S> Be gone (uncommon) <A> : used to drive away unwanted or annoying people, animals, etc. <S> And probably it could be applied for people (e.g. asking someone unwanted to leave). <A> Besides the general "shoo" there is also "scat" which is only used for cats. <S> Also, you could use "git", "scoot", "scram", and "skedaddle", although those are probably more for troublesome humans, often children.
| Shoo is adequate, but you could also use: Go away!
|
Is it idiomatically correct to say "Her voice sounded lewd"? I googled for this sentence, but I surprisingly found very few results. Is this sentence idiomatically wrong? Also, is there an adjective that is related to both "thickness, oiliness" and vulgarity or sexuality , something similar to "Her oily smile" but only related to lewdness ? The context where I want to use this is the following: The interior was all red, and the women were all heavily made-up. Their voices were lewd. <Q> I would say that idiomatically speaking, no, this is not a viable phrase. <S> I've never come across this. <S> On the same token it is mechanically correct because it's an adjective. <S> You should therefore feel free to go ahead and use it and join the small ranks of other people that you found using it, too. <S> With regard to your second query, I think the word you're looking for is "husky": <S> The interior was all red, and the women were all heavily made-up. <S> Their voices were husky . <A> Google Ngram Viewer shows hits for "lewd voice" and " lewd voices " from 1800 until today, so it certainly isn't unusual. <S> If you've read enough English literature, you'll find myriad phrases that make sense in context, are grammatical, are semantically acceptable (even if the metaphor is a stretch), and aren't necessarily idiomatic in the sense that they're commonplace expressions. <S> There's nothing wrong with the English, but that doesn't mean that everyone reading it will like it, in which case they will say "It's not good" or "It's not proper" or "It's weird". <S> I don't think it's weird at all. <S> It conjures a clear image for me. <S> You can probably use smarmy or unctuous or lubricious for "oily" related to lewdness. <A> Lewd can be used as adjective to describe (for example) <S> photos, remarks, song parodies, laughters, or jokes. <S> If I would read "Their voices were lewd. <S> " I would understand that as "Their voices were obscene." probably said in a figurative way. <A> The phrase the "interior was all red, and the women were all heavily made-up" focuses the reader on the women's faces. <S> "Their voices were lewd" further focuses on the source of their voices -- their mouths. <S> "Lewd" has several connotations. <S> The author is leading the reader but still letting them form their own conception of what a lewd voice might be, and what it implies of the women. <S> I think it's a fantastic usage. <A> Gramatically speaking, it sounds correct, we are not just assuming that is correct, but it can also be understood just by pronouncing it either from a sentence or a statement.
| It's not an idiom, but it is certainly a valid usage.
|
Does using a colon (:) correctly combine these 2 sentences? I'm asking about the following construction. I'm not sure whether the way I use a colon to combine my sentences is correct. Here, I would like to summarize the reasons for my extension request : as necessity of additional time for rectifying the algorithms, lengthy literature survey than expected and etc. <Q> There are a few problems with your sentence. <S> The colon is only one. <S> Here, I would like to summarize the reasons for my extension request : as necessity of additional time for rectifying the algorithms, lengthy literature survey than expected and etc. <S> The first problem is that there is no space before the colon, only after the colon. <S> The second is that the list of reasons is likely to be too long, which will make the sentence difficult to read and understand. <S> I'd recommend that you use a different kind of list. <S> For example: I have four <S> [However many there are] reasons for requesting an extension. <S> First, I need more time to rectify the algorithms. <S> Second, reviewing the literature is taking much longer than I expected. <S> Third, yada yada yada. <S> Fourth, blah blah blah. <S> You can also choose to use a bulleted list instead: I have four reasons for requesting an extension: <S> I need more time to rectify the algorithms. <S> reviewing the literature is taking much longer than I expected. <S> Yada yada yada. <S> Blah blah blah. <A> I like the old manga series: UFO Robot Grendizer, Mazinger Z, and Steel Jeeg. <S> Probably, "as necessity of additional […]" should be "the necessity of additional […]"; also "lengthy literature survey than expected" should probably be rephrased. <A> You would use a colon or semi-colon when joining 2 independent clauses. <S> But in your example, the second clause as necessity of additional time for rectifying the algorithms, lengthy literature survey than expected and etc. refers to the reasons for summarizing mentioned in the first clause. <S> Also the first clause is not independent (able to stand by itself). <S> So you should use a comma instead. <S> Here, I would like to summarize the reasons for my extension request, due to the necessity of additional time for rectifying the algorithms, lengthy literature survey than expected and etc. <S> I used due to because the second clause is explaining or expanding on the first clause.
| Colons are used to introduce a phrase that explains what previously said, and a list.
|
When to use "be" in a sentence? We'll be late! We'll late! You'll be so tired in the morning. You'll so tired in the morning. It will be very pleasant for you. It will very pleasant for you. I'll be all right. I'll all right. To what is be pointing, in the above sentences? Are those sentences correct without be ? adding 4 sentences which doesn't contain will. You're not big enough to be a soldier How's it feel to be four, Meggie? He was supposed to be at the forge all day. I was brought up from my cradle to be a priest To what is be pointing, in the above sentences? <Q> Will (or its contracted form ’ll ) is an auxiliary verb (your teachers may call this a helping or helper verb) which expresses only future tense; it must be complemented by a lexical verb in the unmarked infinitive form ( be ), which carries the meaning. <S> We're late ( present ) ... <S> We'll be late ( future ) <S> You're so tired ( present ) ... <S> You'll be so tired ( future ) <S> It is very pleasant ( present ) ... <S> It will be very pleasant ( future ) <S> I'm all right ( present ) ... <S> I'll be all right ( future ) <S> You cannot omit the be . <S> There is also a lexical verb will , but it means something different and is conjugated differently ( to will , will , wills , willed , willing instead of — , <S> will , will , would , <S> — ): <S> He seemed to will the ball into the net. <S> ( He seemed to score the goal by mental force. ) <S> The European powers willed this pointless war. <S> ( They brought it about deliberately. ) <A> Will is an auxiliary verb, used to express the future. <S> It cannot be used on its own. <A> Be is used to show the existence of something for example "I will be there. <S> " It also shows future when used with can, <S> e.g "It cannot be possible for you to do so. <S> In past, it is used as WAS and WERE; in present, it is used as IS, AM and ARE; and in future it can be used with will. <S> BE can be used in passive voice of all tenses as in this sentence.
| " Be is used in present, past and future also.
|
How can I say that a program is not "error prone" and is "error resistant"? I'm developing a custom programming language and I want to say that it helps people write programs that are not error prone . Even better, it helps people write programs resistant to errors , so programmers could be more sure that errors will not occur than in other languages. How can I describe the programs that can be written in this language? <Q> How about... <S> Your language helps write robust and fault-tolerant software . <A> You can say The X programing language will help developers write fewer error prone programs. <S> The X programing language will help programmers write less-error-prone software. <A> The word "forgiving" is one of the most used for this context. <S> It's slightly informal, but could easily be used in more formal situations if, for example, you were listing qualities about the programming language or writing a short paragraph about it. <S> "Forgiving" (in the context of programming or user input) means something is more accepting of small errors made by the user, and more friendly to users with less experience. <S> "Robust" is a more formal word, and can be issued as a general statement about something, but is typically reserved for cases where something has multiple qualities that can be described this way, and that can stand up to the rigors of testing. <S> Examples: <S> "It's a very forgiving programming language." <S> "The software is very forgiving to the user."
