source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
What is the use of letter "Q" instead we can spell using letter "C" or "K" This morning my son asked me the following question that I was unable to answer: What is the point of the letter Q ? Why can't we just always use C or K instead? For example, " Question " sounds like " Kwestion " and " Queue " & " Cue " both sound the same. This question might be little stupid, but I would much appreciate it if anyone can come up with a good answer. <Q> The same is true of letters. <S> The word <S> quick , for example, has in fact been spelled with a c and <S> k in its distant past. <S> From etymonline.com : <S> Old English <S> cwic "living, alive, animate," and figuratively, of mental qualities, "rapid, ready," from Proto-Germanic * kwikwaz (cf. <S> Old Saxon and Old Frisian quik, <S> Old Norse kvikr <S> "living, alive," Dutch kwik "lively, bright, sprightly," Old High German quec "lively," <S> German keck "bold"), from PIE root *gweie- "to live" (see bio-). <S> How we settled on quick instead of kwick is anybody's guess, but it's worth pointing out that very few modern English words begin with "kw-". <S> Somewhere along the line, "qu-" became the dominant form. <S> But your same curious question could be asked about words that begin with the Z sound, yet start with an X, like xenon and xylophone . <S> You can also read more about the letter Q from the same website. <S> I suggest you and your daughter have a look . <A> In English, spelling has very little to do with pronunciation. <S> For example, the word tomato is <S> always spelled T-O-M-A-T-O , regardless of whether it is pronounced toe-may-toe (North American English) or toh-ma-toe (British English). <S> So to answer your question, no . <S> Question <S> may sound <S> like it could be spelled with a K , but the spelling is nothing to do with the pronunciation of the word. <S> It is spelled with a Q , and any variants such as "kwestion" are wrong. <A> Ditto @j.r. <S> It's for historical reasons. <S> If I was designing an alphabet for English from scratch, it would be different from our present alphabet in many ways. <S> "Q" is also used when transliterating a sound found in Arabic, Hebrew, and other languages that we don't have in English, as in, for example, "al Qa'eda". <S> "C" is useless. <S> It either sounds like an "s" ("celery") or like a "k" ("corn"). <S> Well, when followed by "h" it does create a unique sound ("cherry"), but I think we would have been better off to have a distinct letter for that. <S> "G" can have its unique hard sound ("good"), or it can sound just like "j" ("gentle"). <S> Why not use a "j" when we want the "j" sound? <S> Etc. <S> If you're learning English, you just have to learn all these different sounds that the letters can make. <S> Yes, it would be better if there was one sound for every letter and one letter for every sound. <S> But there isn't in English. <A> The child's question is justified. <S> But really difficult to answer. <S> The three letters c k q have something to do with the history of letters. <S> If we study the articulation of the k-sound we find slight differences between k+i, k+a, k+u. <S> The articulation of k is moved from a frontal position further back. <S> Somehow this letter got into the Greek and Latin alphabet and even into modern languages of western Europe. <S> I googled for "history of the letter q" and found an article of en.wikipidia on "q". <S> They try to make the adoption of the semitic q in Greek and Latin understandable but things remain rather vague and don't get clear. <S> So one might say q (always followed by u) might be replaced by ku or cu, but somehow we have kept qu, perhaps as a remembrance of the history of letters. <S> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q <S> There is an astonishing connection between the letters c k q g. c <S> is the basic sign. <S> In k a vertical stroke was placed before c and the half-circle of c was made angular. <S> In q we have the basic sign c and a vertical stroke placed after c and the stroke was placed into a deeper position. <S> And in g we have the sign c with a vertical stroke as in q with a little curve at the bottom. <S> The k-sounds and the g sound have something similar in articulation and the similarity of the signs shows this. <A> rogermue has a really great answer. <S> I just want to add a bit of extra context for those who are not as familiar with linguistics in general (and with the historical linguistics of English in particular). <S> Languages constantly change in many ways. <S> One such way is pronunciation. <S> And letters aren't only used to represent sounds, but to represent meanings as well. <S> Think about how we pluralize words. <S> We add the suffix "-s" at the end, but it doesn't always sound like an "s" as in cats. <S> Sometimes it sounds a bit like a "z" as in dogs, or it even adds a syllable (and sounds like "z") as in roses. <S> There are several sounds and "sound processes/patterns" that need to be considered for creating an alphabet. <S> These things change over time, and we end up with residue in the way we write that were likely completely logical at one point.
| Semitic languages can produce a k-sound far back in the throat which sounds different from k and they used the special letter q for this special sound. For languages like English that have had a literal form for many years, it makes sense for some older sounds (that are no longer used) to leave behind letters that were used to represent them. The short answer is that each word has its own history (also called its etymology ) that traces where the word came from. Yes, the letter "q" is useless because it could almost always be written "kw".
|
Is there a word for 'making offending sarcastic remarks'? Is there a word (probably a verb to describe the action) for the below situation: When someone throws a sarcastic remark to you, especially in front of other people, not in a playful manner but rather an offensive one, meaning to dampen you. It could be more of a slang term, an "urbandictionary-word", than a conventional English word. <Q> There will be a lot of such words and expressions (so I hope you'll resist the urge to select an answer prematurely). <S> The one I'll propose is cut down . <S> Here are a couple sample usages: <S> I didn't appreciate the way he cut me down during the meeting. <S> Maybe he cut down Susan during the meeting, but I don't think he did himself any favors. <S> The phrase is a shortened form of cut someone down to size , meaning "to put someone in their place." <S> It should be noted that the phrase cut down has several meanings , so you'll want to provide ample context to make it clear what you are talking about. <S> If you wanted to use a noun rather than a verb, you could try slap in the face . <S> It is slang for "an insult." <S> Bob's remarks were a real slap in the face. <S> By the way, the word <S> real in that example sentence means "serious," not "actual" (i.e., Definition #5, not Definition #1a, in this dictionary ). <S> Contrary to how it might be interpreted, that sentence doesn't mean that Bob was literally slapped in the face. <A> The verb snark may be appropriate. <S> It means <S> “To express oneself in a snarky fashion”, where snarky means “Snide and sarcastic; usually out of irritation, often humorously”. <S> Example: <S> “He snarked at her all through the meeting.” <S> Also consider verb backbite , “To make spiteful slanderous or defamatory statements about someone” or “To attack from behind or when out of earshot with spiteful or defamatory remarks”. <S> The phrase “do him down” or “do her down” means to denigrate someone by making critical remarks intended to damage the person's standing or reputation. <A> The way I would express this is: <S> He's always putting me down . <S> This is similar to "cut (someone) down" and is an informal way to describe someone belittling you. <S> If it's more important to indicate a snarky comment that you didn't appreciate, you might instead say: He made a joke at my expense . <S> He's always messing with me . <A> I think the closest you will get is with "sardonic" . <A> Someone with a "biting" personality or who is prone to making "biting" remarks is making the kind of offensive, rude, and deragatory insults of which you speak. <S> This can be true both in sarcastic and straight-forward situations, although typically biting satire is sarcastic. <A> Surely the best way would be: "S/he was very sarcastic about me". <S> In <S> [Lowland] Scottish, it is often abbreviated to "sarky", e.g. "S/ <S> he was very sarky to me". <S> The Chambers Thesaurus entry for sarcastic (link) is adj ironical, satirical, mocking, snide, taunting, sneering, derisive, derisory, scornful, sardonic, jeering, scoffing, scathing, cynical, incisive, cutting, biting, caustic formal disparaging, acrimonious, acerbic, mordant colloq. <S> sarky <S> You can take your pick from there, pretty much. <S> S/ <S> he mocked me, <S> s/ <S> he taunted me, <S> s/ <S> he sneered at me, <S> s <S> /he derided me, <S> s/ <S> he jeered at me, <S> s <S> /he made a scathing comment about me, <S> s <S> /he made a really cutting (or biting) remark about me, <S> s <S> /he made a really caustic comment about me
| To my knowledge, there is not a term that is specific to overly hurtful sarcasm, but if you trust context and tone to carry your meaning, you could also say:
|
When we read a sentence, how should we pause? When we read a sentence, how should we pause? Is there any standard? I pause the sentences below with each / , and I wonder whether it is right. Welcome / to the VOA Learning English program. This is / America. This week / Barbara Klein and Christopher Cruise / tell / about several American actors / who were widely recognized / years ago. But / they now / are not big stars / or famous / like they once were. We ask them / how they dealt /with these changes. <Q> Just like in everyday speeches, where you can speak the same thing differently to convey different subtle meanings, you can read in in many different ways. <S> pause it the same way you parse it <S> It is understandable that practicing reading aloud could be really frustrating at first. <S> It is difficult enough to pronounce each word right, not to mention a sentence (or an entire passage). <S> My advice is to make sure you understand what you read before you really read it aloud. <S> Doing so requires you to parse the sentences correctly, and will help you know where to pause. <S> I tried recording myself reading it aloud. <S> Here is how I paused: Welcome to the VOA Learning English program. <S> This is America. <S> This week / Barbara Klein and Christopher Cruise tell about several American actors / who were widely recognized years ago. <S> But they now are not big stars or famous like they once were. <S> We ask them how they dealt with these changes. <S> I read it at my normal rate. <S> It's 17.5 seconds long. <S> Not particularly fast, but maybe a little too fast for beginners. <S> Just remember to take it easy, and gradually build up your skill. <A> Whenever words are to be emphasized use a pause before it. <S> When you are trying to read a long sentence break into useful, meaningful understandable, bits of sentences, information. <S> It is ok to pause at all punctuation marks. <S> In your example I would pause it as follows <S> Welcome / to the VOA Learning English program. <S> This is / America. <S> This week / Barbara Klein and Christopher Cruise / tell about several / American actors / who were widely recognized / years ago. <S> But / they now / are not big stars / or famous / like they once were. <S> We ask them / how they dealt /with these changes. <S> note that i have changed the 2nd sentences pause as follows /tell about several / American actors because I am stressing about American Actors <A> Although I can't pinpoint specific rules in order to come up with a best reading, I follow a few basic steps to make sure that my reading is easily understandable. <S> Welcome / to the VOA Learning English program./ <S> This is America. <S> / <S> This week / Barbara Klein and Christopher Cruise / tell / about several American actors / who were widely recognized / years ago. / <S> But / they now / are not big stars / or famous / like they once were. <S> / <S> We ask them / how they dealt with these changes. <S> It is better not to pause after a preposition and while reading, preposition should not be given much emphasis but rather merged along with the following part of the sentence.
