source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Which one is the stronger expression, the one using "will" or the one using "shall"? "Nearly there!" Harry panted as they reached the corridor beneath the tallest tower. Then a sudden movement ahead of them made them almost drop the crate. Forgetting that they were already invisible, they shrank into the shadows, staring at the dark outlines of two people grappling with each other ten feet away. A lamp flared. Professor McGonagall, in a tartan bathrobe and a hair net, had Malfoy by the ear. "Detention!" she shouted. "And twenty points from Slytherin! Wandering around in the middle of the night, how dare you ––" "You don't understand, Professor. Harry Potter's coming –– he's got a dragon!" "What utter rubbish! How dare you tell such lies! Come on –– I shall see Professor Snape about you, Malfoy!" (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) Shall is used for saying what you intend to do in the future, and will is used for saying that you are willing to do something or that you intend to do it . Then which is the stronger expression, "I shall see Professor Snape about you" or "I will see Professor Snape about you"? <Q> Using shall for the following purposes is becoming old-fashioned: <S> (used with I and we ) for talking about or predicting the future to show that you are determined, or to give an order or instruction <S> This time next week I shall be in Scotland. <S> He is determined that you shall succeed. <S> Shall can also be used in questions with <S> I and we for making offers or suggestions or asking advice. <S> Shall I send you the book? <S> In that case, there isn't a strong form between will and shall ; shall is becoming old-fashioned, which means will is probably preferred, but that doesn't say anything about which one is a stronger expression, or expresses a stronger determination in doing something. <S> The NOAD has the following notes about using will <S> and shall : <S> There is considerable confusion about when to use <S> shall and will . <S> The traditional rule in standard British English is that shall is used with first person pronouns ( I and we ) to form the future tense, while will is used with second and third persons ( you , he , she , it , they ), e.g. "I shall be late"; "she will not be there". <S> To express a strong determination to do something these positions are reversed, with will being used with the first person and <S> shall with the second and third persons, e.g. "I will not tolerate this"; "you shall go to school." <S> In practice, however, shall and will are today used more or less interchangeably in statements (though not in questions). <S> Given that the forms are frequently contracted ( we'll , she'll , etc.) <S> there is often no need to make a choice between shall and will , another factor no doubt instrumental in weakening the distinction. <S> The interchangeable use of shall and <S> will is now part of standard British and US English. <A> Supplemental These remarks are not intended to compete with kiamlaluno's admirable observations on contemporary use of <S> shall and will, which specifically address OP's question and which I have upvoted. <S> They are rather addressed to an additional aspect of JKR's use in the passage at hand. <S> The use of shall here is more a matter of characterization than semantics. <S> Hogwarts is a very old-fashioned scene: basically the world of the English Public School as depicted in school stories of the 19th and early-to-mid-20th centuries. <S> A linguistic feature of these tales (I cannot say whether it reflected the reality) has always been that the faculty speak with marked formality, especially to students—the notion being, I suppose, that the faculty are concerned both to provide sound linguistic models and to maintain their own formal authority. <S> Prof. McGonagall is not only very senior faculty, she is an elderly woman: according to the Harry Potter wiki , she was born in 1935. <S> She thus belonged to a generation which was trained in (as I still was in the 1950s), and which adhered strictly to (as I do not), <S> the "traditional rule" described in kiamlaluno's NOAD citation: "... shall is used with first person pronouns ( I and we ) to form the future tense ..." <S> So Minerva McGonagall's use of shall does not express any heightened determination; it expresses her age, education, and status. <A> For example: <S> "You shall go the ball, Cinderalla!" <S> "But I have no nice clothes! <S> The servants will turn me away!" <S> Here, the fairy godmother is determined that Cinderella is to go to the ball. <S> Cinderella's response is more mild, merely predicting that, upon arrival, she will be turned away. <S> Indeed, the servants may respond upon her arrival: You shall not enter. <S> An example of this is where the Black Knight says to King Arthur and his knights (in Monty Python And The Holy Grail): <S> None shall pass! <S> The use of the word shall is much more emphatic, indeed almost a command. <S> For example, if you used "will", instead: You will not enter. <S> Why not? <S> Oh, the door is locked, and we lost the key.
| The word shall is for emphasis or determination. Also will is used when talking about or predicting the future.
|
What is the equivalent word for 'spoon/scoops' in case of say pudding? How do I say "I had 3 scoops of ice-cream" or "Put 2 spoons of sugar in the mixture" in case of pudding or cake? I had 3 pieces of cake. What word should I use here for pieces , like I did for ice-cream with spoon ? <Q> For ice cream, we use scoops . <S> For sugar, we use teaspoons (particularly if we are calling for a precise measurement, as in a recipe), or perhaps spoonfuls for a less precise quantity. <S> For cake, we could use either pieces or slices . <S> This Ngram shows that these five phrases have been published in uncannily close frequencies. <S> Note also that I'm writing from the U.S.; other dialects may favor other words. <S> As for pudding, consider dollop . <S> From NOAD: dollop ( n. ) informal a shapeless mass or blob of something, esp. <S> soft food <S> This recipe , for example, calls for a small "dollop of pudding" between the vanilla wafer and the banana slice: <A> "Pieces" is fine for cake, though "slices" is probably more common. <S> You can't have a "piece" or "slice" of pudding as these things must have a definite size and shape. <S> You can have a "spoonful" of pudding though. <A> There are also some puddings that would be served by the slice or piece:
| In addition to the examples already suggested, if you're telling someone how much pudding you'd like them to serve you, you can ask for "a small (or large) dish of pudding", or a "small bowl of pudding".
|
What does 'the + adjective' mean? From being one of the most popular and admired people at the school, Harry was suddenly the most hated . (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) I’ve thought a ‘the + adjective’ means a group of people not a person. But the case has a singular meaning. Is the form used in both ways? <Q> The antecedent is people at the school , although it's plural and Harry is singular, so the deleted portion we must recover is person at the school : From being one of the most popular and admired people at the school , <S> Harry was suddenly the most hated person at the school . <A> Quick note: <S> It's certainly not necessarily a group OF PEOPLE. <S> It could be a group of anything. <S> "There are two kinds of cars: the fast and the slow." <S> "Some animals are the hunters, other the hunted. <S> " Etc. <S> But more generally, you have to be careful about when the-plus-adjective is being used as a noun phrase, and when it is being used as a conventional adjective with an implied noun. <S> Consider: "Which dress do you want to wear, the blue or the red?" <S> "The blue" and "the red" here are not being used as nouns to describe groups. <S> Rather they are just shorthand for saying "the blue dress or the red dress". <S> We omit the noun because the intended meaning is obvious. <S> If you said something like, "I feel sorry for the hated in our school", then "the hated" is being used as a noun. <S> There is no noun for it to modify. <S> But if you say, "Of all the students in our school, Harry was the most loved but now he is the most hated," "loved" and "hated" are both being used as ordinary adjectives modifying "students". <A> The main reason for your confusion has been missed by the two previous answers. <S> From being one of the most popular and admired people at the school, Harry was suddenly the most hated. <S> You are thinking of this as "the + adjective" when in actual fact it is " the + superlative adjective ". <S> It means Harry is the single person who is more hated than anyone else . <S> You are correct that "the + adjective" refers to a group of people. <S> That's because in that case ("the poor", "the jealous", etc.) <S> the 'adjective' is functioning as a noun . <S> However, when you use "the" with a superlative, it is functioning as an adjective and the noun is implied. <S> the weirdest (person) the easiest (task) the most evil (villains) etc. <S> The implied noun will come from the rest of the sentence. <S> In your case, as @snailplane pointed out, it's person at the school . <S> One more example to contrast the two forms. <S> The bullied often go on to become bullies themselves. <S> Although many people were disliked at Rochdale Comprehensive, Bob was undoubtedly the most bullied. <A> The is the superlative form of adjective. <S> the pattern then is THE+MOST+SUPERLATIVE form of ADJECTIVE(for 2/more syllables, but not all)Ex. <S> The most handsome The longest( for 1 or in some cases 2-syllable adjectives. <S> Regardless of the number of syllables if the form of adjective is superlative,there is always THE. <S> For example, THE OLD retired to bed early while THE YOUNG partied all night. <S> , THE+ ADJ noun phrases there refer to a group of old people and a group of young people.
| THE+adjective on the other hand is a noun phrase which refesr to a group.
|
Shrubs, weeds and raccoons have reclaimed (the) empty neighbourhoods From The Economist's article on Detroit's doldrums: Detroit’s population has fallen by 60% since 1950. ... Shrubs, weeds and raccoons have reclaimed empty neighbourhoods. Would it be acceptable to put the definite article before the "empty neighborhoods"? Both the reader and the writer are aware where exactly these neighborhoods are, from the preceding text. Therefore the noun should have definite reference; hence, Detroit’s population has fallen by 60% since 1950. ... Shrubs, weeds and raccoons have reclaimed the empty neighbourhoods. If the first quote is more appropriate, why? How would adding THE shift the meaning? <Q> There is a subtle difference between the two. <S> In the original sentence, saying "reclaimed empty neighborhoods" means that some amount of empty neighborhoods has been reclaimed. <S> It doesn't mean that all of them have. <S> However when you add <S> the to the sentence <S> , you're now referring to the set of all the empty neighborhoods in Detroit. <S> This changes the meaning a bit. <S> It's likely that not all of the neighborhoods have been overtaken by wildlife, hence the author's decision to omit the . <A> (In this answer, I will reach the same conclusion WendiKidd does, but I will do so in my own way.) <S> The definite article is a pragmatic signal. <S> It tells the listener (or reader) to locate the noun it modifies within the conceptual space that is shared with the speaker (or writer). <S> Detroit has been introduced into the discourse, but particular neighborhoods in Detroit have not; if the definite article were used, then as WendiKidd says, it could only refer to "the neighborhoods of Detroit", that is, all neighborhoods of Detroit. <S> Without an article, there is no such signal. <S> Instead, the author speaks of neighborhoods in general , limited by context to the topic of Detroit, giving us the meaning some neighborhoods in Detroit . <S> Since the meaning differs ( some versus all ), inserting the definite article is not appropriate. <S> However, you must not generalize from this that the definite article means all . <S> It does not. <S> If the author had previously talked about specific neighborhoods, then these neighborhoods would be within the shared conceptual space, able to be referred to by a definite article. <S> Nor should you conclude that the definite article must refer to information overtly introduced in the current article or conversation (compare "the President of the United States" ) or to information familiar to the reader (compare "beware of the dog" ). <S> This is why I call it a pragmatic signal; what exactly the reader does with it depends on context, and which article if any is appropriate cannot be determined from syntax alone. <S> Unfortunately, a complete explanation of definiteness is beyond the scope of this answer. <A> Would it be acceptable to put the definite article before the "empty neighborhoods"? <S> Both the reader and the writer are aware where exactly these neighborhoods are, from the preceding text. <S> Therefore the noun should have definite reference . <S> That interpretation is not correct; the reader is NOT told which neighborhoods are in trouble. <S> Here is the entire paragraph: <S> What was once the country’s fourth-most-populous city grew rich thanks largely to a single industry. <S> General Motors, Ford and Chrysler once made nearly all the cars sold in America; now, thanks to competition from foreign brands built in non-union states, they sell less than half. <S> Detroit’s population has fallen by 60% since 1950. <S> The murder rate is 11 times the national average. <S> The previous mayor is in prison. <S> Shrubs, weeds and raccoons have reclaimed empty neighbourhoods. <S> The debts racked up when Detroit was big and rich are unpayable now that it is smaller and poor. <S> The author is describing how the city of Detroit is crumbling. <S> Not every neighborhood is being overrun with wildlife, but an unspecified number of neighborhoods have become empty, and those neighborhoods are being overrun with wildlife. <S> Could you add a definite article? <S> Sure: <S> The previous mayor is in prison. <S> Shrubs, weeds and raccoons have reclaimed the empty neighbourhoods. <S> Either way (with or without the article), some neighborhoods are emptying out, and some raccoons are moving into those neighborhoods. <S> Many times, the inclusion or exclusion of an article doesn't really alter the meaning of the sentence, and it's not worth spending a lot time overanayzing it. <S> For example: My daughter got a new job at the library. <S> She spent all day reshelving books. <S> My daughter got a new job at the library. <S> She spent all day reshelving the books. <S> Is there a difference? <S> I suppose so. <S> Without the article, she reshelved books all day. <S> With the article, she reshelved specific books all day. <S> On the other hand, though, is that difference significant? <S> Either way, her shoulders are sore. <S> Either way, all the books that needed reshelving got reshelved. <S> Either way, she spent several hours putting books back on the shelves. <S> So, which "reshelving" sentence is better ? <S> That's like asking which face is on the front of this cube:
| I disagree that the sentence should include a definite article, although I'd acknowledge that the sentence could include the definite article.
|
What are the differences between response and answer? I have to mail-back someone and I wonder if I should rather say "Thanks for your quick answer" or "Thanks for your quick response". Can you tell me what are the differences between answer and response ? Which one is the right for me and when am I supposed to use the other one? <Q> So response and reply are generic and can be used in any situation, while answer is more specific in its usage. <S> So if you asked a question or asked for a solution to a problem, and the person gave it to you, then you can say "Thanks for your quick answer ". <S> If it was not in one of these categories, then use response or reply since these are both generic. <S> And if you are still in doubt, remember that because response is generic you can use it in any situation. <A> A "response" doesn't always have to be to a question. <S> It could also be to a direct statement. <S> In such an instance you could agree with an expressed opinion or show that you differ. <S> An answer is a response to a question. <S> But based on context, it may be better to thank the individual for the act of responding quickly and then you can move on to discuss elements of the answer given. <S> Does it suffice? <S> Do need more clarity around certain things? <S> etc. <A> In a letter, it would be better to use , "Thank you for your response." <S> However in most situations they are synonyms. <S> However in the US we use answer more than response. <S> All of his answers were incorrect on the test. <S> Please answer me when I ask you a question. <A> A "response" is in my book more referring to the act of responding while an "answer" refers more to the content of a response to a question. <S> So when being thankful, I'd lean towards thanking for the speed of a response and the helpfulness of an answer.
| Anytime a person returns communication it can be called a response or a reply , while an answer is a form of response which is a solution to a problem or question.
|
What does "that's something" mean? "Good evening," said Ronan. "Students, are you? And do you learn much, up at the school?" [Harry] "Erm ––" [Hermione] "A bit," said Hermione timidly. "A bit. Well, that's something ." Ronan sighed. He flung back his head and stared at the sky. "Mars is bright tonight." (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) What does the bold part mean? From the lexical meaning of something , it seems to mean "that’s an important thing." Yet, an example on a Korean website is translated as "one consolation in sadness," and this can make sense in the context. What does it really mean? <Q> It doesn't mean it's an important thing; in fact it's sort of the opposite. <S> He might have said instead "Well, that's better than nothing." <S> This is generally used when you wish something more/better than what is happening were possible, but are accepting what you can get. <S> For example: Jim: "Did you get everything we needed for the party? <S> Sally really wanted those special crackers she likes." <S> Mary: "They didn't have those, but I did find paper plates with unicorns on them!" <S> Jim: <S> "Well, that's something. <S> Sally does like unicorns." <S> Wherein Jim really wishes Mary had gotten the crackers, but is pleased that at least something Sally likes will be present. <A> Let's say that, instead of winning the lottery, you won $15, which is $7 more than you paid in lottery tickets. <S> Well, at least that's something. <S> In other words, it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. <S> Which is to say, it isn't great, like winning the lottery would be. <S> But at least it doesn't suck. <A> This is one of those situations where the meaning lies in the tone-of-voice of what's being said. <S> " <S> A bit. <S> Well, that's something." <S> Ronan sighed. <S> It's the sigh that gives away his disappointment. <S> As @WendiKidd stated "he'd wished they learned more than a bit " On the other hand, "that's something" can mean the complete opposite as in <S> Wow, that's something! <S> which can imply awe and surprise. <S> It's also used to display being thoroughly impressed - like when you watch Superman overtake a speeding train in a single bound for the first time (because after the second or third time it becomes a little ho-hum, right?). <S> It's a statement one aspires to hear for a much worked-on accomplishment.
| What Ronan means is that he wished they learned more than "a bit", but he's glad they're at least learning something.
|
Should I use "important" or "importantly" in the introductory phase of a sentence? Should I use important or importantly in the introductory clause of the second sentence: Appellant's argument is premature. More important, it lacks merit. Google NGram shows a significant preference for "more important." Recently, however, it appears the democracy of usage has swung slightly in favor of "more importantly." I prefer the former, but I am more concerned about learning which one is grammatically proper, and the particular rules that control the analysis. Can someone walk me through it? <Q> Appellant's argument is premature. <S> More importantly, it lacks merit. <S> "Important" is an adjective , used to qualify a noun. <S> " <S> Importantly" is an adverb , typically used to qualify a verb or an adjective. <S> Your context requires an adverb , not an adjective . <S> Additionally, I would use "it" rather than repeating "the argument". <A> This is one of those cases where ngrams don't tell the whole story. <S> Words and phrases can be used in multiple ways, so just seeing how often they appear in ngrams doesn't help. <S> The correct form in your example is more importantly , but the ngram will register hits for "more important" in sentences like this: <S> I considered reading a book after lunch, but I decided running some errands was more important. <S> Just because more important is correct somewhere else and registers ngram hits doesn't mean it's correct in the way you want to use it. <S> So, yes, more importantly is what you want to use in your example sentence: <S> More importantly, it lacks merit. <S> I'd also take note of your first sentence; this sounds a bit like legal jargon, and so in that case maybe it is appropriate to refer to the appellant as a proper noun (without article). <S> But if this isn't acceptable legalese, you're missing a <S> the at the beginning of the sentence <S> : The appellant's argument is premature. <S> More importantly, it lacks merit. <A> NGrams does not show a significant preference for "More important," if we search for a text string more specific to OP's context ... <S> Having said that, what the NGram does suggest is that the "ungrammatical" form has been rising in popularity over recent decades. <S> But if OP is concerned to learn and use "strictly valid" grammar, he should use the adverbial form more importantly . <S> That's because the presence or absence of the word more makes no difference to the formal grammar. <S> You do something ( lack merit , in this case) adverbially . <S> Nothing changes if you do it more adverbially. <S> If you consider the situation without the word more ... <S> Appellant's argument is premature. <S> ** <S> Important, it lacks merit. <S> * ...all native speakers will find this unacceptable (as indicated by the asterisk). <S> But even though in principle the word more makes no difference to the grammaticality, informal (and/or uneducated) <S> speakers/writers do in fact often use OP's version. <S> One could say there's an implied/elided <S> "What is more" before important (in practice people often would include either that or an equivalent construction). <S> But OP specifically asks what form he should use; it's not strictly necessary to explain why even native speakers often disregard logic/grammar in this context. <A> Although it may be ungrammatical, this use of "More important" seems to be quite common (the cited authors reside in the US): <S> "More important, it appears that theory-based approaches that are tailored to specific populations and behaviours can be effective in different cultures and communities." <S> (source) <S> "More important, it provides information necessary to explore the relationship of experiencing violence to health status and to the use of health services..." <S> (source) <S> "Most important, it turns out that how schools hire and how they use their resources can make a major difference." <S> (source) "Perhaps more important, it may take the form of information useful in trading in the company's shares..." (source) <A>
| The adverbial phrase "more importantly" is correct because the lacking of merit is being modified, not the pronoun it (or its antecedent, the appellant's argument ).
|
"He plays games in/at/using his laptop" Which one is correct? He plays games in his laptop. He plays games at his laptop. He plays games using his laptop. <Q> The form I have encountered is:-He plays games on his laptop. <S> I don't particularly know why - it just seems idiomatic. <S> Of the three versions you have suggested, the first sounds wrong, as it suggests he is inside his computer. <S> I would argue that the second and third are both correct, though the third has a subtle difference in meaning. <A> " <S> But, there is nothing wrong with "He plays games using his laptop." <A> Although everybody already said that the correct usage is "He plays games on his laptop", <S> I'd like to offer up a suggestion as to why that is. <S> One also says, "I'm on the computer" which I would say comes from the earlier saying "I'm logged on the computer". <S> I think the usage of on comes with the fact that one is on the computer, not with at or in . <S> Responding to " <S> He plays games using his laptop" - <S> This isn't normal, but could be fine depending on context. <A> He plays games with his laptop = <S> He plays games using his laptop. <S> No <S> ( Not really ) <S> If you play games using your laptop, (which is fine grammatically speaking), to me it sounds weird. <S> I imagine the speaker whacking a ball with his laptop. <S> The laptop is being used as a tool, an instrument with which to play games. <S> What you could say instead is: <S> He uses his laptop to play games (on). <S> (This helps explains the purpose of the laptop) <S> He uses the laptop for playing games. <S> (This helps explains the function of the laptop) <S> The only sentence NOT from the list which carries no ambiguity is the following: <S> He plays games on his laptop.
| I would agree, the most common form is "He plays games on his laptop" or "He plays on his XBOX. While idiomatic, neither "in" nor "at" would sound right in most English dialects.
|
What's the meaning of "establish" in this context? From OALD, entrench is defined as: to establish something very firmly so that it is very difficult to change Does establish here means to cause to be accepted or recognized ? Edit: I came across the word from this passage: Some people feel that this term is a bit negative, given the association with hunting and death, and they prefer more positive twists on the saying. Several organizations have even sponsored contests to come up with a new and more animal-friendly version of “to kill two birds with one stone.” However, the idea has become so entrenched in many societies that it is unlikely to fade from usage anytime soon, negative or not. <Q> After further research and enquiry, I've come to the conclusion that the closest interpretation of establish in the definition of entrench is bring into being on a firm or stable basis or to cause (someone or something) to be widely known and accepted . <A> Entrench ; to establish something very firmly so that it is very difficult to change <S> Its meaning is closer to the definition of establish found at no.5 in the online dictionary. <S> to bring about permanently: to establish order. <S> If something is entrenched <S> it means in some form or another <S> it is fixed , placed so as to be firm and not readily movable ; solid , firm, sound and reliable, and <S> stable (adj) able or likely to continue or last; firmly established ; <S> enduring or permanent. <S> Therefore, when the author states, [...] the idea has become so entrenched in many societies that it is unlikely to fade from usage anytime soon, negative or not. <S> we understand that the idiom, to kill two birds with one stone, will continue to remain with us for a very long time <S> , in other words it is an idiom firmly established in the cultural and collective memory. <A> It means that the usage of the term, to kill two birds with one stone , is very frequent and common in the society, and is a part of the everyday language so it is unlikely to ever die despite its negative connotation. <A> To "entrench" is to put troops, artillery, etc. <S> into a trench for protection against enemy fire (military). <S> That is, to "fortify." <S> In this context, to "establish" something <S> is synonymous with to "fortify" it against change. <A> To "entrench" something is to put it into force and defend it such that it cannot easily be removed. <A> In this case I would go with the definition of Oxford Learners Dictionary , where"establish something" means to start or create an organization, a system, etc. <S> that is meant to last for a long time . <S> Together with the definition of "entrench" that you found, an idea that has become "entrenched" has been build up to last very long (in this case, probably has already been there very long) and thus is very difficult to change now. <S> It is now part of tradition, so to say. <S> Like the verb "to google" which, with its current meaning of searching something online has become so entrenched in english language that it is not likely to disappear again in the near future and has been included in various dictionaries as a valid verb.
| In the definition of "entrench", "establish" means to introduce or to make effective.
|
How to describe the walk of a man with an artificial leg? How to describe the walk of a man with an artificial leg? People with artificial legs don't walk in the same way as a normal person. What are non-offensive words that can be used to describe their walk? <Q> I'm going to go ahead and post this as an answer: <S> the correct word to use for describing how someone with a limp walks is, guess what: limp . <S> As J.R. mentioned, anything that is more graphic — such as jerky — is much more likely to come across as, well, maybe not outright offensive , but certainly approaching it. <S> This isn't because jerky is an offensive word <S> (it's not - there's a world of difference between "word that describes an unpleasant concept" and "offensive word"), but because it's not the usual, everyday word one expects to hear in such a context. <S> It calls attention to a defect, rather than merely describing it. <S> (I've never been quite sure what a rolling gait is supposed to look like, but I do know it's most often used for someone who spends most of his time in a boat, and thus has a hard time adapting his gait to dry land. <S> It does not, to me, imply any unevenness or lopsidedness; whereas for most people with prosthetic legs, the defining feature of their gait is the fact that one of their legs is not like the other.) <A> As I understand it, a person with an artificial leg often walks with a jerky gait. <S> Sometimes it might be better described as a stiff gait, but the general principle would be that so long as whatever you put in front of gait doesn't have too many offensive connotations, just use any normal word that fits the particular person's way of walking (it will vary, obviously). <S> The artificial leg gave Carl a jerky gait, but he moved with a deliberate air. <A> Hobble is also an alternative. <S> Like limp <S> it is understood by the majority of native and non-native speakers. <S> I might also use the word after I've banged my toe against something hard, and instinctively hop around the room. <S> Later, if my big toe is still hurting, I would hobble about. <A> This is sometimes described as a rolling gait : <S> That and the stick he used and the slow <S> , rolling gait of a man who made do with an artificial leg after an above-the-knee amputation meant no one near him said a word about it. <A> A fancy, politically correct term for a person who walks artificially would be "orthopedically, challenged."
| You might get away with saying they walk with a slight limp , but limp isn't normally a very positive word.
|
What is the meaning of "S1 through S4"? In http://research.google.com/archive/gfs-sosp2003.pdf Section 3.2 (page 6): Suppose the client is pushing data to chunkservers S1 through S4. Does it mean client -> S1 -> S4 or client -> S4 -> S1 ? <Q> It means the range of S(1 through 4). <A> The sentence as it stands is ambiguous. <S> I suspect that the writer meant that that the data is pushed to the servers with numbers between S1 and S4. <S> In general, if we say, "the numbers 1 through 4", we mean 1, 2, 3, and 4. <S> So he probably means that the data is pushed from the client to servers S1, S2, S3, and S4. <S> I would further suspect that he means that any given data item goes to one of the four, not from one to the other in sequence. <S> A second possible reading is that the data goes through these four servers in sequence. <S> That is, it goes from the client to S1, then from S1 to S2, from S2 to S3, and from S3 to S4. <S> A third possible reading is that "through" here means "by way of". <S> You can say, "I went from New York to Chicago through Albany", meaning that I stopped off in Albany along the way. <S> So he might possibly mean that the data goes from the client to S1 but along the way visits S4, that is, from client to S4 to S1. <S> But frankly, I really doubt that that is what the writer meant. <S> You'd have to read the larger context to know which of the above he meant. <S> Or if perhaps he had some fourth meaning in mind. <A> This means that the data is being pushed to servers in order shown below: data-->S1- <S> ->S2-->S3 <S> -->S4. <S> Other example:Robin, could you please check for points 20 through 30? <S> Example above means that Robin is required to go through each of the points from 20 to 30, in that order, i.e. starting from point 20, then 21, 22, 23......and point 30 at last.
| In other words, it means S1, S2, S3, and S4.