| "The software is very forgiving to coding errors."
|
Can the meaning of "cost" correctly be used to refer to "time" here? In the following construction, can I use costed to mean consumed ? Working through these steps cost much time, but it was worthwhile to get a good outcome. <Q> The meaning is perfectly okay - <S> it's an example of the extremely common Time <S> is Money metaphor... <S> I spent the afternoon [doing such-and-such] <S> The grammar is wrong though - it should be cost , not costed ... <S> When the verb cost means to be priced at or to cause loss or expenditure , it is uninflected in the past tense and as a past participle. <S> What that's saying is to cost <S> is an Irregular Verb . <S> The uninflected form (cost) is used for past as well as present tense in all except one specific case . <S> The "regular, inflected" past tense form costed is only (and always) used when the verb has the modern sense of quantified/calculated the cost of [something] . <S> It's "worth" pointing out that although he obviously didn't realise it, OP's own worthwhile reflects exactly the same metaphoric usage ( worth = <S> has the value of , and while references the duration of time spent ). <S> OP's alternative consumed <S> is a completely different metaphor based on eaten <S> = taken [in] = used up . <S> Not specifically part of OP's question, but this usage of much time wouldn't sound very natural to most Anglophones today <S> (it's a bit archaic). <S> We'd more likely say something like a lot of time, or many days. <A> As I understand your phrase, I would say: Working with these steps took a lot of time, but they were worthwhile to get a good outcome. <S> took <S> (past tense of take ) refers to what occurred over a period of time. <S> For example: It took 3 hours to get into the theater. <S> It takes several days to receive the package. <S> In your phrase, I prefer a lot of instead of much , but I can't say if much is incorrect or not. <A> You can use either cost or consumed , but I don't think they mean quite the same thing. <S> Consumed simply means something took a lot of time. <S> My wife is an artisan, and some of her crafts are very time-consuming , in that they take days (if not weeks) to complete. <S> In your sentence, however, cost implies that not only did it take a lot of time, but that time was detrimental somehow. <S> It could mean that workers were being paid (so it cost a lot of money), or it could mean that a project fell behind schedule (so we lost some time in our planned schedule). <S> But if you only want to infer that the activity was painstaking and time-consuming, then consumed might be the better word.
| So, if you want to imply that the extra time was worth some cost, cost is the better word to used.
|
When should I use "when" and "while"? But you can't find anything while you're crying. But you can't find anything when you're crying. I'll tell you about it while Frank saddles the horse. I'll tell you about it when Frank saddles the horse. When should I use when , and when while ? Are these sentences correct? <Q> The main difference between these two words is that when usually means at or immediately after some specific point in time , whereas while always means during some [usually, extended ] period of time . <S> Thus, for example, if we take an activity often considered so quick it happens at a " point in time"... <S> You should cover your mouth when sneezing. <S> ( 3460 hits in Google Books ) <S> You should cover your mouth while sneezing. <S> ( 131 hits ) ... <S> but if we take an activity that lasts [a lot!] <S> longer... <S> You should not smoke while pregnant. <S> ( 2940 hits ) <S> You should not smoke when pregnant. <S> ( 137 hits ) ... <S> the when/while preference reverses. <S> Without more context (how long/how often do you cry?) <S> , there's nothing to choose between OP's first two examples. <S> While would be more likely if you're crying right now, but either would probably be accepted in most contexts. <S> Also note that in... <S> He opened the door when I knocked <S> He opened the door while I knocked ... <S> the when version means immediately after (a perfectly normal situation). <S> The while version forces you to imagine some unlikely contrived context where the knocking and the opening are taking place at the same time . <S> Thus in OP's second pair of examples... <S> 1: <S> while always means <S> I'll tell you at the same time as Frank saddles the horse 2: when strongly implies <S> I won't tell you until [after] Frank starts/finishes saddling the horse ... <S> where in #2 only the specific context distinguishes whether the intention is to start telling at the same time as Frank starts saddling, or [immediately] after he's finished. <S> Finally, note that when can often be paraphrased as on any of various occasions when , whereas while may be used to mean during the one and only timespan when something is happening . <A> In the second pair of sentences, there is a difference in meaning. <S> Using while focuses on the actual time spent doing the saddling, and using when focuses on the point at which the saddling action starts. <S> Therefore, if you use while , my understanding is that the saddling has already started, you are going to tell me something right now, and you will be able to tell me most or all of it before the saddling is complete. <A> X when Y or when Y, X means that if Y happens, X happens. <S> Y will be the start of something or an event that doesn't have a duration. <S> X <S> while Y or while Y, X means that for the duration of Y happening, X happens. <S> Y will be a continuous activity or something that has a duration.
| If you use When , my understanding is that the saddling will begin at some point in the future, and that point is the point at which you will tell me something. In the context that you gave, While means "during the time that something is happening"; When means "at the time that something happens". In the first pair of sentences, because the action of "crying" is generally understood to last for some time, the distinction is minimal; the words can be used interchangeably.
|
How should I ask a polite question to my manager? I found a new technology which could help me in my company. I want to send a message to my manager to have her approval to use that technology. I wrote this: I am reading about it and It seems useful. I would like to ask you if you allow me to use it (if we see it could help us). Do you think there is a better way to say that? <Q> This answer is more about how to convince your manager to try a new technology than it is about English language usage. <S> It could potentially improve our productivity and communication by 25%. <S> There is a free version available that we could try on our next project, and there is very little setup involved. <S> May I have your approval to investigate this opportunity further? <A> If you use the modal verb "could", it would sound more politely. <S> The new technology seems useful to our company. <S> I would like to know if you could allow me to look into it further to see if it could help us. <A> I would rephrase it as follows: <S> I am reading about it, and it seems useful. <S> May I ask you for your permission to try it, and see if it could help us? <A> As a manager, there are two ways to approach me. <S> The first is: <S> I came across this new technology which could help us with _ _ . <S> Can I put together a small project demo project to see if it would work? <S> I expect to spend about X days on it. <S> The second is: <S> I came across this new technology <S> and I put together a small demo project at home. <S> Can I show you how it works? <S> The first approach is to request regular company time to do some research. <S> The second is saying that you've already spent your own time doing some research and want to show what you've found. <S> If you have the capability to research it on your own time, go that route as it shows that you are taking your career very seriously. <S> Now some managers will happily include whatever the latest tech is on a project without a real proof of concept. <S> I'm not that guy. <S> I want to eliminate as much risk as possible so the only way I'm going to say yes is if I see that someone has explored the good and bad things about the tech <S> (and there are always downsides). <S> If you can prove to me that you really understand it then I'll allow it to be used.
| When introducing a new technology, I find it works well to: explain how the company will benefit disclose costs and potential risks make it easy to try and back out if it doesn't work For example: I am currently reading up on technology XYZ.