| But to focus about pausing, there are a few rules of thumb I would like to suggest: pause at every end of sentence pause at every punctuation mark pause at the beginning of a clause
|
In, "They are talking cars and deals", what does "deals" mean? If someone says, "They are talking cars and deals", what does "deals" mean in that sentence? I googled and found many expressions like "steel and deals", "events and deals", "coupons and deals", "meals and deals", etc. But I don't know what does "...and deals" mean, and whether it is an idomatical use or not. Does that have anything to do with "business" or "contracts"? <Q> Google says that a deal (in accordance with your sentence) is: <S> An agreement entered into, by two or more parties for their mutual benefit, esp. <S> in a business or political context. <S> You can also find it in here <S> that a deal means a trade, a sale (to sell), or a transaction. <S> By extension, talking (about) cars and deals means talking about cars as well as transactions, sales, or trades on cars. <S> And it is not idiomatic thing, at all . <S> It's a business term as you supposed. <S> The same meaning counts for "steel and deals","coupons and deals" and so forth. <S> P.S.: Just make sure to check out the context of the sentence to understand if that the "deals" meaning "trades" of "the previous mentioned things" actually fit the whole sentence. <A> In the U.S. at least, many cars are sold at dealerships , where a staff of salesmen work for the car dealer. <S> Buying a car from a dealership is not at all like buying a jar of spaghetti sauce at the supermarket. <S> The spaghetti sauce has a price tag, and that's the price that everyone pays. <S> The car may or may not have a price tag on it, and, even if it does, many walk onto the dealership lot knowing full well that the stated price is negotiable. <S> Customers can offer less money for the car than the quoted price. <S> The dealership may also offer incentives (such as extended warranties, a lower interest rate on the car loan, or more money for a traded-in used car) in an effort to make the sale. <S> In short, buying a car is a more complicated ordeal than buying that jar of tomato sauce, fraught with much less certainty and much more haggling. <S> Getting a good deal at the supermarket means that spaghetti sauce was on sale that day, or maybe you had a coupon for 75¢ off (or maybe even both). <S> Getting a good deal at a car dealership is not quite so simple; however, car dealers will advertise savings events from time to time, where customers can take advantage of: reduced prices, designed to move end-of-year models off the lot low-rate financing low (or no) money down on the sale <S> free extended warranties a guaranteed minimum on your trade <S> -in, no matter how bad your current car is running <S> As for "They are talking cars and deals," <S> you haven't told us where you saw or heard that sentence, so it's hard to say for sure, but I'd assume it was either a car dealership promoting a special sales event designed to bring more customers to the dealership, or else <S> a car salesman and customer engaged in a discussion, in the process of negotiating a possible sale on the lot. <S> The deal in this context is the final transaction that gets the customer to sign a contract that will eventually lead to the customer driving the car home off the lot. <A> "Cars and deals" is such an unusual formulation that I have to wonder what the context was. <S> Deals certainly could refer back to cars, but it is not idiomatic. <S> If I heard "cars and deals" alone, I would suspect that they were talking about two separate topics. <S> If "they" were two stock brokers (for example), I would be nearly certain this referred to two separate topics of discussion.
| I would tend to think that deals as a conversational topic refers to business deals (real-estate, stock trades, bank loans, etc).
|
With that or without "that", which one is more formal to write? I have this sentence: There is an engine inside me that keeps saying "someone must be at the top, why isn't that you?" Should I write that or leave it out? I know both ways are correct, but I am asking for the most most most most most formal way. <Q> In this case, that is the subject of a that -relative clause: <S> There is an engine inside me [ that keeps saying "someone must be at the top, why isn't that you?" ] <S> that -relative clause <S> In particular, it's the subject of the verb keeps . <S> So you can't omit it, and there's no formal vs. <S> informal distinction to be made. <A> Most native speakers probably would consider it inappropriate to delete the relative pronoun "that" here. <S> It's not really a matter of "grammar" as such, because there are many contexts <S> where that, who, which, etc. <S> can (and often, should ) be deleted. <S> But on average , such deletions aren't so common in formal registers - so much so that less competent writers are sometimes guilty of including too many . <S> To illustrate the formal/informal divide in respect of this construction, consider... <S> There is <S> a man wants [to meet you]. <S> formal - 6 results in Google Books <S> There's <S> a man wants [to meet you]. <S> informal 3580 results <S> There is a man who wants [to meet you]. <S> formal, "correct" - 120,000 results <S> Note that one shouldn't take this idea of "that" = "correct" too far. <S> Consider... <S> 1 <S> : <S> There was a girl I knew at school [who used to blah blah] 2: <S> There was a girl <S> that <S> I knew at school [who used to blah blah] <S> There are at least a handful of results for #1 there, which sounds like normal fluent English to me. <S> And whilst I don't think #2 is "wrong" (some may actually say only #2 is "right"), I'd have to say it sounds a little "over-precise" to me. <S> And there are no results for it in Google Books, which I think backs me up on that. <S> EDIT: <S> Apart from the not really a matter of "grammar" bit, I stand by what I've said above, and I think it's relevant to note that the rule <S> You can't omit <S> that when it's a subject isn't universally observed in casual/dialectal speech. <S> But overall, I'm in no doubt @snailboat's answer is more accurate (and concise) than mine. <A> Usually relative pronouns are preserved in the formal language. <S> However, in this particular case, it would not be grammatical to take out the relative pronoun at all, since the relative pronoun is in the subject position in the relative clause and not followed by a form verb "be". <A> " There is an engine ... <S> that keeps saying .... <S> " <S> " An engine inside me keeps saying ...." <S> But still, "engine" seems odd. <S> I would say "voice".
| You can't omit that when it's a subject, or your sentence becomes ungrammatical in standard English.
|
Do something "easily" or "with ease"? If I want to write something to do "easily", which is the best form? Easily calculate running costs or Calculate with ease running costs (or "Calculate with ease the running costs"?) Do the two sentences convey the same meaning? <Q> Both easily and with ease are adjuncts of manner , the former taking the form of an adverb, and the latter taking the form of a preposition phrase. <S> There are three possible places in the sentence we could try inserting these adjuncts: Initial Medial <S> Final ---------- <S> ----------- <S> ----------1. <S> Easily calculate running costs OK2. <S> Calculate easily running costs VERY BAD3. <S> Calculate running costs easily GOOD4. <S> With ease, calculate running costs BAD5. <S> Calculate, with ease, running costs VERY BAD6. <S> GOOD <S> We can rule out examples 2 and 5 because an adjunct typically can't come between a verb and its direct object. <S> (The exception is when <S> a Heavy NP Shift moves a particularly large noun phrase to the end of the sentence, which can move it past an adjunct.) <S> This leaves four examples: Initial Final <S> ---------- <S> ----------1. <S> Easily calculate running costs OK3. <S> Calculate running costs easily GOOD4. <S> With ease, calculate running costs BAD6. <S> Calculate running costs with ease GOOD <S> Although it's possible for adjuncts of manner to appear in initial position, they typically appear at or near the end of a verb phrase , so examples 3 and 6 are better than 1 and 4. <S> (In my opinion, example 1 is acceptable as well, but I think example 4 is too clunky to be acceptable.) <S> 3. <S> Calculate running costs easily . <S> 6. <S> Calculate running costs with ease . <S> I think these have the same meaning. <S> They're both fine, but if you forced me to make a decision, I'd go with example 6. <A> Some of it is context dependent. <S> I think I would say: The dancer moved across the stage with ease. <S> because with ease seems to convey a stronger sense of poise and elegance than easily . <S> We don't need to worry about gracefulness, though, when dealing with accountants. <S> Even with running cost calculations, though, it still depends on what we are talking about. <S> Are we discussing a whiz kid in accounting who can keep track of numbers even without using a calculator or ledger – the kind of fellow who is feared by blackjack dealers in Las Vegas? <S> In that case, I might lean toward "calculate with ease": <S> You should see Joe straighten up those corporate accounts. <S> He can calculate running costs with ease. <S> However, if I was on a software development team being asked if we could calculate running costs in the next version of our accounting software, I think I'd lean toward "easily calculate": <S> I don't expect that would be very difficult; I think we can easily calculate running costs. <S> If both of them sound awkward in a certain context, you might consider using "no problem": <S> The programmers said it would be no problem to calculate running costs. <A> That's what I'd use in the case of a product advertisement. <S> Note that the expression with ease is quirky in that has to follow the entire clause it's in, so instead of Calculate with ease running costs <S> you would need to say Calculate running costs with ease or even Calculate running costs per project, with optional category breakdowns, with ease <S> The longer the clause gets, the simpler it is to use Easily calculate .