|
What is the opposite of real-time? In computer science there is the term real-time . Is there any word to say something is not real time? Non-real time doesn't sound good to me. <Q> Lets take an example here: You login to your Facebook account and post a comment. <S> How Facebook updates this comment to your Facebook wall and your friends wall & also the time delay will determine the update mode.(although there are other parameters also). <S> 1. <S> Real Time- Comment is updated online and delay is less than 2 seconds. <S> 2. <S> Near Real Time- <S> A delay of 2~10 seconds is expected, however, exact definition depends on SLA between the involved parties. <S> Facebook works on near real time mode. <S> 3. <S> Offline Mode or Batch <S> Processing- <S> The data is updated via files to the database, exact definition depends on SLA between the involved parties. <S> In general time delay is in hours (in every ~6 to 12 hrs). <S> Offline or batch processing is answer to your question. <A> Deferred could definitely be used to denote what is not real-time in appropriate contexts. <S> For ex: <S> Deferred is already used by Oracle as a part of a term <S> Deferred Processing which is a feature that allows long-running tasks to be handled by background engines instead of in real time. <S> More here . <A> If it's not real-time , it's non-real-time . <S> Other terms may be useful to describe something which is non-real-time, but that is nonetheless the correct term. <A> In computer science, real-time is used to describe a characteristic of reactive systems, those have a constraint on the delay between the event and the response to the event. <S> (It is often subdivided in hard --- when missing any deadline is a failure --- firm --- when missing some deadline is allowed at the cost of reducing the quality and missed responses are of no utility --- and soft --- when having a late response is better than having none). <S> I know of no word describing non-real-time systems in this sense. <S> Batch or offline systems are just systems which are working alone, as opposed to online systems which interact either with the world (the reactive systems ) or users (the interactive systems ). <S> As usual, definitions tend to vary a little depending on authors and their purpose (especially the division between interactive systems and soft real-time one is more one of intend, context and tradition than anything else). <S> Notes: <S> Real-time is also used informally to describe interactive systems for which the interaction is quick enough that it doesn't suffer from the response time. <S> Non-real-time systems in this sense are just called slow . <S> Online/offline is also used to describes systems needing or not needing a network connection. <A> If you are looking at "age" and "operability" of business data, you might consider "historical" vs. "real-time" data. <A> These aren't exact antonyms, but I think they would work in certain contexts. <S> My use case is: " realtime games vs ___ games ". <S> You could emphasize the broken quality of time with: discontinuous, periodic, fragmented, or intermittent .
| You could emphasize the difference in length of time with: extended, ongoing, or long-term .
|
A person who can see the past of others (or himself) What do we call a person who can see the past of the others (or himself), i.e. he is some divine person and does not make false claims of knowing the past. <Q> General terms are "psychic", "fortune teller", "soothsayer", and "seer". <S> "Psychic" is fairly modern. <S> It is fine if talking about someone in the past 50 year ago, but if used to talk about someone hundreds of years ago would likely sound anachronistic. <S> "Fortune teller" is routinely used for people who tell you about your present or your past as well as for those who claim to predict the future. <S> There are also terms for specific methods of fortune telling. <S> Like "astrologer" for someone who claims insights based on observing the stars, "phrenologist" for someone who studies the shape of your head, "palm reader" for someone who studies your hand, etc. <S> "Divine" means "having to do with God or the gods". <S> You wouldn't normally use that word to describe a human being, even one with psychic powers. <S> Zeus is divine. <S> Uri Geller is not. <S> If you want to say that someone was given his special abilities by the gods, you might say he has "divine powers". <S> "Divine" is also a mostly-obsolete word used to praise a woman, as in, "When Sally Jones came on stage in that beautiful gown she looked just divine." <S> So if you title a poem, "The Divine Lady", readers first impression would be either that she was literally a goddess, or that she was beautiful or graceful. <S> Note that "diviner" is different. <S> That means someone who has magic powers to find objects. <S> Like people who claim to be able to find water in the desert or to find treasure. <A> There is another word for a fortune teller: A soothsayer - perhaps that is better for a title, they normally tell your future, but start by attempting to tell about you <S> You may want to ask this at the Writers stackexchange site <A> The past is "history." <S> As a result, it is (mostly) accessible to anyone who wants to seek it out. <S> A person who seeks out the past (his own, or others') may be called a "dweller on bygones." <S> (Bygones are things "gone by," in the past.)
| Someone who uses rituals to divine things about you is a divinator or a diviner
|
Difference between 'One to One' and 'One on One' I have been confused about the difference between " one to one " and " one on one ". Which one is more appropriate of the following? We will have one to one meeting? We will have one on one meeting? <Q> I'd say the phrase ' one-on-one meeting ' sounds much more natural. <S> The term ' one-to-one ' is more often used in the with any of the following: one-to-one relationship <S> one-to-one function <S> one-to-one mapping <A> one-on-one is used to talk about meetings between two people. <S> When there is a discussion we can call it a one-on-one discussion ; as an alternative for a face to face confrontation and in interviews (quite often political ones on TV). <S> one to one (with or without hyphens) is an expression often used in teaching. <S> When students are paired in class; and in teaching one to one , i.e. a teacher with a private student (a client) or an individual student as opposed to a class. <S> It is used in the campaign: "one to one computing" which promotes a computer for every student and teacher. <S> In BrEng one-to-one (with hyphens) is used in the following: one-to-one discussion ; one-to-one talk ; and one-to-one interview as in " <S> Interviews will be on a one-to-one basis. " <S> Finally, one-to-one in Mathematics: "Maths characterized by or involving the pairing of each member of one set with only one member of another set, without remainder." <A> One-to-one is used to describe transfer and mapping. <S> In mathematics, a one-to-one function is a function where every element in the range corresponds to one element in the domain. <A> It's more appropriate to say One on One. <S> One to One sounds more like a technical term to denote mapping between two elements. <A> Both could be used interchangeably. <S> However,'One-to-One' indicates a more formal tête-à-tête <S> whereas 'One-on-One' refers to a confrontational situation between two people. <S> A 'One-to-One' meeting definitely sounds more appropriate. <A> One on one would be the appropriate use here. <S> When you are having a one on one meeting or discussion, typically it is a informal conversation or a touch base if you will. <S> One to one would signify a relationship between two entities.
| One-on-one is used to describe meetings between two individuals, as per your question.
|
Present perfect or simple past? I just came across this question: This tree (be) _____ planted by the settlers who (found) _____ our city over four hundred years ago. I think " over four hundred years ago " is an unspecified time. My answer was that the two gaps require present perfect. So I was a little surprised with the answer that both of them require simple past. Why is this the case? <Q> A specified past time means that you may not use the present perfect, but that does not imply that an un specified past time requires that you must use the present perfect. <S> The present perfect is only used when the past event it describes is in some sense still 'present'. <S> This is a very hard matter to define abstractly -linguists have been struggling with it for generations, and there is still no consensus- <S> but in any given case it's pretty easy for a native speaker to identify. <S> The tree is still here, and the city is still here, but <S> the planting and the founding were "over and done with" long ago. <S> In any case, over four hundred years ago is "specific" enough to prohibit using the present perfect. " <S> Four hundred years ago" means "a specific point located somewhere around there " - that is, a specific point which definitely does not lie in a timeframe which includes the present. <S> Consequently, you must use the simple past: This tree was planted by the settlers who founded our city over four hundred years ago. <A> Over four hundred years ago is an unspecified time, but the actions are completed, so they use simple past. <A> The planting of the tree is completed. <S> It was planted at some time in the past, and that planting is now done. <S> So a present perfect is inappropriate. <S> If the tree is still there, you could use a present perfect to describe its presence. <S> Like, "This tree has been in our city for over four hundred years." <S> Or if there was an on-going process of planting trees, you could use a present perfect to describe it. <S> "We have been planting trees in this city for over four hundred years." <S> Update <S> It occurs to me that the issue here is that apparently at some point you read or were told that you cannot use a simple past tense with an "unspecified time", which you are taking to mean a time that is not precisely identified. <S> There is no such rule in English. <S> Perhaps there is some valid rule that you are misunderstanding <S> and I'm not seeing what you're referring to, but the rule as you are stating it does not exist. <S> It is perfectly valid to use a simple past tense with a very vague time. <S> On June 13, 1968, I visited Boston. <S> I forget when, <S> but it was a long time ago, <S> maybe when I was around ten years old, I visited Boston. <S> In both cases we use the simple past. <S> The fact that in the second example I am very vague about the exact date has nothing to do with it.
| The action occurred in the past and it was completed in the past, so it's a simple past tense.
|
I'd just as soon…as to Does the following sentence mean I prefer to go home, or something is just as fine as something else? I'd just as soon go home. Does this other sentence mean that either thing is good? I'd just as soon go home as to go to party. <Q> It can also be used to indicate that both options are negative, for example: <S> Would you like to go to a party? <S> I'd just as soon be eaten by wolves! <S> In this case, the respondent is using a situation which is clearly unpleasant (being eaten by wolves) to indicate that they don't want to go to a party. <S> It should usually be easy to tell this <S> is the intended meaning due to the hyperbole involved. <S> However, in your example: I'd just as soon go home as go to a party. <S> The speaker may be indicating that whilst they don't necessarily want to go home, their preference (or lack of preference) for this is near-equal to that for going to a party. <S> In this case, you would have to look at the wider context to understand the intended meaning. <S> I don't think I've ever heard it used differently to this (implying negativity), but this might just be unique to the British English <S> I'm familiar with. <A> Does the following sentence mean I prefer to go home, or something is just as fine as something else? <S> Yes, I'd just as soon go home <S> means you prefer going home. <S> Does this other sentence mean that either thing is good? <S> Sort of; it means both options are good, but you still prefer going home. <S> It's a kinder and gentler version of number 1 because it acknowledges that you heard the other person's preference to go to the party. <A> Do you want to go to the movies? <S> Sure. <S> Or I'd just as soon stay home. <S> Both options, going to the movies, and staying home, are equally appealing. <S> Do you want to go the party? <S> I'd just as soon be eaten alive by a pack of rabid weasels! <S> Both options, going to the party, and being eaten by rabid weasels, are equally unappealing. <A> Abbreviation for “I’d as soon to as not”, but in West Texas is way of accepting generous offer without seeming overly appreciative.
| It means that both options are equally desirable (or undesirable).
|
Is "He is on the swim team" correct? I have read the sentence below: He is on the swim team. My questions are: Why use the preposition "on" ? Can I use "in"? What's the difference between "on" and "in "? Can "the swim team" be replaced with "the swimming team"? <Q> In contemporary American usage, an athlete is always on a team, never in it. <S> Similarly, a juror is on a jury, a bureaucrat sits on a committee, and a professor is on the faculty. <S> By contrast, a soldier is in the army, a politician is in the Senate, and a singer is in the choir. <S> Some entities such as the army and the senate are thought of as corporate bodies that encompass their members. <S> Others, such as athletic teams and juries, are thought of as panels on which the members serve. <S> I can't explain why the difference exists, but it does. <S> So to answer your question: "He is on the swim team" is entirely correct; "he is in the swim team" would be wrong. <S> As for "swim" versus "swimming", I think that's an American vs. British issue. <S> Americans say "swim team. <S> " They do not, however, say "fence team"--it's still "fencing team. <S> " Again, I can't explain why. <A> I agree with other posters that "swim team" is US and "swimming team" is British, other examples being "row boat"/"rowing boat" and "race car"/"racing car". <S> Another American usage, "athletics meet", seems to be gaining some foothold in British usage. <A> As an Australian (although I lived in UK until I was 11) I would say that in Australian English, being "on" or "in" the team are also both equally acceptable, perhaps with a slight leaning to "on" as more common. <S> Regarding the swim vs swimming debate <S> I am afraid the usage of swim really jars with me, and probably with most older Australians, unfortunately it is now becoming very common here, a sign of the Americanisation of our language. <S> (interestingly your spell checker tells me Americanisation should be spelled with a z not an s, but no thanks I will stick with the s)
| I'd say that in current British English usage, being "in the team" and "on the team" are equally acceptable.
|
Which of 'Question on', 'question about', 'question regarding', 'question related to' is best? Which of these sentences are grammatically correct? A: I have a few questions about this course. B: I have a few questions on this course. C: I have a few questions regarding this course. D: I have a few questions related to this course. Is B incorrect? Also, is the meaning of D identical to other sentences? In general, do all of these have the same meaning? Can they be used interchangeably? <Q> About is <S> the most natural preposition, regarding is more stilted. <S> They both indicate questions which concern the course itself, such as what topics will be covered, what time it takes place, what the prerequisites are, … Regarding works better on narrower subjects. <S> I have a question about mathematics, regarding continuous functions. <S> About applies to a domain of knowledge, whereas regarding <S> applies to a specific object or concept. <S> B ( on ) should mean the same as A and C, but it doesn't feel idiomatic in this sentence. <S> I have a question on the grade you awarded me. <S> I have a question on metaphysics. <S> I'm having real trouble figuring out why on doesn't work in your example sentence. <S> D ( related ) has a wider meaning: it indicates questions that have something to do with the course. <S> In particular, related includes questions about the subject matter of the course. <A> I think it is because questions is plural and also because it specifies "this". <S> I have a question on the course sounds fine. <S> can't work out the rule either. <S> I'm from England! <A> I am not a native speaker. <S> Example: <S> "I have a question on problem 5 in the homework assignment. <S> " <S> equals "I have a question on the topic of problem 5 in the homework assignment." <S> But in "I have a question about problem 5 in the homework assignment. <S> ", the question could also be about the wording of problem 5. <S> Please be kind <S> , it's a guess from a learner only.
| A ( about ) and C ( regarding ) are synonymous. I think maybe it is that "a question on" means: "a question on the topic of" and therefore can only be used when one can insert the phrase "the topic of" after the "on", while "a question about" can used before anything. I have a question on this course sounds wrong, as does I have questions on the course (the latter because it could also mean "I have questions literally on top of a physical course like a golf course").I
|
How do I refer to a scholarship competition or a admission course competition? Competition doesn't seem the right word In Portuguese I would say "concurso" and not "competição" which has the same meaning as competition in English. In English it seems off to say competition because a competition is more direct, like a sports competition. <Q> "Applying for a scholarship" is a colloquial expression that is used far more often than the other phrases. <S> To address your comment, you would either reference your application or yourself as the applicant. <S> There are two ways of stating this: <S> My application is very good because I have a strong GPA. <S> I am a very good applicant because I have a strong GPA. <A> Scholarship competition or scholarship contest are used a lot. <S> You're right, competition does sound more intense, like a sports event, but the basic idea is still right. <S> The students are competing to see who wins the scholarship. <A> If what you're refering to is an examination where the goal is to be in the top N applicants, rather than getting a passing grade, then the expression you're looking for is competitive examination . <S> An examination (competitive or not) usually implies that the candidates submit a written paper or pass oral or practical tests. <S> If the concurso is purely based on candidates sending an application, then competitive examination doesn't work, and something like “scholarship competition” would be better.
| It is more succinct to say that you are "applying for a scholarship" instead of appending "competition" or "contest" at the end of the phrase.
|
Which one is correct between "chain of email" and "chain of emails"? What is the correct usage between "a chain of email" and "a chain of emails"? Why? By "a chain of email" I mean an email thread where many people have chimed in from time to time and that has grown very large over time. <Q> You can read more about email threads here , here , and here , and see if that would be a good term. <S> As one of those websites says: An email thread is an email message and a running list of all of the subsequent replies pertaining to the original email. <S> Getting back to your question, mail can be considered a mass noun (much like sand , rice , and money ), meaning that it can be tricky figuring out when and when not to pluralize the word. <S> If, for some reason, you didn't want to use email thread , I would call it a chain of email if it was one message that got forwarded many times. <S> To me, emails connotes several distinct messages from several different sources, not one message that got appended with several subsequent replies. <A> Just as you would say "a pearl necklace" but "a necklace of pearls", so also you would say "an email chain" but "a chain of emails". <A> Email thread , <S> email chain and email <S> stream can all mean the same thing: a collection of email messages including the original and all subsequent replies and forwards from the original sender, recipients and anyone else who was copied or blind copied. <S> Such a collection of messages usually maintains the same Subject, but this is not a requirement. <S> Although not recommended, it is usually possible to change the Subject before replying or forwarding. <S> Please note, <S> the email thread / chain / stream is a collection of the actual messages - not simply a list of the messages.
| I would call this an email thread , rather than a chain of email .
|
"I think we're going to have to be chessmen" - what does "be going to" mean here? They were standing on the edge of a huge chessboard, behind the black chessmen, which were all taller than they were and carved from what looked like black stone. Facing them, way across the chamber, were the white pieces. Harry, Ron and Hermione shivered slightly –– the towering white chessmen had no faces. "Now what do we do?" Harry whispered. "It's obvious, isn't it?" said Ron. "We've got to play our way across the room." Behind the white pieces they could see another door. "How?" said Hermione nervously. "I think," said Ron, " we're going to have to be chessmen." He walked up to a black knight and put his hand out to touch the knight's horse. At once, the stone sprang to life. The horse pawed the ground and the knight turned his helmeted head to look down at Ron. "Do we –– er –– have to join you to get across?" The black knight nodded. (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) Is the auxiliary are going to used to soften the meaning of have to ? <Q> On its own, be going to is another way of indicating future time. <S> I'm going to do it tomorrow <S> means pretty much the same as I shall do it tomorrow . <S> Have to introduces a rule or necessity. <S> We have to be quiet here (said by someone in a library) spells out the rule. <S> We're going to have to be or we shall have to be <S> also indicates necessity, but with the implication of reluctant acceptance. <S> There is an implicit ...whether we like it or not at the end. <S> We're going to have to be chessmen <S> might also have been written We shall have to be chessmen , but that is formal or old-fashioned, and so you wouldn't expect contemporary teenagers to say it. <A> I don't know what you mean by soften here <S> but we're going to <S> definitely goes to put more emphasis on the have to part and that it clearly shows that they really need to be chessmen if they're going to go across the room and that there are no two ways about the whole arrangement. <A> It implies putting in, at least some extra effort before something is done.
| the auxiliary "are going to" before "have to", means doing something that you were not initially wanting or planning to do.
|
Difference between "won't" and "will not" What's the differences between won't and will not ? Do they have the exact same meaning in all contexts? If not, I would really appreciate some examples. <Q> Won't is simply a contraction of the words will not . <S> They have the exact same meaning. <S> Won't is more informal; if you're writing an essay, in most cases you're advised not to use any contractions. <S> Beyond that, there's no reason not to choose whichever you like. <S> More often when speaking, you'll hear won't . <S> So if you're writing dialogue, you might use the contraction to make it sound more natural. <A> Contractions such as ‘won’t’ are found principally in speech and in informal writing, although there seems to be a growing trend for them to occur in formal writing as well. <S> Where the full form does occur in speech, it is often used for exaggerated emphasis. <A> "Will not" sounds more formal and emphatic. <S> There is one case where it's not exactly the same, and that is when you're asking a question. <S> The word order changes, and "won't" can contract a "will" and "not" which are separate: <S> Casual: " <S> Won't you help me with this?" <S> (Very) Formal <S> : "Will you not help me with this?" <S> Incorrect: <S> "Will not you help me with this?" <A> The question may arise why "will not" is contracted to "won't" and not to "willn't/wiln't/win't". <S> The /i/ in "will" is a secondary sound, the primary sound was o as we see in Latin vole:re <S> (infinitive, to will/modal verb <S> will).The present tense of volere has vowel change due to endings with i. <S> Latin vol-o <S> - I will Latin vis <S> - you will (vis contracted from *vol-is. <S> The form was used so frequently that it was rapidly shortened.) <S> We see this vowel change also in German:wollen - wir/sie wollen - ihr wollt - infinitive <S> - we/they will - you will, pluralbut ich <S> will - du willst <S> - I will - you will, singular. <S> I didn't check how things were in Old English. <S> It would be interesting to see whether there are forms with o such as woll to be found and when secondary forms with i occurred. <S> The o is also in volition. <A> For me it's the same as with <S> can <S> not and can't or should not and shouldn't . <S> I think won't and will not may always be used interchangeably. <A> In all cases a contraction sounds less formal. <S> The strange thing about "won't" is that it contracts "will not" and so why isn't it "willn't"? <S> the word for "will" used to be "woll" and the contraction evolved into "won't" before "will" supplanted "woll" in the vernacular. <S> There is an intermediate version of the contraction, "wo'n't", which illustrates what we expect from a contraction... <S> In this case the missing "ll" replaced by an apostrophe as well as the missing "o". <A> Won't is one of, if not the, earliest contracted word. <S> It is actually a contraction of the old English wonnot (1500's). <S> Wonnot is no longer used but the contraction remains. <S> It is commonly taken to mean will not, and this works in 95% of cases.
| "Won't" is a contraction for "will not", and so they should mean the same thing in all cases. ‘I WILL NOT GO’ spoken slowly and deliberately shows greater determination than ‘I won’t go’ spoken softly.
|
Is there a word for someone who says prayers? Is there a word for someone who says prayers? P.S. I googled the phrase "someone who says prayers", assuming that if there were a definition for such a word in online dictionaries, it would be indexed in Google databases, but I got nothing! If the way I searched for an unknown word is not efficient and you know a better approach, please let me know. <Q> There's the word supplicant , but I don't think that can be applied universally. <S> The word means "someone who requests something," and it can indeed be applied to people who ask God for something in prayer. <S> However, there are also prayers of praise, and prayers of thankgiving, and I don't think it would be accurate to call someone a supplicant if the person was only offering a prayer of thanks. <S> A more broadly applicable word would be precant , but it's not a commonly-used word. <A> See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prayer , definition 2. <S> (The third block, not #2 under one of the first two blocks.) <S> Note that when spoken, "prayer" as a person is pronounced pray-er or pray-or, two syllables, while "prayer" as the thing you say is pronounced "prar", one syllable. <S> But in print they are spelled the same. <S> This may be confusing if the sentence is not clearly worded. <S> (If I found it difficult to word the sentence to make the intended meaning obvious, I might write "pray-er" to make it clear. <S> Consider a sentence like, "God blesses both the prayer and the prayer", meaning both the words and the person who says them. <S> Someone reading that without having just read a discussion of the word "prayer" might well say, "Huh? <S> " But if I wrote "... the prayer and the pray-er", they'd probably get the idea.) <S> In the context you are using, we often say things like "a praying person" or "a person who prays". <S> If you were talking about someone who stands in front of a church or other group to recite a prayer, he is sometimes called "the prayer leader", even though he's not really "leading" anyone, he's just saying a prayer by himself. <A> I was just asking myself this very question, which brought be here. <S> Supplicant is good, but worshiper is the word that comes to mind as commonly describing those who pray, esp. <S> when attending formal services. <A> If it is a person who is uttering prayers for an audience, then he is a Preacher . <S> If a person who utters prayers for his personal reasons, he is a Worshiper
| The word "prayer" means "a person who prays".
|
Do we "transfer" our experiences? When you teach someone your experiences, can you say "I transferred my experiences"? or is there a better verb to describe it? <Q> "Shared" is actually more common in English. <S> Also, though you have many experiences, you are talking about them as a group when you share them with someone, so you would use the singular form of "experience". <S> Thus, you'd end up with "I shared my experience." <A> Transferred isn't correct, because it means you're giving up your experiences to someone else, and when they have them you no longer do. <S> Here's one definition : transfer (also trans·fer·al) <S> The conveyance or removal of something from one place, person, or thing to another. <S> So you would not say that you transferred an experience, because sharing them with others does not remove them from your memory or knowledge. <S> As lonehorseend says, shared is the word we tend to use in English to refer to letting others know of our experiences. <S> We could only afford to send one member of our team to the conference, but it all worked out because he was more than happy to share his experiences with the rest of the team when he got back. <A> I sort of agree with Lonehorseend and WendiKidd, but not quite. <S> If you are talking about "experience" in the sense of interesting stories you have to tell, then yes, we say "share experiences", not "transfer". <S> (See, for example, http://www.rainmaker.no/?page_id=28 or http://homepage.ntlworld.com/nick.heap/Expertransf.htm .)
| But if you are talking about acquired skills, then it is more common to say "share", but people do say "transfer", as in, "We have asked Bob to transfer his experience to the new members of the team."
|
"suffice to say" vs "it suffices to say" vs "suffice it to say" What should I consider when choosing between these phrases: suffice to say it suffices to say suffice it to say I don't know about the second and third one but I can speculate that the first one ("suffice to say") is not obsolete, at least in the USA. For instance, in an episode of the TV series, Dexter , there is a conversation that goes like this: [Dexter]: Deb found out what I am. She knows everything. [Dr. Vogel]: Everything? How? [Dexter]: It's a long story. Just suffice to say she's not handling it well. So, I assume in similar situations it would be safe to use the phrase "suffice to say", yet I don't know when I'd need to switch to another alternative (after all, I don't like to mess with the Mr. Potato Head !). <Q> I think you'll always be better off saying "suffice it to say". <S> Options 1 and 2 seem quite odd to my ear, though at least option 1 could be considered ellipsis . <S> There's a helpful article on the topic here . <A> All of the forms are valid, and in common usage in English. <S> " <S> Suffice it to say" is more old-fashioned, but it seems to be coming back into fashion (since about the mid 1950s), and is now more common than the word ordering " <S> it suffices to say" in both American and British English. <S> "Suffice to say" is also valid; in this case the "it" has merely been elided, and in my experience is more common in speech, whereas "suffice it to say" is more common in writing. <S> The following is an NGram that shows that all of the forms are relatively common, and you will be widely understood by native English speakers whichever form you happen to choose. <A> The only form that makes grammatical sense is <S> "it suffices to say" . <S> The other forms may be in general use, but that doesn't make them correct; example: " ain't ".
| "It suffices to say" and "suffice it to say" are the same, just with a word-order inversion for stylistic purposes.
|
Salutation of business letter when recipient is unknown In writing business letters, when we don't know the name of whom we are writing to which words are better to use? Can we use "To whom it may concern"? <Q> Yes, that is fine. <S> However, it is very formal, for example with letters having to do with legal matters. <S> Less formal and more typical is "Dear Sir or Madam:" <S> (note the use of the colon; "To whom it may concern:" also should use one). <S> If you know the title or job position of the individual to whom you are writing, you should use that: "Dear Judge:", "Dear Claims Adjustor:" and so on. <S> Also, if the letter isn't about business, for example you are inviting the Claims Adjustor to a party, you would use a comma: "Dear Claims Adjustor," would be the style in this situation. <A> <A> When you don't know the name of the person in charge of sponsorship, "Dear Friend," is both professional and friendly without being overly familiar. <S> Also "Dear Potential Sponsor," which is a little more direct but sponsors already know you want money <S> so they prefer you to be upfront.
| SO I recommend that you use "Dear Sir/Madame" and of course remember to use your colon ':'at the end of the salutation There is nothing wrong with writing, "To who it may concern", but personally it sounds very unprofessional and incorrect because it concerns a whole lot of people, including you who is writing this letter.
|
What is the difference between 'hear' and 'listen'? Is there a difference between 'hear' and 'listen' in Standard English? <Q> To hear is to physically experience the sense of sound. <S> As long as one's ear and brain are capable of processing sound waves, one can hear. <S> To listen is to deliberately apply the ability to hear. <S> One who listens is thinking about what is heard, what it means, how to respond, and whether to continue to listen/pay attention. <S> Imagine three people seated together, with two of them speaking to one another. <S> The third, temporarily not involved in the conversation, pulls out a phone and begins doing stuff with it, ignoring the conversation. <S> This third person can hear the conversation, but is not listening to it. <S> (A person who is deaf might be said to be listening to a conversation if they can read lips, but it would be more correct to use a term such as engaged or participating .) <S> Note that there is some overlap in common usage: <S> "Did you even hear what I told you?? <S> " <S> is a common idiomatic expression of <S> "Why are you not listening to me?" <A> 'Hearing' is the physical activity of sound falling on the ears and the biological processes involved in its perception. ' <S> We hear noise, but we listen to music. <S> That is because noise falls on our ears without any effort at our end. <S> But music is something we pay attention to; we expend effort. <A> Listening is own choice but hearing comes automatically whether you want or not
| Listening' is the ability to pay attention to what the sounds means and understand it.