|
Use "accede" or "agree"? I just want to know whether the word accede in the following sentence makes it formal or would it be better if I swap the word accede with agree in spoken language? When my friends told me about the trip they had planned, I acceded to it without much further thought. PS: I am trying to apply newly learnt words while I have a conversation. <Q> While I disagree with @Matt that accede would not necessarily be understood by many native speakers, I will agree that its usage is uncommon, and it is probably considered an "unnecessarily highbrow" sort of word. <S> Also, accede has a connotation that may be undesired: it is usually used in the context of "giving in", that is, changing your position as the result of a demand or strong request. <S> Whatever you are acceding to was not your first choice or preference. <S> With that in mind, "acceding to (their trip)" is probably not a suitable phrase unless (a) they really wanted you to go and (b) you had other plans originally. <A> Although accede is a valid word, it is exceptionally rarely used, and "I accede" would not be understood by many native speakers: <S> If you needed a formal alternative to agree , you could perhaps choose: I concur (formal, perhaps a little pompous) <S> I consent (esp. to agree to something in a legal context) <S> I permit <S> it (i.e. to give permission for it to happen) <S> In spoken language however most of the above would come across as excessively formal. <S> Most native speakers would simply go with agree : <S> I agreed to it without further thought. <A> It does NOT mean to agree "naturally." <A> To add to environments where this might be appropriately used - Accede is used in legal context quite commonly. <S> I had to look this up as counsel in a trial used it a few times. <S> For example in this way - 'I accede to your proposition'. <S> It does imply 'giving in' rather than readily agreeing, as previous posts have mentioned.
| To "accede" is to be persuaded by someone else, against your own instincts.
|
Should you use singular or plural verb in this type of sentence? Rule 7 at this grammar website says: Rule 7 Sometimes the subject is separated from the verb by words such as along with, as well as, besides, or not. Ignore these expressions when determining whether to use a singular or plural verb. Examples: The politician, along with the newsmen, is expected shortly . Excitement, as well as nervousness, is the cause of her shaking . So, it looks like we usually ignore these expressions: as well as , along with , besides , etc., when determining whether to use a singular or plural verb. But if the sentence is this: Suresh along with his friends was arrested by the police asthey were involved in the sting operation. It sounds a little bit eccentric to me. Should were be the verb followed by friends [plural]? Please clear my doubt. <Q> I've thought about this for a bit <S> and it seems to me that the sentence isn't right as it stands. <S> I think you have three choices: (a1) <S> Suresh, along with his friends, was arrested by the police <S> ** <S> because he was involved in the sting operation. <S> OR (a2) <S> Suresh, as well as his friends, was arrested by the police <S> ** <S> because he was involved in the sting operation. <S> (b) Suresh and his friends were arrested by the police because they were involved in the sting operation. <S> NOTE: <S> Maybe we can say that "along with his friends" is synonymous with "as well as his friends", in which case, setting it off with commas requires a singular verb for the the first sentence. <S> You should also change that ambiguous as to an unambiguous because . <A> Singular agreement is appropriate if the main point of the sentence is that Suresh was arrested, and that he just happened to be accompanied by his friends. <S> It would make the point clearer if the phrase ‘along with his friends’ was placed between commas. <S> If the point of the sentence is to convey the fact that they were all arrested, then that is best achieved by writing ‘Suresh and his friends were arrested . . .’ <A> The rule is that whether a subject is singular or plural has nothing to do with subordinate clauses. <S> So when considering, "Suresh, along with his friends, was arrested ...", the "along with his friends" is irrelevant. <S> If you just left that out, you'd have, "Suresh was arrested". <S> Singular subject, singular verb. <S> But I guess you understand that part. <S> In the second part of the sentence, "... as they were arrested", the subject is not "Suresh". <S> The subject is "they". <S> And "they" is plural, so it requires a plural verb. <S> You're getting confused because the "they" presumably means "Suresh and his friends". <S> Not "Suresh, along with his friends". <S> There's no rule that says that such a clause must have the same subject as the main clause in the sentence. <S> Suppose instead, for example, the author had written, "Suresh was arrested as he and his friends were caught in a sting operation." <S> "He and his friends" is not the same as "Suresh". <S> Or, "Suresh, along with his friends, was arrested as the police conducted a sting operation." <S> Clearly "Suresh, along with his friends" are not "the police". <S> This is a totally different subject. <S> Or, "Suresh was arrested in Bombay while his brother in London was sleeping. <S> " <S> Two totally different people doing totally different things. <S> Just because in this particular case the subject of the second clause happens to be the same group of people referred to by the subject of the first clause plus a modifier, doesn't mean that GRAMMATICALLY <S> they are the same. <S> Don't confuse what is factually correct with what is grammatically correct. <S> Like if I said, "The people who assassinated Senator Jones are part of a vast conspiracy", and in fact the truth is that Senator Jones was murdered by one man acting alone <S> , that does not mean that the correct grammar of the sentence is, "The people who assassinated Senator Jones IS part ...", because there's really only one person. :-) <A> Do not be confuse of wit these phrases-- as along with, as well as, besides, not, etc.. <S> It is one of the concern of subject verb agreement. <S> Just omit those ambiguous words and focus to the subject before these words mentioned above. <S> Suresh,along with his friends was arrested by the police as they were involved in the sting operation. <S> You need to focus the word Suresh in which that this noun is singular so we also need singular verb.
| We need to use singular verb if the subject is singular but if the subject is plural we also need plural subject.
|
Can prickle have the inanimate experiencer? (Harry and Hagrid had entered in a wand shop) For some reason, the back of his neck prickled . The very dust and silence in here seemed to tingle with some secret magic. (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) Rodet’s 21st Century Thesaurus and Rodet’s Desk Thesaurus say prickle is the synonym of tingle ; and the word seems to have to take one who experience the tingling, yet two inanimate objects are preceded. Can this word have the inanimate experiencer? <Q> I'm not quite sure what you mean by inanimate experiencer but <S> the difference I see with those two words is as such. <S> Prickle can be used both to describe a sensation and also to describe an object that causes that sensation. <S> E.g. a cactus feels, or is, prickly because it prickles you when you touch it. <S> Whereas I never hear people say that and object is tingly . <S> You can describe a sensation as tingly but not an object. <S> Furthermore the idea of something tingling you is an altogether much softer, more gentle sensation than something prickling you. <S> is the kind of word you might also use to describe excitement or soft vibrations on the skin. <S> As we walked into the concert every part of me was tingling with excitement. <S> This expresses the idea of restless animation flowing through the body. <S> Prickle can have darker connotations, related to the verb to prick , like when something sharp goes into your arm you can say: The spine of the rose pricked me Something that has perhaps a spiky and coarse texture. <S> Think of how English speakers call the Nopal cactus of Mexico the ' Prickly pear ' <A> The very dust and silence in here seemed to tingle with some secret magic. <S> The word <S> very is a key part of this sentence, which essentially says, <S> There was so much magic in here, even the dust and the silence seemed to tingle with magic. <S> Collins lists, among its definitions of <S> very : <S> used in metaphors to emphasize the applicability of the image to the situation described <S> In other words, getting back to your intitial question, no , inanimate objects don't usually "tingle" with magic, but this room is so enchanted, that these very ordinary things (dust and silence) seemed to tingle with magic. <S> The fact that the verb tingled is being applied in such an "unusual" way is not a mistake; in fact, it is quite intentional, because it helps the reader picture a room that has an aura of enchantment and wonder. <S> Also, it's worth noting the significance of the word seemed . <S> When included in a sentence, seem can help stretch the applicability of a verb beyond its normal limits. <S> The weather was so nice, even the clouds seemed to sing. <S> The haunted house was so isolated, even its empty rooms seemed to urge us away. <S> although, when speaking figuratively and metaphorically, words such as <S> very <S> and seemed aren't required , because they can be inferred from the context : <S> I was so hungry <S> , I could hear the pastries screaming my name. <S> which doesn't mean I was hallucinating, it simply means: <S> I was so hungry, it seemed like the very pastries were screaming my name. <A> Prickle is only sometimes a very loose synonym of tingle . <S> The verb usage derives from the noun prickle (a small, sharp pointed object, such as a thorn) , and verb to prick <S> (pierce with a sharp point; puncture) . <S> As a verb, prickle has several related meanings and usages, including both intransitive (to stick out or stand up like prickles) , and intransitive (to have or feel a pricking or prickling sensation; to tingle, and to affect with a prickling sensation) . <S> It's idle speculation whether in OP's precise context <S> the intended meaning is that the [hairs on the] back of his neck adopted a more "outward-pointing" orientation (as goosebumps - reflex erection of hairs of the skin in response to cold or emotional stress or skin irritation ), or that they gave Harry a prickling sensation. <S> Grammatically, either interpretation is possible; semantically, it makes no real difference. <S> Thus: [The snake's] forked tongue tasted the air <S> My knee hurts <S> My eyes have seen the glory of the Lord His body moved, <S> his ears heard , his mouth spoke etc., etc. <A> Tingle can be used when talking of a body part. <S> The cold hair made her face tingle. <S> The same is true for prickle . <S> Her eyes prickled with tears. <S> Tingle with is normally used referred to people, as in "She was tingling with excitement. <S> " In the text you quoted, it is used figuratively.