| Both expressions carry the same basic meaning, but easily is a bit less formal and much more common. Calculate running costs with ease
|
Is "freaking" considered at least a little offensive? Check out this video There the red hair women(Aubrey) asked about how many "freaking" kids does another women(Teresa) have? Is it just an offensive way for someone to use "freaking" when they are talking about someone kids? I found no resentment after the question is asked, and i don't know if i am too sensitive. edit:updated the link <Q> Some words are taboo; we sometimes refer to them with names like "the F-word" or "the A-word", or even (oh, my!) <S> "the C-word", because we know that they have some potential for offense regardless of context, and if we're polite, we want to avoid violating the taboo ourselves. <S> Fricking ranks much lower on the profanity scale. <S> I imagine that for most speakers, whether or not it's offensive depends on context . <S> In this case, the speaker doesn't intend any offense, and none is taken. <S> Quite the opposite! <S> From her tone of voice and the context of her words, it seems that the speaker is using emphatic swearing : <S> Here's the thing about Teresa: she has amazing heart <S> , she does give a hundred and ten percent, she has-- <S> I don't even know, how many fricking kids do you have? <S> The idiomatic phrase <S> I don't even know as well as fricking both serve to emphasize the question. <S> She may or may not remember the exactly how many children Teresa has, but <S> the way she phrases her question lets us know that she thinks the answer is a lot . <S> Out of context, that question might indeed be offensive. <S> But after all that lavish praise, it's hard to mistake her intent: in short, although it's phrased as a question, <S> she's pointing out to everyone else how many children Teresa has and including this fact in her list of compliments. <S> Emphasizing the question with a tame word like fricking can't be offensive, because she's emphasizing a compliment! <A> I agree with most of what Snailboat says <S> but I think some cautions are needed on her conclusion. <S> Yes, "fricking" or "freaking" are basically milder substitutes for the "F-word". <S> They are thus LESS offensive than that word. <S> But this does not make them inoffensive. <S> Listeners will generally assume that you were considering using the more vulgar word but substituted this milder alternative. <S> Among friends who have a high tolerance for vulgar language, these would be very mild words. <S> But among people who do not use vulgar language, these words could still be offensive. <S> If one gang member said to another, "Then I shot the mother with his own freaking gun", this would be considered very mild language. <S> If a reporter at a press conference asked the president, "Hey, what's with that freaking weird bill you proposed?", this would likely be startlingly offensive. <S> In general, if you want to avoid offending people and you do not know their tolerance for vulgar language, I'd avoid using words that have any hint of vulgarity. <S> Of course if your goal is to be shocking or you want to offend and insult someone, that's a different story. <A> Originally, "freaking" was considered a substitute to the more vulgar curse word starting with an 'F', so I would say it is not offensive <S> but the offensiveness also relies heavily on the interpretation of the person hearing/reading it. <S> It has become more and more used in society, and therefore acceptable. <S> Just keep in mind the register and context in which you use it; You wouldn't use this word in the workplace <S> but you would use it when around your friends. <S> EDIT: <S> @snailboat has a better answer - We were typing ours at the same time.
| It's not really polite, and it can certainly be used in a rude manner, but it lacks most of the built-in potential for offense that makes us avoid saying certain other words.
|
Describe a "more complete" solution I would like to compare two solution and one of the solution is "more complete" (if we were to say it verbally), but technically, I felt wrong because complete is complete, we can say half complete but I don't think we can quantify more complete. Is there any word that is more suitable for this use? Thanks. <Q> Your objection to more complete is reasonable. <S> It is probably not worth troubling with in colloquial or semiformal contexts, but in an academic context with any pretense of rigor it is quite properly avoided. <S> The simple solution is to describe the superior solution as “more nearly complete”. <S> That, however, is the least of your problems. <S> Without more knowledge of what it is your solutions solve and <S> what metrics govern your attribution of a greater degree of completion to one than to the other, it is impossible to say how you ought to express this; but by way of example: <S> The solution put forward by Nishiyama and Koenig (2010) is similar to that of Michaelis (2008), but is more nearly complete in that Nishiyama and Koenig claim to account for all perfect constructions, while Michaelis accounts only for resultative perfects. <S> Neither solution, however, accounts for all uses of perfect constructions; in particular, neither gives a wholly convincing explanation of the drift in US usage away from use of the present perfect in continuative perfects. <A> Thorough is the word you're looking for, I think. <S> Thesaurus entry on "thorough" <A> Student here. <S> I have the same problem in describing the addition of new bits of information as 'more complete'. <S> As has been needled into me, knowledge is never 'complete', only ever added to. <S> Or as helpfully offered above, made richer. <S> Mostly it's as complete as current understanding permits, until some smartypants or fancy new technology offers valid new insight. <S> Thus making the picture 'more complete'. <S> It doesn't sit well with me <S> but this is how I justify it myself. <S> Rightly or wrongly. <S> I like <S> enrichment/made richer <S> I'll try using that from now on, thank you.
| You should not use the term complete at all unless you define quite precisely what you mean by it.
|
Is it grammatically correct to use "while" in this context? I wrote this sentence : Also, the courses will hone my abilities in information gathering and analysis, information digitization, and development of appropriate applications. But a friend edited it for me and wrote: Also, these courses will hone my abilities to gather, digitize, and analyze information while developing applications appropriate for each user in every situation. Please notice that he used while . I don't think it's grammatically correct. What do you think? <Q> Your friend's version attempts to ‘smooth’ your rhetoric and add what he takes to be an important additional consideration—that the applications you will develop will be appropriate to all conceivable users and situations. <S> But he has changed your meaning. <S> Your version names three abilities which the courses will hone: information gathering and analysis information digitization development of appropriate applications <S> His version also names three abilities (slightly different ones) which the courses will hone— to gather information to digitize information to analyze information ... <S> but he goes on to states that you will hone these abilities while —that is, in the course of—developing applications. <S> Now it may be that he is right: that you will not get any better at developing applications and that developing applications is merely the context within which you will get better at handling information. <S> Only you can determine whether that is the case. <S> But I suspect what has happened here is that your friend noted that you speak of three operations performed on ‘information’ and found an elegant way to wrap these up in a single coordinate construction: “gather, digitize, and analyze information”. <S> And then he had to deal with your third ability. <S> He wanted to avoid another and right away (this is called the horror aequi principle ), so he joined this to what went before with a while construction. <S> WARNING: <S> This replacement of coordinating conjunctions with subordinating expressions such as while or as well as or in addition to is a very common error in business and technical writing. <S> Take note that these expressions are not equivalent to and : they signify quite different relationships between clauses. <S> If in fact your friend is wrong, and developing applications is in fact one of the abilities you expect the courses to hone, I suggest that what is missing is the relationship between those applications and your previously mentioned operations on information. <S> Perhaps what you mean is something like this: The courses will hone my ability to gather and analyze information; to structure that information in appropriate digital form; and to develop applications which will enable users to access that information in a variety of useful formats. <A> The sentence is grammatically correct. <S> While points to the continuity of the development activity through the flow of the course. <S> "While also" would be even better. <S> In case you want to refer to "development of appropriate applications" as an ability, then your sentence is correct, and the while is incorrect. <A> Slightly off-topic, what puts me off the first sentence is the Oxford comma. <S> And the "Also" at the beginning makes it flow rather awkwardly. <S> I'd prefer something like this: <S> "The courses will also hone my abilities in information gathering and analysis, information digitization and development of appropriate applications. <S> "
| I don't think the second version with "while" is grammatically incorrect per se, but it does change the meaning of the original, so should be ruled out.
|
What sort of constituent is "especially dumplings" in "I like Chinese food, especially dumplings"? Compare the following sentences: I like Chinese food, especially dumplings . I know " I " is a subject, "like" is a predicate, and "Chinese food" is an object, but what about "especially dumpling"? What kind of grammatical constituent is "especially dumpling"? I think this sentence is similar to: I like Chinese food, for example, dumplings . I think "for example" is a parenthesis, although the meanings and the functions of "for example" and "especially" are different. I can't figure out what sort of grammatical constituents they are. <Q> "Especially dumpling" is a whole new clause in addition to "I like Chinese food". <S> In this clause, the subject and verb are elided: <S> I like Chinese food; <S> I <S> especially like (Chinese) dumpling. <S> So it is an elided clause. <S> As such, we can regard it as not having a phrase structure category according to a grammar. <S> The basic hypothesis behind elision is that there is a grammatically complete utterance in the speaker's mind, from which words are deleted. <S> The original utterance obeys the rules of grammar and can be identified as some phrasal category like "clause". <S> The version which is actually spoken, with removed words cannot. <S> For instance, what part of speech is "John Mary" in the following: <S> Bob is going with Jennifer and John with Mary. <S> it doesn't have one; if we accept the elision hypothesis (which we practically must), the speaker produced "John is going with Mary", which is a clause, and condensed it to "John Mary", which we can identify with that clause, and call it an "elided clause". <S> Note that "dumpling" is normally countable, but here "dumpling" is uncountable. <S> This is a little bit strange, but it will be interpreted as being similar to "I like duck". <S> Of course "duck" has to be treated uncountably when we are talking about food because it is short for "duck meat"; "I like ducks" cannot be used when talking about food, <S> whereas "I like dumplings" is the normal way to state your preference for steamed or boiled dough. <S> "For example" patterns can also be hypothesized as being cases of elision. <S> Consider that a sentence like: <S> I like Chinese food, for example: pork dumplings, won ton soup and barbecued duck. <S> can be viewed as a condensed version of this string of clauses: I like Chinese food. <S> For example, I like pork dumplings, won ton soup and barbecued duck. <S> For example is a kind of introductory interjection, which indicates that the following clause gives examples. <S> The list of foods is then a compound noun which serves as the object of the elided verb "to like", where the elided subject is "I". <A> "Especially" is an adverb. <S> I believe the correct way to express this thought would be to say: "I like Chinese food, especially dumplings." <S> Similarly, you could simplify the thought, and say, "I especially like dumplings.", at which point it is much easier to determine its constituency. <A> Since it's clear that especially is an adverb, I think you want to be clear on the sentence constituent especially dumpling and the second sentence with for example. <S> Online <S> Oxforddictionaries mentions the word 'especially' - <S> Especially (adv): used to single out one person or thing over all others. <S> The latter sentence that you mentioned I like Chinese food, for example, dumpling. <S> is not similar. <S> On the other hand, I like Chinese food, for example, dumpling - You like Chinese food <S> but then you are naming any one dish to support that you like Chinese dishes. <S> Here, in this case, it's dumpling. <S> But this does not say that you like 'dumpling' very much as in former case. <S> For example could have been any Chinese dish in this case —say noodles. <S> I like Chinese food, for example, noodles. <S> But this won't show your special love for dumpilng!
| The clear difference is: I like Chinese food, especially dumpling - You like [all type of] Chinese dishes but among those, you love dumpling very much.