|
Difference between 'the all backup' or 'all the backup'? I am confused about the difference between we can store all the backup we can store the all backup Can any one help me with which one is correct or both? What is the logic behind which is right? <Q> We can store all the backup. <S> This means that the entirety of the backup can be stored. <S> This possibly means that you can store the thing called "all backup". <S> In this sentence all could be being used in a non-idiomatic manner as some kind of modifier to distinguish which backup is being stored. <S> This is unusual at best. <S> Compare it to the sentence <S> "We can store the Tuesday afternoon backup. <S> " <S> All can be used as a determiner, but that is not the case in the second sentence, because there is already a determiner: the , and in the case where all would be a determiner then backup would need to be plural. <S> We can store all backups. <A> Neither seems correct. <S> Depending on context <S> I think you meant the whole backup or all the backups . <A> Generally I think "all" can be replaced by "all of" and still retain the original meaning (notwithstanding style guides that prefer "all of" to be exclusive to pronouns). <S> So, "we can store all of the backup" sounds like it probably makes sense, but "we can store the all of backup" certainly does not. <S> Consider the opposite: "We can store some of the backup." <A> Only the first is grammatical. <S> I haven't heard someone say the second. <S> Maybe it's a translation from another language and seems to have been done literally or word by word. <A> We can store [A NOUN PHRASE] . <S> [NOUN PHRASE] -> <S> all, the, backup <S> There in that sentence we need to form a noun phrase that will sit after the verb - store . <S> This noun phrase consists of three words - all, the and backup . <S> The head noun of the noun phrase is backup , and other two words - all and <S> the - are determiners. <S> So they will come before the head noun. <S> Now the question is whether the will come before all or all will come before the . <S> Let's see.... <S> Both all and <S> the are determiners. <S> A determiners can be further classified into three sub-classes - CENTER DETERMINER, PREDETERMINER and POSTDETERMINER. <S> And their order as occurs in a noun phrase is - PREDETERMINER + CENTER DETERMINER + <S> POSTDETERMINER <S> Here the is a CENTER DETERMINER, and all is a PREDETERMINER . <S> So the correct order of determiners is - all the <S> Hence it's <S> all the backup that is correct, not the all backup .
| We can store the all backup. In the first sentence all is a predeterminer that indicates "the entire quantity".
|
Is America "it" or "she"? America was inhabited by native American Indians thousands of years ago. What is the appropriate form to use? She has many different inhabitants today. It has many different inhabitants today. <Q> I don't think this is a matter of being "politically correct". <S> It's more that referring to countries with gender-specific pronouns is becoming increasingly less common, particularly since WW2 ... <S> That chart clearly shows the general trend (also reflected with Britain and her/its allies ). <S> But in the specific case of America , things are further complicated by the fact that in socio-political contexts the "nation-state" is probably more often called [The] US . <S> These Google Books figures are interesting... <S> America used its... <S> 1770 <S> hits <S> America used her... <S> 326 hits <S> The US used its... <S> 5420 <S> hits <S> The US used her... <S> 33 hits <S> In short, although there's no specific grammatical reason to avoid <S> she in OP's sentence, it certainly strikes me as a somewhat "dated/poetic" usage. <S> I think it's best avoided unless you genuinely intend to "personify" the nation (which doesn't really seem appropriate in OP's case). <A> Either is correct. <S> If you want to follow political correctness, which is trying to make everything gender-neutral, then it will do; if you want to follow tradition, then she . <S> Yahoo! <S> Answers had an interesting discussion on this very topic back in 2010. <A> In general non-fiction, technical, academic, and business writing, using the pronoun "she" with a country is not appropriate. <S> Use only "it" as a pronoun for things. <S> In creative writing, including fiction, literary criticism, poetry, and essays (political opinion), the use of a feminine pronoun for certain things, such as ships and countries, can be an effective personalization technique, and is consistent with historical use in English.
| The answer depends completely on the context.
|
Word for people who are pretending to be making effort What are the right words or phrases that describe a person who is pretending to be working hard or contributing to a team effort, actually doing nothing but waiting to get a (undeserved) share of reward? I tried to look it up in a dictionary from my mother tongue to English, and I did not find any words or phrases, only full sentences. <Q> One term that could be used is coaster . <S> It was hard to find a dictionary that listed this meaning of the word, but I managed to find one on the Wordnik page . <S> One of Wordnik's cross-listed definition reads: <S> coaster <S> ( n .) <S> A loafer. <S> In my experience, the word is often used when a member of a team is relying too much on others, and not contributing enough. <S> This could be a sports team, or a team working on a project in school or the workplace. <S> The verb form was used in a headline earlier this year, when a reporter wondered: Dwyane Wade: Is Miami Heat Star on the Decline or Just Coasting ? <S> As a synonym, you could probably use slacker . <S> A person who avoids work or effort. <S> If the context makes it clear that the slacker is a member of a team, I think the word can carry the meaning you want. <A> <A> The word that I would use is "shirker." <S> In your (Chinese) language, this word would correspond to the ideogram of a woman talking, while carrying (or pretending to) a stack of grain. <A> <A> Fudgel is an old (18th century?) <S> English word that means “to pretend to be busy while actually doing nothing.” <S> A Huffington Post article reads: To fudgel is an eighteenth-century term meaning “Pretending to work when you’re not actually doing anything at all.” <S> Modern offices are full of it, largely because when somebody is staring intently at a computer screen and typing it’s hard to tell whether they’re busily putting together this year’s accounts or busily updating their Facebook status or buying something on eBay. <S> “Stop fudgelling” should be the catchphrase of every efficient office manager. <A> It seems that suitable words for this sense are a freeloader and a hanger-on. <A> Boondoggle: verb (used without object), boon·dog·gled, boon·dog·gling.to do work of little or no practical value merely to keep or look busy. <A> Goldbricker has the meaning you want person who gets paid a wage, or salary, for work that is not done, despite the appearance of working. <S> but is unusual. <S> And possibly old-fashioned -- I've found it in writing from the WWII era.
| NOAD defines the word as: slacker ( n .) I'm not sure there's a word or simple phrase that incorporates "pretending to be working hard or contributing", but someone who isn't contributing while expecting to share in rewards could be called a "free rider" or, more pejoratively, a " straphanger ". I like the phrase coat-hanger myself, someone who hovers around actually doing nothing is only really fit to hold your coat.
|
What is a "complete secret"? “Good afternoon, Harry,” said Dumbledore. Harry stared at him. Then he remembered: “Sir! The Stone! It was Quirrell! He’s got the Stone! Sir, quick —” “Calm yourself, dear boy, you are a little behind the times,” said Dumbledore. “Quirrell does not have the Stone.” “Then who does? Sir, I —” “Harry, please relax, or Madam Pomfrey will have me thrown out.” Harry swallowed and looked around him. He realized he must be in the hospital wing. He was lying in a bed with white linen sheets, and next to him was a table piled high with what looked like half the candy shop. “Tokens from your friends and admirers,” said Dumbledore, beaming. “What happened down in the dungeons between you and Professor Quirrell is a complete secret , so, naturally, the whole school knows. I believe your friends Misters Fred and George Weasley were responsible for trying to send you a toilet seat. No doubt they thought it would amuse you. Madam Pomfrey, however, felt it might not be very hygienic, and confiscated it.” (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) In the context, ‘a complete secret’ seems to mean ‘an incident already well-known’. But I don’t find any explanation in dictionaries. What does it mean? <Q> The sentence represents a bit of irony on Professor Dumbledore's part. <S> By <S> “[it is] a complete secret” <S> he means that what happened is, officially, entirely a secret. <S> “So, naturally, the whole school knows” suggests that at Hogwarts the deepest secrets are soonest known, because so many are interested both in hearing and telling them. <A> It's meant to elicit a laugh or chuckle. <S> Evidently, gossip flies fast at Hogwarts, as jwpat7 indicated. <S> As you know, Hogwarts is an academy filled with school-aged children. <S> Like in so many other institutions with children that age, nothing gets kept secret very long. <S> Someone will tell a friend or two, and those friends will go tell a friend or two, and so on, and so on. <S> In the context of the original, the word complete doesn't really change the meaning of the sentence at all; it merely acts as an intensifier, much like the word very would. <A> A complete secret is only known by the direct participant(s) of an event. <S> It you stole an exam with a friend and cheated on a test, it would be a complete secret if only the two of you know about it. <S> On the other hand, it would be a "secret" (not a complete one...) if you also told some best friend or person of trust.
| In today's parlance, Dumbledore might have said: What happened down in the dungeons between you and Professor Quirrell was supposed to be kept secret, but, naturally, it went viral , and now the whole school knows.
|
The difference between "testament" and "will" From what I found out in legal correspondence and deeds, it appears that " will " is used far more often than " testament ". Is one more formal than the other? If not, what is the difference between the two? <Q> Many legal terms use a pair of synonyms, one of Germanic origin, the other of Latin origin. <S> This dates back to the Middle Ages, when a majority of the English population used Old English but many educated people (such as lawyers) spoke Old French or Latin. <S> This developed into a habit of using such pairs even after the original motivation of expressing the same concept in two languages was lost. <S> Such pairs are called legal doublets . <S> Examples: aid and abet , cease and desist , kind and nature , will and testament , … <S> Will (in this sense) and testament are synonyms. <S> They can be used interchangeably (at least in normal speech, and I'm not aware of any legal difference). <S> Will (the Germanic term) is a lot more common than testament (the French term). <A> The full name of the document is Last Will and Testament . <S> One definition : <S> A document in which a person specifies the method to be applied in the management and distribution of his estate after his death. <S> I wouldn't call it informal; I think it's what people use most of the time. <S> In a legal context you're probably better off using the full name, though. <A> These days there is no distinction, but traditionally wills dealt with real estate, while testaments handled personal estate. <S> See, for example, this page from the University of Nottingham . <A>
| Will is a common term to refer to this document. I'm under the understanding that a will is what's in your mind as to what and who you desire to be as beneficiaries of your estate upon death, and testament is when the will becomes a legal document enforced by the law.
|
What does "I love you" mean? In Italian, there are two phrases you say to the people for which you feel something: ti voglio bene and ti amo . The first is less strong , and it is not something that you would say to your lover; you could say it to a friend, your parents, your sons, or a sibling, but saying ti voglio bene to a lover would not be something well seen. (That would mean getting an answer like "You don't love me anymore?") When translating those sentences with Google Translate, I get "I love you" in both the cases. So, what does "I love you" mean? <Q> "I love you" is usually thought of as an exchange between lovers, although parents also say it to children, and vice versa. <S> A grandmother might use it when saying goodbye to her grandchildren. <S> It's something you might say to anyone who you might also kiss, whether that kiss is on the lips or on the cheek. <S> In many parts of the U.S., if you want to be humorous, you might say "I love you, man," in a choked up voice, something that's gained a lot of traction ever since Budweiser aired this commercial several years ago. <S> The word love in English carries a multitude of emotions, so it really depends on context. <S> It's probably one of the most flexible and adaptable words in English. <S> In addition to the affectionate and erotic feelings of love we have for a lover, we might also love algebra as a school subject; we can also love chocolate ice cream, fall weather, or our favorite sports team. <A> Ti voglio bene corresponds to <S> I like you a lot. <S> And ti amo corresponds to <S> I love you. <A> Mostly ditto JR, but let me add one additional point: Americans, at least, rarely say "I love you" to anyone but a husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, child, parent, grandchild, grandparent, etc. <S> I suppose it depends on the family, but I think we are more likely to say "I love you" to a romantic partner than to a family member. <S> We are somewhat more likely to use the word in the third person. <S> Like I would be very unlikely to say "I love you" to my brother, but I have certainly said, "I love my brother." <S> The more mild phrase is "like". <S> I would be very unlikely to tell a co-worker or other casual friend <S> "I love you" -- not unless I was trying to turn the friendship into romance. <S> But I might say "I like you".
| When talking between friends, "I like you" might be a more common approximation of ti voglio bene .
|
Do decades ever get apostrophes? In researching whether to write 1960s or 1960's , I have found several sources stating that 1960s is correct: one , two , three . On the other hand, this source states that: In British usage, we do not use an apostrophe in pluralizing dates: This research was carried out in the 1970s. American usage, however, does put an apostrophe here: (A) This research was carried out in the 1970's. You should not adopt this practice unless you are specifically writing for an American audience. This is contradicted by a forum post stating that this is simply incorrect. Now I'm not sure anymore. Considering the sources I'm pretty sure 1960s is correct, but is there any situation, in any recognised English orthography, in which the spelling 1960's is also correct in referring to the decade (as opposed to a property of the year 1960)? <Q> I should also point out that if the apostrophe is used, it can't represent "possession/association" unless followed by another noun. <S> You can say I was last year's winner , and (just about) <S> I was 2012's winner , but that's a completely different usage. <S> In OP's context, the 60's can only be a noun meaning "that decade". <S> Besides which, if you really wanted to use the possessive with the sense " of that decade", it would have to be <S> the 60s' singer Pat Boone , for example. <S> But nobody would actually do that - we just assume that regardless of whether it includes an apostrophe, the 60s there is a "noun" used as an adjective . <A> As is ever the case with style in English, there is no hard rule except to be consistent within the parameters of the style guide you are using. <S> That said, I know the Chicago, MLA, and Associated Press manuals all say not to use the apostrophe to pluralize dates, contradicting your contradictory source regarding American usage. <S> The common explanation behind the pluralizing apostrophe is to avoid confusion where the s could be read as part of a word. <S> mind your p's and q's; <S> five <S> a's and nine <S> the's, two 1's and three 0's <S> Over time, however, we have seen a simplifying trend toward sparser use of punctuation. <S> Many brand names have long omitted even the possessive apostrophe (e.g. Gimbels), and acronyms have mostly lost their periods (e.g. N.A.A.C.P. <S> → NAACP, unless you are the New York Times ). <S> We have also moved from typewriters to word processors and computers which offer a wider range of characters and typographic styles, meaning we have better tools to signal meaning to the reader than simply a straight apostrophe. <A> According to the Google Books ngram viewer, there was a surge in the use of e.g. 60's in the US in, ahem, the 70s, which has been fading out ever since: 60s vs 60's, US English ... <S> but that surge is nowhere to be seen in British English: 60s vs 60's, UK English <S> Other decades give similar results. <S> From that, I think it's safe to say that it's never been correct in British English, and is no longer so in US English. <A> I have also researched the sources cited above. <S> There is just no reason to put an apostrophe when referring to a decade of years. <S> On another note, acronyms are initials of words that create a word that is spoken as such. <S> Examples include NATO, NASA, and laser. <S> Acronym does NOT refer to the initials of words that do not create another word like the NAACP. <S> I researched it generally and the definition is pretty consistent across most websites including Chicago.
| It's really just a stylistic choice, as per this related ELU question , but most style guides would suggest you shouldn't use the apostrophe, and these days, that's what most people do...
|
How to say "on page x and the following pages"? I want to refer to a certain page and the pages after that, but without giving the end as a specified number. Can I use these phrases? [...] can be found on page x and the following. [...] can be found on page x and the following pages. [...] can be found after page x? I personally don't like the second version. Is the first version correct? Can I use it? <Q> I'm not sure if it's overly simple for your needs <S> but I would always say: ... <S> can be found from page x onwards <A> Your first example is perfectly fine because "pages" isn't necessary. <S> You've already stated that you're referring to pages when you say, "found on page x". <S> I assume that you want to spell out this information particularly instead of using the ff. <S> notation: "... <S> can be found on page xff." <S> which means the same thing. <S> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ff . <A> Not “page 42 and the following”. <S> The adjective following calls for a noun. <S> It looks like you're using “the following” to mean “what follows the current point in the text” or “something that follows” or “the next few lines”. <S> “Page 42 and the following pages” sounds correct. <S> This could be shortened to “page 42 and following pages” (since you aren't specifying the exact number of following pages, it's <S> some following pages, so the null article works), or perhaps even to “page 42 and following” (without <S> the <S> , it doesn't look like a noun is missing any more). <S> In practice, you would normally not spell this out, but use the abbreviation ff. <S> The word page becomes plural since it now designates not just to the first page but to the whole sequence. <S> (…) can be found on pages 42ff." <A> x et seq. <S> • ... can be found on or after page <S> x <A> Even in an academic paper, I think you can avoid esoteric notation like ff or <S> et seq . <S> (Or perhaps especially in an academic paper. <S> Contrary to popular opinion, you don't win points for making a paper hard to read.) <S> You can express this simply, and I would do so by writing "starting on": [...] <S> can be found starting on page 153. <S> There are some good alternatives in the other answers. <S> Just make sure that however you choose to express yourself, it's clear to your intended audience. <A> Your second example is better than your first example, IMO. <S> You could say "[...] <S> can be found on page x and on. <S> which would mean the same thing (although "and on" could possibly be taken to mean "until the end of the book"). <S> Saying "after page x" is confusing. <S> It probably would not include page x, but it is ambiguous enough that someone would probably have to ask for clarification.
| I'd say one of the following: • ... can be found on page x and following • ... can be found on page
|
"My sister and I" versus "I and my sister" I've been told to put "I" at the last part of the subject, as in "My sister and I walk to school." Is saying "I and my sister walk to school." wrong? <Q> According to Grammar Girl , it's "a rule of politeness" to put yourself last in the list: <S> Ms. Smith informed my wife and me that she was resigning. <S> My sister and I went to school. <S> General Writing and Grammar help concurs, but does not offer any additional authorities on the matter. <S> The Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary offers the same advice: third-person, then second-person, finally first-person pronouns for general usage; mixing up the order is not necessarily rude, but can serve to emphasize the role of the speaker in the action, or as a cue that the speaker is talking informally or is less-educated. <A> I and my sister is a bit odd, yes. <S> As Hellion explains, usually we're taught to put ourselves last in coordinated lists, so you'd write this instead: <S> My sister and I walk to school. <S> In formal speech, you should always put yourself last. <S> And even if you put yourself last in informal speech, it'll sound perfectly natural. <S> So the short answer is always put yourself last . <S> However, it's very much natural English to write or say it the other way, putting yourself first in the list. <S> Native speakers almost all talk this way (until they're taught not to do so), and there's nothing wrong with doing so in informal speech. <S> But we don't say this: I and my sister walk to school. <S> (very rare, even in non-standard English) <S> Instead, we say this: Me and my sister walk to school. <S> (acceptable in non-standard English) <S> I want to emphasize something: although this is extremely common, it's a stigmatized speech pattern and should be considered non-standard. <S> You don't ever have to speak this way, but you shouldn't be surprised when you hear other speakers do so. <A> The issue here, as in the discussion above, is not only about grammar but also about custom and usage, whether "formal" or "informal," whether in writing or in speech, etc. <S> However, we are taught that such constructions are necessarily an issue of correct vs. incorrect grammar. <S> I do not think so. <S> Again, I am in the camp that would always say/write, "She and I...," not "I and she..."; but <S> linguistically/grammatically there is nothing incorrect per se about saying/writing "I and she.... <S> " <S> "I and she are going to the store" (i.e., "we are") <S> conveys the exact same information, perfectly understandable both to speaker/writer and hearer/reader, and employs the correct nominatives "I"/"she" (vs. incorrect objective "me"), but in a different order (I/she instead of <S> She/I) than <S> --agreed!--we are acCUSTOMed to using them. <S> But custom, etiquette, and grammar/linguistics are different animals, even if they so often overlap that we do not discern their differences. <S> I think this discussion requires that we acknowledge such difference for the purpose of (re-)examining how we construct a sentence--such as "She and I are going to the store"--whether per custom and/or usage and/or linguistics. <S> That said--ha!--I can't imagine I would ever say/write "I and she...."
| I agree that, per custom and usage, we are taught both to say and to write, for example, "She and I are going...," and not, "I and she are going."
|
What does "looking after" mean? “Ready, are you?” It was Uncle Vernon, still purple-faced, still mustached, still looking furious at the nerve of Harry, carrying an owl in a cage in a station full of ordinary people. Behind him stood Aunt Petunia and Dudley, looking terrified at the very sight of Harry. “You must be Harry’s family!” said Mrs. Weasley. “In a manner of speaking,” said Uncle Vernon. “Hurry up, boy, we haven’t got all day.” He walked away. Harry hung back for a last word with Ron and Hermione. “See you over the summer, then.” “Hope you have — er — a good holiday,” said Hermione, looking uncertainly after Uncle Vernon, shocked that anyone could be so unpleasant. -- Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling What does "look after" in the context mean? Is she looking at the back of Uncle Vernon? <Q> I believe Hermione wasn't certain that Harry was going to have good holidays going by his Uncle's shocking rudeness but still wished him nevertheless. <S> "Looking after" in the context means that she was looking at Harry's Uncle while wishing Harry goodbye and hence that implied pause ( — er — ) in her chain of thoughts and that in effect gave her that uncertain feeling. <A> “Hope you have — er — a good holiday,” said Hermione, looking uncertainly after Uncle Vernon, shocked that anyone could be so unpleasant. <S> I'd accept Mopit's response as being good <S> but I have a slightly different take on it though I think we end up at the same point down the river. <S> Hermione was 'Looking uncertain' after 'Uncle Vernon'. <S> In most cases 'before' and 'after' are used to position things in sequence. <S> Before noon; after you go to the bank; after you eat dinner. <S> In this case I would say that the 'event' was Uncle Vernon. <S> In this case what he said and did: <S> “In a manner of speaking,” said Uncle Vernon. <S> “Hurry up, boy, we haven’t got all day.” <S> He walked away. <S> The only time I can think of anyone 'looking after' having a different sort of meaning is when its used in place of take care of. <S> Sally's dad left her to look after her new born baby sister while he went to the store. <S> This is clearly NOT the usage in question, as I am quite certain that Hermione had no desire to take care of Uncle Vernon. <A> Zeppie's possible interpretation of looking <S> uncertain disregards the fact that uncertain is an adjective which, in this context, would describe Hermione (the noun), whereas uncertainly is an adverb that describes how she was looking ( <S> the active verb, as in he's looking frantically , and not the passive verb, as in he's looking frantic .) <S> We have only the words written on the page, and must therefore try to interpret their meaning based on how they are specifically used. <S> Simply put, she was looking at Uncle Vernon with uncertainty after he left.
| So to say she was looking uncertain after Uncle Vernon is to say that she was looking uncertain after whatever it was that Uncle Vernon did that made him a remarkable event in the scene. So the general form ends up being: After (event).
|
psychologist John Hayes (THE, zero article before false titles) An example ( from The New Yorker ) of a phrase with a false title ( psychologist John Hayes): After Simon and Chase’s paper, for example, the psychologist JohnHayes looked at seventy-six famous classical composers and found that,in almost every case, those composers did not create their greatestwork until they had been composing for at least ten years. Both THE and the zero article could be used with false titles, but which looks better in this sentence to a native speaker? Would this look OK: After Simon and Chase’s paper, for example, _ psychologist JohnHayes looked at seventy-six famous classical composers and found that,in almost every case, those composers did not create their greatestwork until they had been composing for at least ten years. What if we beefed up the phrase with an adjunct? Would 0 and THE both look fine? After Simon and Chase’s paper, for example, (Ø/the) cognitive psychologist JohnHayes looked at seventy-six famous classical composers and found that,in almost every case, those composers did not create their greatestwork until they had been composing for at least ten years. After Simon and Chase’s paper, for example, (Ø/the) American cognitive psychologist JohnHayes looked at seventy-six famous classical composers and found that,in almost every case, those composers did not create their greatestwork until they had been composing for at least ten years. It seems that THE looks O.K. when a false title is short ("psychologist") but starts looking strange before some complex combinations. <Q> When both options are acceptable, it's very hard (if not impossible) to tell which would "look better" without larger context. <S> To me, they both mean the same thing, however the emphasis is slightly different. <S> In this particular quote, with the ∅ article, a bit more emphasis seems to be on the name of the individual: <S> After Simon and Chase’s paper, for example, psychologist John Hayes looked at seventy-six famous classical composers... <S> With the definite article, though, some of the emphasis seems to shift to the title: <S> After Simon and Chase’s paper, for example, the psychologist John Hayes looked at seventy-six famous classical composers... <S> So, if you're more interested in conveying who did the study, perhaps the ∅ article would work slightly better. <S> On the other hand, if you want to emphasize that person's field of expertise, then it may be better to include the definite article. <S> In this particular instance, that latter option might work well when researchers from several different areas studied the problem – psychologists, human factors engineers, social scientists, anthropologists, etc. <S> – but you want to emphasize this was a psychological study. <S> However, the former might work better if several psychiatrists studied the problem, but we were interested only in examining Hayes' findings. <S> It should be noted this is difference is very, very subtle, and not all readers may not interpret it in the same way. <S> I'm not giving rules to be dogmatic about, I'm giving considerations to ponder. <S> I will stand by this one point: you can't always tell the best option when you look at only a single sentence; you need to look at what else is in the paragraph, and even what else is in the surrounding text. <A> I don't know of any rule on this. <A> "The" can be omitted here in written language, and it is common to omit this in journalism. <S> In this case, the omission can only occur the first time the person is introduced. <S> In fact, it's better to think of"Psychologist <S> John Hayes says..." as abbreviating "John Hayes, who is a psychologist, says..." than as abbreviating "The psychologist John Hayes says..." This type of construction does not seem to occur in spoken language (except oral readings of written language, like newscasts or political speeches). <A> As @J.R. answered, both are correct, and to decide which is 'better' is very subjective and mainly a question of style. <S> However, I would say that for longer combinations of adjuncts, it might be slightly better to omit the 'the', in case it is mistakenly thought that it implies uniqueness. <S> In other words, it takes a tiny bit of thought to distinguish between the British architect and Neo-Modern thinker, John Smith (one of many) and the British architect and inventor of Neo-Modernism, John Smith (the only one) <S> Of course the alert reader should be able to figure out what is meant, but it's one more speed-bump in reading quickly and flowingly.
| With and without "the" both look fine to me, and I see no difference in the meaning conveyed.
|
What is the word that describes the absence of bureaucracy? What is the word which describes the absence of formless, of long procedure with bureaucrats? I was thinking about formsless but it sounds weird... <Q> How about streamlined : streamline , v .: to improve a business, organization, process, etc. <S> by making it more <S> modern or simple Example: <S> Freedonia streamlined its archaic visa application bureaucracy, replacing it with a three-question online form. <A> There isn't a single antonym for "bureaucratic", because "bureaucratic" encompasses a number of ideas, although I think streamlined or possibly efficient is perhaps the closest to what you want in your case. <S> Other examples that you might want, depending on what aspect of the word "bureaucratic" you are contrasting include: easy , simple , transparent , efficient , flexible , fast , direct , bespoke , personalized , streamlined , ill-defined , unprepared , undefined , undocumented , unaccountable and elected . <A> Absence of red tape or cutting the red tape could be used: "excessive bureaucratic rigmarole," 1736, in reference to the red tape formerly used in Great Britain (and the American colonies) for binding up legal and other official documents, mentioned from 1690s. <S> From Wikipedia: Red tape is commonly accepted to be a barrier to business, particularly small business. <S> In Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has done extensive research into the impact of red tape on small businesses. <S> The European Commission has a competition that offers an award for the "Best Idea for Red Tape Reduction". <S> The competition is "aimed at identifying innovative suggestions for reducing unnecessary bureaucracy stemming from European law".[6] <S> In 2008, the European Commission held a conference entitled 'Cutting Red Tape for Europe'. <S> The goal of the conference was "reducing red tape and overbearing bureaucracy," in order to help "business people and entrepreneurs improve competitiveness".[7] <A> <A> Perhaps laissez-faire <S> a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action <A> Freedom <S> Yeah, I believe 'freedom' is the best answer to your question. <S> From Merriam-Webster: 1 : the quality or state of being free: such as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous, freedom from care
| Non-bureaucratic seems to me to be the obvious term to describe the absence of bureaucracy, but it may not be appropriate in all contexts depending exactly how you intend to use it.