| Prickling implies a spike or a sharper sensation whereas tingle As to whether a "non-conscious" subject, such as the back of the neck , can be used with an "experiential verb" (which would normally imply "awareness" on the part of the subject having the experience), the answer is that parts of the body can, if they have the relevant sensory capability .
|
What’s the meaning of ‘five deep’? Again at eight o’clock, when the dark lanes of the Forties were lined five deep with throbbing taxi-cabs, bound for the theratre district, I felt a sinking in my heart. (F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby) What’s the meaning of ‘five deep’? <Q> It means there were 5 taxis next to each other like |||||.If <S> it was 5 long <S> it would mean they were in a line like -----. <A> The meaning will vary depending on context. <S> While the quotation implies a perspective looking across the road, it doesn't literally need to be so. <S> If you wrote: The detective was trying to get through the crowd that was now five deep with angry onlookers. <S> Here it's front to back (from the perspective of the detective), not side by side. <S> So from the perspective of the speaker it would be five (somethings) in his line of sight. <A> For example in the image on the left, it's hard to get a precise count, but it looks like you could say, "The crowd was packed at least nine deep along the parade route. <S> " In the image on the right, though, it looks like the crowd is "two deep" – if that much – but the "n-deep" expression isn't used very much when talking about crowds that are sparse, where there is plenty of open space to mingle around.
| As others have said, the expression provides a quantitative description of the width of something, and it's often used when people (or something else, like taxis) are crowded together.
|
"Found" or "have found"? Present perfect vs. simple past This is a quote from a website: Are you looking for responsible and competent Russian translators you can rely on? Great news: you found them ! Which tense is more appropriate here, you have found them or you found them ? <Q> Most educated British English speakers would too. <S> Most American English speakers would say " You found them! " <S> The appropriate tense is a matter of dialect, not grammar. <S> Most native speakers don't know how to choose tenses based on the sequence of tenses published in grammar books. <S> They rely on what they learned to say at their mother's knee. <S> All of us do that most of the time because we speak almost automatically and usually without thinking too much about how we say it <S> : that's the hallmark of fluency. <S> Having to think hard about what to say and how to say it annoys listeners. <S> That's one of the major complaints Obama supporters and detractors made about him right before and right after the first election in 2008: he wasn't glib when he answered questions. <A> To my American brain "You found them!" is more emphatic. <S> When I read "You have found them!" <S> there is a connotation that this is more ordinary and perhaps accidental than the first construction. <A> I would say "You found it." <S> and I think most Americans would say that. <S> British English uses the present perfect tense in cases where American English would use the simple past tense. <S> The difference between "You found it." <S> and "You have found it. <S> " is the same difference there is between "Mario arrived home." and "Mario has arrived home. <S> " If I say "Mario arrived home. <S> " I am not saying where Mario is in this moment, while when I say "Mario has arrived home. <S> " I am saying "Mario arrived home; he is still at home."
| I would say " You've found them! "
|
Is "Nanjing" as likely to be understood as "Nanking"? When describing the city in China, is the spelling "Nanjing" as likely to be understood by the general population of native English speakers as "Nanking" is? An examination of Google NGrams indicates that "Nanjing" has recently overtaken "Nanking", but I suspect that what people who write books use, and what ordinary people use, are two different things. <Q> I believe Nanjing is more popular now and widely used. <S> Below passage is extracted from Wikipedia with a slight alteration in italic. <A> I regret to say that in the US “ordinary people” probably have no occasion to use either. <S> Americans’ knowledge of even their own geography is extraordinarily poor. <S> I’d be willing to bet that if you picked ten people off a US street and asked them to name all the Chinese cities they’d heard of you <S> ’d get three: <S> Beijing (older folks might say Peking or Peiping), because they hear that regularly on the news, and Shanghai and Hong Kong, because those show up in lots of movies. <S> Perhaps the generation which went through WWII will know more; but there are very few of them left. <S> In any case, what you want to look at it is not what’s in books, but what’s on the news; and I think most broadcast, cable and internet sources use the Pinyin spellings these days. <A> Many old romanizations are ad-hoc renderings based on Cantonese or whatever the local language of the city is/was as perceived by native speakers of various European languages, whereas the new ones are based on the modern, standardized Mandarin Chinese romanization system known as pinyin. <S> The US started using the Mandarin version officially around the same time as recognizing the Peoples Republic of China in the 1970s. <S> The old ones are still around in various places, including the names of many Chinese restaurants in the US. <S> They're even used by Chinese people in China into recent years, such as the name of "Canton Tower" even though the English-language name of the city is Guangzhou now. <S> Most likely, many Americans think that Peking, Beijing, Canton, Guangzhou, Nanking, and Nanjing are 6 different cities. <A> In Chinese, "Nan" means south, and "jing" means capital, so Nanjing means southern capital. <S> If you understand this, you shouldn't have difficulty recognizing "Nanking" as a variant of Nanjing. <S> In contrast, Bei means north, so Beijing means northern capital. <S> But in the old "romanization" system, it was rendered as "Peking."
| Its present name( Nanjing ) means "Southern Capital" and was widely romanized as Nankin and Nanking until the Pinyin language reform, after which Nanjing was gradually adopted as the standard spelling of the city's name in most languages that use the Roman alphabet.
|
Which words to use when adding another people to the "To" list of the email conversation I would have tried "Added Angela and Peter to the conversation", but that does not refer the the fact that this conversation is over the email, and "Added Angela and Peter to the loop", but that would be only appropriate in a informal/corporate email types. Is there a more standard way and preferably shorter way to express the fact of adding other people to the email recipient list? <Q> For most emails where I add a name to the list of recipients, I let the “CC:” line among the addressees stand for that fact, and don't mention it specially. <S> If I were to mention it, and wanted to do so briefly and unobtrusively, I'd add a line like “Added CC: Angela, Peter” at the beginning or end. <S> More often, when I add a name to the list, it is for a particular reason, and I will address a paragraph or sentence to that person <S> (eg: “Angela, please note XYZ”). <S> In that case it is redundant to say names have been added. <A> My preference is simply: + <S> Angela, Peter Sally, thanks for sending over the TPS reports... <S> Some email clients (e.g. Google Inbox) will actually recognize this format and add the relevant people to the conversation from your address book. <A> If you are adding someone to an e-mail conversation and that person is known by all others on the e-mail, then it is most likely understood why that person is added. <S> However, if you are adding someone who is not known to all recipients but is a decision maker or someone you would like to contribute to the conversation, you should clearly point that out at the top of the message. <S> For example: "Added Angela Brown, our Manager to comment on this subject." <A> It be could useful to list those who receive the email when the recipient list shows just the email addresses, and you want to be sure the others know exactly who is receiving the email. <S> Suppose that the email address is apaderno@gmail.com <S> ; somebody could think that is the email address of Adele Paderno, when that is the email address used by Alberto Paderno. <S> If you need to make that clear, you could add a line like the one I shown.