|
Which to use "do" or "does" to emphasize with third person singular? For example, I can say " I do like apples ". May I similarly say A kitten do like to play with a clew or should I use does instead. Also, in sentences like Only then do/does it really matter, which choice you make. <Q> In English, a verb phrase includes an optional auxiliary verb (or "helping verb") such as "have", "will", "shall", "do" or "be". <S> The auxiliary verb appears in front of the main verb. <S> When the auxiliary verb is present, the auxiliary verb takes on the inflections of tense (past, present) as well as person (I, you, they, ...). <S> The main verb remains in an infinitive or participle form. <S> For instance, suppose the auxiliary is "have" and the main verb is "be". <S> In this case, "be" turns into the participle "been", and then "have" undergoes various inflections: <S> I have been there. <S> I had been there. <S> She has been there. <S> The "been" does not change. <S> Now if you don't have an auxiliary verb, then the main verb takes the inflections: <S> I am there. <S> I was there. <S> She is there. <S> It is exactly the same thing when the auxiliary is "do", and the main verb is "like". <S> The auxiliary "do" takes the inflections. <S> Here, "like" is in a nonpast/infinitive form rather than a past participle: <S> I do like .. <S> She <S> does like .. <S> She <S> did like ... <S> If we take out "do", then "like" has to take on the inflections for person and tense: <S> I like <S> She likes <S> She liked <S> It is the same for all other auxiliaries. <S> For instance "shall" with "go": <S> I shall go <S> I should go and "will" with "go": <S> I will go <S> I would go or "be" with "go": <S> I am gone <S> She is gone <S> She was gone <S> The trick is knowing which form of the main verb to use: participle or plain present. <S> "I am go" and "I will gone" are ungrammatical! <A> I (1st person singular) do like words. <S> A kitten (3rd person singular) does like words. <S> If you want to stress the verb in the second sentence you'll probably want to use an adverb. <S> "A kitten truly does like words." <S> The word do <S> in your first sentence is part of the verb, not a modifier. <S> I can see how you might be confused if you are learning English the way it is generally taught nowadays, i.e. without a formal study of English grammar. <A> From my early lessons in English grammar comes the following: I, you, he/ <S> she/ <S> it are all singular (first, second, and third persons respectively) and therefore take a singular verb, including for example the two-word verb "do like." <S> I do like carrots. <S> You do like carrots. <S> He/ <S> She <S> / <S> It does like carrots. <S> We/you/they are all plural (first, second, and third persons respectively) and therefore take a plural verb, including for example the two-word verb "do like." <S> We do like carrots. <S> You do like carrots. <S> They do like carrots. <S> The question arises naturally, then, "Why is it correct for me to say 'I do like' (since I am just one, singular person) and <S> incorrect to say 'He do like' (since he's just one, singular person)? <S> Shouldn't both sentences contain "do like," as in 'I do like' and 'He do like'?" <S> The answer is no. <S> That's the rule, even though it doesn't make sense and seems (and is) inconsistent!
| For some strange reason, in English both "do" and "does" can function as singular, but you can use only "do" with first-person singular.
|
How to pronounce the word 'beautiful'? I was very impressed when my teacher told me what "beautiful" word pronounced like beauRiful and not beauTiful . I looking on the internet and everyone pronounced like beauTiful . Where I can actually listen to the pronunciation of that word? <Q> The critical question here is <S> How does your teacher pronounce intervocalic /r/? <S> In some quite prestigious dialects—including the Stage British <S> I was taught—/r/ falling between two vowels is pronounced as a voiced tip-flap. <S> That is, the tongue does not curve backward toward the roof of the mouth but touches the back of the upper teeth, or the alveolar ridge immediately above that point, once, very briefly. <S> The sound which this produces is virtually indistinguishable from the alveolar flap which most Americans use for intervocalic /t/, as in beautiful . <S> Indeed, I am not at all confident that these are two different sounds. <S> The alveolar flap is notated in IPA with the 'fish-hook r', /ɾ/ . <S> Wikipedia notes— <S> I have no idea whether this is directly relevant to your situation—that <S> This sound is often analyzed (and therefore transcribed) by native English speakers as an 'R-sound' in many foreign languages. <S> For example, the 'Japanese R' in hara, akira, tora, etc. is actually an alveolar tap ∗ . <S> In languages where this segment is present but not phonemic, it is often an allophone of either an alveolar stop ([t] or [d]) or a rhotic consonant like the alveolar trill or alveolar approximant. <S> ∗ Note Wikipedia's assertion that “The terms tap and flap may be used interchangeably”. <A> What your (NS) teacher reportedly said does not reflect standard English pronunciation - the one that is usually taught in an L2 setting. <S> However, Wells 1984 reports a similar phenomenon in the same intervocalic position but between words in northern (UK) dialects: <A> sounds with /d/ sounds <S> , so it often sounds like /bju:dɪfʊl/ . <S> With further elision due to omission of the glottal stop in some accents, this can sound like /bju: <S> ɪfʊl/ or even /bjur:ɪfʊl/ - especially in the southern states of America and some North Eastern parts of England and Cockney English in London, which is possibly what you're hearing in this case. <S> That said, in my experience, most English speakers will pronounce beautiful as /bju: <S> dɪfʊl/: <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oofSnsGkops#t=048 <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe1wtkkt9-E#t=54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAfyFTzZDMM#t=053s <A> Your teacher is mistaken. <S> It is pronounced with the "T" sound rather than the "R" sound. <A> It is also possible that the pronunciation is where the 't' is a merely a glottal stop (common in British English, especially in the London area) rather than having been transformed into a 'd' sound (which is more likely the American version). <A> Here is another video of a large number of AmE native speakers using the word beautiful. <S> Give it a try! <S> From the mouth of babes... <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHWPYJuDuZQ <A> It depends what language you're learning from as well. <S> The way Americans pronounce the T in this word actually sounds a lot like a Japanese/Spanish (I'm guessing there are more) R. <S> It works if it's got that slight roll. <S> The English would pronounce it like a simple T though.
| Beautiful is traditionally pronounced /bjuːtɪfʊl/ ( link ), but native English speakers often replace /t/
|
Informal way of saying the computer mouse is not functioning well My son wants to watch the children's TV show, Peg + Cat on his computer. He scrolled the mouse down to the show's folder, but when he double clicks on the folder, it does not open; a pop up menu displays instead.I wanted to tell him that the mouse is not functioning well because the right button was stuck. Do you informally say the mouse is busted/broken? If not, what do you say? Bear in mind the mouse still scrolls and sometimes with a few clicks 'it gets on'. By the way, is using 'it gets on' to mean 'it works' correct? If not what phrasal verb would you use instead? <Q> - you can distinguish with something fully non-functional by calling those items completely broken (normal) / totally busted (informal). <S> In answer to your second question - no. <S> If the object is functional, you cannot say " it gets on ". <S> You can say " it turns on " if you want to, but it would be more normal to just say " it works " or " it's working normally ". <A> Here are two words/expressions you could use: The mouse is flaky . <S> NOAD lists one meaning of flaky as: <S> flaky ( adj. ) <S> informal (of a device or software) prone to break down <S> ; unreliable. <S> The other expression is: <S> We'll have to get a new mouse soon. <S> Cambridge defines this expression to mean: on the fritz US informal broken or not working: <S> The fridge is on the fritz . <S> Another dictionary says: A condition in which something does not work properly: Our television is on the fritz <S> I often hear "on the fritz" when someone is referring to electronic systems and devices in particular – that is, things such as computer monitors, air conditioners, microwave ovens, and the like. <S> You can see several published examples on this page . <A> In this case where a computer mouse is not working fully, you can say that it is not working properly . <S> The word busted can be used informally <S> but, it is not in common use everywhere. <S> It is probably part of American English. <S> The word broken can also be used but, would require clarification to make clear whether something is partly or completley broken. <S> Regarding the second question, I agree with Matt's answer. <A> A very common way to say this is simply <S> "there is something wrong with the mouse". <S> This wording doesn't imply any diagnosis of the mouse being broken.
| If an item does not work fully as expected, it is perfectly fine to call it broken (normal) or busted (informal) The mouse here is on the fritz .
|
What is a "concerned member of the public"? What is a "concerned member of the public"? Does it mean someone who is enthusiastic for public affairs? Are there some words can be used to take place of it? <Q> According to Merriam-Webster , concerned can mean: having an interest or involvement in something <S> And the public is: the people of a country, state, etc. <A> I've found that characters in film and TV use it as an explanation for what the person being questioned might see as "undue interest <S> " so maybe it's a way to say that it's a general concern a citizen could have based on publicly available information rather than for some other ulterior motive, <S> sort of like how the government is held to account by the public as a whole. <A> The term "concerned member of the public" is usually: used by or about a person looking for people doing bad things. <S> used by or <S> about a person telling someone in authority about someone doing bad things. <S> Often this is a euphemism used by the above to make it look like they are doing those things because they want to be a good citizen, or good member of the community. <S> But really they want to get someone in trouble they don't like. <S> And of course, authorities may ask for something like "Any concerned member of the public can call XXX-XXXX to report any information about this accident, incident, robbery, crime," etc. <S> In this case it is not usually meant euphemistically but literally.
| So, a concerned member of the public is any citizen who takes an interest in the topic being discussed.