|
“A first time” or “the first time” I am not sure what difference there is between This is the first time I've lost my passport. This is a first time I've lost my passport. Would appreciate your explanation. <Q> This is the first time I've lost my passport. <S> The first time I went to London, I lost my passport. <S> The first time is a specific time, hence the definite article. <S> “ <S> * <S> A first time ” would imply that there are many first times. <S> It is also possible to say my first time , although that is mostly done when there is no verb. <S> This is my first time losing my passport. <S> [Possible but not very common] <S> This is the first time I've been to London. <S> This is my first time in London. <S> A first time is rare. <S> It can be used in when referring to the concept of doing something for the first time, with no specific thing in mind. <S> There's a first time for everything. <S> When referring to a specific circumstance that is encountered for the first time, you can say a first (for me) . <S> Losing my passport was a first for me. <S> First-time can also function as an adjective, to mean a person who is doing something for the first time: a first-time voter (someone who is voting or will vote for the first time in his life), a first-time writer (someone who is writing his first book), … <A> "This is a first" is a standalone phrase, employed to convey that whatever is happening constitutes an experience that is completely novel to the speaker in some way. <S> The phrase uses "first" as a noun, specifically in sense <S> 3.2.a. <S> in The Merriam-Webster Dictionary : something that is first: as.... <S> the first occurrence or item of a kind <S> In the story, Kafka has the thought "this is a first" in reference to having to "pick up the scattered jigsaw puzzle pieces of [himself] lying all around." <S> He immediately reconsiders, however, and remarks that he "had this feeling somewhere before". <S> Without having read the whole book, I can't say for certain what other experience he might be alluding to, if any was even specifically mentioned earlier on. <S> What it all amounts to is that Kafka has experienced something in his past that feels similar enough to what he's doing now <S> that he's not sure he should be saying "this is a first", even though he's doing something that appears initially to be completely new and strange. <A> " <S> It gives force to the idea of experiencing something for the first time, in a short, succinct manner. <S> Essentially a first means "the first time/experience/occurrence." <S> If it were "This is the first," it actually wouldn't make sense, because that phrase begs the question: " <S> The first what?"
| "This/that is a first", colloquially, is an idiom that means "this is the first time this has ever happened (to me).
|
Difference between "daily" and "every day" When can I say "I use this daily" or "I use this every day"? What about hourly ? Is it correct to say "I will send this hourly"? It seems incorrect, to me. <Q> Daily , hourly , yearly and the like all started as adjectives, but centuries of use license their use as adverbs, too. <S> OK I will update this report hourly . <S> This makes some people uncomfortable, however; so you would probably do better to use them only as adjectives and employ the every construction when you want an adverbial: <S> OK I will update this report every hour . <S> What you will often see those uncomfortable people substituting is this construction: ?! <S> I will update this report on an hourly basis . <S> I implore you not to emulate this pompous and awkward workaround. <A> "I use this daily" and "I use this every day" mean pretty much the same thing. <S> In some contexts, either one could mean exactly once per day, or an unspecified number of times per day. <S> Like if your doctor said, "Take this medicine daily", that would be understood to mean one pill per day. <S> Or if you said, "We update the customer file every day", that would normally be understood to mean once per day. <S> But if you said, "I drink coffee daily" or "I drink coffee every day", <S> that wouldn't necessarily mean just one cup per day, but rather at least one cup every day. <S> So if you send the first one at 9:00, you'll send another at 10:00, another at 11:00, etc. <A> Daily is kind of formal version of every day.
| Every Day ususally is used when you speak, while daily is used in writing. If you said, "I will send this hourly", that means you will send it every hour.
|
“Writer” or “Author” when talking about somebody who “creates” book stories/novels as a professional? This question has been split from a previous double-question here . Which of the following is preferable? Jack London and Charles Dickens were both great writers . Jack London and Charles Dickens were both great authors . Could somebody explain that to me the difference? Is there any difference in usage between British English and American English in this case? <Q> I think both can be used interchangeably. <S> However in my view, authors write books while writer is a more generic term. <S> The are other words for other media too, playwrights write plays, bloggers write blogs <S> , reviews write reviews, poets write poems, but all are writers. <A> Most Americans today would say "I an a writer" not "I am an author. <S> " Writing organizations are called things like "The Science-Fiction Writers Association" not "The Science Fiction Authors Association. <S> " You can say either one, but "author" sounds old-fashioned. <S> On the other hand, we say "author of" for a specific work and "writer of" for a genre. <S> For example: "Is Jack a writer?" <S> "Yes, he's the author of 'Death on Alpha Centauri.' <S> " <S> "Is he a writer of science fiction?" <S> "Yes, and mysteries too." <A> There are also other phrases where "author" is not to do with writing, like "author of your own destiny". <S> So, I think that authoring is more about creating, whereas writer is about... writing. <S> "Author" also implies a published work. <S> Writer implies very little. <S> I have been writing since I was able to, but nothing published yet.
| If someone dictated a book, they would be the Author, but not a "writer".
|
What does "Slam dunk" mean in this sentence? What exactly does "slam dunk" mean in this sentence?? Officials Warn Syria Chemical Weapons Intel Is ‘ No Slam Dunk ’ --- http://world.time.com/2013/08/29/officials-warn-chemical-weapons-intel-is-no-slam-dunk/ <Q> A "slam dunk" is a term from basketball; it is a particularly easy shot, one that is difficult to miss. <S> Thus "no slam dunk" means "not obvious, not simple, not particularly easy". <A> "Slam dunk" is a sports metaphor exactly as the previous responses explain. <S> However, In this case there is additional context that gives this particular usage additional meaning. <S> When President George W. Bush was considering the invasion of Iraq, he asked his subordinates how certain they were that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. <S> One subordinate replied that it was a "slam dunk," which indicated that the case against Iraq was 100% certain and easily made. <S> Following the invasion, no weapons of mass destruction were found. <S> The intelligence assessment had been 100% wrong. <S> By saying that the case against Syria is "not a slam dunk," the current officials are also trying to indicate that they are aware of the mistaken assessment of Iraq and that they are being more circumspect as they consider Syria than previous officials had been when they considered Iraq. <A> The phrase comes from basketball, when a player rises up above the rim and forcefully puts the ball through the hoop <S> so there is little or no chance for a defender to prevent it. <S> (Originally, a "dunk" was the act of putting the ball directly in the hoop. <S> A "slam dunk" was the powerful version of same.) <S> Thus, by extension, a "slam dunk" is a metaphor that means a certain success, an unstoppable action. <S> -- <S> http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/11/messages/470.html <S> In this context, "Slam Dunk" means "sure, certain". <S> This means that the following headline and sentence are equivalent: <S> Officials Warn <S> Syria Chemical Weapons Intel Is ‘No Slam Dunk’ U.S. Government officials are warning that the intelligence reporting on the Syrian use of chemical weapons is not 100% conclusive. <S> In other words, it is very difficult to prove with certainty that the Syrian government is using chemical weapons against its own people.
| "Slam Dunk" is a sporting metaphor:
|
Difference between "regard of" and "regard to" I want to apologize in an official letter. Do I start it with "Apologizing in regard of this incident" or "Apologizing in regard to this incident"? <Q> "regard of" is not common - I am not sure if it is actually grammatically wrong, but it's awkward. <S> I would actually use "concerning" rather than any version of "regard", but that is more a preference; I'd rather use one word than three. <A> There is debate about "in regard to" vs. "in regards to." <S> However, a much better way to say this is "I wish to apologize for the incident . <S> . . <S> " or even "I apologize for my behavior . . ." <A> With regards to... <S> Is probably preferred. <S> In regard to... Can also work. <A> "In regard of" is not grammatically wrong at all. <S> There are examples of use which date back to the nineteenth century [please see: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=E-BhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP9&lpg=PP9&dq=%22in+regard+of%22&source=bl&ots=ftxGKH1kvF&sig=mJ4NFxXWf9IOcoIB6BsH-APCyRo&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbuLz54YvWAhWoiFQKHR_HDHsQ6AEIYDAJ#v=onepage&q=%22in%20regard%20of%22&f=true , and https://books.google.com.br/books?id=TFZiAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=%22in+regard+of%22&source=bl&ots=7o9IM5flPt&sig=OvUceL4tpGAzqSn6VGKEsG0WM2U&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbuLz54YvWAhWoiFQKHR_HDHsQ6AEIWjAI#v=onepage&q=%22in%20regard%20of%22&f=false ]. <S> Personally, I believe that the expression would fit beautifully in formal writing. <S> But, in this case, I would advise against the use of "Apologizing", hence that construction strikes me as modern by comparison and in conflict with the style. <S> Therefore, I would rewrite it as: "To apologize in regard of that incident" ... <S> or [if the original line of thought was to use "Apologizing" in the Present Continuous tense] "As I apologize for the incident" .... <S> or "In regard of the incident, I offer my [sincere] apologies," ...
| "In regard of" is not natural English at all.
|
Difference between "in time" and "on time" I have an appointment at 8 and I arrive there at 7:55, is it "on time" or "in time"? What about "the nick of time"? <Q> In time Suggests that you arrived, or accomplished the desired task, at a time sufficient to be effective. <S> Typically, this means "at or before a deadline." <S> We finished cleaning the house in time for the guests to arrive. <S> In time to... A related variation on the phrase "in time" is "in time to" (also "with time to"), and indicates that you arrived or accomplished a task with time remaining, sufficient to do something else. <S> I finished cooking dinner in time to take a shower before the guests arrived. <S> We got the kids in bed with time to watch a movie. <S> On time Suggests that you arrived, or accomplished the desired task "exactly on schedule." <S> I arrived on time , at 8:00pm. <S> Although, the phrase "on time" is often used interchangeably with "in time" and it is probably rare that you would find a context where only one would be understood. <A> "In time" means various things but here it would mean with time to do something. <S> So, something like: <S> "My appointment was a 8, but I arrived at 7:55, in time to wash my face before the meeting". <S> My meeting was a 8, but I wasn't exactly on time, I was 5 minutes early". <S> "In the nick of time" means without any time to spare. <S> "I boarded the train in the nick of time, just as the doors were closing". <A> I believe that on time means at the planned time: neither late nor early. <S> For example, say you have class at 8 a.m., and you show up at 8 a.m. <S> You would be on time. <S> However, in time means with enough time to spare. <S> For example: He is lucky the ambulance arrived in time. <S> If it had arrived any later, he would have died. <A> "On time" implies keeping fixed schedule; example, if the office hour is 8:00 am and you always arrive in office at 8:00 am, then you are always on time. <S> It also means keeping a planned schedule. <S> "In time" implies an event that was not planned or scheduled,example, if rebels are about to kill someone and you arrived just at time of killing the person, then you arrived in time perhaps to save the person. <S> Another example could be, the doctor arrived in time to save the dying patient. <A> "In time" implies before the exact time or planned time. <S> "On time" implies for the exact time (on the watch dot).
| "On time" means that you arrived when you were supposed to: "
|
How to describe wearing a T-shirt in a opposite manner? Let's say I put on a T-shirt with back in front and front in back. Is there any word to describe the state of the t-short similar to how upside down means that up and down have been reversed?. The sentence where I am trying to use it is something like this: First the I wore the T-shirt the right way round. Then I put it on […]. Additionally, if my friend does the same thing (i.e. wearing the T-shirt in the reverse manner), and I want to tell him to fix it. Can I say "Take it off and reverse it"? Does reverse make sense in this context? <Q> There are two common words to describe putting a shirt on wrong. <S> You've got your shirt on backwards! <S> If you put it on when it was inverted, that is the inside of the shirt is showing on the outside, I'd call that inside-out . <S> Your shirt is on inside-out! <S> I'm having trouble thinking of an idiomatic way to tell the person to take the shirt off and fix it, though; likely because "Your shirt's on backwards!" <S> is usually sufficient to get someone to fix the error themselves. <S> But I think this would work as a good description: <S> You've got your shirt on backwards! <S> Take it off and flip it around. <S> That is, turn the front of the shirt to the front of your body, fixing the mistake. <S> Reverse is understandable, it just doesn't roll off the tongue very easily here. <S> I'd stick with <S> turn it around/flip it around . <A> The most common term overall is probably backwards , as noted by WendiKidd. <S> But I've only just discovered that the standard alternative in the US is front-to-back ... <S> To my British ear that version sounds odd, because in the UK <S> it's back-to-front ... <S> You wouldn't normally use the word <S> reverse except when talking about something like a reversible jacket . <S> And inside-out is a completely different type of "reversal" (with the lining on the outside , rather than the front at the back ). <S> Personally, I'd tell someone to "put it [on] the right way [round]" for <S> any a back-to-front or an inside-out garment. <S> I might include on and/or round on any given occasion, but I don't think that would be affected by whether it was a shirt, gloves, pants, or whatever. <S> Another point which may be purely personal is that I'd normally use back-to-front in contexts where it's a mistake . <S> If someone is deliberately wearing a baseball cap backwards , that's how I tend to describe it. <S> Unless I'm irritated by it, in which case I might say back-to-front to indicate that I think it's a "mistake". <A> To me "reverse it" would more likely be inside out (that is, with the part that usually touches your body showing and the part that is usually exterior touching your body). <S> For what you want, I would say "back-to-front".
| In the situation you describe, when the front of the shirt is on the person's back, I'd refer to it as backwards :
|
"Why didn't he make the decision?" versus "Why hasn't he made the decision?" Which auxiliary verb should I put in a question like this and why? Why didn't he make the decision? Why hasn't he made the decision? <Q> Why didn't he make the decision? <S> This suggests that the opportunity to make the decision has passed and that the choice is no longer of consequence. <S> For example, in the sport of rugby , points can be scored either by kicking the ball between the posts (a 'drop kick') or placing the ball behind the posts (a 'try'). <S> If a player hesitated in making a decision over which to do and lost the ball, then this would be correct. <S> Why hasn't he made the decision? <S> This suggests that the opportunity to make the decision has not passed and that it could still be made. <S> For example, if a person is deciding which car to buy and there's still plenty of time left to choose, this would be correct. <A> It depends on the tense you want to use. <S> With the first sentence, you are using the Simple Past, while with the second one you are using the Present Perfect. <S> With the first sentence, you are asking why he didn't make a decision. <S> With the second sentence, you are asking why he didn't make a decision and why he still has to take a decision. <S> Why didn't he make a decision when Paula asked him to decide? <S> He didn't make a decision when Paula asked, but maybe he took a decision later. <S> Why hasn't he made a decision, since Paula returned from vacation? <S> He still has to make a decision after Paula returned from vacation. <A> "Why didn't he make the decision?" indicates a time period in the past. <S> "Why hasn't he made the decision?" indicates a time period in the (recent) past and also including the present. <S> The "hasn't" version implies that the decision could still be made at any time. <S> So "Why hasn't he made the decision yet ? <S> " means more or less the same thing as the plain "Why hasn't he made the decision?", while "Why didn't he make the decision yet? <S> " sounds a little bit wrong/strange.
| The two have different meanings, so either could be correct depending on the context and which decision is being referred to. Which tense to use depends on the context.
|
How to refer to loose shoelaces A mother sees her daughter's shoelaces are all loose from her shoes. What would she say to her? Your Shoelace tie is off. Or maybe: Your shoelace's tie is loose. Can you correct the above sentences, or tell me what a native speaker would naturally say in this situation? <Q> Or alternatively: You need to tie your shoelaces. <A> If you mean that shoelaces are not done up, people in England and the rest of the UK usually say your shoelaces are undone . <S> There is an example of the word undone in this context, here http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/undone_1?q=undone <S> There is another example in the question <S> Why do my shoelaces come undone? <S> here http://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/faq.htm <A> Mostly ditto to Matt. <S> Let me add: <S> If they're not actually untied but simply loose, I think most would say, "Your shoelaces are loose." <S> But in any case, I think the key point here is that a native speaker would not say "the tie is undone" or "the tie is loosed" but "the shoelace isn't tied" or "the shoelace is loose". <S> While "tie" can be used as a noun like the OP is trying to do, that's relatively rare. <S> We usually just talk about the shoelace -- or the string or the rope or whatever -- being tied or untied or tight or loose. <S> " <S> These ropes are loose", not "The tie of these ropes is loose". <S> "This rope is untied", not "The tie of this rope is undone". <S> Etc. <S> "Tie" as a noun referring to a neck tie is common, but that's a little different. <S> We're still not talking about the tie of the thing, but about the piece of cloth.
| A native English speaker would say: Your shoelaces are untied.
|
Statements used as questions in casual speech I see people say statement as question while speaking by raising their voice at the of it to mean it's a question. For example consider followings. You want to stay here? ==> Is used to mean "Do you want to stay here?" You guys spoke to anyone? ==> Is used to mean "Did you guys speak to anyone?" Are these really used by native speaker in casual speech? And can I write them in the same way while writing them as dialogue by putting them between quotes? Are there any special grammar rules for these kind of questions? <Q> Yes, they're really used by native speakers in casual speech. <S> Yes, you can write them that way in dialogue. <S> No, there are no special rules. <S> Just write a sentence that is grammatically a statement , then write a question mark at the end instead of a period to signal the rising intonation. <S> (That's what you've done in your examples.) <A> These are indeed used, but mostly in speech or in quotes. <S> In speech, inflection plays a major role. <S> There are <S> at least two methods of making these statements seem like questions: 1) Rising tone on the last word and 2) <S> This, combined with emphasis of one word or the other, this was a common import of speakers of Yiddish. <S> Indeed, it can be used to make all sorts of statements. <S> Him <S> I should want for a brother in law? <S> = <S> he's not good enough! <S> Him <S> I should want for a brother in law? = <S> he's nice enough, but he's beneath me! <S> Him I should want for a brother in law? <S> is very similar to Him <S> I should want for a brother in law? <S> and both mean something like "OK <S> , my sister is in love with this shlemiel, I can live with, but she could have done much better and <S> Him <S> I should want for a brother in law ? <S> = <S> As a business partner, sure! <S> But a relative??? <A> Note that often this indicates that the speaker considers the statement surprising. <S> In general, if you were, asking a person if they wanted to remain in their present location, you would use the "by the book" construction, "Do you want to stay here? <S> " But if a person indicated they wanted to remain somewhere that you thought undesirable, like some place uncomfortable, or if you expected that they would want to leave, perhaps you thought they were in a hurry to move on, then when the person says, "No, I think I'll stay," you might reply in surprise <S> , "You want to stay here?" <S> It is used as an alternative to a question in very informal speech. <S> Instead of, "Would you like to stay here, sir?" one might ask, "Ya wanna stay here, bud? <S> " This is especially true as the construction of the sentence becomes more complex. <S> "You guys spoke to anyone?" is not unlikely, because the more formal statement would be, "Have you gentlemen spoken to anyone?", which is several levels higher in formality.
| Yes, this is fairly common in casual speech, not so common in formal writing.
|
"Come to mind" vs. "come to one's mind" Which of the following phrases is correct: "to come to mind" or "to come to one's mind"? If both are possible, do they have the same meaning? If not, when should I use each of them? Would you please give me some examples? <Q> We do not typically say this phrase with "one's" in it. <S> Just use "come to mind," in whatever tense suits the context. <S> Really, you won't hear it any other way. <S> An example: <S> "Joe, can you think of any way to make this meatloaf taste good?" <S> "Hmm. <S> Gosh, no. <S> Nothing's coming to mind." <S> This is probably the most common way of using the phrase, as an equivalent to "think of something/anything." <S> ("Hmm. <S> Gosh, no. <S> I can't think of anything.") <A> Modifying my answer to better reflect the question... <S> They mean the same thing, and is a generic statement meaning approximately "it occurs to me." <S> That being said, neither form is commonly used; the typical way to express this in this form is "It comes to mind...", leaving off any possessive. <S> "It comes to one's mind that there are many ways to skin a cat." <S> "It comes to my mind that there are a great many ways to skin a cat." <S> "It comes to mind that there are a great many ways to skin a cat." <S> In response to @Epiphany, the use of "What comes to one's mind" is not to expand the meaning to known or unknown persons ("ones") who may or may not be present to have something occur to. <S> For this to be the meaning would require mind-reading <S> -- how do you know it occurs to someone else that such and such might be the case? <S> The "It comes to mind" expression has always been an alternative way to express the idea that some intuition or inspiration has come to a person -- others are not involved. <A> 'Come to mind' makes reference to only your own mind.
| 'Come to one's mind' would be an expanded reference to other minds as well, self-inclusive, and means a like thought preceived by many others given the same stimulus.
|
What does "off of" mean? I have read a sentence from “Diary of a Wimpy Kid 4”: The teachers have really been cracking down on kids copying off of each other this year. How to understand "off of"? Please parse it. <Q> You get into a box. <S> (Although you can also get in it, which means the same thing.) <S> Once you have gone into it, you are then in it. <S> Similarly, you can get out of a box. <S> Once you have gone out of it, you are then outside it. <S> In the U.S., off of and off correspond to into and in . <S> You can jump off of the roof. <S> (You can also jump off it; this means the same thing.) <S> Once you have jumped off of it, you are then off it (but maybe you need to go into the hospital <S> ; don't try this at home). <S> The phrase "off of" was used in the U.K. in exactly the same way before 1750 or so; for example, in 1724 Daniel Defoe wrote and with that he flung himself off of his Horse. <S> If you look at Google Ngrams <S> you can see a remarkable drop in the frequency of "off of" in English between 1740 and 1780. <S> It's rebounded more in the U.S. than in the U.K. <S> Possibly some authority declared that it was redundant or ungrammatical in the early 18th century, and people started avoided it in formal writing. <S> Or (since I can't find any such authority) maybe this was just how the language evolved in England. <S> There seem to be some people who seem to have the idea that off of is a recent abomination that has polluted the English language, and that you should only ever use off or from . <S> Remarkably, considering that off of is more common in the U.S., a considerable fraction of these people are Americans. <S> I think these people are wrong, and should be ignored. <A> So the children are copying from one another and the teachers are trying hard to stop it. <S> Off of is quite informal. <S> It is being used here because it's meant to be a child talking or narrating. <A> There are two things to be aware of. <S> 1) <S> This has a different meaning from simply to copy , which can be to copy someone's information from anywhere (from online, from a book, and not necessarily from their paper). <S> The way it's used usually implies that the person is with their work at the time. <S> To copy off someone (without of ) is also common and carries the same meaning. <S> 2) <S> Off of versus off : Few people have retained this awareness, but off of is the correct preposition to use with a transitive verb, as in <S> We jumped off of the boat and into the water. <S> Many today would simply say We jumped off the boat and in the water. <S> which is technically incorrect unless we jumped (around) while we were on the boat and also while we were in the water. <A> According to Google Ngram Viewer:1) "off of" is about twice as common in American English as in British English. <S> 2) <S> "of" is the 10th most common word to follow "off" in American English and slightly lower than the 10th most common in British English. <S> (There are some other differences in words and orders.)
| Off of in that context means from . To copy off of someone is a phrasal verb meaning that you're copying content from their paper.
|
What is the difference between "he helped me out" and "he helped"? What is the difference between he helped me out and he helped ? In what context can we use them? <Q> " <S> He helped me out": I was in trouble, and he acted to get me out of trouble. <S> For example "He helped me clean the room": I did some cleaning, and he also did some cleaning. " <S> He helped me out cleaning the room": I would have been in trouble for not having cleaned the room, and he got me out of trouble by doing all the work for me. <A> Help out is a phrasal verb that means "to help somebody, especially in a difficult situation." <S> He's always willing to help out. <S> When I bought the house, my sister helped me out with a loan. <A> They both mean the same thing, It is just their constructions that are different. <S> He helped me out during the exam when I was sick last year. <S> He helped me during the exam when I was sick last year <S> He helped me clean the room. <S> He helped me out cleaning my room. <S> He helped me out with the math problem. <S> He helped me with the math problem. <S> He helped me decide which college I am supposed to attend. <S> He helped me out deciding which college I am supposed to attend.
| "He helped me": I did something, and he did more which added to what I did.
|
How does a word become an English word? Is there a word for that? How to term those words which are not by default English but are added over time? Consider for example Google . Is it an English word now? Or is it just a usage? <Q> Use of the word “google” to mean “perform an Internet-based search (for)” is an example of genericization . <S> Wikipedia has a list of terms that have entered the language this way . <S> Some may surprise you. <S> Wikipedia also has a helpful page on the topic , which includes commentary on the phenomenon itself. <S> If you're looking for a more general term that covers words entering the language that are not necessarily trademarks, I recommend neologism . <A> "How to term those words which are not by default English but added by time?" <S> That seems to me difficult to answer since all English words were not by default, but added in time. <S> You may consider, depending on context, terms such as neologism, loanword or calque. <S> As for Google, this is a type of trademark name that became a common word. <S> Other such examples are: cornflake (from Cornflakes@), tabloid, zipper, aspirin, escalator, jacuzzi, ping-pong, and one of the most-known, xerox. <S> [1] <A> As per the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, google is a transitive verb. <S> It is a word rather than just a usage. <A> Whilst a lot of the other answers to this question seem to be focusing on whether google has entered the dictionary, to me that sounds like a question for ELU. <S> My (ELL) take on it is that it is a word - regardless of whether a dictionary believes it to be so - meaning to "search the web (esp. <S> using the Google web-search product) <S> " because native speakers use it for that purpose . <S> Whether or not it is in a dictionary is somewhat besides the point. <S> It is well understood, routinely used and widely accepted word in everyday ordinary English. <S> It is certainly very informal, so I'd avoid using it in essays and graded assignments, or in formal letters and emails. <S> And I'd avoid using it in books and marketing material too, since Google is a trademarked term. <S> But yes, for all intents and purposes, google is a perfectly valid word, used and understood by native English speakers: <S> Let me just google that for you. <S> I'm not sure. <S> I'll google it. <S> Of course I know that zebras aren't just stripy horses! <S> I googled "zebras" earlier, and it said they were entirely different species! <A> "Verbing" is what happens when a noun or adjective starts to be used as a verb. <S> Usually the trademark is capitalized, and usually the genericized word is not capitalized. <S> Also, most trademarks do not take prefixes or suffixes (other than using a plural suffix to talk about more than one instance of the trademarked item), but genericized words do. <S> "Coinage" or "coining" is what happens when someone makes up a new word (or phrase) and starts using it. <S> "Borrowing" is what happens when a foreign language word becomes an English language word.
| The new word or phrase is a "neologism". "Genericizing" or "genericization" is what happens when a trademark (such as "Google") starts to be used as an ordinary word (such as "googling").