| You can simply say "Added Angela and Peter to recipient list" but as @jwpat7 said, the list of the recipients is normally visible to everybody who receives the email.
|
"not to know A from B" VS "not to know a B from a bull's foot"? I've been doing some research and I came across the idioms "not to know A from B" and "not to know a B from a bull's foot". As far as I know they seem to have the same meaning "to be ignorant" or "to know nothing". But I believe that somehow the 2nd one is more emphatic than the 1st one, but this is just my personal feeling. I'd like to know what do you think about this. Are they the same? <Q> Short answer: They are the same. <S> "not to know a B from a bull's foot" might be used in some rural places, or some non-USA places, but I've never heard of it. <S> Other similar phrases (besides the "his ass from his elbow" mentioned above are "he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground" and "he doesn't know shit from Shinola". <S> Shinola is or was a brand of shoe polish. <S> It's really a difference in where they can be said. <S> I suspect that somebody wanted to say "shit from Shinola" in a place where that would be a dirty word, so he changed it to "A from B" to clean it up. <S> Even if that's not what really happened, I would prefer using these in this order: <S> shit from Shinola <S> his ass from a hole in the ground his ass from his elbow A from B <S> That is, I will use the highest one on the list that is compatible with the place I'm at and people I'm with. <S> I can't imagine myself using "A from B"--If <S> I were someplace where I couldn't say one of the other ones, I wouldn't say anything like that. <S> The point of this sort of phrasing is in the humor. <S> In fact, if there is any difference at all in them, "A from B" might be stronger, because the person saying it is insisting on calling this guy dumb without a bit of humor lightening it up. <S> Ignore <S> the fact that in real life it is easier to distinguish one's ass from one's elbow than it is to distinguish one's ass from a hole in the ground. <S> And it's harder than both of those to distinguish shit from Shinola. <A> While I agree that the two phrases have the same meaning, I'd suggest that they do not exactly mean "to be ignorant" or "to know nothing". <S> In both cases not only is ignorance asserted, but lack of perception or judgement (common sense) as well. <S> As has been pointed out, the items being compared are obviously different, although the "sh** from Shinola" is slightly different, since Shinola was a brown shoe polish, and might be mistaken for the other, except for the smell. <S> It was the alliteration which made the saying popular. <S> An illustration of this is the use of the construction in specialized fields of knowledge, where ignorance of the difference between two subjects would not be obvious to non-practitioners. <S> For instance http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/david-cameron-doesnt-know-the-difference-between-middlesbrou asserts that "David Cameron Doesn’t Know The Difference Between Middlesbrough And Newcastle". <S> Well, neither do I, frankly, and I doubt anyone will hold it against me, but it matters to British that their Prime Minister doesn't. <A> My father, Geoff Hyles, used the "B from bull's foot" expression all the time. <S> He was a farmer/grazier in the Queanbeyan/Canberra district. <S> But he used it more as a justification for (typically) the city person's lack of knowledge/empathy/uderstanding than as a criticism of that person. <S> A city person, one who did not understand the ways and life of a country/rural person. <S> " <S> The country folks has pleasures wot the city folks don't knows. <S> " Or, "He doesn't know which end the grass goes in. <S> "It's an old expression but probably has more relevance today than ever before. <S> 100 years ago most Australian families had relatives who were farmers - and so they knew a bit about the farm and fdarm life. <S> Today, so many kids think milk grows in the supermarket. <S> It's a tough life in the Oz bush these days and it's becoming ever increasingly divorced from the comforts of the city.
| I don't think there is really any difference in the meaning of these.
|
What is another way to say "have a wedding ceremony"? If I want to inform a friend I'm getting married, could I use this sentence in the letter? What I'm trying to express is an alternative way to say I'm getting married . I'm writing to tell you I'm going to have a wedding ceremony soon. Is there a more natural, alternative phrase? <Q> You could write many things with a tone from formal to insouciant: <S> A wonderful woman/man/fellow-canoeist has accepted my proposal. <S> We are marrying each other on .... details. <S> Our betrothal will end on ...date... with our marriage at ...location... <S> I'm so happy to announce our wedding plans ... <S> details... <S> My days of solitary sojourn through life in the world will happily end with my marriage to ...name... <S> on ..date... <S> Wedded bliss will be mine/ours following our ceremony ... <S> details... <A> You can say anything you want, but that doesn't mean it'll be understood or appreciated. <S> Getting married is a traditional kind of thing, so why not use traditional language: <S> I'm getting married in the morning! <S> Ding dong! <S> The bells are gonna chime. <S> Pull out the stopper! <S> Let's have a whopper! <S> But get me to the church on time!" <S> Being "clever" isn't all it's cracked up to be. <A> "I am going to have a wedding ceremony soon" is a grammatically correct statement, but it's just not what people normally say. <S> It sounds like you are trying to emphasize the ceremony as opposed to the marriage or the wedding itself. <S> If that's your point, I guess it could be valid, but it sounds very odd. <S> The conventional thing to say is, "I am getting married soon". <S> Why do you not want to say that? <S> It's hard for us to give good alternatives without knowing why you reject the "normal" phrasing.
| If you want to use a cliché, you can tell your friend that you're: " gonna get hitched soon ".