|
What does this "azure-barred" mean? I recall certain moments, let us call them icebergs in paradise, when after having had my fill of her — after fabulous, insane exertions that left me limp and azure-barred — I would gather her in my arms with, at last, a mute moan of human tenderness (her skin glistening in the neon light coming from the paved court through the slits in the blind, her soot-black lashes matted, her grave gray eyes more vacant than ever — for all the world a little patient still in the confusion of a drug after a major operation) — the tenderness would deepen to shame and despair, and I would lull and rock my lone light Lolita in my marble arms, and moan in her warm hair, and caress her at random and mutely ask her blessing, and at the peak of this human agonized selfless tenderness (with my soul actually hanging around her naked body and ready to repent), all at once, ironically, horribly, lust would swell again — and “oh, no,” Lolita would say with a sigh to heaven, and the next moment the tenderness and the azure — all would be shattered. Would you explain what "azure-barred" means? Does this paragraph describe the sex scene of Humber and Lolita but not after that? Does this "when after having had my fill of her — after fabulous, insane exertions that left me limp and azure-barred" tell that they have finished making love or not? Thanks. <Q> 1. <S> Azure-barred - Azure colored stripes in his body. <S> 2. <S> Does this paragraph describe the sex scene of Humber and Lolita but not after that? <S> This is the sex scene described and this is not the whole of it. <S> This is describing the moments after having an orgasm. <S> 3. <S> Does this "when after having had my fill of her — after fabulous, insane exertions that left me limp and azure-barred" tell that they have finished making love or not? <S> As said in my above lines, they had orgasm and the scene after that is described here. <S> Look at the lines saying - all at once lust would swell again and the next moment the tenderness and the azure — all would be shattered. <S> So they have not yet finished making love. <S> Lets not disturb them. <S> In response to your question in comment: First, Neon light will be RED in colour <S> and Azure is related to the color blue. <S> So they may be incorrect. <S> There are many reasons for getting stripes in body during intercourse one of which will be the nails scratching the skin <S> but i don't get any idea of a blue colored stripe. <S> (Maybe this is said for he is royal blooded. <S> Author alone knows.) <S> And LIMP as an adjective here probably could mean Lacking in strength, firmness or resilience of his penis after orgasm(My Guess. <S> Author's perspective might be different. <S> But I'm sure.) <S> The words in the last line, 'would swell again' imply the erection he gets again. <S> They are just the description of the scene and the characters by the author. <S> Is it okay now? <A> He could mean that after the exertions of sex his blue veins are more noticeable. <S> Causing him to be azure (blue) <S> barred (lined). <S> This is just a guess <S> but it's what I took <S> azure-barred to mean. <A> The meaning of the bar in heraldry is for one who sets the bar of conscience, religion and honor against angry passions. <S> (W. Cecil Wade's "The Symbolisms of Heraldry or A Treatise on the Meanings and Derivations of Armorial Bearings". <S> Published in London in 1898.) <S> ... and blue (azure) signifies loyalty, chastity, truth, strength and faith. <S> Is Nabokov possibly implying that after his sexual exertions his body (penis?) is suffering recriminations of conscience after its angry passions? <S> Or was Nabokov even aware of the intricacies of British heraldry?
| This describes the start of yet another session of physical activity(sex).
|
Is Witches' Hammer or Witchhammer understood as idiom by English speaker? " Kladivo na čarodějnice " (in czech) or " Malleus Maleficarumis " (inlatin) is a title of czech novel translated as Witches' Hammer or Witchhammer.Hammer on Witches is the name of book (manual) used in this novel to seek out and eradicate witches. Is the phrase "Witchhammer" understood by native English speaker as phrase with hidden meaning? For example like hidden meaning when we imagine the situation of two guys listening radio news on politics and one guy say to another: "This senator speaks again in Orwellian language ?" (hint of 1984 book - angsoc, face-crime, double-think etc.) Orwellian language - not telling the TRUE names Kladivo na čarodějnice - to use effective handbook (full of effective and cruel methods) for solving the problem ruthlessly <Q> Kramer's Malleus Maleficarum is fairly well known in scholarly circles under its (original) Latin name, and I daresay is equally well known to laymen who have any interest in mediaeval witchcraft. <S> But the phrase has no reference apart from the book. <S> The closest phrase I can think of is "witch-hunt"; this is widespread in the US, referring in the first instance to the Salem Witch Trials but often employed today to speak of any popular effort to identify and destroy narrowly defined 'public enemies', especially unorthodox thinkers. <S> I think the phrase became common during the frantic right-wing hunt for Communists in the 1950s, but it has since been used equally of left-wing activists against right-wing opinion. <S> Right now you see it applied to the anti-big-government Tea Party and to Major League Baseball's zealous campaign against purported steroid users. <S> Its overtones have less to do with ruthlessness and effectiveness than with rigidity, irrationality and paranoia. <A> I have never heard of this book before, nor have I heard the phrase "witchhammer" or any variation I can think of as having a well-recognized meaning. <S> I think this is just another case of an idiom or allusion that cannot be translated literally into another language and still retain its meaning. <S> I am speaking as an American. <S> I see that Tristan says the same thing as a Briton. <S> It's possible that people in some other English-speaking country would recognize the reference, but I'd expect they wouldn't. <S> The closest I can think of in English is "Machiavellian". <S> If someone is being treacherous and ruthless we often say that he is being Machiavellian. <S> The phrase comes from Niccolo Machiavelli and his book "The Prince", which is popularly perceived to advocate a ruthlessly pragmatic approach to problems. <S> This book is viewed as a manual on how to be ruthless. <S> (I have not read the book -- it's sitting on my bookshelf as one of those books I really really want to get to someday -- <S> so I can only speak of the popular perception and not of the reality. <S> But that's probably what matters here anyway.) <A> It is not well known in England and the rest of the UK. <S> I had not heard of it before I saw this question.
| The title is usually translated The Hammer of Witches .
|
He continued to talk and he continued talking I know that some English verbs can be followed either by the -ing form or by the infinitive form, with a little difference in meaning though. Could you tell me what is the difference between these two examples? He continued to talk. He continued talking. <Q> He stopped to talk means that he interrupted whatever he was doing at the time and began to talk. <S> The infinitive expresses the purpose. <S> He stopped talking on the other hand, has the opposite meaning. <S> It means he didn't talk any more, he was silent. <S> He went on to talk (about) <S> This means the speaker changed the topic of discussion, and started a new one. <S> He went on talking (about) here the speaker continued the action of talking, this might have included one or more interruptionshowever, the topic remained the same. <S> He continued talking <S> There are two possible interpretations; in the first, he talked virtually uninterrupted. <S> In the second, despitebeing interrupted he kept on talking <S> He continued to talk <S> This means he talked continuously, and probably without any interruptions. <S> In other words, continue is one of those verbs that can be used with the infinitive or the gerund without any changing in meaning. <S> Verbs that take gerunds or infinitives without changing in meaning (as listed by Grammaring) <S> BEGIN, START, CONTINUE, CEASE, DREAD, INTEND, LOVE <S> Go on is defined by the Free dictionary as To keep on doing (something): "Don't go on talking. <S> " <S> Continue <S> TFD <S> v.t. to go on with or persist in: "to continue reading" . <A> I'm hard pressed to think of a sentence where both are valid and where they mean different things, but I'm reluctant to say that as a 100% rule as I'm sure I can't think of every possible sentence. <A> I agree with Jay. <S> Deciding whether to use talk or talking in this sentence has more to do with the flow or sound of the statement. <S> Talk sounds more abrupt,then,"He continued talking". <S> You may not like it when, He continued to talk. <S> He continued talking, sounds friendlier. <A> He continued talking could mean he never stopped. <S> He continued to talk <S> implies to me there was a pause, and then he started talking again.
| In this example, they mean the same thing.
|
Where can I use "arrive to"? I know the difference between arrive at and arrive in , but where can I use arrive to ? A car arrived to the gate. Should I use arrived at ? <Q> Supplemental to other answers Arrive to is rare in present-day English, and I advise you to avoid it; but it was at one time more common. <S> Robert Baker, Remarks on the English Language, in the Manner of Those of Vaugelas on the French; Being a Detection of Many Improper Expressions Used in Conversation, and of Many Others to Be Found in Authors , 2nd Ed. 1779, not only concedes its propriety in figurative uses but acknowledges, even as he scorns the use, that “people of education” employ it: <A> In this case, it should be A car arrived at the gate. <S> At is used for specific locations (as in , the gate)However, for cities and countries, it is arrived in. <S> So, Jane arrived in New York. <S> However, Jane arrived at New York airport. <S> Note: "at" is also used for time: <S> Jane arrived at 3:45 AM <S> In general, "arrive" should not be followed by the preposition "to", since "to" implies movement, whereas "arrive" does not. <S> ("Arrive" implies accomplishment of movement, not the movement instead.) <S> The only time "arrive" and "to" would be together might be something like this: <S> Jane arrived to take a test. <S> where the location is implied and the sentence actually means: <S> Jane arrived in New York to take a test. <S> Colloquially, the "in New York" might be omitted if obvious. <A> At and in are prepositions that express location and are followed by a noun phrase. <S> - A car arrived at the gate. <S> (Means the car actually stopped at the gate) <S> - A car arrived in the park. <S> (Means the car drove into the park) <S> To is a preposition that expresses a consequence or a purpose and will be followed by a verb clause. <S> - A car arrived to save us from walking all the way home. <S> (Consequence of the car arrival : we did not have to walk). <S> - A taxi arrived to pick us up. <S> (We'd ordered a taxi and it came with the purpose to pick us up.) <S> ---Edit <S> --- I've answered within the scope of your question (i.e. use of to after arrive). <S> Obviously to can express location if used after a verb of movement: - I walk (drive/fly/swim/skate/crawl...) to work every weekday.
| So "arrived in" is for more general/broader locations, while "at" is for specific locations.
|
What is the meaning of "the principle of the thing"? I came across this phrase that I don't get the meaning: the principle of the thing . Here's the sentence that includes this phrase (a questionnaire item): I have, at times stood in the way of people who were trying to do something, not because it amounted to much, but because of the principle of the thing . <Q> I know a guy who went to small claims court to get out of paying a bill he felt he should not have been obligated to pay. <S> He didn't have to pay the $800 bill, but he paid almost $2000 in legal costs. <S> Some might have viewed that as a net loss, but he considered it a victory, because of the principle of the thing . <S> In other words, he felt it was more important to not pay the bill than to save the money. <S> Your quote mentions people who "were trying to do something. <S> " That's rather vague, but the idea is that, whatever they tried to do, there's a good chance they wouldn't gain anything personally, yet they persevered anyway, because they felt it was the right thing to do. <A> I have, at times stood in the way of people who were trying to do something not because it amounted to much, but because of the principle of the thing. <S> Here, "thing" is quite possibly a reference to the earlier "something". <S> In the past, the writer, more than once witnessed someone doing something. <S> The author believes that this something should be done according to an important rule: a principle, or else not done at all. <S> Or perhaps the author believes in a rule that this something must not be done at all. <S> Either way, this rule is the "principle of that (some)thing". <S> The author stopped the person from doing that something, contrary to to the principle. <S> The word "thing", in an intangible sense, is sometimes used vaguely or loosely by English speakers. <S> A popular introduction for an explanation, concern or complaint is: "Here is the thing, ..." which means something like "I'm about to inform you about some key aspect of some matter". <S> This doesn't change the interpretation very much. <S> Whether the principle is a rule specifically applying to the thing being done (thing = something), or the overall situation of that other person doing it (thing = situation), basically doesn't matter. <A> I myself don't entirely understand what the phrase means, but based off of context from when I've heard the phrase, I think it is used for when you are trying to justify something that you've done or something that you want to do, regardless if it is right or wrong. <S> For example, you are trying to convince your friend to do something, but they aren't really sure it's a good idea, leading you to say, "Come onnnn, its the principle of the thing!" <S> trying to convince them that what you want to do is justified because its whats right, even if its actually wrong.