|
The one who decides about the amount Is there a word for the person who decides how many things there will be? For example: person A decides how many children will go on the annual trip (and then person B decides who these children will be). What word describes the job of person A? Some more examples (thanks, J.R.): How many freshmen will we admit into the college of engineering next fall? How many printers our office will buy next year? How many bags of potato chips we should bring to the family picnic? How many windows should we have in each room in our new appartment? How many questions should be in the final exam ? The closest word I could think of is "counter", but a counter is the one that counts, not the one that decides about the number. <Q> Comptroller (“The chief accountant of a company or government”) seems a likely choice if an institution has a single designated person who decides how many school-children can go on an annual trip. <S> However, I'd expect a school's Board of Education to make such decisions, perhaps in consultation with a comptroller or CFO (chief financial officer), rather than there being a single person with such a responsibility or duty. <S> Planner sometimes is used as a job title, for persons who plan out the procurement and disposition of materials and personnel for jobs. <S> The term adjuster might also apply. <A> A word that comes to mind is Admission. <S> Unfortunately i can't come up with a profession for that other than maybe "admission officer" <A> All the examples you give are quite situation-specific, and for each of these contexts there is generally a person who will specify the number. <S> These roles will most often either have a context-specific title, or not be formally titled. <S> There is no generalised, cross-context name for a person who "decides how many things there will be". <S> 'Decision-maker' is too broad, all the other terms are too narrow.
| Slightly more generally, you might refer to a planner , “One who plans”, or a logistician , “A person involved with logistics ”.
|
What is the antonym of “forthcoming”? Forthcoming is defined by the dictionary as: being about to appear or to be produced or made available e.g. The forthcoming holidays your forthcoming novel funds are forthcoming responsive, outgoing e.g. a forthcoming and courteous man characterized by openness, candidness, and forthrightness, e.g. he was not forthcoming about his memories of medical school Is there an antonym for " forthcoming "? I tried searching via Google, but I was unable to find an antonym that way. <Q> I would describe the opposite sort of person as “ tight‑lipped ” or “ cagey ”. <S> Another sense of “forthcoming” is used to describe events that are planned for or about to happen in the near future . <S> There's not really a good antonym for that sense of the word, because it contains within it the concept of imminence, and the time of the future. <S> This means the opposite might be something that's a long ways off (but still to come), or the opposite might be something that just happened. <S> The other sense of “forthcoming” <S> I know is used to describe necessities which are “ available when wanted or needed ”. <S> This one's a little tricky as well, because most people would either simply say “not forthcoming” or use the opportunity to indicate the reason for the unavailability of whatever it was. <S> There are also specific words like “ frozen ” (used to describe assets that have been "prevented from being used for a period of time") or “ waylaid ” (used to describe a shipment that has been ambushed) which might fit best, depending on the situation. <S> You can read more here , which seems like a pretty good place to find antonyms in the future. <A> For definition numbers 2 and 3, a good antonym is “reserved” . <S> As in: formal or self-restrained in manner and relationship; avoiding familiarity or intimacy with others: “a quiet, reserved man.” <S> Source: dictionary.com <A> Examples 1a and 1b use "forthcoming" to mean "in the near future". <S> An antonym for this meaning is "recent", which means "in the recent past". <S> Example 1c uses "forthcoming" to mean "will be coming soon". <S> An antonym for this meaning is "on hold", which means "will not be coming, unless someone changes their mind".
| The most common sense of “forthcoming”, as far as I'm aware, is used to describe a person who is willing to divulge information , or open and willing to talk . “ Bygone ” refers to events that are long past, so that could also be considered an antonym for this sense.
|
What is the difference between “within” and “inside”? Here is the definition of the word within from Oxford Dictionary: inside (something) So does that mean the two words have no difference, and can be used exchangingly? Is there any connotation that one word can be used but not the other? <Q> Example: The box is blue colored inside and black outside. <S> Within may be used for time/space .Example <S> : I'll reach there within ten minutes. <S> Stay within the boundaries. <A> These two words are such general-purpose words (with some idiomatic usages as well) that I don't think we can begin to cover all the bases (that would not be within reason ). <S> That said, here is one example where either word works just fine: <S> There were many troubles hidden inside Pandora's box. <S> There were many troubles hidden within Pandora's box. <S> Here's one place where I'd clearly use inside : <S> After the rain started, we went inside the house . <S> and another where I'd clearly use within : <S> Would Freddy be traded to another team? <S> That was within the realm of possibility. <S> You can always use the Ngrams tool to check if a certain usage can go both ways , or if it generally doesn't . <S> The Ngrams tool is not infallible, but, if you have an internet connection, it's always within reach . <S> There are a lot of external links embedded within this answer; I hope they lead to some fruitful research for the O.P. <A> Their meanings are similar, but they are likely to be used in different contexts. <S> Within is perhaps a little more formal and dated. <S> There is an important grammatical difference you need to be aware of. <S> Within can be used only as a preposition and an adverb. <S> Inside can additionally be used as a noun and an adjective.
| Inside may be used while describing position/location as opposed to outside. Like any two synonyms, there will be contexts where you can use either one , and there will be other contexts where most people would choose one word over the other .
|
"Almost all workload is done by me" — is it correct and formal? Is it correct to say, "Almost all workload is done by the server computer"?What I wonder about is the almost at the beginning of the sentence, and the usage of done . Is this suitable for a formal letter? <Q> "Workload" is a mass noun. <S> Therefore, you would say, "Almost all of the workload is done on the server. <S> " If you wanted to use a count noun, you could say, "Almost all work is done by the server." <S> However, the phrase fragment "Almost all" is colloquial. <S> For formal speech and writing, try " A majority of the work is done by the server. <S> " <S> Further, "is done" is also colloquial. <S> Try, "A majority of the work is performed by the server. <S> " In rough numbers "a majority" is anything from 50.1% to 99.9% There is no implied size beyond being the major portion of something. <S> "Almost all" is perhaps less vague, but in professional writing, it sounds like you're avoiding the numbers. <S> In the first paragraph, I changed "on" to "by." <S> When speaking of computer processing, there are regional uses of "on. <S> " Using "by" is less regional and more widely accepted. <S> "I worked on my car" would imply that I repaired my car. <S> If I said, "work was done on my car," I would also be implying "repair. <S> " If I said, "my car did all the work," I'm implying that the car's operation is a "work" of some kind. <S> I could rephrase this to "all the work was done by my car. <S> " This latter example is similar to the usage in computer operations. <A> This sounds much better: <S> The server handles almost all of the workload. <S> Almost all can probably be replaced by most . <S> Or even simpler: <S> The server handles most of the workload. <A> The position of almost is grammatical and formal. <S> The choice of done is not idiomatic. <S> Work is done. <S> But workload is handled . <S> The rest of the sentence is fine in all registers.
| This sounds okay to me: Almost all of the workload is done on the server.
|
how to say "everything done before has become vain now"? Suppose that I have scheduled a lot of things and devoted a lot time to preparing a resume for a company , but they didn't accept it.How should I express this?"All the scheduling is wasted""All the scheduling has become vain"I think both sentences I wrote are incorrect. I want it to be in a very formal form. (I'm writing this in an article)Thanks! <Q> the phrase you are looking for is "in vain", but I'm not sure that it is exactly what you are looking for. <S> If you are, then I would say something like "as it turned out, all my scheduling work was in vain". <S> Things don't become in vain, and it's unusual to use the phrase with the present tense. <S> You might also want to consult a thesaurus and have a look at words like "pointless", "unproductive", "useless", and so on: http://thesaurus.com/browse/in%20vain . <A> One other way you could say this would be: <S> All that effort was for nothing . <S> The Cambridge Dictionary defines for nothing as an idiom: for nothing ( idiom ) with no good result or for no purpose <S> There are plenty of other ways to say it, though. <S> You were on the right track: <S> The time I spent scheduling was a waste. <S> All that time I spent scheduling proved to be unnecessary. <S> If you want to quote Shakespeare, you could say: All that time arranging interviews turned out to be much ado about nothing . <S> Much Ado about Nothing is the name of a Shakespearean play, although many use that phrase to indicate roughly what you're trying to convey. <S> In that context, though, the ado seems to include not only a lot of expended effort, but a lot of fretting or arguing as well. <S> So, if you were only trying to focus on the time lost, I'd use one of your other options. <S> However, if you wanted to highlight not only the time you lost, but also how the whole experience drained you emotionally (scurrying to meet deadlines, fretting about your qualifications, high hopes for new employment, etc.) <S> , then it might be a rather good fit after all. <A> To add to some of the great answers posted here already, here's another couple of choices: <S> All of that effort holding interviews was all for nothing! <S> All of that effort holding interviews was for naught! <S> Think of all the time we spent holding interviews! <S> It was all in vain! <S> Holding those interviews was a waste of time! <S> All of that effort holding interviews is now completely wasted! <S> Everything we've done up 'til now is utterly pointless! <S> What was the point in doing all of that work? <A> Side note on your main question: "Scheduling" means arranging or setting times. <S> Like, "I would like to schedule an appointment for next Thursday" or "We are scheduling the delivery dates for the next phase of the project. <S> " You seem to be trying to use it here to mean any sort of activity. <S> Writing a resume is not "scheduling". <S> "Everything I did was pointless".
| It would be appropriate to say, "All my efforts were in vain" or "All my work turned out to be fruitless" or
|
Do English speakers in UK or US use the term "iron" for the tool to press clothes to remove creases? Do English speakers in UK or US use the term "iron" for the tool to press clothes to remove creases? E.g. I had a problem to find pictures of iron like this: What I find mostly was this: How do the natives distinguish between these two "things"? <Q> The tool for pressing clothes is referred to as an iron, both in British and US English. <S> If you want to remove any doubt whatsoever you can refer to it as a "clothes iron" <S> but mostly this is unnecessary since context will make clear what you mean. <S> Your second image shows a piece of iron. <S> This would never be described as "an iron" by a native speaker. <S> Just to confuse you even more there is a third meaning of iron, as a type of golf club <S> : <S> Again, generally context will make things clear. <A> We distinguish them syntactically: <S> Iron , the material, is a mass noun. <S> It does not have a plural form, and it does not usually take an article. <S> It's used without inflection as a modifier: <S> My armor is made of iron . <S> I've found a vein of iron ore. <S> He ruled with an iron fist. <S> (figurative) <S> A clothes iron , or more simply an iron , is an item used to remove wrinkles from clothes. <S> This is a count noun. <S> It can be in the singular or plural. <S> It has a verb form, to iron , which can be used as a modifier in the form <S> ironed : <S> There's an iron downstairs on the ironing board. <S> He had a pair of neatly ironed trousers. <S> The process has a few wrinkles that need to be <S> ironed out. <S> (figurative) <S> In golf, certain clubs are called irons. <S> They're most often referred to by a number from one to nine, as in a nine iron or a seven iron . <S> This form is a count noun, and they are sometimes referred to simply as irons ; when the are, you'll need to distinguish from clothes irons by context. <S> In electronics, there is a device called a soldering iron , used to melt solder. <S> This takes an article, just like an iron , but it's almost always marked by the word soldering . <A> Nice pictures ! <S> I doubt you'd iron your clothes with a hot rock. <S> Nor is it likely that you'd put a bunch of <S> clothes irons in your rock garden. <S> And the thing we do it on is an ironing board. <S> What about over in the UK ?
| In the US, we say iron both as a verb "to iron" and as a noun for the device, clothes "iron".
|
"Who has emerged as the less gutsy Nadal to his less regal Federer, playing to the heart-warmed fans" What does the bold part mean? I don't understand the structure of it, especially the "less […] to […]" part. The match itself was something of an anticlimax. Djokovic, spent from his encounter with del Potro, never generated much momentum. The outcome seemed a foregone conclusion after Murray, with his roadrunner serve, delivered an ace at 6–5, 40–0 to win the second set. Less than an hour later, on match point No. 4, Djokovic hit a backhand into the net, giving Murray the championship at 6–4, 7–5, 6–4. (In contravention of stadium rules, Alex Salmond, the secessionist First Minister of Scotland, unfurled a Scottish flag.) Djokovic had seemed less than Zen during the match, but he delivered a gracious tribute to Murray, who has emerged as the less gutsy Nadal to his less regal Federer, playing to the heart-warmed fans. “He absolutely deserved this win,” he said, of Murray. “He played incredible tennis. And congratulations to his team, and to all of you guys in the home country. It was an absolute honor and pleasure to be part of it.” <Q> It compares the match between Murray and Djokovic to the better known (and higher-level) rivalry between Nadal and Federer: Murray in this match ended up looking like like ("emerged as") <S> Nadal, but less gutsy than Nadal, while Djokovic' role was similar to that of Federer, but less regal than Federer. <A> What in this particular meaning this means would require knowledge of relationship between Nadal and Federer, who are supposedly some kind of fierce rivals. <S> The construct "[person 1] emerged/appeared/played/was the [character 1] to [person 2]'s [character 2]" is a common construct comparing a pair of people (and their relationship) to another well-known pair, often qualifying it with exceptions or similarities. <S> State secretary was the Robin to president's Batman in the no-pardon combat against emergent crime. <S> The young rebellious son of the millionaire would escape into Harlem at night, to play Romeo to his dark-skinned Juliet of a porter's daughter. <A> A couple of parenthetical remarks are thrown in to make it clear that this Murray/Djokovic rivalry doesn't really measure up to the high standards of Nadal/Federer, since Murray is a "less gutsy" version of Nadal and Djokovic is a "less regal" version of Federer.
| The structure is a fairly standard simile; stripped down a bit, it says that Murray emerged "as the ... Nadal to [Djokovic's] Federer", which is to say that the match-up between Murray and Djokovic feels comparable to the well-known rivalry between Nadal and Federer.
|
What do you call an ad-hoc outside eatery for soldiers? What do you call the place/system where soldiers eat outside, with usually a few food carts with huge pots, and soldiers standing in line to receive food in their mess kit and eat it? In French: cuisine de campagne, popote <Q> There is an article about them, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_kitchen . <S> It also has some other terminology for referring to them. <A> The term you're looking for very much depends on where it would appear. <S> "Field kitchen" would be widely understood but is quite formal. <S> For example, you might read in a military history book that "many of the German field kitchens were destroyed in air attacks". <S> Conversely, terms like "chow line" and "chow hall" are slang terms which are more likely to be used by the soldiers themselves, but these terms are Americanisms and not used in some other nations (e.g. the British forces). <S> Context is everything. <A> What you are describing is a soup kitchen (even if it does not serve soup). <S> Soup Kitchen <S> n . <S> (Social Welfare) <S> a place or mobile stall where food and drink, esp soup, is served to destitute people <S> (Military) Military a mobile kitchen Note however that when the food delivery is not mobile (for example, food provided on a military base, even if the base is not permanant), a term is a mess hall , especially if the food is served inside. <A> Chow line would not be used in English, only American. <S> Field kitchen would be best if it was not meant to be context specific
| The general term for that, is field kitchen .
|
What do you call a person with a good memory? Does 'intelligent' work? Can a person with great memory power be called intelligent ? Or is there any other word or phrase to describe such a person? <Q> Although I would have to agree with both snailboat and hjpotter92's choice of eidetic and mnemonist as words meaning "someone who is very good at remembering", it really isn't particularly idiomatic. <S> Most native speakers would say: John has a photographic memory. <S> Rather than John is eidetic. <S> And Jill has a good memory <S> Rather than Jill is a mnemonist. <S> In general, as a native speaker I would prefer terms that are widely understood and in common usage rather than ones which are concise , so unless you have particularly good reason to expect the person you're talking to to know the term eidetic , I'd probably just stick with something similar to the following: <S> Jane has amazing memory prowess. <S> John's memory is fantastic. <S> Bill has a surprisingly good memory. <A> No. <S> Intelligence is a term used for one or more of the following cases: <S> The ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience Possessing sound knowledge <S> The capacity to reason People with good memory, on the other hand, are referred to as eidetic . <A> The word you want is memorious . <S> It's most famously used in the title of Borges's short story Funes the Memorious, which is about a man who remembers everything. <S> Literally. <A> Eidetic memory is a specific phenomenon - an image which persists only for a few minutes - which is extremely rare in adults. <S> Photographic memory probably doesn't occur at all, as an ability to remember any image ever seen. <S> People whose memories are commonly referred to as 'eidetic' or 'photographic' <S> do usually just have good memories <S> (and/or they're using specific memory techniques). <S> Full recall of every event that's ever happened to an individual (autobiographical memory) is 'hyperthymesia' or 'hyperthymestic syndrome' and has only been very recently confirmed to exist. <S> http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2006/04/kaavya_syndrome.single.html <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymesia <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Price <S> " The Woman Who Could Not Forget " (TV) " <S> The Woman Who Can't Forget " <S> (book) <S> I'd stick with " <S> X has a good memory ". :)
| Eidetic memory or photographic memory would be the correct term.
|
What does "I have got some time on my hands" mean? My shift at work's kinda long, so I've got some time on my hands to, you know...whatever. Think, I guess. What does "I have got some time on my hands" mean in the above quote? <Q> Having time on your hands usually implies you're bored - and actually looking for something to do, because you don't want to simply sit around doing nothing. <S> To have time in hand usually implies you did have something to do, but you've completed it early. <S> Maybe you'll just kick back, relax, and do nothing - or maybe you'll start tackling another task. <S> It should be clear from the above that sense <S> #1 usually describes an unsatisfactory state of affairs (you need something to do), whereas #2 applies to a desirable state (you're available to do something extra). <S> By extension from sense <S> #1 you'll often come across variants of... <S> Time weighed on his hands <S> (he was bored, having nothing to do) . <A> That is, the demands of work don't take up all the time available in the shift, so there is time left over for thinking or whatever. <A> To have "time on your hands" is an idiom that means simply you have time in which to do anything you like. <S> Time, of course, cannot be held in the hands, so the word hands is a metaphor which means to have, or to possess. <S> An equivalent expression would be " <S> I have plenty of free time." <S> Another way of phrasing your sentence would be <S> " <S> My job gives me plenty of free time in which to think." <S> Or <S> "At my job I have plenty of time on my hands to think or do whatever I like."
| In this context, “I’ve usually got some time on my hands” means that the speaker typically has some extra time or idle time during his or her work shift.
|
What would you call a person who does a job but doesnt really care about quality of his work? Not really a 'slacker', since if I understand right thats somebody who doesn't really do anything. More like a person who works 9 to 5 (or more like 9-4 if he can get away with it) but not a minute longer. Is totally bland when fulfilling his tasks etc. Also hes not really a 'tool' I guess, since he's 'using' his employer more the other way around.(?) Its driving me crazy that I can't find a right word ;) <Q> There are a couple of difference idiomatic choices depending on what subtext you wish to convey. <S> Here's a selection you can choose from: <S> If you want to describe someone with implied criticism in a single word: John is work-shy . <S> John is indolent . <S> ( not particularly common) <S> John is a do-nothing . <S> ( not particularly common). <S> John is very apathetic towards work. <S> Or using an idiom: John is somewhat of a nine-to-fiver . <S> John does enough to get by at work. <S> John does the bare minimum in his job. <S> John isn't living up to his own potential at work. <S> John is just scraping by at work. <S> John is not pulling his weight in his job. <S> The following may also apply: John is very unmotivated in his work. <S> John has no passion for his work. <S> John is very lazy . <S> On the other hand, you might want to give John's lifestyle a positive spin: John has a good work life-balance . <A> For what it's worth, I think slacker is, in fact, the right word for this. <S> You're describing someone who doesn't totally fail to show up, but puts in the minimum effort. <S> Putting in the minimum effort is slacking. <S> If you wanted to describe this in a more "politically correct" way, you might say the person is not very industrious . <A> A goldbrick : a person who shirks responsibility or performs duties without proper effort or care. <S> Originally... The term has come a long way from its roots in the nineteenth century; along the way it got progressively further and further away from gold, or indeed bricks [...] <S> Incompetent officers appointed from civilian life at the start of the First World War with only minimal training were likewise called gold bricks by enlisted men (in the case of second lieutenants, this was probably provoked by their rank insignia, a gold rectangle) <S> At some point during that War, the term was extended to refer to anybody not pulling his weight, a malingerer or loafer <A> Only interested in when it's time to go home. <A> Some other words that would work: <S> John has a [casual, lackadaisical, negligent, disinterested, uncaring] approach to his work. <S> Some words that would also imply that the quality of work suffers from his approach would be slipshod, slapdash, unmeticulous, careless, and haphazard. <S> You can find more by consulting a thesaurus. <A> Here are a couple more: John is a malingerer. <S> John is a clockwatcher. <S> From Google: <S> malingerer : one who feigns illness in order to escape duty or work <S> clockwatcher : an employee who is overly strict or zealous about not working more than the required hours <A> I like "John's work is slapdash" <S> Since this describes his work, rather than John himself, it is more subtle than some of the other examples. <A> This means Schlamper in German, which is a person who fulfills his job <S> but the outcome is of such a poor quality.
| John is fairly indifferent towards his work. He's a clock-watcher . What about John is a sloven or slob .
|
What is the word for "swallow a word"? Consider this fictional situation which I made up to let you feel the sense: Brad and Brett was chatting about recent thefts where cheats were making hoax and decieved the victims. While Brett was talking about a particular case of this kind of theft, Brad remembered he himself was duped in a similar way and almost went to tell Brett but swallowed his word thinking Brett might use this fact against him later in future to mock him. So what is the word for the italicized phrase? I thought about "choke". But something tells me it isn't. <Q> I was going to tell her the truth, but I bit my tongue. <S> Choke could be used if you mean "to be unable to speak normally especially because of strong emotion"; it would not mean that somebody avoided saying something he was going to say, though. <A> "Kept his silence" might be a better expression in this case. <S> Also, I wouldn't run this sentence together with "but": ...almost went to tell Brett. <S> However, he kept his silence, thinking Brett might use this fact... <A> Brad kept his mouth shut would be quite literal.
| The idiomatic expression used for cases like that is bite your tongue , which means "to stop yourself from saying something that might upset somebody or cause an argument, although you want to speak."
|
What does it mean to call someone a "cheap person"? I'm brazilian and I'm quite fluent in English, however sometimes I have trouble with some expressions. This time it's when someone is called a "cheap person". What does it mean? I saw this in the following article http://www.esquire.com/women/advice-98-year-old Is this a poor person? <Q> Cheap also means showing a lack of honesty and moral principles. <A> Someone who is "cheap" is a person that is reluctant to spend money. <S> It's a negative way to describe a person. <S> Some people are reluctant to spend money and can be called "cautious", that is a more positive way to describe a person. <S> For example, you have bills to pay so decide to cook instead of going to a restaurant. <S> This is positive because it's responsible to be careful with your money. <S> A "cheap person" is a person that is ungenerous with their money. <S> For example, I want a pair of $50 Nike shoes, but my mom buys me FAKE Nike shoes that cost $15. <S> Yes, the fake Nikes are cheaper, but their quality is poor. <S> Most people would prefer paying the extra money for the Nikes because they are of higher quality and will last longer, but my mother doesn't care about that. <S> My mother is cheap because the only thing that matters to her is to spend as little money as possible. <S> Someone can be rich, but be cheap. <S> For example, billionaire Donald Trump buying his wife a Ford when she preferred (and he can afford) a BMW. <A> It can mean different things depending on context: <S> cheap (from urban dictionary) <S> A reference to one of the following: <S> An individual who is extremely careful with money <S> An individual who is easy to have sex with An individual who uses the same tactic/tactics to win An object that is worth very little 1." <S> That guy's cheap " 2. <S> " <S> She's real cheap " or " <S> He's real cheap <S> " 3. <S> " <S> You're cheap ! " <S> " <S> Man, that's cheap <S> " 4. <S> " <S> Those jeans are cheap! " <A> There are a couple of meanings you can take from the word cheap used in this sense. <S> It could, as @Benyamin Hamidekhoo said, mean that they are reluctant when it comes to spending money. <S> Synonyms include tight and tight-fisted. <S> In the sense of the article you referred to though it means easy to please, or easy to win over. <S> Someone who is cheap doesn't want much and is a bit of a pushover in that sense. <S> The article is saying that the man had only physical affection for the writer, and that was the only reason they would even talk to them. <S> Cheap certainly doesn't mean poor. <S> That would be referring to the actual value of a person in economic terms, rather than their personality and individual wants. <A> A "cheap person" is usually a person who doesn't like to spend money, especially someone who doesn't spend money in situations when he can and should. <S> A slang term for such a person is "cheapskate". <S> Googling "cheapskate stories" reveals this succinct little gem: <S> My grandparents have a lot of money but get mad if you don't use paper towels twice. <S> If they've only been used to mop up water, they have to be set on the counter to dry and are used again. <S> This is a very fine example of a cheap person. <A> One of the uses of 'cheap' is to describe that a person is of little worth. <S> It is a reference to his character. <S> From Longman: <S> cheap (adj) <S> : showing a lack of honesty, moral principles, or sincere feelings, so that you do not deserve respect <S> Example goes like: <S> You’re lying, aren’t you? <S> You’re so cheap. <A> Not exactly poor . <S> But we generally used to call a person 'cheap' because of his or her activities. <S> It means if someone does not have good behaviour - or we can say that if someone is a bad person then we call him a cheap person.
| A Cheap person is someone who doesn't like to spend money.
|
How do I say "remembering the order of something"? How should I say something like this? The system I designed can remember the order of messages. I think that remember doesn't suit this sentence. What word should I use? <Q> You can try one of the following : <S> The system I designed keeps track of the order of the messages <S> The system I designed stores the order of the messages <S> The system I designed keeps the messages in order <S> The system I designed looks after the order of the messages and so on… <A> This may not bear the same meaning that you intend, but you could try: <S> The system I designed retains the order of the messages. <A> Try either of these: <S> The system I designed can retain the order of messages. <S> The system I designed has the ability to remember the order of messages. <A> The problem many people have is keeping sentences like this direct and to the point, without a lot of meaningless "fluff". <S> Simple, direct minimalism, especially in technical documentation, is a good thing. <S> To that end, I like this one: <S> The system I designed can maintain the order of the messages... <S> Direct and to the point.
| The system I designed maintains the order of the messages
|
You can still contact me "through" your phone vs. "via" your phone? You can still contact me through your phone though. or You can still contact me via your phone though. The question is simple. But I am having problems with the answer, so which one is "correct"? <Q> I would use one of these: You can still call me. <S> You can still call me at (phone number). <S> You can still reach me by phone at (phone number). <A> As @FumbleFingers mentioned, you should probably say, You can still contact me by phone. <S> Or You can still phone me up. <S> Or You can still phone me. <S> Or You can still phone me at 000.444.444.444.444.444.444:) <A> First, the usual AmE way of saying your sentences would be this: You can still contact me by phone, though. <S> By phone is the common phrase used when you are expressing a method of contacting you (again, in AmE, BrE could be different) - and where that method would be a standard voice phone call. <S> Now this: You can still contact me through your phone though. <S> implies that the method might something more complicated or different than a phone call, but that the phone is still used in the method. <S> If your phone had a walkie-talkie feature like the old Nextel cell phones did, I can see this being said (e.g. "Contact me through your walkie-talkie" is something that would certainly be said.) <S> If you have some app on the phone that would be used (like Facebook, Kik, etc.) <S> , then I can see this being said as well - because you're not using the actual phone part of the phone device in and of itself but a feature of the phone device. <S> You are not being specific about the precise method used on the phone to contact you - i.e. you don't care if he/she calls you, texts you, emails you, Skypes you or anything else the phone can do. <S> the person who you are talking to is not expecting to be able to use a phone for some reason, or doesn't realize a phone is available to him <S> (maybe they have a bullhorn or other communication tool instead). <S> rather than you saying that you can be contacted by being called. <S> Via implies travel and a path, or something like a carrier/delivery service. <S> Through can substitute for via but not really the other way around. <S> I received my packages via UPS. <S> I received my packages through UPS. <S> Through much study I was able to pass the class. <S> Via much study <S> I was able to pass the class (bad, this makes "much study" sound like a place or delivery service). <S> You might think of your phone as a "message delivery service" but that would be a concept more appropriate for your wireless carrier or possibly a messaging app/service on the phone - "The text message was delivered via Verizon's systems" or "She sent me the video via Skype." <A> In conversation, I always say "Call me on your phone. <S> " <S> On, here, meaning "using" or "while operating". <S> Through and via are a little odd to use for phone calls. <S> And "via" invokes the idea of physically transporting somewhere using the phone as a highway. <S> If you absolutely must use one of those two, "via" is more correct, but it is still very odd. <S> I'd recommend "with your phone", "on your/the phone", or "by phone". <S> I use "on". <S> Like being on the computer, one would be on the phone.