|
what does "dogs and cats" mean? I have this sentence. It rains dogs and cats It makes me crazy because I didn't know the meaning of it, until someone told me that it means "it rains a lot." Now I have this sentence. If we examine porpoises and dolphins at this level, they are as physically different as dogs and cats. What does dogs and cats mean in this other sentence? Is there any other usage of dogs and cats ? <Q> The expression is '... <S> raining cats and dogs '. <S> I have never heard of it raining dogs and cats . <S> But this is an expression, which a) is not meant to be taken literally and b) only holds when the 'cats and dogs' are taken as one (grouped) item '... are as physically different as dogs and cats'. <S> In this sentence, the dogs and cats are not grouped, but are being referred to individually and separately. <S> In addition, they are being referred to literally. <S> The point the author is trying to make is that dolphins and porpoises (two very similar appearing animals) are actually quite different and that you should consider them as being as different to each other as much as you would consider dogs and cats as being different to each other. <S> As @kojiro points out, in this context, the order of dogs and cats does not matter, yet as has been mentioned raining cats and dogs <S> is always ordered cats, then dogs. <S> As an interesting aside, it seems other versions of <S> it's raining ... for instance ' <S> it's raining money', 'it's raining men', ' <S> it's raining lawsuits', do refer to an abundance of the object - unlike raining cats and dogs - but the rain may be figurative. <S> I suppose in that context - perhaps on entering an animal rescue shelter - you <S> could say 'it's raining dogs and cats'. <A> First, the idiom is " It's raining cats and dogs !" <S> The answer to your first question is that cats and dogs are much bigger and heavier than normal raindrops, so the rain being described is much heavier than normal. <S> It's not just "raining" <S> but it's "super-raining" or "hyper-raining" or "ultra-raining". <S> Imagine a hailstorm with hailstones as large as baseballs: <S> get hit by one and you'll probably die. <S> For the second question, dogs and cats are extremely different despite their being four-legged mammals that people keep as house pets. <S> Porpoises and dolphins look like fish but are mammals, and, although to some people they might seem quite similar, they are actually as different as dogs and cats , the sentence says. <S> I suppose the author might as well have said "as different as chickens and penguins" (both medium-sized essentially flightless birds) or "as sparrows and hummingbirds" (both very small birds), but most people are more familiar with cats and dogs than the other examples I gave because cats and dogs are ubiquitous (so are chickens) but sparrows, hummingbirds, and penguins aren't. <A> Porpoises and dolphins are animals, dogs and cats are as well. <S> The actual animals are meant in the context provided, because the text compares these animals. <S> A big clue whether or not real dogs and cats are meant is the part " it rains " in your first example. <S> Dogs and cats don't suddenly rain from the sky, so it is used in the figurative sense in your first example <A> My two cents: While other answers talk about what is that idiom, I had read somewhere (not sure where) that it came from the practical observation many years back. <S> When it rained heavily, the cats and dogs walking on the roof <S> then started falling down. <S> These animals generally don't fall (as they have a perfect grip while walking) , but then the rains were so heavy, they would lose their balance and start falling from the roofs. <S> That's why it came from as a metaphor that it rains so heavily that cats and dogs will fall if they are on the roofs.
| In this context the phrase 'dogs and cats' is referring to two different four-legged, hairy mammals that people keep as pets.
|
"Wear mourning" vs "Go into mourning" Are these expressions the same? As far as I can understand some texts I've been reading with these expressions, it seems that they have the same meaning. <Q> In your linked page, the examples are like [subject] wearing mourning dress... <S> This usage is OK since wearing is the verb and mourning dress is the object. <S> go into mourning <S> means the person starting the process of mourning, as in: He will go into mourning. <S> though go could be conjugated like <S> He is going into mourning. <S> As for wear mourning , many examples are like "they would wear morning clothes" (here wear is a verb rather than noun or part of a noun phrase), but some were like that used in this Wikipedia link <S> Mourning which has related historical information <S> Parents would wear mourning for a child for "as long as they feel so disposed". <S> It seems to be mainly of UK usage. <S> I have never heard it used this way. <S> wear needs to be the verb, so I guess mourning is the object meaning mourning clothes . <A> No, they don't have the same meaning, although they are usually somewhat related. <S> Go into mourning means that you enter into a state of grief; it describes a condition of the heart. <S> If I begin to feel sorrow and pain at the loss of a loved one, then I have gone into a state of mourning. <S> Wear mourning , on the other hand, means putting on clothes that display an outward expression of that grief. <S> It is more of a symbolic action. <S> That all said, the two normally go hand-in-hand. <S> You generally wear mourning because you have <S> gone into mourning , although there may be some exceptions to that (such as a widow who has murdered her husband, but wants to look as though she is grieving in order to allay suspicion). <S> A Google books search on the expression <S> wear mourning <S> reveals some interesting customs across different cultures. <S> For example, some people are (or were) recommended to "wear mourning for a year. <S> " <S> The fact that such a predetermined length of time could be prescribed illustrates how there is not always an exact correspondence between the true inward feelings of mourning, and the symbolic act of wearing mourning clothes. <A> Interpreted literally, "wear mourning" refers to clothing: it means dressing in a way that society associates with bereavement. <S> (This usually means "in all black clothing", although Victorian society had much more complex rules about who wore how much black and for how long.) <S> However, it's a natural progression from "wear [a certain type of clothing]" to " <S> be in [a certain type of clothing]" , and from there to "be in [a state that is associated with said type of clothing]" . <S> So "wear mourning" can, via metonymy , mean the same thing as "be in mourning" . <S> In an of itself, it doesn't say anything about clothing, so you have to evaluate the context (the era, the social class, the religion, even the gender of the subject) to know whether someone who is going into mourning is likely to be wearing black or not. <S> To put it another way, modern people go into mourning all the time, but few of them wear mourning except maybe to the funeral. <S> (In a sense, people who find "wear mourning" a strange or archaic expression are reacting that way not because the language is obsolete, but because the action is.)
| Go into mourning refers specifically to the beginning of the state of bereavement.
|
What does "eventually" mean in this sentence? Looking at a Wikipedia article describing a telefilm, I noted the following sentence that describes an event happened in Season 1 : They eventually find and reunite with their father, who reveals that the creature that killed their mother years earlier is the demon Azazel (aka "Yellow Eyes") and the only thing that can kill him is a legendary gun created by Samuel Colt. I am used to sentences similar to the following one. (Suppose somebody asks me what my work plans are.) I want to get a job on the local newspaper and eventually work for "The Times." I understand eventually as introducing an eventuality: It can happen that I will work for The Times , but it could also happen that I will not work for The Times . The previous sentence is different from "I want to work for The Times ." Probably I am influenced from how in Italian we use eventualmente , but I don't understand what eventually would mean in a sentence describing what happens in a telefilm season. <Q> It means after a long time, or after a lot of effort. <S> See eventually in this online dictionary. <S> So in your first example I imagine <S> they have to go through an extended period away from their father, or they have to do a lot of work to find him. <S> (in response to a comment)It is possible to say "Eventually, I will come back tomorrow morning." <S> but only in a very convoluted scenario, where tomorrow morning is a long time away, e.g. in a time travel scenario. <S> Well, first I'll have to go back six week and place the artefact in the museum, then wait for me to find it, after which I'll have to go to the future where I will take the artefact back after we use it to placate the Caldarens. <S> After a few more twists and turns, eventually, I will come back back tomorrow morning in time to present it to the Queen. <S> Eventually carries the feeling that there will be a struggle or a need to be patient. <A> I don't know Italian, but from your question I think that the Italian word you are citing has a slightly different meaning. <S> From your description, the Italian word "eventualmente" means something like "a hope" or "a long term goal that I may or may not attain". <S> This is quite different from the English word. <S> The English word implies that we expect the event to happen. <S> Not a certainly, I suppose, but something that you have every reason to believe will happen. <S> It's very much like if you said, "I will come back tomorrow". <S> I wouldn't say that this means that there is absolutely no possibility that you will NOT come back tomorrow, but you intend to and you have every reason to think you will. <S> If you said, "My plan is to get a job at a local newspaper and eventually work for 'The Times'", an English-speaker would understand you to mean that you think you really are going to end up at The Times, not just that this is some vague hope or wish. <S> Of course like any verb, the meaning can be muted if you use qualifiers. <S> If you say, "I want to eventually work for The Times" or "My dream is to eventually work for The Times", then you're explicitly saying that it is not a certainty. <A> Eventually is a false friend in many (if not all) Germanic and Latin languages. <S> Eventualmente (Italian, Spanish), <S> éventuellement (French), eventuell (German), eventuellt (Swedish) <S> all mean possibly / maybe . <S> In English. <S> eventually has a meaning close to finally / ultimately ; it does not express uncertainty. <A> This is a summary, so it's likely the writer uses "eventually" to mean "a lot of stuff happens that I'm not going into detail about. <S> " It implies that it doesn't happen quickly or immediately.