| The "principle of the thing" could also be using "thing" as a reference to the intangible situation as a whole: the writer stopped people from doing something due to some principle which applied to the situation.
|
What does "Re:" in a business letter mean? What does "Re:" in a business letter mean? When should we use it? <Q> Wiktionary lists <S> re as a preposition that means <S> “About, regarding, with reference to; especially in letters and documents”, while OED1 (1914) says: Re sb² <S> [Ablative of L. res thing, affair.] <S> In the matter of, referring to. <S> The L. phr. <S> in re is similarly used († formerly also = in reality). <S> Re infecta , ‘with the matter unfinished or unaccomplished’, has also been freq. <S> employed in Eng. <S> Thus, use of re as a preposition meaning about or regarding <S> seems perfectly reasonable to me; it's a concise alternative to regarding , a word which is often used verbosely. <S> Use <S> re when introducing a new topic. <S> For example, the following would be grammatically and perhaps even stylistically acceptable: <S> Re item 1, she has no opinion. <S> Re item 2, he doesn't like it. <S> Re item 3, they are sick of it. <S> Alternative forms of that, with fewer instances of re , might be: <S> She has no opinion re item 1. <S> He doesn't like item 2. <S> They are sick of item 3. <S> ‒or‒ <S> She has no opinion about item 1. <S> He doesn't like item 2. <S> They are sick of item 3. <A> RE or Re is just a prefix used before the subject line of a previous email message to mean the new message is a reply for a previous message. <S> In a business letter , it introduces the subject that it is about. <S> Re your letter of August 2 <A> RE: <S> Was often used in business letters before emails were popular, hence the confusion. <S> Used as a subject first line of the letter and not in the main text. <S> Example, right before or after salutation: RE: <S> TAX payments To whom it may concern, <S> I have been informed..... <S> (Main text of first paragraph) <S> Or Dear MR/MRS X, RE: Open job position for Arts consultant <S> I am interested in applying for the above mentioned opening ...... <S> (Main text of first paragraph)
| Stands for regarding to/or Referring to when used in a business letter (equivalent to Subject line in emails).
|
What expression should I use in this case? In Italian, when somebody wants to say that something is true also for them, or they know something because they experienced the same, they sometimes say non lo dire a me (litrerally, "don't say it to me"). For example, that could be the answer to the following sentences. I pay too much for the property taxes! The gasoline price got raised again! I feel cold! I would smoke a cigarette right now! What would an equivalent expression be, in English? The implicit phrase for the Italian expression is "because I know it well"; the other person experienced (or is experiencing) the same. I thought to "Don't tell me!" but that sounds like the other person doesn't want to speak about that topic, maybe because the topic is not of any interest, but that is not the case for the Italian expression. <Q> A common idiom/expression for this is: <S> "You can say THAT again!" <S> It is another way of saying, "I agree with you 100%. <S> " <S> The emphasis is on "that." <S> Additionally, "You said it!" <S> Again, pretty much just saying "I agree with what you just said very strongly." <S> Another possibility: <S> "You're preaching to the choir" <S> You don't have to convince me <S> - I am a firm believer in that. <S> (It is assumed that the choir of the church is already convinced of the ideas, so you don't need to spend as much effort preaching to them). <S> This is more about trying to convince someone of a point or idea - you wouldn't use this as a response to "I'm cold." <A> As StoneyB mentioned in comments, I think the closest phrase to your original is <S> Tell me about it! <S> Also as Stoney said, tell is italicized here because it is stressed. <S> Though the words instruct the other person to tell you more, the implication is actually that they don't need to; what you mean when you say this is "You could tell me more about this, but actually you don't have to... <S> I'm already very aware of the subject and completely agree with you." <S> That's the most directly related phrase to your original Italian, but you might also consider this: No kidding! <S> This wouldn't always apply in 100% of the same situations, but the basic idea is " <S> Yeah, I know exactly what you mean! <S> You're completely right. <S> " This is a bit more informal, though. <S> For example: <S> Wow, did you see the kids? <S> They grow up so fast! <S> Tell me about it! <S> ("I know they do, you're right; I'm totally agreeing with your amazement!") <S> Did you see those gas prices? <S> When gas costs more than milk... <S> Ha. <S> No kidding. <S> ("You're right, that's crazy. <S> Gas prices really are insanely high.") <A> "Petrol prices are getting ridiculous!" <S> You're telling me! <S> I'm drowning in a sea of debt <S> You're not the only one! <S> Taxes, inflation, unemployment rising... <S> Could life get any worse? <S> or "You better believe it!" <S> I'd kill for another cigarette Me too! <S> OR "Ack, don't even go there!" <S> Actually I am the only person I know who says "ack" <S> but it's very versatile. <S> It's slightly Scottish in flavour , throaty and dry, as if you wanted to spit <S> but you can't manage to. <A> Another common slang phrase that is used mostly by younger people is "I know, right ?" or sometimes just " Right ?" <S> The emphasis is on "right" and indicates your agreement, the correctness of the statement, and/or your incredulity at the situation. <S> I can't believe how hard that test was! --I <S> know <S> , right? <S> I'm sure that I failed. <S> Wow, you weren't kidding. <S> They look exactly alike! <S> --Right?! <S> I couldn't believe it!
| "You bet!"
|
What is a word for "very slow"? I am trying to find an adjective describing "very slow". Can I know what are the possible candidates or, better, the best word for it? To further clarify my question, I am not looking for an adjective to describe something that one think might be slow but, instead, in a more objective way. For example, given an object A you describe its speed is "slow", and you know that the speed of object B is slower than that of object A , then what is the best word you use to describe the speed of B ? The ideal answer would be the case that: once one said A is slow, B is xxx (where xxx is answer), then we will have no doubt that B is slower than A . Another example, when someone said A is warm and B is hot, then we know that B is warmer than A . I am looking for a word for slow in this case. Bonus question: if there is also an object C that is slower than B , what word would you use to describe C given C is faster than "not moving". Or, what is the longest sequence of adjectives that we can describe things with different degrees of slowness? <Q> I can't think of multiple single-word elements that are unambiguously scaled (is "sluggish" faster or slower than "plodding"?) <S> but there are certainly phrases that can be used... <S> normal -> <S> a bit slow -> slow - <S> > slow as molasses -> slower than molasses in January <S> (I'd be inclined personally to say that "sluggish" is a good substitute for "a bit slow"--it's slower than normal, but not as slow as just plain " <S> slow"--but I'm not at all sure that it would be widely agreed upon.) <S> Going in the other direction, you could have: normal -> <S> brisk -> <S> fast -> <S> faster than a speeding bullet -> <S> at the speed of light <A> Very slow is fine as it is, and most English speakers would probably just use that - but you can also use: (moving at a) <S> glacial pace lethargic <S> - very slow with connotations of laziness <S> sluggish plodding - for people who are moving very slowly <A> But yes, they do move! <S> If you want to describe almost no change/progress/movement - use 'static', which means not in physical motion. <S> Merriam-Webster clarifies it : <S> ...moving or proceeding at less than the normal, desirable, or required speed the application process for an overseas adoption has been moving at a snaillike pace <A> Music might provide a partial answer to the OP's question. <S> Alas I am not a musician, but I am aware of musical terms that describe the intensity, the pace, and the pitch that a piece of music should be played at. <S> Fully aware that I might be missing, ignoring key elements and that the OP's request is asking for something far more generic, but at least this might get the ball rolling :) <S> Wikipedia: Tempo <S> In musical terminology, tempo (Italian for time, plural: tempi or tempos) is the speed or pace of a given piece. <S> Tempo is a crucial element of most musical compositions, as it can affect the mood and difficulty of a piece. <S> [...] <S> Beats per minute (BPM) is a unit typically used as a measure of tempo in music and heart rate. <S> Slow: <S> Larghissimo – very, very slow (19 BPM and under) <S> Grave – slow and solemn (20–40 BPM) Lento – <S> slowly (40–45 BPM) <S> Largo – broadly (45–50 BPM) <S> Larghetto – rather broadly (50–55 BPM) <S> Adagio – slow and stately (literally, "at ease") <S> (55–65 BPM) <S> Adagietto – rather slow (65–69 BPM) <S> Andante moderato – a bit slower than andante (69–72 BPM) <S> Andante – at a walking pace (73–77 BPM) <S> Andantino – slightly faster than andante (although in some cases it can be taken to mean - slightly slower than andante) <S> (78–83 BPM) <S> Marcia moderato – moderately, in the manner of a march[4][5] (83–85 BPM) <S> Moderato – moderately (86–97 BPM)
| Go for 'snaillike' or 'slothful' derived from their very slow movement.
|
Antonym of "crowded" that is not "uncrowded" I want to describe two types of cities: one city is crowded, i.e., has a lot of population in a small area, while the other city is the opposite - it is uncrowded . For reasons of style, I want to use another antonym that does not contain the root "crowded". Any ideas? Maybe the word "crowded" is unfit in this context. If so, what other words should I use? <Q> To describe a city in this context, I would prefer this: <S> New York City is very densely populated. <S> Athens is sparsely populated. <A> It has a high population ---> a low population A busy city <S> ---- <S> > <S> a quiet city A crowded street --- <S> > an empty street <S> The city centre is crowded --- <S> > <S> the city centre is uncrowded <S> The city centre is chaotic --- <S> > <S> the city centre is calm <A> You can use any of the following words or phrases: Canary Wharf on Christmas Day was completely deserted . <S> I went out of my hotel at 3am and the streets were empty . <S> The town I grew up in is very sleepy compared with the hustle and bustle of central Manhattan. <S> After the zombies came, Moscow felt vacant and deserted - a mere shadow of the once proud city I had grown to love. <A> If you were talking about an apartment instead of a city, I would suggest roomy or spatial as antonyms for crowded . <S> However, I don't think either one of those words works very well when describing a more sparsely populated city. <S> Tokyo is a crowded city. <S> Nagano has a lot more breathing room. <S> TFD lists “sufficient room for easy breathing or movement” as a definition of breathing room , with this example usage: “moved to the country to find breathing room.” <S> A related expression is elbow room . <S> In a more formal context, a related term is population density (the population of a city divided by its area). <S> Crowded cities have a high population density, while "uncrowded" cities have a relatively low population density.