| To me, "through" invokes the idea that you are using a service to call someone by proxy, like having a secretary.
|
How would I state that I want multiple cups of coffee in a larger mug? Let's say that there is a coffee vending machine in my office, and I ask my friend to get some for me. However, the standard amount of coffee the machine serves is half of, say, a Starbucks mug. Thus, every time I go to the coffee machine, I press the button twice. How would I express this to my friend? Should I say I want two coffees. Which is unfortunately ambiguous. Or maybe Pour the coffee twice. Or suppose he brings me a new, different cup, one that's shaped differently. How would I ask him about the amount it contains? How many coffees is this? <Q> Since you state specifically that the machine dispenses a standard amount of coffee, an appropriate word would be serving . <S> Portion would also be correct, but isn't as common in everyday use. <S> Can you please get me two servings of coffee? <S> Can you please get me two portions of coffee? <S> This assumes that your friend is familiar with the machine, and knows or can figure out that it dispenses a particular amount. <S> If you don't trust him that much, the best way to ensure you get a full cup of coffee would be something like what you said originally: Go to the machine and push the button twice so that the cup gets filled completely. <A> I'd just go with the simplest phrasing, which is to ask for exactly what you want: <S> Can you please fill this all the way to the top? <S> No other information is really necessary; they'll push the button once, see it isn't full, and figure it out themselves. <S> But if you want to give them the extra information the first time, you can say: Can you please fill this all the way to the top? <S> You'll have to press the button twice. <S> As for finding out how many times you'll have to push the button to fill a different container, I'm in agreement with everyone else: <S> How many servings do you think will fit in this? <S> Or if you're referring specifically to your office coffee machine: <S> How many times do you think I'll have to push the button to fill this up? <A> I can't think of an idiomatic way to express this exact request. <S> If my friend is new to the office, I would probably need to explain that it takes two doses to fill the mug. <S> Then on later occasions I could simply ask him to fill the mug or <S> fill the mug up , or if he needs more explicit direction, to push the button twice or to put in two servings . <S> This is not the usual use of shot in reference to beverages: 10a. <S> a small amount of a drink, especially a strong alcoholic one <S> Shots is also used to refer to servings of espresso and wheatgrass and other strong non-alcoholic drinks. <S> But since the serving size of those drinks is small (a shotglass holds about 1 fl. <S> oz./ 30cc), asking for a shot of anything is an informal way to ask for a small portion of it, especially when it is dispensed from a pump. <S> Someone might informally ask for a shot of whipped cream or a shot of mustard in this way. <S> A double beverage contains twice the normal portion of its strongest component of the drink; a double latte is a café latte with two shots of espresso, a double martini has twice as much gin. <S> But again, until your friend becomes familiar with the machine and your mug, asking for a double or two shots will require some additional explanation, just the same as if you ask for two servings, or two measures, or two portions, or even two doses. <A> Firstly, all your examples are very imperative , they sound like you are giving an order, not asking a friend for a favour. <S> So you should soften them. <S> You might use "double", to indicate that you want one coffee that is twice the size of a standard one. <S> So you would say: <S> "I would like a double coffee, please." <S> and <S> "Thank you. <S> Is this a double or a single?" <S> In the second example, because it is clear to your friend that you are talking about coffee, you can just use "double" and single. <S> This would also apply in a coffee shop, for example. " <S> Gimme a venti soy latte - wait, make it a double. <S> Thanks." <S> Notice that you can be more imperative in the coffee shop <S> - you actually are giving an order - but that it is still good manners to soften it a little. <A> I honestly think this is the sort of thing you should explain , just as you did in your question. <S> I don't think it's common enough for us to have a shared way of expressing it. <S> Do you think you could get me some coffee, too? <S> Oh, and by the way, I like to drink twice the normal amount of coffee. <S> Do you think you could press the button on the machine twice so that the cup fills up twice as much? <S> Although I think you'll have to explain it the first time, on subsequent trips to the coffeehouse your friend will probably remember that you like to have twice as much coffee, so you'll be able to express it again with something shorter: <S> Oh, and can you press the button twice again? <S> At this point, they'll probably connect the dots no matter what you say, as long as it's vaguely related to having twice as much coffee: <S> Do you think you could get me another double coffee? <S> or: <S> Yeah, I'll have a two-button coffee. <S> These would, of course, be confusing if you hadn't already explained. <S> Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it doesn't always make for very good communication!
| Since the coffee is being dispensed from a machine, you could ask for two shots (or a double shot ) of coffee. You could also ask for a double .
|
How do I use "is being"? Say you have a sentence: The food is being processed in a factory. The food is processed in a factory. Both of them sounds right to me. Which one is grammatically correct? When would you use is being ? Can anyone gives some examples? Thanks. <Q> Both sentences are grammatically correct, but the focus of attention is different. <S> The food is being processed in a factory. <S> This type of verb-form is known as the passive present progressive tense. <S> We do not know who or perhaps we consider it unimportant to mention who the agent of the action, to process , is. <S> However, the rules for when and how to use the present progressive are the same for the active verb-forms. <S> If we were to change the sentence into an active one we would need to specify who does the act of processing the food. <S> Presumably, this is carried out by hired factory workers. <S> So, we could re-write the sentence as: Factory workers are processing the food <S> Both the active and passive sentence have the same meaning, the act of processing the food is ongoing in the present. <S> It is a continuous action performed at the moment of speaking. <S> The difference is in the subject of each sentence. <S> In the first sentence, the subject is the food while in the second, our attention is drawn to the factory workers . <S> Which sentence would be more appropriate to describe the image above? <S> Often it is a question of personal preference. <S> In this particular instance, both the active and passive sentences are suitable. <S> All this preamble to explain when and why we might prefer to use the passive tense, and in order to answer your other questions; When would you use <S> *is being <S> *? <S> Can anyone gives some examples? <S> Examples: (Active) <S> "I am making your coffee." <S> The emphasis of the sentence is on me, the person making the coffee for you. <S> (Passive) "Coffee is being made. <S> " The emphasis is shifted onto the coffee , we don't know who is making the coffee and maybe we don't care. <S> All we do know is that coffee will be ready soon. <S> (Active) <S> "The construction workers are building a new bridge. <S> " Our focus is on the workers who are doing the action. <S> (Passive) " <S> A new bridge is being built. <S> " The focus is switched to the end result of that action; i.e. the new bridge. <S> N.B <S> If the subject of the passive sentence is plural, we have to change the verb accordingly. <S> "Two bridges are being rebuilt after the devastating floods of November." <S> An example of a similar sentence can be seen here . <A> The food is being processed in a factory. <S> The food is processed in a factory . <S> Short answer : <S> Longer answer : <S> The meaning of such short sentences can shift depending on the context. <S> Let's start by analyzing: <S> The food is being processed in a factory. <S> Suppose you and I are going to start a new company that sells granola. <S> We might have this dialog: <S> How will we roll the oats and mix in the nuts? <S> The food is being processed in a factory. <S> Essentially, this means: <S> The plan is for our food to be processed in a factory. <S> and we might have <S> just as easily said: The food will be processed in a factory. <S> Or, after the operation gets underway, we might be answering a question from a potential customer: <S> Where are you guys processing your granola? <S> The food is being processed in a factory. <S> Essentially, this means: <S> As of right now, we are processing our granola in a factory . <S> where "as of right now" could mean "at this very moment" (if the factory is open), or "as of this month" (if we are planning to move the operation next month). <S> However, but we could have just as easily answered with: The food is processed in a factory. <S> Most verb tenses have a fairly straightforward "textbook" meaning, but in context, those usages can be bent, and the dividing lines can be blurry. <S> As a closing example, I'll ask two questions – but which is the correct one? <S> Does that make sense? <S> Did that make sense? <A> You use being to indicate something that is still going on (it has not completed yet) <A> Both are correct. <S> The first sentence is 'present tense', in that the word choice of 'being' means it is currently happening at this time. <S> The second sentence is without a tense, and so it is more of a statement by itself. <S> Both sentences sound like they are answers to a question, though.
| Both sentences state a simple fact, but the first sentence implies the action is ongoing – perhaps even as we speak.
|
Why is 'where' an adverb and not a pronoun? A : Where are you going? B : I am going to school. Where took the place of school and something that takes the place of a noun is a pronoun. So, why isn't where a pronoun? <Q> Where does not take the place of school , which is, as you say, a noun. <S> It takes the place of to school , which is a prepositional phrase acting in this sentence as an adverb of directive location a subject complement ing to the verb go . <S> I am going [to school] <S> → I am going [where] <S> → [Where] are you going? <S> You may, if you like, consider where as an interrogative pro- adverb PP. <A> Where is a fronted adverb which is also a wh -word. <S> Take a look at the following examples: 1. <S> *You are going New York . <S> This is ungrammatical. <S> A noun representing a place can't directly follow going . <S> Instead, going can be followed by a prepositional phrase or an adverb: 2. <S> You are going to New York. <S> (preposition phrase--okay) 3. <S> You are going quickly. <S> (adverb--okay) <S> So what do we have in the following example? <S> 4. <S> You are going there . <S> It looks like an adverb to me. <S> There's no preposition, so it can't be a preposition phrase, and it's not a noun because we established (with example 1) that a noun would be ungrammatical. <S> Now let's replace there with where : 5. <S> You are going where ? <S> It still looks like an adverb to me. <S> We've established that a noun doesn't work in this position, so where isn't taking the place of a noun. <S> That means it can't be a pronoun. <S> Of course, example 5 is only allowed in limited circumstances. <S> Two examples are reclamatory questions , in which you're asking someone to repeat themselves, and incredulity questions , where you're expressing disbelief about what someone just said. <S> They also feature in situations that involve sustained questioning, such as in court or on a game show. <S> But outside those limited circumstances, where needs to be fronted, which means moving it to the front of the sentence: 6. <S> * Where you are going? <S> (ungrammatical; you and <S> are must be inverted) 7. <S> Where are you going? <S> (okay) <S> In 6, the wh -word is fronted; this is ungrammatical without subject-auxiliary inversion. <S> In 7, the subject and auxiliary are inverted, so it's grammatical again. <S> So it seems to me that the wh -word in this case is also a fronted adverb. <S> In this answer, the * symbol means I've identified the sentence as ungrammatical. <A> Well this is indeed a difficult question, but really interesting. <S> So, First off, the question <S> Where are you going <S> doesn't always mean to school . <S> Cause usually people don't know <S> (yet) <S> the answers to their questions. <S> It could be to work , to that building , to nowhere , or even I don't know . <S> So that doesn't make <S> the where replace <S> exactly the school . <S> If the where is a pronoun: True, a pronoun replaces a noun and its "form" is of that noun. <S> By extension, a pronoun and the noun it replaces are interchangeable . <S> You do understand, that where in that interrogative sentence cannot be replaced by to school : to school, are you going? . <S> Plus, you cannot say that a positive sentence replaces some interrogative one. <S> Even, in a positive sentence, where still cannot function as replacement (pronoun). <S> Replacing is something like this: <S> I know the place . <S> -- <S> > <S> I know that . <S> While where acts like this (as an adverb): I know the place . <S> -- <S> > <S> I know the place <S> (where) you went. <S> ( where qualifies the word place ) <S> When the where is an adverb: Now, it makes more sense when you're calling the where an adverb. <S> Here, an adverb, essentially, is a word that changes or qualifies the meaning of a verb, adjective, other adverb, clause, sentence or any other word or phrase. <S> So if my deduction is correct, the where there functions to qualify the "original" question (sentence) are you going? . <S> Similarly, the rule works for the examples I wrote above. <S> More examples to ensure you: did you go yesterday? <S> where did you go yesterday? <S> did you teach English? <S> where did you teach English? <A> “Where” is usually an adverb, but in some cases, it can be pronoun. <S> When “where” is the object of a preposition, it is a pronoun. <S> For instance, in the question, “Where are you from?” <S> which can be reordered as <S> “From where are you?” <S> “ where ” is the object of the preposition “ from ”. <S> An answer to that question could be, <S> “I am from the United States.” <S> “the United States” takes the place of “where”, which makes it a pronoun. <S> However, in your sentence, “Where are you going?”, to which a possible answer could be, “I am going to school,” the entire prepositional phrase “to school” takes the place of “where”, and “to school” is an adverbial phrase modifying the verb “am going”. <S> This makes “where” and adverb instead of a pronoun. <S> Otherwise, it is most likely an adverb.
| So yes, “where” can be a pronoun, but usually when it is the object of a preposition. Cause its function is to substitute the noun.
|
Should I write "X and I", "X and me", "I and X", or "me and X" in a conjoined object? A question was asked in one of my friend's interview. The question was to determine the right form from the below sentences. Q. Correct form of English: Samuel was with Susan and I Samuel was with Susan and me Samuel was with I and Susan Samuel was with me and Susan None of these Now I vaguely remember a rule of thumb from my school days. That is "2-3-1" i.e. where all the persons are acting in a sentence, second person comes first, then third person and it is followed by first person. So according to this theory, 1 seems to be correct to me. Is this theory correct? <Q> Your theory is correct. <S> But that leaves us with 1) and 2). <S> Between I and me, we can decide like this: <S> I corresponds to <S> we and me corresponds to us . ' <S> He was with us' and not 'He was with we.' <S> So, 2) is the correct option. <A> A helpful trick for determining whether to use I or me in a multi-person scenario is to take the other people out of the sentence. <S> If you still have a valid sentence at that point, then you have the correct pronoun. <S> For example, with the sentence Samuel was with Susan and I , you take out Susan, leaving you with the sentence <S> Samuel was with I . <S> Hopefully you can tell immediately that this is incorrect, and therefore the initial sentence is also incorrect. <S> If you replace <S> I with me , the sentence then appears correct. <S> Now you can add Susan back in, and you still have a correct sentence: <S> Samuel was with Susan and me . <S> As for whether you or Susan should be mentioned first, as answered on ELU , it is a "rule of politeness" to put yourself last. <S> (But the rule of thumb that I have is 3-2-1, not 2-3-1.) <A> In "Samuel was with Susan and I." <S> Susan and I is the object of the verb. <S> As such, standard English requires you to use me . <S> The NOAD has a note about using personal pronouns. <S> The correct use of personal pronouns is one of the most debated topics of English usage. <S> I , we , they , he , and she are subjective personal pronouns, which means they are used as the subject of the sentence, often coming before the verb ("she lives in Paris"; "we are leaving"). <S> Me , us , them , him , and her , on the other hand, are objective personal pronouns, which means that they are used as the object (i.e., they receive the action) of a verb or preposition ("John likes me"; "his father left him"; "I did it for her"). <S> This explains why it is not correct to say "John and me went to the mall": The personal pronoun is in subject position, so it must be I , not me . <S> Using the pronoun alone makes the incorrect use obvious: "Me went to the mall" is clearly not acceptable. <S> This analysis also explains why it is not correct to say "he came with you and I": the personal pronoun is governed by a preposition ( with) and is therefore objective, so it must be me , not I . <S> Again, a simple test for correctness is to use the pronoun alone: " <S> He came with I" is clearly not acceptable.
| As for the order of the objects, the preferred order is "Susan and me" but there isn't a grammar rule for that.
|
Reply to someone who says "you are the best" Someone appreciated my work and wrote "You are the best, thanks." How should I reply to this as a courtesy? <Q> It actually matters how you would like to respond. <S> Do you want to be formal or informal. <S> Below i wanted explain how @David's answer made me feel. <S> -No problem (Very commonly used, Informal) <S> This is far from being formal and totaly counts as informal but people who uses English as their second language might sometimes use this as a formal reply. <S> In street slang also can be followed by friendly namings (dude, bro, man..etc) to show how close you feel. <S> -Glad <S> I could help (Friendly, Informal) <S> It is a response when you are experiencing pleasure, joy, or delight while helping . <S> You take it as a mission and overcome a lot problems for the one that you feel important to you with pleasure. <S> This is also leaves the speaker in an expectation for further conversation. <S> -My pleasure (Rarely used, Formal) <S> It is a response that is much more polite than "You're welcome" .You <S> enjoy helping him/her/them and helping them also works out for you as well. <S> It's actually formal <S> but you can also see it is commonly used between close friends and family members in an informal way. <S> -You're <S> welcome (Very Formal) <S> It's mostly used as conversation ending sentence. <S> Seriously, it takes 1-2 seconds to finish the sentence and felts like you are in a hurry and <S> don't care much about his/her/their appreciation. <S> -It was nothing (Cordial, Somewhat informal) Reminiscent of the Spanish phrase de nada , this one might be especially appropriate when you want to humbly dismiss high praise, such as " You're the best. <S> " <S> Very similar to no problem , though less common. <A> A few common responses to compliments are "you're welcome", "no problem", "my pleasure" or "glad I could help". <A> The best of all is " My Pleasure". <S> because it suggests that you accepted the opportunity and tried your best to help and solve the issue and gave the best solution that really worked for the person. <S> So, it works for both, accepting the challenges as well as replying politely and accept the appreciation.... <A> <A> Replies to "Thanks" is given as per situation: 1) <S> If someone is in difficulty and you help him/ her out, then rather than "You're Welcome" , my pleasure works best if it's a formal situation. <S> In informal situation, "No problem" or "It's OK" will suit the purpose.. 2) <S> When you want someone to visit you again, you can say " You're Welcome". <S> 3) <S> In friendly terms, if you don't want to accept thanks , then the reply can be " No Mention", "no problem". <S> 4) <S> My pleasure can be said when you really feel good to help someone or you like to help them, wish them <S> and it's ok if they don't ask for your help again.. <S> The best of all is " My Pleasure". <S> because it suggests that you accepted the opportunity and tried your best to help and solve the issue and gave the best solution that really worked for the person. <S> So, it works for both, accepting the challenges as well as replying politely and accept the appreciation....
| I would simply respond with "You're welcome.", which is a common and polite reply to being thanked.
|
Talking at irregular intervals One of my friend speaks sporadically (that is, not often) to me.How to express this in correct tense and words.How to ask him about this. "Why you are talking sporadically to me?" is this correct FYI - This my first post. If I have done any wrong tagging please forgive. <Q> There are a couple of words I can think of, depending on what meaning you are trying to convey: Intermittently & Occasionally refer to a time between your friend speaking to you where the amount of time between times does not follow a pattern <S> Periodically would indicate that there is a regular amount of time between each time your friend talks to you (such as at 10:00 every day, or every Monday) <S> All will use the form <S> Why you are [word here] <S> talking to me? <S> If you desire the amount of talking to increase, then something like <S> Why you are Only [word here] <S> talking to me? <S> would work <A> My answer is now edited according to the comments below. <S> Thank you. <S> First of all, the sentence as you put it seems somehow unnatural. <S> Better would be to reformulate it (using negative and plural ) to something like: <S> Why don't we speak (to each other) more often/more regularly? <S> If you would insist on your structure ( using positive ), the better way would be to use present simple tense: <S> Why do you so rarely talk to me? <S> where you can replace the word rarely with other words here suggested such as: "occasionally" or yours "sporadically". <S> In general, your sentence is grammatically correct, but it is not the way native speaker would say it. <A> It is a neutral term. <S> You seem unhappy with the pattern of your friend's communication. <S> It is not as frequent as you would like. <S> Probably a better word would be infrequently <S> not happening very often While this can be a neutral term, in this context it suggests that you would like it to be more frequent. <A> Your original question should be corrected with: ("One of my friends") - otherwise it is correct. <S> Your question to your friend sounds somewhat unnatural. <S> But not very unnatural. <S> It sounds more natural as:"Why <S> do you speak to me sporadically?" <S> Sporadically is a word that is not used very often. <S> So it is unusual to hear it in this context - but replacing it with "more often" would not actually express what you are trying to ask!
| Sporadically means happening sometimes; not regular or continuous Your question to your friend is grammatically correct.
|
What is the difference between "get through" and "go through"? Is there any difference between "go through a door" and "get through a door"? <Q> NOAD lists five meanings of go through : <S> go through 1 <S> undergo (a difficult or painful period or experience) : <S> the country is going through a period of economic instability . <S> 2 search through or examine carefully or in sequence : <S> she started to go through the bundle of letters . <S> 3 (of a proposal or contract) be officially approved or completed : the sale of the building is set to go through . <S> 4 <S> [informal] use up or spend (available money or other resources). <S> 5 (of a book) be successively published in (a specified number of editions) : within two years <S> it went through thirty-one editions . <S> and two for get through <S> get through 1 <S> (also get someone through ) <S> pass or assist someone in passing (a difficult or testing experience or period) : <S> I need these lessons to get me through my exam . <S> • <S> (also get something through ) <S> (with reference to a piece of legislation) become or cause to become law. <S> 2 make contact by telephone : after an hour of busy signals, I finally got through . <S> • succeed in communicating with someone in a meaningful way : <S> I just don't think anyone can get through to these kids . <S> There are two things worth noting: (a) <S> There is much similarity between first listed meanings of each entry, in that both connote dealing with some kind of hardship, difficulty, or struggle, and (b) none of the meanings in either entry are related to going or getting through adoorway or tunnel . <S> So, to go through <S> a doorway simply means to pass through the doorway. <S> There is no idiomatic meaning. <S> To get through a doorway implies getting through a doorway after some small struggle: <S> After getting stuck for a moment, she finally got through the doorway with her two heavy shopping bags . <A> Get through means "to suffer through." <S> To get through something usually means in an emotional state, like to get through a divorce, or to get through something challenging, like a test. <S> She was so tired that it was difficult to get through the day. <S> Go through means "to pass through something." <S> After you buy your token, put it in the slot and go through the turnstile. <S> Go through the old city gates and you will see beautiful 15th century church. <S> So its always you go through a door, not get through a door. <A> As per thesaurus.com, "go through" means withstand, experience, survive and "get through" means handle, exist, sustain, suffer. <S> Go through the door means to pass through the door. <S> Get through the door can be used like this : <S> It was really hard to get through that small door.
| "Go through something" is the physical of "go through something," and it is always in the present tense, like "go through a divorce" or "go through a tunnel."
|
What does "Men are cruel, but Man is kind" mean? Men are cruel, but Man is kind. -- Stray Birds ( 219 ) by Rabindranath Tagore What is the meaning of men and man in that sentence? <Q> Opinions about this quote vary (here's one thread , for example), but the gist of the interpretations follow a common theme . <S> NOAD offers a hint: <S> man ( n. ) 1 an adult human male. <S> 2 <S> a human being of either sex; a person • (also Man ) [in sing.] <S> human beings in general; the human race <S> I'd paraphrase it like this: People are cruel, but the human race is still compassionate. <S> Whether that's a correct interpretation is off-topic (we don't do literary critiques of poetry here). <S> However, the fact that the words man and men can be used to describe: males, or people, or the human race is indeed a matter for the English learner. <S> I believe the first word is capitalized because it's at the beginning of the sentence; the second capitalized word is being used as shown in NOAD, where Man = <S> the human race . <S> As for your original question, I don't believe the word "Men" refers to "two men", but to an unspecified number of men. <A> What is the meaning of men and man in that sentence? <S> This is a fascinating question on many levels. <S> The author did not write in English <S> so we're reading a translation. <S> The two words are in some sense synonyms. <S> It appears like most of the interpretations on the internet depend on someone's point-of-view. <S> For example : <S> I believe it means, individuals can be arrogant and ruthless, while the general nature of humans is much more compassionate in nature. <S> A good example of this is the way strangers pull together in time of crisis or disaster. <S> The author is gone <S> so I believe that precisely what constitutes each group can't be decided from this single verse, and that everyone needs to read the entire poem and discern the author's intent. <S> When I read the poem the author seems to have a great respect for people as individuals. <S> My guess is that the verse is referring to the fact that man has a dual nature. <S> Neither all good nor all bad. <A> Men = individuals <S> So, humans as a species/group are generally kind, though there are individuals who are cruel. <S> It's making the same distinction as in Neil Armstrong's famous quote: "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind" The "maleness" is not relevant. <S> It used to be common to refer to people as "men", and all people as "mankind", but today we prefer to use gender-neutral language, eg, "people" and "humans/humankind". <S> It is possible that the author meant it the other way around though: "Men" = <S> all people "Man" = <S> an individual <S> although this is less likely, if the translator can be trusted. <S> One would have to look at the original-language text to be sure. <A> <A> Frankly, I interpret this differently than the other answers. <S> "Men" is a collective noun - a group. <S> A class. <S> Men, as a class, are cruel. <S> We see this in sociological discussions on mob mentality . <S> People act differently in mobs than they would feel free to act as individuals - it is something to do with abdication of responsibility. <S> The typical man. <S> It is generally more difficult to be cruel one-on-one, when one is looking his victim in the eyes. <S> When there is a personal connection, individual humans tend to be kind. <S> Even very cruel men, like Adolph Hitler, were reputed to be kind on an individual level. <S> I remember viewing a documentary featuring an interview with an elderly woman who became part of Hitler's personal household staff when she was quite young (she was a chambermaid or some such at Kehlsteinhaus) <S> and she spoke of Hitler's kindness and generosity toward her and other household staff. <S> So, I read the above as: Men (as a class) are cruel, but the typical Man is kind. <S> References: <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology <S> https://drwendyjames.com/the-psychology-of-mob-mentality-and-violence/ <S> What is the meaning of "two young men who are riffs on gangsters-films archetypes"
| Individual people are cruel, but humankind as a whole is kind. Man = mankind/humankind "Man" is an architype - the ideal man.