| As MattEllen explains, the English word "eventually" means "after a long time" or "after a great effort and struggle".
|
"Fall under the keys" versus "fall behind the keys" When talking of something (for example, breadcrumbs) that can fall on my keyboard and end between the key and the keyboard, what should I say? Breadcrumbs can fall under the keys. Breadcrumbs can fall behind the keys. To be clear, I am referring to the space behind/under the key, not the space between two keys. <Q> I would tend to say "Breadcrumbs can fall into the keyboard" rather than either of your alternatives. <S> "The keyboard" refers to the whole unit including the keys so the crumbs don't end up "between the key and the keyboard" but are simply inside the keyboard. <A> Under the keys or behind the keys describes where the falling breadcrumbs come to rest. <S> You would use these only if you had clear acrylic keys, or had dismantled your piano to clean the breadcrumbs out, and could see where in fact the breadcrumbs ended up. <S> In cases where we cannot perceive (or don't care about) the final resting place of a falling object, we generally describe the most important point on its trajectory: <S> It fell through the window or <S> She fell down the rabbit-hole . <S> It's a bit trickier with the keyboard you show, where the keys poke up through a whatchamacallit. <S> (I don't know what it is, and neither do 999 out of 1,000 people; and that's relevant because that means you don't have the option of saying “between the keys and the X”.) <S> But since in this case under , behind and between are all equally objectionable, because they all may be taken to designate the surface of the whatchamacallit, I think most speakers would fall back on the analogy with a piano keyboard and use between , or possibly down between ... <S> Unless, of course, you made them stop and think about it. <S> There's no telling what would emerge from that. <A> Either word conveys the intended meaning.
| In the case of breadcrumbs on a piano or laptop keyboard, you would probably say: Breadcrumbs can fall between the keys. I usually say "under" in such a context, but neither is clearly right or wrong and people would readily understand you either way.
|
"For" versus "on" in the given sentence I was shocked when my teacher told me that this sentence is wrong: Do not congratulate him for his success. Could anyone explain why we can't use for here? I know that on is another competitor. But both can be used interchangeably according to my knowledge. Please clear my doubt. <Q> The pros at ELU are of the opinion that either 'on' or 'for' can be used, but officially (at least, according to Oxford) there is a subtle distinction. <S> To wit, one is congratulated on something, when something good has happened to the person, and one is congratulated for something when the person has made an achievement. <S> The examples given are: congratulating someone on their marriage vs congratulating staff for all their hard work. <S> Edit: <S> Some help for those that may need assistance with paraphrasing comprehension: either 'on' or 'for' can be used - from the ELU link: "the verb congratulate collocates with both prepositions". <S> but officially there is a subtle distinction - ELU: <S> "but the meaning is slightly different". <S> one is congratulated on something, when something good has happened - ELU: "you congratulate someone on something ... because something special or pleasant has happened to them". <S> one is congratulated for something when the person has made an achievement - ELU: "When you congratulate someone for something you praise them for an achievement". <S> The ELU answer then references NGram which I didn't mention but as this doesn't change the essence of the answer I fail to see how this represents inaccurate paraphrasing. <S> Ditto with the summary sentence "... <S> both sound natural to me". <S> As to the distinction, I didn't make it, I merely reported it (because I was accurately paraphrasing), however, if you read the linked page, you'll see: give (someone) one’s good wishes when something special or pleasant has happened to them: he had taken the chance to congratulate him on his marriage discretely followed by: praise (someone) for an achievement: the operators are to be congratulated for the service that they provide . <S> Obviously, there is a large likelihood that good things will happen if one puts in enough effort, so whether you are congratulating somebody for their achievements, or congratulating them on their resulting success can be a matter of semantics, <S> the result of which is either construct is readily acceptable in conversational English. <S> (This bit is my addition) <A> There's no difference in meaning, and no grammatical principle involved, but idiomatically we overwhelmingly favour on in most contexts. <S> Thus... I congratulate you on passing [your exams] - 895 instances in Google Books ( for - 78) <S> We congratulate you on your triumph - 2330 instances ( for - 3) <S> However, where the reason for congratulating someone is more about <S> how they acted rather than what they achieved, that tendency is much reduced (or even disappears completely)... <S> I congratulate you on being so [honest] - 1550 instances ( for - 939) <S> I congratulate you on working [so hard] - 81 instances ( for - 445) <S> As is often the case where two or more prepositions can be used, native speakers differ in how they see things. <S> Personally, I think in the case of congratulate on/for , it would be at least "acceptable" (if not "ideal") <S> to use either preposition in any context. <S> Neither is ever grammatically "wrong" in any meaningful sense. <A> You can say "congratulate somebody for" as in the following sentences: <S> We congratulate him for it, but we have some responsibilities, too, during the next four years <S> I want to congratulate him for getting so far in his career and working so hard to bring justice to Darfur. <S> You can also say "congratulate somebody on something," as in "I congratulated them on their success." <A> Here we use on because I am congratulated him on the occasion of his success. <S> Not wishing for his success. <S> Here we determine what values these sentences are giving. <S> Such as I got first prise in my class my friend congratulate me on that occasion for my success. <A> I think we use "on" when it is followed by a noun. <S> For example: John congratulated Maria on her success. <S> But we preferably use "for" when it is not succeeded by noun. <S> My father congratulated me for getting A grade in all subjects.
| Some consider all variants to be valid and equivalent in all contexts, some think that in any given context only one preposition is "correct", and a few may even think there's a difference in meaning .
|
What does "whole" in "a whole bunch of stuff to do" mean? In the following sentence, what is the meaning of whole ? I have a whole bunch of stuff to do this morning. I understand the meaning of "a bunch of something," but I am not clear why whole should be used in that sentence. <Q> This is a modern idiom (esp. <S> US, informal). <S> The following two sentences are roughly equivalent: <S> I have a whole bunch of stuff to do this morning. <S> I have lots of things to do this morning. <S> It alludes to the large number of things [that need to be done this morning] without being specific as to what they are or specifically how many of those things there really are - for example because the speaker merely wants the listener to be aware that the speaker is busy, without necessarily wishing to brief the listener on the particularities of what the speaker is doing. <S> This might be because: <S> The speaker can't tell the listener on grounds of sensitivity <S> The speaker doesn't know the details <S> The details are not important to the point the speaker is trying to get across. <S> The CEO can't see you today, Mr. Jones. <S> He's got a whole bunch of stuff to do this morning and has asked not to be disturbed. <S> Dave - can you make sure that I'm not disturbed for the next hour or so? <S> I've got a whole bunch of stuff <S> I need to sort out before our meeting with the Senator. <S> We got to meet with the President, but he was a bit delayed because the CIA were briefing him on a whole bunch of stuff and their meeting overran. <S> I work <S> much harder than Alice. <S> I mean, this morning I did a whole ton of stuff <S> whilst she was chatting with her boyfriend on the phone. <A> It is used for emphasis. <S> Look at these dictionary examples . <S> (They include "a whole bunch.") <A> OP's whole bunch of stuff gives an impression of "uneducated" speech. <S> A more "acceptable" informal version would be, for example whole lot of things <S> (that's 319,000 written instances in Google Books). <S> In such constructions, whole is being used somewhat loosely as an intensifier (meaning approximately complete/entire , with connotations of large/substantial ).