| What I think you could use, though, (at least in some contexts) is the term breathing room :
|
How to Pronounce Cars and Says? I think for a pronunciation symbol, cars is /kɑːrz/ and says is /seɪz/ . But whenever I listen these words I feel like there are a little “d” sound, Cars /kɑːrdz/ and Says/seɪdz/. For me, cars sound like cards and says sounds like saids. Am I wrong? <Q> There is no "d" consonant in these words. <S> If a "d" sound is inserted into "cars" it becomes "cards". <S> If someone is referring to a plurality of automobiles, and you're distinctly hearing "cards", that person is making a mistake or has some kind of speech impairment. <S> Your pronunciation notation appears questionable. <S> Let's look at "cars". <S> It depends on dialect. <S> If you're in Britain, it is /kɑːz/. <S> In the predominant dialect spoken in North America, /ka:rz/. /seɪz/ is incorrect; that notation follows the pronunciation pattern of "days" /deɪz/. <S> Unlike in "days", in the written form of "says", the letters "ay" do not denote a dipthong; the pronunication is just /sez/. <S> "Say" is /seɪ/, of course, but the third person inflection is not formed simply by adding /z/. <S> The "says" part of "essays" is pronounced /seɪz/, but that is not related to "say". <S> I can hardly think of any other place in the spelling of the language where "ays" goes to /ez/. Other than in "says", it "ay" corresponds to /eɪ/ except in certain words like "papaya" and "picayune" which are of a completely different formation. <S> Let's not forget the troublesome "quay" which sounds exactly like "key" (except to some North Americans). <S> So, good news: "says" may be the only example of its kind that you have to memorize. <A> Sorry, but the pronunciation you used in your first sentence is the correct one. <S> cars is like "carz" and says is like "sez". <S> No D sounds. <A> In British English (BrE) <S> the pronunciation of car is /kɑː/ <S> The plural form, cars , in AmE is pronounced: /kɑːrz/ <S> You can hear a British person pronouncing the word cars in a series of other words ending with the letters <S> ars <S> here and by a different speaker, here . <S> the third person singular form, says , is usually pronounced as /sez/ . <S> Click on the links to hear how these words are pronounced.
| There is no word /seɪz/, and if we add a /d/ to make /seɪdz/, that is also not a word; however, there exist surnames Seyds and Seyd. The verb say is always pronounced /seɪ/
|
"It works" vs "It is working" The photocopier broke down yesterday, but now it's OK. a) It is working again. It has been repaired. b) It works again. It has been repaired. What is the difference in meaning between those two ways of saying. I'm interested in all the subtleties. <Q> This is intuition and not based on something I have read. <S> In fact these sentences are <S> quite similar and native speakers could and would use them both to describe a photocopier that wasn't working yesterday and is working today. <S> Using the verb "works" (in the sense of "functions," not in the sense of "labors") <S> I would be more likely to use the progressive for something that isn't in a state of "not-working" for too long. <S> e.g. <S> My typewriter from high school still works!The photocopier is working again!At long last, democracy works again!Is the drink machine working? <S> (I want to buy a Coke <S> right now.)Does the drink machine work? <S> (I've never seen anyone use it, it just sits there, is it even functional?) <S> But again these distinctions are quite subtle and other native speakers may disagree with me. <A> “It is working” is probably meant to imply something in addition to the basic meaning. <S> If the speaker stresses the “is”, that would make it certain that they are implying something more. <S> For example, the speaker might mean: <S> It is being used right now, the photocopier is currently making a copy. <S> The speaker is surprised that it is functional. <S> It is functional now, but it wasn’t before. <S> It is functional now, but it might break again. <S> Addition of an exclamation point or expletive would confirm surprise. <S> A speaker might stress the “ing”, to clarify that the object is not just able to work, but is functioning at the current moment. <S> Of course, if the subject is a person rather than a device or tool then the meaning is completely different, “he works” meaning that he labors, is employed, has a job, and “he is working” meaning that he is doing one of those things at this particular time. <A> I just want to add that those two formulations imply slightly different expectations (on the speaker's part) for the future status of the photocopier. <S> If I hear: It works again. <S> I assume that the speaker believes that the photocopier will continue to function as a normal state of affairs. <S> Whereas if I hear: It is working again. <S> I interpret it as: <S> It is [currently] working again. <S> That is, the present progressive emphasizes that this is the situation <S> right now , as opposed to simple present. <S> When I hear the latter, it makes me think that the speaker wants to imply that the photocopier may or may not continue to function in the future.
| “It works”, applied to any inanimate object is probably the more common expression for the basic meaning, that the device is able to function (not broken).
|
Is "winningest" an acceptable word? What does it mean? On this article , I came across the use of a word winningest . It isn't a surprise that the experts still reckon that when in doubt, think about it and then decide to bat anyway, for that used to be the winningest strategy when most of them played the game. Is this an acceptable word? If not, then is there a single word or phrase to replace it? (As opposed to reordering the words to strategy most likely to lead to a win . I looked around on the internet and found out that it is an informal word, which means one with most wins . However, in the above context, it seems to mean one most likely to lead to a win . Is this article using the word wrongly (informal as it may be), or did I interpret in wrong? Further, is it also acceptable to use winninger similarly? <Q> It depends on context. <S> No , in most formal contexts you should not use this word. <S> It is an Americanism (although it appears to a lesser extent in other countries). <S> Yes , it's fine in certain informal contexts. <S> It's particularly used in the discussion of sports , as in the page you link to. <S> It's easily understood and surprisingly common in this context. <S> And I think you've got the meaning right. <S> Even with well-established words, meaning tends to be fairly flexible. <S> With a word like this that is only accepted in some informal contexts, meaning is more flexible still. <S> It's not so much a matter of "right" and "wrong", but "Did they communicate successfully?" <S> And since you understood, it seems that they did! <S> And no , don't say * winninger . <S> It's understandable (at least in certain contexts), and you can say it if you really want to, but even people who say winningest don't say winninger . <A> It's a perfectly cromulent word :) <S> Seriously though, it's not a common usage English word, and I've never heard it said in British English. <S> It's also very informal (and sounds uneducated to my ears) even in American English. <S> Try to avoid its use in normal text or speech. <S> And as you have seen, it is used in American English, although not very much. <S> Contrast, the British English graph: <S> So the simple answer to your question is yes . <S> Winningest is a word. <S> But my advice would be not to use it. <S> A better way of phrasing would be <S> It isn't a surprise that the experts still reckon that when in doubt, think about it and then decide to bat anyway, for that used to be the strategy <S> that was most likely to win when most of them played the game. <S> It isn't a surprise that the experts still reckon that when in doubt, think about it and then decide to bat anyway, for that used to be the strategy that won the most when most of them played the game. <S> or even just: <S> It isn't a surprise that the experts still reckon that when in doubt, think about it and then decide to bat anyway, for that used to be the best strategy when most of them played the game. <S> And whilst winningest is pretty bad - winninger <S> doesn't appear to be a word at all. <S> So don't use it. <A> It is an Americanism, perhaps a slang! <S> Most used by U.S. sport commentators, it simply sounds wrong and it is wrong to use although it is unfortunately now a searchable word by Google! <S> It is also awkward to pronounce. <S> Not used in British English.
| It is , however a real word, as defined thus: adjective (informal) having achieved the most success in competition. No , you should not use this word even in informal contexts outside the US.
|
How can I say "you have to bear the baby (not abort it)" in more natural English? Suppose there is a doctor who wants a patient to cancel a planned abortion for the patient's safety. What should this doctor say? Can an English speaker please help me to fix the following sentence so that it would sound more natural? Please don't abort the baby, you have to bear the baby for your own safety. <Q> Instead of "bear the baby", you can say "carry the baby to term". <S> This means to carry the baby until it's ready to be born. <S> Unlike your phrase, it doesn't describe the birth itself. <S> Term is short for full term . <S> From Collins : <S> term . <S> Also called: full term. <S> the period at which childbirth is imminent <S> Carry may be replaced with bring , but carry <S> is more common. <A> As a doctor I would add the reason: For reasons of your own safety you should not think of abortion. <A> More informally, someone might say <S> Please don't abort the baby, you should keep the baby. <A> You could be literal and just say "give birth to the baby." <S> To use the OP's example: <A> As a nurse, if I was speaking professionally to a patient I might say. <S> "Please reconsider having an abortion. <S> Carrying the baby to term and having a monitored delivery would be a safer alternative for you." <S> In casual conversations I would say 'have the baby" rather than 'bear the baby'.
| Please don't abort the baby, you have to give birth to the baby for your own safety.