|
"A friend told me" vs "My friend told me" vs "One of my friends told me" I want to know which of the forms mentioned below are most used in conversation. A friend told me … My friend told me … One of my friends told me … Here are what I think are the disadvantages and advantages of using each of them. “A Friend told me” — In this sentence, it sounds to me the friend can be mine or the friend can be a friend of my friend. So it seems to me it does not make clear that the friend is my directly known person. “My friend told me” — This seems perfectly natural to me. It clearly says that the friend is mine and that I know him very well. “One of my friends told me” — This one seems too wordy to use for a normal information and that is why I think it must be less used in day-to-day life. Are these observations of mine correct? <Q> I think you're largely on the right track. <S> However, I would assume that “A friend…” was indeed a friend of yours – not a friend of a friend. <S> However, the use of a (instead of the more familiar and intimate my ) might suggest the person is more of an acquaintance than a close friend, but that's not necessarily a given. <S> I don't think “One of my friends…” is too wordy. <S> It might be especially useful if you remember hearing something from someone, but you can't quite remember which friend gave you the information. <S> Also, instead of “told me”, I might be more inclined to simply use “said”. <S> Lastly, I think there's one viable option you've left of your list: <S> A friend of mine said... <A> The choice is really a personal one, with very subtle connotations to each: <S> On the other hand, the phrasing sounds incomplete, suggesting it is not the best choice for a formal situation. <S> "My friend" sounds warmer <S> : it begs the question "Which friend?". <S> In fact, you would usually hear this with some identifying information about the friend: " <S> My friend Julie", "My French friend", "My friend at school", etc. <S> It is most likely to be used in a less formal situation. <S> Of course, on its own, "my friend" can suggest that you only have one friend. <S> "One of my friends". <S> This is also a bit vague. " <S> A friend of mine" is a commonly used version of this phrasing, and is perhaps the best alternative to number 1: <S> the phrasing is complete, while maintaining formal distance (privacy). <S> I also prefer it to "One of my friends", which sounds like you are forcing the issue that you have more than one friend. <S> Of course, people don't tend to think this through so much before they speak - they just go with what feels right at the time! <A> No, you don't have it right, but this is a great question. <S> Your mistake is that you're trying to explain these differences in isolation, but some language rules often apply only across multiple sentences. <S> As the first sentences introducing your friend into the conversation, your examples are almost identical. <S> But the next time you refer to the person, you have to say "my friend" or else people will think you're speaking of a different person entirely. <S> "A friend told me . <S> . . . <S> My friend also said . <S> . . <S> " <S> (One person) <S> "A friend told me . <S> . . . One of my friends also said . <S> . . <S> " <S> (Two people) <S> But this is a subtle difference even for the first sentence. <S> When you lead with "my friend," it sounds a bit like you're saying that you only have one friend, doesn't it? <S> No one really means that, of course, but what this does is signal the listeners that for the purpose of this conversation <S> you only have one friend that you're going to be talking about. <S> I would expect that you plan to say a lot about this person in the following sentences. <S> The study of language rules about setting/changing context is called pragmatics . <S> Speakers routinely make repeated pragmatic shifts during a single conversation.
| "A friend" is vague, not personal, perhaps because you're not that close to the person with whom you're speaking.
|
Meaning of "The experiment to be carried out was a success" I can't quite get the meaning of this expression. "Was" is confusing me. Is it just a mistype of "with"? "The experiment to be carried out was a success." <Q> The sentence is "The experiment was a success." <S> Or: "The experiment succeeded." <S> The part of it which seems to be confusing you is "to be carried out. <S> " <S> This phrase means which was done . <S> It is superfluous. <S> It is unnecessary. <S> Of course the experiment was done; there is no need to say so. <S> As it happens, emphasizing that it was carried out has accomplished only one thing: confusing you. <A> The phrase " Carry out " means to continue to an end point. <S> The sentence probably means that The experiment was decided to be continued until it got a conclusion, and it turned out to be a successful one <A> A potential source of confusion here is that the ellipsis is unpredictable before one sees the second part of the sentence. <S> The experiment to be carried out was a success. <S> But The experiment to be carried out will hopefully be a success. <S> The experiment which is (going) to be carried out will hopefully be a success. <S> (See at http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/hopefully for the licensing of the pragmatic-marker usage of 'hopefully'.)
| The experiment which was to be carried out was a success (proved to have a successful outcome).
|
Is "SNS" (Social Networking Site) used by native speakers of English? The acronym "SNS" (Social Networking Site) is made up of three English words, so it looks like it's English. But is the acronym "SNS" (Social Networking Site) a "real" English acronym used in English by native speakers of English, or is it mainly used in English by native speakers of Japanese, and people from nearby Asian countries? <Q> I'm a (British) English native speaker, involved in the technology sector, here. <S> Haven't heard that acronym, and would be forced to look it up if I did. <A> Citing only my own experience as a person living in Chicago and working in the online sector, I can say that this initialism is not in use at all in the US. <S> I have <S> heard: <S> “social” as an adjective attached to pretty much anything <S> “social networking” as a general concept referring to all social sites collectively “social networks” ditto <S> In my experience, if one is referring to such sites, one names each in question. <S> (We probably don't use as many, in general, so this might be more feasible for us.) <S> Here's an example conversation: <S> “What's Oggl?” <S> “It's a social app for picture sharing.” <S> “How does it work?” <S> “It taps into your social networks and posts photos to one or more at a time.” <S> “Oh? <S> Which ones?” <S> “ Facebook , Twitter , and Instagram .” <S> “I see. <S> Sounds like a good use of social networking .” <S> I have conversations similar to the one above every day, attend and give presentations on related topics, read my fair share of tech blogs, and I have never heard “SNS” spoken or seen it written. <A> It's a valid, though uncommon, acronym. <S> I'd suggest that if you were to use it, that you provide its meaning upon first use. <S> For example: We developed a Persuasive social network for physical Activity (PersonA) that combines automatic input of physical activity data, a smartphone, and a social networking system (SNS). <S> For an overview of this space, including a definition of "social network sites," a history of SNSs, and a literature review
| Basically, as far as I can tell, the answer is that it does seem like a primarily Asian phenomenon.
|
Is *dozen* an adjective? There are about a dozen bananas in this basket. There are about twelve bananas in this basket. I know that there are some adjectives that show quantity. So, twelve is an adjective for sure. However, regarding dozen , I've some reservations. Oxford dictionary mentions dozen as noun only. So I want to know, in the above sentence, is dozen a noun or an adjective? <Q> Dozen is not an adjective. <S> Snailboat has already given a lot of reasons why it can't be an adjective; another is that dozen can take the inflection <S> -s - dozens - and <S> no English adjective can do that. <S> Not even on those occasions when an adjective is being used as a noun. <S> Then we say "the old" or "the poor", not "*olds" or "*poors". <S> Dozen can take a determiner: a/the/a few/my dozen . <S> It can be counted: two/three/four dozen . <S> It can be a plural: we have dozens . <S> In short, it is a noun. <S> Don't be misled by dozen apparently modifying another noun. <S> Nouns can modify nouns, as in work clothes , Oxford student , or the inevitable car park . <A> dozen is originally a noun. <S> Eggs were sold in dozens because one or two eggs can easily break. <S> Even today you get eggs in six-packs. <S> As it is a genuine noun meaning twelve things, you say a dozen eggs or dozens of things . <S> As dozen describes a number it has taken on certain featuresof numerals. <S> You say two dozen eggs (withoutplural-s). <S> You dont say of in a dozen eggs , not: a dozen of eggs . <S> It is better to look up a dozen in a grammar. <S> A dictionary isn't a substitute for a grammar and does not give fullinformation about numerals that are nouns and have some features of numerals. <S> And don't get confused when some dictionaries say dozen is an adjective. <S> They mean dozen can be used asan attribute or subelement before a noun. <S> English grammars use adjective as a term for a word class and also as a term for the sentence element attribute. <S> And this double use of the term adjective leads to confusion. <A> It modifies bananas. <S> Merriam-Webster agrees that dozen can be an adjective. <S> Not sure why Oxford omits that. <S> An interesting point came up in the comments, so I'll use that to improve the answer. <S> I assume that you have no problem seeing that "ten" is an adjective. <S> Therefore you must agree that "hundred" is also an adjective. <S> But "hundred" has exactly the same problems as "dozen. <S> " I can say "I bought ten bananas" <S> but I cannot say "I bought hundred bananas." <S> The reason is that although most bare adjectives are also complete adjective phrases, a few of them (e.g. dozen, score, hundred, thousand) are not. <S> You need some other determiner like "a" or "the" to complete the phrase. <S> Adjectives combine with other words to make adjective phrases. <S> Adjective phrases can then modify nouns (helping make noun phrases) and do the other things you think of adjectives as doing. <S> Adjectives (in modern linguistics) do not directly modify nouns; only phrases do. <S> All of the objections to "dozen" failing as an adjective are actually objections to it failing to be an adjective phrase. <S> It is an adjective; it's just not a phrase. <S> Examples: We can coordinate "a dozen" with another adjective phrase. <S> "There were a dozen or more bananas." <S> That clearly shows that "a dozen" is not a noun phrase in this sentence because "more" is not a noun phrase. <S> If you agree that "more" is an adjective phrase in this sentence, then "a dozen" must also be. <S> The distinction between words and phrases is critical for understanding the behavior of nouns and verbs, but we can usually ignore it for adjectives. <S> This is just one of those cases where we can't. <S> Final note: strictly speaking, words like "ten" "dozen" and "more" are called "determiners" not "adjectives" by linguists today, but that's a complication I didn't want to introduce. <A> There are a dozen pens on the table. <S> Although this seems odd, if we go back to basic English and diagramming, we will see that "dozen" is used as a "definite numeral adjective" here, "a" is an "adjective article", and "pens" is the noun. <S> When used with the indefinite article, certain numeral adjectives require the singular version of the indefinite article (a/an) in front of it (a few, a dozen, a hundred, a million, a billion, etc) instead of a plural indefinite article (some) or no article at all in English, even though they are describing something plural. <S> A dozen apples in the tree... <S> A billion stars in the universe... <S> Although "apples" and "stars" are plural, they are referred to as singular objects when used with these definite adjectives. <S> However, "apples" and "stars" ARE still the objects here. <S> If we leave out the objects, A dozen in the tree A billion in the universe then, and only then, do these numeral adjectives, become nouns, which must have another noun to refer to. <S> I can't say "He went to the store," without knowing who "he" is. <S> There is a billion in the universe. <S> A billion what?
| In the example sentence, dozen is an adjective of quantity.
|
What is the meaning of "should" here? What's the meaning of "should" here?The news is from from NewYorker . Steyer’s pitch to the donors was simple: “This is the best deal I’m ever going to give you. You should want to give this money, period, even if you never got anything. You can go and speak to the highest people in the Democratic congressional leadership. And we’re throwing in the President of the United States as a gimme. So you should be begging me to come.” To insure that the event left an impression on Obama, Steyer invited fifteen top donors to join him for an intimate conversation with the President before the reception for a hundred. Jim Steyer said, “Tom really hammered Obama on the pipeline.” <Q> <A> In this example, "You should want to give this money" is equivalent to "It is in your best interest to give this money" or "If you know what's best for you, you will want to give this money". <A> In this context it is a recommendation to the donors to donate to the campaign because then they will get unique access to Obama for lobbying environmental arguments directly to Obama in person at the fund-raiser event. <S> See the last paragraph on the previous page on the deal that Steyer had come up with: <S> When California Representative Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in the House, asked Steyer to hold the fund-raiser, to help Democrats running for Congress in 2014, he agreed, with one proviso: he would tell potential guests that they could lobby the President about the folly of approving Keystone.
| In that sentence, "should" means "ought to" : For whatever reasons, Steyer thinks that the donors' best decision is to give money, even without the additional access to politicians, but that being able to meet with important people is an extra reason to donate.
|
"realization" vs "implementation" of a computer program Can realization be used to refer to the implementation of a computer program? As in: We will realize the program next week. or Listing X demonstrates a possible realization. I was pretty sure to realize [something] cannot not be used in this sense, but instead only in the sense to become aware of [something] . However, I keep seeing realization to be used in the place of implementation quite often, also in computer science papers, so I'm not that sure anymore. Can a native speaker shed some light on this? To add some more detail to the question: My main confusion comes from the German words for realization and implementation ( Realisierung and Implementierung ) which can be used fairly interchangeably in this context. The same is not true in English, and hence my worries about the correctness of the texts I write. <Q> Note that, very strictly speaking, a program doesn't have an implementation. <S> A program is an implementation: the implementation of a design, which follows from a specification. <S> "To realize" is similar to "to implement", but is a little bit broader. <S> To realize means to achieve a plan, whereas to implement is to put into effect a very specific plan. <S> So for instance, a computer program can be the realization of a software entrepreneur's visionary concept. <S> But it is somewhat awkward to say that it's the implementation of a visionary idea. <S> Why? <S> Because a visionary concept is not a program design. <S> To implement a program is to translate a more or less detailed design into code, not to translate some vague idea into code. <S> In other words, the idea for the product is realized by specifying it, capturing a design at various levels of detail and finally implementing it. <S> Programmers also speak of implementing specifications. <S> For instance, "This e-mail server contains an implementation of the IMAP4 protocol" even though the IMAP4 specification is not a design for how to write IMAP4 supporting code in that mail server. <S> Basically, any document that gives precise, testable requirements for the external behavior of a data processing system is susceptible to being implemented. <S> We speak of the duality of interface <S> (how the world communicates with some piece) vs. implementation <S> (how the piece works internally). <A> Realize can also have the more direct sense of "make real," and is often used (and sometimes overused; your first sentence probably should use "implement" to avoid sounding self-important) in this sense in technical literature. <S> See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/realize for more. <S> In the computer science field, a more precise term is "reification": see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(computer_science) for more information. <A> In a nutshell: A realization of XYZ is called an implementation. <S> Update <S> Now that someone downvoted, let me show evidence: <S> Wikipedia: Implementation : <S> Update Wikipedia: Instruction set architecture : <S> A realization of an ISA is called an implementation.
| Implementation is the realization of an application, or execution of a plan, idea, model, design, specification, standard, algorithm, or policy.
|
Word or phrase which means "to defend oneself by shooting"? When someone is defending himself by shooting at someone with a weapon. The enemy doesn't necessarily has a weapon, there may be a certain threat for the person defending himself. So, we have a person who wants to defend himself by shooting at someone or an animal. Is there a word or phrase in English that would describe this situation precisely? I thought of 'shooting back' or 'firing back' but it's not clear from the definitions in some dictionaries whether I can use any of these in my situatuion. EDIT: I'm trying to translate a story which is about a man being under drugs who sees creatures and wants to shoot them (they are angels). It has a catchy title which I'm trying to translate as accurate as possible. Since they're angels and he is being overdosed I want to preserve the whole meaning of the story in the title (It's not being said but I think they want to take him with them). It's a fiction, no need to bind it with laws. Would 'shoot out at angels' fit? <Q> The word I'd use is self-defense , which does not require that the person you are attacking be armed, although it also encompasses self-defense where <S> you are not armed either. <S> When Mr. Green ran towards the police officer with a baseball bat, the police officer shot him three times in self-defense . <S> Ms. Hart shot the bear in self-defense because it tried to attack her when she was at the picnic table. <S> Shooting back and firing back always refer to the other person being armed, and a more idiomatic way of saying this is returned fire : <S> When one of the criminals shot at police from his window, the police returned fire , killing both suspects and rescuing the hostages. <S> The militants shot towards the compound, and the government forces returned fire , killing all of the militants. <A> You could always say he shot his way out of trouble . <S> In the UK you'd probably have a hard time convincing a judge that you were acting in "self-defence" if you shot an unarmed attacker, but obviously things are different in other countries. <S> In practice, regardless of whether your attacker is an unarmed human or an animal, you probably wouldn't need to actually shoot at them . <S> It would normally be enough to... <S> fire a warning shot [over their head, for example]. <A> So you're not going to find one. <S> What term you might use, not so specific but still catchy, is a matter better suited to another website. <S> This isn't a site for writing advice.
| There is no specific, everyday term in English for using a gun in self-defence.
|
"What is it you want?" vs. "What do you want?" Brad: What is it you want, Victoria? I have just found another object, a greater one. (1) Brad: What do you want, Victoria? I have just found another object, a greater one. (2) Victoria: Brad, come on, it is not a greater one to allow oneself to be more happy. Are What do you want? and What is it you want? both grammatical? If so, which one one should prefer in the context above? Also, is there a difference in empahasis? <Q> What is it [that] you want is grammatical. <S> It's slightly more formal-sounding (in my opinion) which creates a slightly greater sense of psychological distance between the speaker and listener. <S> Both versions are fine, though I think what do you want is more usual. <A> Both sound grammatical to me, but "What is it you want?" is more forceful. <S> For example, a child keeps distracting you <S> and you snap: "What is it you want?" <S> On the other hand, "Brad, come on, it is not a greater one to allow oneself to be more happy. <S> "is not very grammatical! <A> Both sentences are grammatical; the difference between the two is in what the speaker's feelings are about Victoria's wants. <S> What do you want, <S> Victoria?What <S> is it <S> you want, Victoria? <S> "What do you want? <S> " is emotionally neutral. <S> The first refers to Victoria's want as a property of Victoria; in this case an emotion that is part of Victoria. <S> The second refers to Victoria's want as something separate from Victoria but which Victoria possesses; it implies that her emotion is not a property of Victoria but rather something she possesses as though she were carrying the emotion around in her pocket. <S> Disassociating a property of a person from that person is sometimes used as a method of convincing a listener that the property is not really part of their nature; often as a way of getting the listener to remove that property from themselves. <S> In the example sentences, the use of "what is it you want" implies that the speaker is hostile to Victoria's want and wishes her to stop feeling that way, while "what do you want" is more neutral; the speaker is not indicating how he feels about Victoria's want. <S> In normal English usage asking someone what they want at the start of a conversation <S> implies that the speaker is being interrupted and so is less than polite. <S> Using 'what do you want' <S> as part of an ongoing conversation does not imply an interruption and so is less impolite. <A> "What do you want? <S> " is a somewhat "normal" form of address. <S> However, this is a little blunt: if you want to be more polite you should say "What would you like?" <S> Now if someone beats around the bush you can say "What is it that you want?", as in a questioning in which a detective asks many questions without really saying what he's got in mind: <S> "All right, detective, what is it that you want?"
| "What is it you want" uses 'it' to indicate that Victoria's want (it) is separate from Victoria. The two sentence variations have similar but not the exact same meaning.
|
Is there any word to describe things we do regularly over and over again? For example, when in our daily life we go to school, do homework, go to the gym and then go to sleep, but all these things we do for a whole week. Repetitive things. Another example would be when two lovers spend too much time together, and fall into a pattern of always doing the same things over and over; nothing appears to change. Is there a word to describe this? Life is repetitive. Is that correct? <Q> Sure, you can say life is repetitive . <S> There's nothing wrong with that. <S> It does sound like a general statement, though, and not a description of specific things we do over and over again. <S> So how do we describe things we do regularly, over and over again? <S> You can talk about your daily routine . <S> That means something you do every day, though you can also use it to describe things you do only on weekdays, in which case you might say weekday daily routine or daily routine on weekdays . <S> (Some people skip over this detail and just say daily routine .) <S> You can also talk about your habits . <S> Do you make it a habit to clean for ten minutes every day after you get home from work? <S> Then you can use that word. <S> If you don't exactly form the habits on purpose, then you might say you're falling into a routine . <S> And any activity you engage in on a regular basis can be called habitual . <S> Of course, habits can refer to both good habits , like brushing your teeth regularly, and bad habits , like smoking. <S> You might say that things are getting old , or that you're getting tired of doing the same things day in and day out. <S> If you really want to change, you might say that it seems like your life is standing still , but you want to move forward . <S> (This, of course, is a metaphor.) <S> Another good alternative, suggested by Mistu4u, is monotonous . <S> This word usually has a negative connotation, much like boring or repetitive . <S> You can say that your life has become monotonous, or if you like the "life is..." formulation you started with, it certainly works there, too: <S> Life is monotonous. <S> Again, that would sound like a general statement about life, though you can apply the word to individual activities: <S> Work has been so monotonous lately. <S> Of course, there are a lot of ways to talk about things like these, so <S> I suggest you wait around to see if anyone else posts an answer :-) <S> They might have a term or a phrase that you like better. <A> In addition to "routine" and "habit" you might say that you are "stuck in a rut". <S> (That is a reference to a wagon whose wheels only go straight because of the rut in the road. <S> Turning the wagon is difficult as is changing one's routine.) <A> High-level English users sometimes borrow the French word quotidien, an adjective meaning "everyday". <S> You can also, of course, use the adjective "everyday", but remember that it's not the same as saying "every day" (indefinite pronoun + noun meaning something like "each day"). <A> In reference to the original question, "Is there any word to describe things we do regularly over and over again?", if you were to ask me how things are going, I might answer, " <S> Oh you know, same old, same old." <S> In this case, "same old, same old" refers to things that are done regularly over and over again -- all mundane, monotonous, and humdrum things indicating that someone is stuck in a rut. <A> The second example in your question: Another example would be when two lovers spend too much time together, and fall into a pattern of always doing the same things over and over; nothing appears to change. <S> reminds me of another word: humdrum ( humdrum = boring because nothing new or interesting ever happens). <S> Here is an example from The Everything Guide to Writing Your First Novel: All the tools you need to write and sell your first novel by Hallie Ephron: Bridges of Madison County is a literary romance in which Iowa housewife Francesca Johnson, stuck in her routines and a humdrum marriage, meets a handsome photographer who turns out to be her soul mate, and must choose between true love and her family's needs. <A> One way of describing a welcome routine is tradition . <S> Although we often think of this word as referring to old customs, it can also refer to more small and routine things. <S> Macmillan lists one definition of the word as: tradition ( n. ) an activity that happens regularly and has become the usual thing <S> For example, one author wrote: He pushed the hall door open and, as was his tradition , let it slam behind him . <S> (Jinna Dodds, Light Song ) <A> I think the word you’re looking for is “mundane”. <S> Mundane adjective <S> 1. <S> common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative. <S> Source: <S> dictionary.com definition of “mundane” <A> One of the words that comes to my mind is- <S> monotonous : not changing and therefore boring <S> You can use it in such conditions. <S> Say... <S> a monotonous job or life... <A> I found the perfect idiom, which I happened to read just now in the early edition of Anne Frank's diary (still in print and being sold on Amazon or Adlibris) transl. <S> by Mooyaart... <S> "the common round". <S> It is 2-3 pages in, where Anne complains that she rarely departs from the usual routines of talk with friends, but can now truly confide in someone -- her diary! <S> Note <S> : I could not find this phrase in any online dictionary, but it seems the perfect thing. <S> If Mooyaart coined it, then she has just enriched the English language. <A> <A> Ritual (of an action) arising from convention or habit. <S> "the players gathered for the ritual pregame huddle" (Lexico) <S> I think this word has more of the depth and connotation the asker is looking for rather than the simplistic words like repetition and habit.
| If you're getting bored of doing the same things every day, you might describe it as tedious , or as a noun, tedium , as in the tedium of daily life . CONSISTENTadhering to the same routine, as in "makes delicious coffee ever time.:or "always comes to work with a smile on her face."
|
"Verge of shutdown" or "Verge of a shutdown"? Which one of the following is grammatically correct? Abc Country might be on the verge of a shutdown. or, Abc Country might be on the verge of shutdown?. I think the second one is right. <Q> Both are grammatical, but there is a slight rhetorical difference. <S> Bare shutdown , with no determiner, is a state : it signifies an enduring property of existence. <S> Using the word this way invites your hearers or readers to consider what it will be like to be in that state. <S> It is intended to evoke alarm and distress: “Oh my goodness, will planes stop flying? <S> Will the parks be closed? <S> Will I not get my tax refund?” <S> A shutdown is an event : it signifies entering a new state of being, not the state itself. <S> Using the word this way invites your hearers or readers to compare other events of the same sort, to consider how the event may be forestalled or if it is not, what counter-event may end it. <S> “ <S> Yeah, yeah, 96, Frooty Nooty, Lookout Mountain was closed twenty days, been there done that.” <S> War works exactly the same way. <S> Freedonia and Sylvania are on the verge of war evokes the carnage and sacrifice of warfare; Freedonia and Sylvania are on the verge of a war evokes diplomatic efforts to avert the war and the consequences of victory or defeat. <A> To be on the verge of something, as to be on the brink , on the cusp , or on the threshold , is to be very near to a point, but still outside it. <S> If shutdown is intended to refer to a state or an activity, like victory or crying , then no article is required. <S> This isn't uncommon, at least here in Washington; the government is in shutdown during a shutdown , for example, this shutdown. <S> The species is on the verge of extinction. <S> The star is on the verge of exploding. <S> But if shutdown refers to a particular event or instance of an activity, then the article is appropriate. <S> Scientists are on the verge of a breakthrough in cancer research. <S> The stock market is on the verge of a Q3 rebound. <S> But there are many cases where either form would be acceptable, shutdown among them. <S> The currency is on the verge of collapse. <S> The currency is on the verge of a collapse. <A> I think it should be either 1) on the verge of shutting down. <S> or 2) on the verge of a shutdown. <S> I would prefer the first one, but I think both are possible.
| Either of the forms you propose can be grammatical, depending on how you interpret shutdown .
|
Is "forenoon" commonly used? I came across this word in some software code written by someone else. I knew what it meant (in Dutch we call it voormiddag ), but I didn't know the word exists. I've always heard/seen people refer to morning and afternoon , never to forenoon and afternoon . Is it a word people commonly use? <Q> Morning is a common English word, as you know. <S> Forenoon , on the other hand, is so rare that I'm not sure <S> many native speakers of English will even recognize the word. <S> How rare is it? <S> To find out, I searched the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) for both morning and forenoon . <S> Here are the results I got: Search term Number of results ------------------------------------------- <S> morning 128954 <S> forenoon 16 <S> That makes morning <S> roughly eight thousand times more common than forenoon . <S> It's safe to say you should stick to morning and avoid forenoon entirely. <S> But wait! <S> Is it possible forenoon <S> is only used in dialects of English other than US English? <S> To find out, I searched the Corpus of Global Web-Based English (GloWbE) , which contains samples of English from twenty countries. <S> And in none of those countries was it substantially more common than in the US; the numbers in every country were less than one occurrence per million words. <S> And the few results that I do find are mostly in fiction. <S> So yes, it is safe to say: avoid forenoon . <S> Use morning instead. <A> It's not exactly obsolete, but <S> forenoon is at the very least a "dated" usage... <A> More broadly than the other answers, forenoon is one of the time-of-day terms that has become much less commonly used over the last century or so, possibly as a result of the widespread use of artificial lighting. <S> In earlier times, it was common to see the day divided into much more specific segments, but now only the terms in bold are in common usage for describing the time of day: dawn <S> twilight (morning) <S> sunrise morning <S> forenoon midday afternoon evening <S> sunset <S> twilight (evening) dusk <S> night <S> As a fan of the Aubrey–Maturin series , set in the early 1800s, I'm quite familiar with the nautical term "forenoon watch", but I can't ever recall having seen "forenoon" used in a modern setting. <A> I grew up on a dairy farm in Dover, PA. <S> My family, as with most folks in the region, are influenced by PA Dutch (not Dutch as in from Holland but Dutch Anglicized Deutsch/German) dialects. <S> I'm not surprised it doesn't show up in Internet searches as I don't know that I've ever actually written the word but have used it commonly among my family and others from the region in conversation regularly. <A> I am a British, native speaker of English, living in Denmark. <S> I like the word 'forenoon' and sometimes use it, particularly in writing. <S> I do not regard it as archaic, but I may however be influenced in this by Danish, a language I speak every day and fluently. <S> In Danish, we distinguish between 'morgen' (morning) and 'formiddag' (forenoon). <S> We say 'God morgen!' <S> (Good morning!), but only up until about 09.30 or 10.00 hrs. <S> After that, we switch to 'Goddag!' <S> (Good day!) <S> . <S> I have always regarded 'forenoon' as a word much more used and favoured in Scotland than in England, and I admit that it is generally speaking far more used by older people than younger ones. ' <S> Forenoon' has a nice ring to it, I feel. :-)
| Any native speakers would understand forenoon , but most people wouldn't use the term themselves, and they'd probably notice and classify it as a "minor mistake" if they heard a non-native speaker using it.