| The idiom " whole bunch of stuff " (also bunch of stuff , whole ton of stuff etc) is a somewhat informal way of saying "lots of things".
|
What does guard mean in this situation? He [Harry] stopped a passing guard , but didn't dare mention platform nine and three-quarters. The guard had never heard of Hogwarts and when Harry couldn't even tell him what part of the country it was in, he started to get annoyed, as though Harry was being stupid on purpose. (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) What does ‘guard’ mean: 9 or 20 in a dictionary or any other? 9.a person or group of persons that guards, protects, or keeps a protective or restraining watch. 20. British . a railroad conductor. <Q> Given the context (that Harry is in a station looking for a train) it's meaning 20, what is known in American English as a railroad conductor. <S> Obviously in this case one who is not currently on a train. <A> There's a lot of scope for confusion over this (British English) usage for the word guard , which isn't necessarily resolved by saying... <S> BrE guard = <S> AmE conductor a railway train crew member responsible for operational and safety duties that do not involve actual operation of the train. <S> (another AmE definition, from the Railroad Jobs Guide ) <S> Railroad conductors examine schedules, switching orders, bill of ladings, and shipping records. <S> On passenger trains they are responsible for the passengers and crew. <S> I'm not sure there <S> is an AmE equivalent to BrE guard in this context. <S> Essentially, all uniformed railway staff in the UK may be called guards - except when they're actually working on a train, in which case they're usually called ticket inspectors or sometimes conductors (or drivers , where appropriate, obviously!). <S> In OP's context, neither Harry (the fictional character) nor JK Rowling (the British author) would know or care exactly what job title the "guard" was actually employed as. <S> So far as they're concerned, he's just any uniformed employee that passengers can reasonably treat as a representative of the company, when asking a simple railway-related question such as " <S> Where can I find the train to Hogwarts?" . <S> TL;DR: <S> BrE <S> guard approximately corresponds to AmE railroad conductor. <S> There's no special implication that any specific guard has any security-related duties, but obviously some do. <A> Since the next sentence is "Getting desperate, Harry asked for the train that left at eleven o'clock, but the guard said there wasn't one. <S> " I imagine the protagonist is in a train station, and asks to the train conductor information about the trains.
| " I would say that guard means "train conductor.
|
What does 'ask for' mean in this case? He stopped a passing guard, but didn't dare mention platform nine and three-quarters. The guard had never heard of Hogwarts and when Harry couldn't even tell him what part of the country it was in, he started to get annoyed, as though Harry was being stupid on purpose. Getting desperate, Harry asked for the train that left at eleven o'clock, but the guard said there wasn't one. (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) In this context, I guess, ‘asked for’ seems to mean ‘asked about’ the train. But I’ve not found the usage yet. Would you let me know what the phrase exactly means in this case? <Q> In that case, asked for means "asked for information about"; you could rephrase the sentence as follows: <S> Harry asked for information about the train that left at eleven o'clock, but the guard said there wasn't one. <S> This is what the OALD says: ask for something to ask for a job/a drink/an explanation I am writing to ask for some information about courses. <S> One of the definitions given from the NOAD for ask is the following one. <S> request (someone) to do or give something: <S> Mary asked her father for money. <S> Don't be afraid to ask for advice. <A> Example: <S> "He asked for the exit." "asked about", while similar, could be used by someone out of idle curiousity who has no need of actually getting on the train. <S> Indeed, "asked about" could refer to a request for information about the type of locomotive or number of carriages or what colour the paintwork is. <A> Maybe this is a US/UK thing, or maybe it is just poorly worded. <S> I think the more common phrasing would be, "... asked about the train ..." or "... asked for information regarding the train ..." Normally, to "ask for" something means to request that it be given to you or done for you. <S> Taken out of context, I would understand "Harry asked for the train" to mean "Harry requested that someone give him a train". <S> You can ask for something that isn't physical, like "ask for information" or "ask for more time", but it's the same idea: <A> Normally if you ask for a train it means you want to buy a ticket for that train. <S> If he didn't want a ticket he should have "asked about" the train.
| "asked for" differs slightly from "asked about". "asked for" is a request not so much for information about the train, but is more a request for directions to it. You want someone to give you information or you want someone to give you more time.
|
"Dead and gone" vs "Dead and buried" Is there any difference between these two expressions when we are talking about a person? It seems that they have the same meaning. According to The Free Dictionary " dead and gone " means "long dead" and " dead and buried " means "dead and interred, and soon to be forgotten". Well, a person could be long dead but not forgotten. Perhaps "dead and buried" is not used when the person is not interred anymore. <Q> If used of a person, both expressions mean that he or she has left the mortal coil; the difference is in how long ago. <S> could mean that the death was recent, or it could be used as a variant of dead and gone , i.e. long dead. <S> If used of an object or idea, dead and gone again emphasizes that it's not just gone/obsolete/archaic/out-of-fashion, but that it has been so for a long time. <S> With dead and buried , the emphasis is on the fact that it's out-of-date, not on how long it's been so: it might not yet be forgotten, but perhaps it ought to be. <S> If you disapprove of an attitude, then you'd want it "dead and buried". <S> If you've never even heard of anyone actually believing an obsolete idea, then you could call it "dead and gone". <A> I'm going to disagree with The Free Dictionary and say "dead and gone" means "and departed", "and no longer with us" - it may be said without necessarily implying that death occurred a long time ago. <S> One might say at a funeral: <S> Our dear sister is dead and gone - gone, we are confident, to a Better Place. <S> So we may grieve for ourselves, but not for her. <S> "Dead and buried", in contrast, means "emphatically dead", "dead as a doornail", "dead without hope of revival". <S> It may be said not only of persons but of matters which have "lived" only figuratively: <S> It's not just a rumor. <S> General Casales is definitely dead and buried. <S> With today's Senate vote the hope for electoral reform is dead - dead and buried. <S> Sartorius' evidence explodes the Kort-Vining theory, which now may be deemed dead and buried. <A> The phrases are generally used metaphorically, though of course they can be used literally to refer to a person. <S> In that case, I think the only difference of note between the two phrases is that not everyone is buried when they die. <S> If someone is cremated, for example, or given some other sort of service when they die, then you cannot refer to them as "dead and buried" as they have not been buried. <S> "Dead and gone" would apply whether or not the person was buried, however. <S> In all other aspects the two phrases are the same.
| Dead and gone always means "long dead", while dead and buried
|
Is the sentence "I am already working on this project and it is almost code complete." grammatically correct? I am already working on this project and it is almost code complete . Is this a correct use of "code complete"? I know that it is a book but I am not sure if this is the right way to say it as a non-native speaker. This is sort of a grammatical question but related to programming. (I'd say this as "I'm almost finished coding.") <Q> This is an example of lingo <S> lingo : b : the special vocabulary of a particular field of interest Here "code complete" indicates a stage or milestone in the software development lifecycle. <S> As is the case with all specialized vocabulary it should be used only with an audience who is expected to be able to understand it. <S> In this particular case, the usage is quite informal and to maintain the same register I'd suggest using contractions <S> and I'd probably still use scare quotes around it: <S> I'm already working on it and <S> it's almost "code complete". <S> Otherwise in a more formal setting, something like: <S> This work has already been started and coding is nearly complete. <S> might be better. <A> You could say "I am already working on this project and am almost done writing the implementation." <A> "Feature-complete" would likely be more clear to everyone, including non-technical folk.
| If you must use the word "code", then say "I am already working on this project and am almost done writing the code."
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.