|
Is there a more formal way to say, "As an added bonus"? "As an added bonus" seems quite casual. Is there a word or phrase that expresses it that is suitable in a 'serious' essay? For example, "... Thus, equations give us scientific knowledge. As an added bonus, equations are easier to use than their alternatives." <Q> It just substitutes <S> "additional" for the possibly-less-formal "added" , and "benefit" for the definitely-less-formal "bonus" . <S> You can also go in-between in formality by using "as an added benefit" . <A> as a bonus would suffice. <S> Bonus already means 'something extra', and is derived from the Latin bonus ('good'). <S> as an added bonus is informal since it has a redundancy . <A> I think the word 'additionally' comes close to the meaning you're looking for, however it does not have quite the same positive connotations as 'as an added bonus', but in the example you give it would fit well as a replacement.
| "As an additional benefit" should work in most contexts.
|
What is the word for "dividing into two unequal parts"? Halving is the action of dividing something to two halves, i.e., they are assumed to be of equal sizes. What is the word for the action of dividing something into two parts, that are not necessarily identical? <Q> One (somewhat archaic) option is Cleave -- "to split or divide by or as if by a cutting blow, especially along a natural line of division, as the grain of wood." <S> ( Dictionary.com ) <S> This doesn't explicitly create exactly two parts, but generally if you split something with a single blow, you'll only end up with two parts. <S> An common phrase that does explicitly specify the number of resulting parts is to split (something) in two <A> A lot of words are there. <S> You yourself said Dividing. <S> consumer magazines can be divided into a number of categories. <S> There are also Separate , Split etc. <S> Separate the cake into two parts. <S> The river had split into two channels later in it's way. <S> None of these mean breaking into into equal parts. <A> It was an appropriation of Victorian-era Biblical English -meaning it likely dates from the 1700s or even earlier when the Bible was first printed/published. <S> Seriously now, in most informal English we would say 'split' or 'divided'.
| To use an example that was used by Rowan Atkinson to great comedic effect in one of his religious miinsters sketches, I would suggest 'cleft in twain.'
|
“Can you do this?” vs. “Can you please do this?” When someone asks me Can you do this? I feel that it is missing the “please”. Is “please” already implied by “can”, or is it proper to ask Can you please do this? <Q> The word "can" does not imply please. <S> It is nice to say please <S> but please does not always mean someone is being polite. <S> Usually the word "please" might be added to a simple sentence like that because the person asking may feel like you are not doing X fast enough, that you normally wouldn't do X, that X is doing them a favor... <S> I personally like not hearing the please because it usually means that everything is running smoothly. <S> I would hate to think that someone would feel they need to say please to get me to do something. <A> Fundamentally, "can you please do..." is a request , while "can you do..." is a question (albeit one with an implied request attached). <S> Can you pass the salt? <S> Literally, this is asking whether the salt shaker is within your reach, and thus whether you have the capability to grab it and pass it along. <S> However, there is also an implied request, namely if you are capable of doing it, then you should do so. <S> This does not mean that there's an implied "please" in there; this is definitely the lowest on the politeness scale. <S> Can you please pass the salt? <S> This is no longer asking about capability; you are assumed to be able to reach the salt shaker and pick it up. <S> As a request, it's polite enough for most purposes, but we can do better. <S> Could you pass the salt? <S> This is also an outright request; capability is assumed. <S> Where it belongs on the politeness scale is somewhat debatable, but I would say it's about equal to "can you please...". <S> Could you please pass the salt? <S> This is the proper, polite form of this request. <S> We have both the conditional and the "please" in there, so the request has been softened about as far as it can be without resorting to overblown false humility ("I was wondering if I could possibly trouble you to do me the immense favor of please passing the salt"). <S> That all said, the politeness (or lack thereof) of a request depends greatly on the tone. <S> "Can you pass the salt?" said without any particular emphasis would be much more polite than "Can you please pass the salt?!", because the latter, with the emphasis on the please and the exclamatory tone, implies frustration rather than politeness. <S> To address something from the comments: Could you please just pass the salt? <S> Here, we've blown right past politeness and into exasperation. <S> This would only be used if you've already asked for the salt, and instead of being passed the requested spice container, you were given a long story about how salt is bad for you and how it's impolite to ruin the spicing that the chef has so carefully achieved and really, don't you think the stew is already salty enough? <A> These are two different sentences - understand why by replacing 'can' with 'could'. <S> Could you do this? <S> (do you have the capability?) <S> Could you please do this (will you do this because I am asking you to do so?) <A> <A> Both are proper to ask. <S> The first is more direct and can be used in normal day to day business, casual, etc. <S> conversation. <S> The second is a little more polite but caries the same meaning. <S> If I were speaking to my dad, I'd use the second. <S> If I were speaking to my office college or a friend, I'd use the first. <S> That said, please is not implied in the first.
| Can does not imply please. When speaking informally, many people omit please ; but when you are in a formal situation, it's impolite to not say please. They both convey the same kind of request.
|
Is 'disturbance on your side' idiomatic for a telephonic conversation? Let's say I am on the phone with my friend, and due to poor reception or him being in a crowded location, it is impossible for me to hear what he is saying, Can I say There is a lot of noise/ disturbance on your side? Can you please speak up? Is the use of noise/disturbance and on your side idiomatic(native speakers) here? <Q> I would say it like this, probably: <S> There is a lot of noise (or commotion ) at your end. <S> Can you please speak louder? <S> At least in the U.S., "at your end" seems more natural than "on your side. <S> " We often say things like, "on your end of the phone" (or "on my end of the phone"). <S> In the context of cell phone usage, I might regard a disturbance as poor reception. <S> You've asked about a noisy room, which is why I prefer commotion . <A> Any of noise, static, interference <S> would be okay in OP's context, but not disturbance . <S> I think more commonly, people tend to say <S> "It's a noisy line" . <S> More often than not, you don't really know whether the noise is "coming from" one end or the other of the connection (and if it's not caused by the actual equipment at either end, who is to say which "side" it's coming from?). <A> Is the use of noise/disturbance and on your side idiomatic(native speakers) here? <S> I have not heard anyone say that in England or the rest of the UK. <S> In circumstances where there is a lot of noise at the other person's location, people usually say something like <S> It's very noisy at your end . <S> Please speak up or Please speak louder . <S> In this context, people normally use the word end instead of side . <S> In circumstances where there is poor reception/a poor signal, people usually say something like I can't hear you properly. <S> The line is bad or the line is breaking up . <S> The exact wording used can vary so, people usually use these suggestions or some variation of them. <A> It is correct and fine to say "disturbance on your side" in a telephone conversation. <S> It expicitly refers to a disturbance, which is on the other end of the communication line relative to the speaker. <S> An idiom is a phrase which either assigns a meaning to some instance of bad grammar ("catch as catch can"), or an understood meaning which is quite different from and cannot be deduced fromn the literal meaning ("kick the bucket"). <S> Colloquially, people use "idiom" when they mean "oft-used phrase" or "canned phrase associated with a situation"; but strictly speaking, these are different concepts. <S> Not all idioms are often used, and not all often used or canned phrases are idioms: only when their meaning is other than the literal one. <S> There isn't any special, often used, or preferred/expected way to express the idea "disturbance on your side", so you can be as creative as you like.
| "Disturbance on your side" means exactly what it sounds like it means, therefore it is not an idiom.
|
Why is 'on and above' used so frequently? Why is on and above used in the following sentence, rather than on or above alone? But foreign policy statements are made all the time on and above the sidewalks of New York. -- Bright Lights that Mask the Darkness (New York Times) And why, more generally, does Google Search show 362,000 results for "on and above", almost as if there is no overlap in meaning and usage between these prepositions? <Q> I spent the autumn days glowering at the leaves on and above my lawn. <S> (source: google.com ) <S> As far as this specific instance goes, we can tell from the remainder of your example sentence's paragraph what the author is referring to: <S> But foreign policy statements are made all the time on and above the sidewalks of New York. <S> That explains why street corners are named for the likes of Nelson and Winnie Mandela of South Africa, the assassinated Yitzhak Rabin of Israel, the murdered Kudirat Abiola of Nigeria and the Cuban exile group Brothers to the Rescue. <S> This use of the phrase covers locations of memorial plaques and street signs, as well as the contentious Empire State Building lights that are the subject of the article. <S> It's possible that there are metaphorical implications as well, related to the people on the sidewalks and in the buildings “above” the sidewalk, but the literal meaning is at least clear from the rest of the paragraph. <S> Named street corner, above the street: <S> Memorial plaque, on the street: <A> The "on and above" quoted here might refer to forms of advertising and news headlines that get displayed literally on and above the sidewalks of New York in the form of billboards, electronic signs, TV screens, protest signs and the like. <S> The epitome of this phenomenon is Times Square. <S> I can't answer the cause of usage trends, sorry. <S> However, the phrase on and above is grammatically acceptable, particularly in the quote. <S> Edit: Having now read the context, "on and above" refers to lights on the Empire State Building but also street signs. <S> It might also be metaphorical for people's choices from the "man on the street" to the heights of power such as those in Office. <S> Regardless of interpretation, "on and above" is appropriate. <A> I will go with Martha 's explanation here. <S> The writer wants to say that the foreign policies of New York are made either on a sidewalk or above the sidewalk pointing towards the highrises and skyscraper in New York. <S> I feel the author tried to mock the process of the making of foreign policies. <S> Observe the previous paragraphs of that article. <S> The gist says that Empire State Building officials agreed to adorn the building with red-yellow lights on 60th anniversary of Communist Reign on China. <S> Communist party is known to be one of the most hated and anti-humaniterian organization. <S> Despite that, that very Empire State Building which did not give a second thought to making the bulding green on Id-Ul-Fitre or yellow on United States tennis tournament, beuatified itself on China's case. <S> That said, in spite of severe people's protest and all, the US Govt. <S> turned a blind eye and rather tried to make the Chinese Govt. <S> happy. <S> "On the sidewalk" might signify sometimes people who literally don't know a bit about foreign or the states of other countries or what's going on there. <S> And "Above the sidewalk" might signify that people who make foreign policies reside on tall buildings and they seldom know anything about what's the ground reality or <S> what people of America want. <S> So either way the foreign policy in America deteriorated. <S> That's why just the former line says, "Yes, the United States has sins of its own to atone for." <S> Discalimer- <S> This is not the reflection of my personal political thought; only what I understood from the article.
| In general, this expression is commonly used because it is a useful way of defining a space that begins with any upward-facing surface and extends towards the sky.
|
The black and the white cat or cats? Which one of the following is correct? 1.The black and the white cat are my cats. 2.The black and the white cats are my cats. I mean I have one black cat and one white cat. Could you explain it to me? Thank you very much! <Q> Hellion's answer is substantially "correct", in that if OP has more than two cats in total, only #2 is valid. <S> But it's important to note that we're not dealing with an absolute, unbreakable grammatical rule here. <S> Consider, for example, contexts where it's more strongly implicit that there are only two referents... 1: the largest and the smallest number ( <S> 7580 hits in Google Books ) <S> 2: the largest and the smallest numbers ( 2070 hits ) ...or for an even more convincing example, discard the second <S> the (which is irrelevant here)... <S> 3: <S> the largest and smallest number <S> ( 6540 hits ) 4: the largest and smallest numbers ( 7550 hits ) <S> Grammarians can pontificate over whether 2 and 4 are "grammatically valid", but personally I think it's nonsense to suggest that many native speakers can actually be "incorrect" in such usages. <S> Specifically in OP's case there's a lot of scope for ambiguity. <S> You have to pay attention to the second <S> the to even realise each cat is either all black or <S> all white <S> (not piebald, black- and -white ). <S> In my examples, there will be some cases where several numbers are among the largest/smallest, but I'm sure they'll be in the minority. <S> And at least our real-world knowledge tells us no individual number is likely to be both the largest and the smallest. <S> In short, although OP's #1 wouldn't be valid if he has more than two cats, that doesn't imply <S> #2 is inherently invalid if he has only one of each. <S> It's more a matter of context and semantics than grammar. <A> Either one is not understandable clearly to me at least. <S> Speaking from non-native background, I think your meaning will be mostly clear if you write something like this: <S> The black cat and the white cat are my cats. <S> Among several cats, to point out which are yours, you might also say: The black one and the white one are my cats. <S> Your first sentence might be misunderstood as: <S> The black and the white cat is <S> are my cat s . <S> It means that a cat whose color is black and white is your cat. <S> People may simply substitute "is" in place of "are" and "cat" in place of "cats" subconsciously. <S> You second sentence (" <S> The black and the white cats are my cats.") can be misunderstood as "The black cat and the cats which are white are my cats. <S> " <S> I think I could explain my point. <A> The black and the white cat are my cats <S> (This is the one you want for your intended meaning.) <S> The black and the white cats are my cats <S> There is at least one black cat and at least one white cat; those are my cats. <S> (There may be only one of each, but there are probably more.) <S> Basically, when you refer to individuals within a group, you use the singular noun form to refer to each individual, even if you then speak about the set of individuals as a group. <S> Nobody wonders how to pluralize "John" and "Mary" in the phrase <S> "John and Mary are going to the store" even though the plural verb form "are" is used; so, if you can substitute a name (like "Tinker") for a descriptive noun phrase (like "the black cat"), then you need to use the singular noun form, even if the noun in question is part of a group ("the black cat and the white cat").
| There is one black cat, and there is one white cat, and they are my cats.
|
What does 'in their turn' mean in this context? Enter, stranger, but take heed Of what awaits the sin of greed, For those who take, but do not earn, Must pay most dearly in their turn. So if you seek beneath our floors A treasure that was never yours, Thief, you have been warned, beware Of finding more than treasure there. (from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone ) What does ‘in their turn’ mean? (It seems like ‘when their turn comes’. But there are dragons and traps beneath the bank’s floors, so as soon as they try and rob something they would be snapped away or trapped. That is, there would be no time lagging. So I suspect there might be some other meaning for ‘in their turn’.) <Q> A bit of "poetic license" is often necessary in order to make a poem have correct rhyme and meter. <S> In this case, "in their turn" is simply a way of saying "when the right time comes"; as you say, that time may be immediate. <S> But there may also be delays; if you manage to avoid getting zapped by the vault door, you can take as long a break as you want while packing up the gold before you have to confront the dragons at the next security checkpoint. <S> And if by some miracle you do escape from the vaults entirely, there's still likely to be a team of bank enforcers hunting you down eventually, so <S> "your turn" (to be punished) will still come, and then you will "pay most dearly." <A> In their turn <S> In this instance, those who are lazy will, eventually be made to pay. <S> "In their turn" is equivalent to "in due time" or "eventually" or "at some point in the future." <A> The Free Dictionary gives a good overview of the use of this expression. <S> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+turn <S> I would say "in their turn" has the sense of "for their part".
| "in their turn" is mostly shortened to "in turn".
|
What this 'earn' mean? Enter, stranger, but take heed Of what awaits the sin of greed, For those who take, but do not earn, Must pay most dearly in their turn. So if you seek beneath our floors A treasure that was never yours, Thief, you have been warned, beware Of finding more than treasure there. (from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone ) I guess ‘take’ and ‘earn’ both take implicit common object (a treasure or something). And ‘earn’ means ‘ to deserve or get (something) ’–– If there were intransitive examples in dictionaries for ‘take’, I might have thought ‘earn’ is ‘ to get money for work that you do ’. Are my guesses all right? <Q> Your surmise is correct. <S> This sort of omission is very common in gnomic or proverbial speech: <S> Buy <S> ∅ <S> OBJ <S> low , <S> ∅ CONJ sell <S> ∅ <S> OBJ <S> high . <S> To err is human , ∅ CONJ to forgive ∅ <S> OBJ <S> ∅ <S> VERB <S> divine . <S> Garbage in ∅ <S> P-OBJ ∅ VERB , <S> garbage out ∅ <S> P-OBJ <A> You are correct, the poem is addressing those who take a thing that they did not earn ; that is, they take something that does not belong to them, something they should not have: in brief, a thief (as spelled out farther along in the verse). <S> As I recall, this is at the entrance to Gringott's Wizarding Bank, and it is letting would-be robbers know that there are strong security measures in place, so they will be caught (or possibly injured or killed) in the course of their attempt to steal. <A> For those who take, but do not earn, <S> This phrase describes those who consume but do not produce anything that others want. <S> They are, in the venacular, leeches, mooching off of those who do actually create and work. <S> The poem goes on to say that these lazy good-for-nothing takers-but-not-makers will eventually have to pay.
| The verse is speaking not of those who take or earn something in particular, but of taking-without-earning divorced from particular objects.
|
How come the answer to "how much" here is countable? I came across this sentence in an exercise: [Blank] yogurt do you need? Three cups. The options for the blank are the following: A. How long B. How far C. How many D. How much The answer is D, but why is answered by "three cups"? <Q> When you quantify a mass noun, you need to use a count noun to do it. <S> How much fruit did you get? <S> Three pieces of fruit. <S> How much gasoline does your tank hold? <S> Fifty liters of gasoline. <S> How much sugar do you take in your coffee? <S> Two cubes of sugar. <S> How much ice cream should I get you? <S> Three scoops of ice cream. <S> How much rice do you have? <S> Half a cup of rice (or 3600 grains of rice). <S> How much corn? <S> Ten ears of corn (or 70 kernels of corn). <S> How much garlic? <S> Five cloves of garlic (or one <S> bulb of garlic). <S> How much rain? <S> Twenty drops of rain (or three inches of rain, or forty days of rain). <S> So "three cups of yogurt" is a perfectly normal phrase in English. <S> Here, a cup is probably a unit of measure used in America equal to approximately 1/4 liter. <S> Note that some mass nouns require rather specific count nouns (e.g. "ears of corn" ) to quantify them. <A> Yogurt in this case is treated as a mass noun, like many English words referring to a bulk product. <S> ( Yogurts is a word, but it refers to a collection of different types or containers of yogurt.) <S> Three cups is simply a measurement of volume (about 0.7 liter), and when mass nouns of physical objects are quantified, it's usually by either volume or mass (weight). <A> I would like to answer the OP's question left as a comment <S> but I will also tie it in with the main question. <S> Yogurt is treated as a mass noun, it should be uncountable, but why can we use the expression " a yogurt " <S> If you were to pour a large pot of yoghurt on a flat surface such as a plate, it would be very difficult to quantify. <S> Yoghurt doesn't separate itself, it's one entire mass and <S> hence it <S> (the yoghurt) is recognizable as being singular. <S> In order to quantify this thick sloppy substance you might say; there's a lot of yoghurt on the plate; that's quite a bit ; the plate is almost full etc. <S> But plates come in different sizes and what is a lot for one person, is "normal" for another. <S> You could however take a cup and proceed to fill it. <S> The number of filled cups is the quantity of the yoghurt, e.g. three cups. <S> Luckily, yoghurt is sold in standard-sized pots, and not in cups. <S> A single pot is enough to contain 150g of yoghurt. <S> A large yoghurt pot will usually contain 500g. <S> Pots are countable, we can buy one pot of yoghurt or two pots . <S> Hence one / a pot of yoghurt two pots of yoghurt <S> Note that the word, yoghurt, is singular and it will remain in the singular regardless of the number of pots: <S> "I'd like fifty pots of strawberry yoghurt"The British and Americans being two populations famed for their love of brevity and taking short-cuts will simply say " a yoghurt" "two yoghurts " <S> The meaning therefore is clear, unambiguous and also grammatical.
| You're correct that the answer is D, because mass nouns are uncountable, and how much is used for measured amounts.
|
Does "vehicle" usually include airplanes, aircraft or spacecraft? Does "vehicle" usually include airplanes, aircraft or spacecraft? Or does it mainly refer to wheeled vehicles, boats and ships? And does "vehicle" include trains? <Q> Does "vehicle" usually include airplanes, aircrafts or spacecrafts? <S> Or it mainly refers to wheeled vehicles, boats and ships? <S> The words <S> mainly <S> and usually are rather troublesome words in your question. <S> The meaning of vehicle – much like the meaning of any word with multiple definitions or interpretations – depends on the context. <S> If I said, "It costs a lot to register a vehicle in Kentucky," chances are I'm only referring to cars, pickup trucks, and motorcycles. <S> However, if I work as a logistician for a major company, and I say, "We need to determine the best vehicles for getting these widgets from factory to market," chances are I am referring ships, trains, large trucks, or aircraft. <S> And if I talk about needing a vehicle to put a satellite into orbit, I don't mean any of those things. <S> If I heard the word with no other context, as in a word association game, chances are I would initially think of motor vehicle , which would make me think of car first, then perhaps other similar vehicles, such as trucks and motorcycles , but that wouldn't preclude the word from being used in other ways. <S> Also, I'm not sure the logistician would use the word vehicle ; words like conveyance might be more common in that context. <S> This Ngram might lead one to conclude that the word vehicle "mainly" refers to wheeled vehicles: <S> that is, cars and trucks. <S> Personally, I'm not comfortable with saying that, because that makes it sound like other uses of the word are somehow odd, unusual, or less acceptable. <S> Other uses of the word may be less common, but that's hardly the same as unusual or awkward. <A> Yes. <S> From vocabulary.com : <S> A vehicle is anything that transports a person or thing, usually a car. <S> But a vehicle can be a truck, a plane, a bus, a blimp or even a shopping cart, anything that transports people or things. <S> So <S> yes. <S> Although it's most commonly a wheeled vehicle such as a car or truck, it can refer to airplanes, aircraft, or spacecraft. <S> And of course, it can refer to trains, as well. <A> Also, the word Vehicle is used as A medium for expression or achievement of something. <S> For example, The play was just a vehicle to display her talents. <S> * <S> His editorials provided a vehicle for his political views*. <S> Any object (as a towel, money, clothing, dishes, books or toys etc.) <S> that can transmit infectious agents from one person to another. <S> Any substance that facilitates the use of a drug, pigment or other material that is mixed with it. <A> Yes, many dictionaries include trains and even spacecrafts. <S> But as accepted answer's author stated, it's most commonly a wheeled vehicle such as a car or truck. <S> Thus the term I'd use is " automotive systems ".
| Vehicle can refer to any of those things.
|
Is it normal to use the gender-neutral word "child" instead of "son" or "daughter"? When talking about a specific, non-plural, child who is your son or daughter, is it normal to use "child" rather than "son" or "daughter"? For example, I went with my child to the doctor's today. I did a quick google for "With my child", and mainly came across cases involving hypothetical children who are not of a specified gender, for example How do I start a conversation with my child about stammering? If it's currently not common to use "child" about a specific child, are people advocating such usage in order to not be discriminatory about gender? <Q> Only the most extremist political-correctness police would object to using son or daughter when speaking about a single child whose gender is known; the usual objection to using gender-specific language is when you're applying it to a generic-person-of-unknown-gender and making some sort of assumption. <S> Most speakers talking about multiple children of the same gender would use boys or girls . <S> It is preferable to use a gender-neutral term ( child ) when talking about children generically, as in your second example, and the terms children or kids (much more casual) are generally used when referring to multiple, mixed-gender youngsters. <A> I don't think child is a very common word to use in situations like this, but kid is quite common when the person you're speaking to doesn't know the gender of your child and the gender doesn't really matter. <S> For example: Hey Joe, can you cover my shift for an hour tomorrow? <S> I have to take my kid to the doctor. <S> Child would definitely sound odd, though. <A> In the USA, 'child' is commonly used in this context, but sounds a bit formal. <S> A more casual alternative is 'kid'.
| You could just as easily say son or daughter there, but if the person you're speaking to isn't really acquainted with your child I think kid might even be more common than specifying the gender.
|
Is "Shark is chasing the blood" Correct? When sharks smell blood in water, they follow the blood to find the source. How would I describe this action? I came up with: A shark is chasing the blood. Would a usage like this be correct? <Q> To communicate the fact that the shark is targeting the blood as a destination and striving to get closer to it with each turn, I'd recommend either the phrasal verb "home in on" (like a homing pigeon or heat-seeking missile) or "zero in (on)" , such as To converge intently; close in: <S> The children zeroed in on the display of toys in the store window. <S> ( Source ) <S> Your sentence could be written as: Sharks home in on blood. <S> (This would describe the phenomenon in general) <S> or: <S> A shark zeroes in on the blood. <S> (This would describe a specific occurrence) <S> (There's nothing special about associating one of these phrasal verbs with one or another way of describing these elements, I just wanted to show a couple of different ways it could be written.) <S> You could also use "sniff out", which means "to locate someone or something by sniffing or as if by sniffing. ", making your sentence: A shark will sniff out the blood. <S> Your choice will depend largely on context. <S> If you describe what else is happening in nearby writing, where you are writing this, who the audience will be, etc., we may be able to provide better help. <A> You can say: A shark follows the blood. <S> The shark is seeking the blood. <S> (Only if you're writing about a specific shark) (Similar to Sentence 1) Sharks follow blood to find the source. <S> Sharks seek blood. <S> (This sentence is more concise) <A> It doesn't actually define the part where shark finds the source, but pretty much indicates that it follows the blood or, in another meaning, it has an eagerness for blood . <S> Feel free to correct me if I am using it wrong.
| How about saying: A shark is after the blood.
|
What does the phrase "grandfathered into something" mean? Somebody gloss this sentence please: "As long as homeowners follow the existing maps last revised in 1984 they'll be grandfathered into the federal flood insurance program." I've seen the dictionary definition for the verb grandfather , but I can't tell what the preposition into is supposed to mean in this sentence. <Q> Dictionaries can be confusing. <S> Most of the definitions I found defined the verb grandfather in terms of ‘exempting’ someone from a regulation or ‘excluding’ someone from liability under a regulation. <S> That's not inaccurate; but it doesn't really describe how the word is actually used. <S> As the answers at the ELU question Hellion linked point out, the term arose in the post-Reconstruction South, where in many jurisdictions those whose grandfathers had been voters—that is, all local white people—were exempted from the taxes and literacy tests required of others who wished to vote—that is, African Americans, who were recently freed slaves and the children and grandchildren of slaves. <S> The effect of these laws was that those who were exempt could vote and those who were not exempt could not vote. <S> And that's how ‘grandfathering’ has worked ever since: you are exempted from a regulation which would put you in the unprivileged group, so you are, as a result, <S> grandfathered into the privileged group. <S> In the case at hand, homeowners who would be ineligible for Federal flood insurance because their homes are in the wrong place on the new maps are grandfathered into eligibility if they had insurance when their homes were in the right place on the old maps. <A> An example: building codes. <S> For example, the electrical code in the USA requires that all electrical wiring must meet certain standards. <S> However, electrical wiring that was installed before the current code was enacted is "grandfathered into" the code and does not need to meet the new requirements. <S> In other words, existing electrical wiring is exempt from the requirements of the new code: a homeowner does not need to modify old wiring to bring it up to the standards of the new code, if the wiring was installed before the code took effect. <S> The old wiring is grandfathered into the new code. <A> To be "grandfathered in" means you are allowed to keep doing something just because you've been doing it for a while already, even though you would not otherwise meet the new (stricter) requirements. <S> In your example they say "grandfathered into " because they are talking about moving you from outside the program to inside the new program (with all the permissions the program grants, some of which you were already using). <S> If no program was mentioned later in the sentence, they would have said "grandfathered in ".
| Being "grandfathered into" in a legal sense means that a rule does not apply to something that happened before the rule was made.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.