|
"No catch out of" Dr. Lahiri is no catch out of central casting. Source What does the highlighted part mean? I can't seem to find it in my dictionary. <Q> Central Casting is not a source of "great" actors, or indeed of actors of any sort: it is a source of anonymous extras classified into established types. <S> The performers within any particular classification are interchangeable; their function is not to create a character but to be recognizable on sight, without any lines. <S> They’re essentially not people but props. <S> The sentence “Dr. Lahiri is no catch out of central casting” thus does not imply that the actor playing Dr. Lahiri is in any way inadequate to the part. <S> Quite the contrary: it means that she does not conform to the stereotype of what constitutes a “catch”, and that she (and the writers) are free to develop her character in unexpected directions. <S> From the source: "She is defiantly idiosyncratic, a new type of character for TV". <A> He's no catch, in that of all the fish in the sea, Casting could have reeled in a better one. <S> It's simply an idiom, meaning not the best possible choice. <A> When used generically (as in the quote) <S> central casting refers to a source of just the right person for some role or other. <S> No catch is slang or idiom for “not highly desirable”. <S> The quote as a whole indicates that Dr. Lahiri is not a wonderful and great-looking person. <S> Edit: <S> Regarding catch , see sense 5 in wiktionary : <S> A find, in particular a boyfriend or girlfriend or prospective spouse. <S> [eg] <S> Did you see his latest catch? <S> He's a good catch. <A> To understand the phrase, break it up into two parts" Dr. Lahari is no catch; out of central casting. <S> But even out of this (random) "central casting" group, Dr. Lahari is "no catch. <S> " That means "not a particularly good catch." <A> I accept (because I don't know otherwise) that central casting is merely a source of nondescript extras. <S> But then the phrase "he is a catch out of central casting" would mean that the person concerned turned out to be much better than expected and therefore considered to be a 'proper' actor of some merit. <S> In a different context, one might hear the phrase <S> "he is a real catch" in the context of people announcing that they are to be married. <S> This means that the bride-to-be has done well and scooped up a good one. <S> The simile is from fishing; the one caught is better than the rest of the fish in the sea. <S> Therefore the OP's phrase "Dr. Lahiri is no catch out of central casting" means to me that there was no element of any exceptional talent and <S> that s/ <S> he was indeed, and disappointly, a run-of-the-mill extra.
| Applying that sense, no catch means “not good material for a boyfriend or girlfriend”, which I vaguely alluded to earlier via “not a wonderful and great-looking person”. "Central casting" refers to a group of "random" actors/actresses, not a "star" player.
|
When and how to use the words 'Maybe' and 'may be'? I read this tip Use 'maybe if 'perhaps' works' . But is this correct? Are they both adverbs? Or one is an adverb and the other is a verb phrase ? This is still not clear to me. I would appreciate the answers with examples. Please let me know the simplest way to identify which to use when. Grammar Monster uses this sentence - If you trust Google more than your doctor, then maybe it's time to switch doctors But then this also makes sense to me - If you trust Google more than your doctor, then may be, it's time to switch doctors Am I missing something? <Q> This question is a nice one since it is a good chance for me to refine my own grammar skill too. <S> As you already know, both of them indicate possibility, some degree of uncertainty. <S> Maybe is an adverb. <S> May be which has a similar meaning as might be or could be is two words. <S> The word may in may be is an auxiliary verb. <S> You can say that may be (two words together) is a verb phrase. <S> (I wasn't sure about this "verb phrase" thing until I consulted some references.) <S> Knowing that, it is now easy to answer your questions. <S> Is this rule of thumb correct? <S> Use ' <S> maybe if 'perhaps' works' . <S> Both maybe and perhaps are adverbs. <S> Both indicate some degree of uncertainty. <S> If one fits in your sentence, the other will too. <S> What about these examples? <S> If you trust Google more than your doctor, then maybe it's time to switch doctors. <S> and If you trust Google more than your doctor, then may be <S> , it's time to switch doctors. <S> The first one is correct. <S> The word <S> maybe is used as an adverb here. <S> (You can try replacing it with perhaps , which is perfectly fine.) <S> The latter one is an incorrect usage, since it doesn't work if you scan the sentence, knowing that may must be an auxiliary verb. <S> I would also like to offer another good rule of thumb: <S> Use 'may be' only if 'verb to be' works <S> For example, using your example, if you try replacing may be with <S> is <S> you will see immediately that the sentence doesn't work, <S> If you trust Google more than your doctor, then is , it's time to switch doctors. <S> Definitely incorrect. <S> So you need to use maybe instead. <A> Although "maybe" looks like the words "may" and "be", it functions separately and differently, just like "however" is not "how ever". <S> It is also phonologically different. <S> Maybe is /ˈmeɪˌbi/ with stress on the first syllable. <S> May be is /ˈmeɪˈbiː/ with equal stress on both syllables. <S> So we can clearly tell the difference between the two in spoken English. <S> "Maybe" is related to "may be" the sense that the pattern: Maybe [clause] can usually be rewritten, and can perhaps be regarded as a contraction of: It may be that [clause] The "it" is a place-holder subject, just like in "it is raining" or "it is said that ...". <S> "Maybe" is a fairly flexible particle which applies to entire clauses ("Maybe I should wait"); verb phrases ("I think he maybe went home already"), adverb phrases ("I can finish that in three hours, or maybe sooner"); adjectives ("I don't remember what color it was: <S> maybe red, maybe orange"); or nouns <S> ("I see a vehicle in the distance, maybe a bus, coming this way"). <S> "May be" cannot be in the same way, simply by placing it in front of a clause or phrase. <S> It is a compound verb which requires the formation of a clause with a subject. <S> If we replace all these uses with "may be" we have to rearrange or complicate the sentence so that there is a proper embedded clause built around "may" with a subject: "It may be that I should wait"; "It may be that he went home already"; "I can finish that in about three hours, or it may be that I can finish it sooner"; "It may be that it was red; it may be that it was orange"; "I see a vehicle, which may be a bus, coming this way". <S> And so, <S> Maybe it's time to switch doctors. <S> can also be expressed as <S> It may be that it is time to switch doctors. <S> possibly even with the complementizer omitted: It may be it is time to switch doctors. <S> But "May be (/ˈmeɪˈbiː/) <S> /it's time to switch" is not grammatical. <S> The verb "may" is lacking a subject. <A> I would recommend thinking of things like this: <S> “maybe” could be “perhaps” “may be” <S> could be “might be” <S> This just gets away from the two being confusingly similar. <S> Grammatically, “maybe” is an adverb, while “be” is a verb, here used with “may” as an auxiliary verb. <S> But “mightbe” is not a word, and “be” is almost never used without an auxiliary verb so “perhaps be” still needs one. <S> @DamkerngT’s suggestion of swapping “may be” with “is” (or another form of the verb “to be”) is also quite good: it changes the meaning, but has the same grammatical role, so if “is” works grammatically, then “may be” will also work grammatically.
| The word “perhaps” is another adverb with a meaning very similar to “maybe,” while “might” can be used as an auxiliary verb with much the same meaning as “may.” Yes, it is correct.
|
How to ask the day I googled and found someone said Q1 was correct way to ask the day. But I still have doubt about this. Q1: What day is tomorrow? Q2: What day is it tomorrow? Answer: It's Tuesday or Tomorrow is Tuesday. Which question is correct? <Q> “What day is tomorrow?” appears to be more popular: <S> But neither is more popular than Jim’s suggestion above of “What’s tomorrow?” <S> : <S> It’s difficult to know how much weight to give the graphs above. <S> For one thing, “ <S> What’s tomorrow?” is much more flexible contextually. <S> For example: <S> “What’s tomorrow?” <S> “Your dentist appointment.” <S> This response would not be legitimate for either of the other forms of this question. <S> If I had to speculate, I’d say that “What day is it tomorrow?” is avoided for a few reasons, including the suspicion mentioned in the comments above that it doesn’t sound quite right to pair the definitively present -sounding <S> “is it” with the decidedly futuristic “tomorrow”. <S> There’s also the simple fact that the word order causes the speaker to all but ask a different question (“ <S> What day is it . . .”) before asking the intended question (“. . . <S> tomorrow?”). <S> In the end, probably having to do with the fact that the concept of tomorrow depends on a reference point of today, people are comfortable asking about it in the present tense. <S> Personally, if I wanted to know which day of the week it was going to be, I’d ask: <S> What day is it tomorrow? <S> Like many things in English, there isn’t a hard and fast rule here. <S> Choose what feels right to you. <A> Both of these questions are fine, but they have a completely different structure; their correctness is derived in different way. <S> In the sentence: What day is it tomorrow. <S> the subject is "it", and the word "tomorrow" modifies the verb "to be", giving it a time. <S> It means "When the time becomes tomorrow, what day will it be at that time?"(Note, that it uses the present tense; we will get to that in a moment). <S> What day is tomorrow. <S> uses the word "tomorrow" differently. <S> It is not a modifier, but rather a reference to a day. <S> It means "Tomorrow is a day. <S> What day?" <S> Now about that present tense issue. <S> Why is the sentence "what day is it tomorrow" rather than: <S> What day will it be tomorrow? <S> In fact, this is correct also. <S> Of course, a future time indication goes hand-in-hand with the future tense. <S> However, in English, there is a relaxation of this requirement: sometimes we use the present tense for events in the future, especially in informal speech. <S> These two alternatives are both valid, and mean the same thing: What will you be doing tomorrow? <S> What are you doing tomorrow? <S> An indication of time which is semantically in the future is acceptable with present tense sentences. <S> That is why we can say "what day is it tomorrow?". <A> Q1: <S> What day is tomorrow? <S> This implies that tomorrow exists conceptually in the present, and we can assign that concept a day of the week. <S> This is both correct and common usage. <S> Q2: <S> What day is it tomorrow? <S> This is more problematic. <S> Now we are projecting ourselves into tomorrow and wondering what day it is. <S> A better choice would be "What day will it be tomorrow?"
| Either is legitimate and would be understood.
|
What does "I want to sleep on it" mean? I got some mail from my boss. It contains: I will tell the details tomorrow. I want to sleep on it. What does this sentence mean? <Q> They'd like to talk about it tomorrow, after they've had a night to think about it (presumably including a good night's sleep). <A> While I don't disagree with snailboat's answer, I don't know if it quite captures the entire essence of it. <S> One source defines the idiom as: <S> sleep on it : take at least a day to think about something before making a decision. <S> So, yes, we are talking about a chance to make a decision overnight. <S> People often see a conundrum in a new light after they've had a chance to mull it over, talk about their feelings with others, and even get a good night's rest. <S> Have you ever had an experience where something seemed very stressful at the time, but it looked very minor by the time you woke up in the morning? <S> Or when a decision was hard to make in heat of the moment, but the right decision seemed obvious before you were even out of your pajamas the next day? <S> The problem hadn't changed, but your perspective had. <S> Taking the time to "sleep on" something gives you a chance to think about it for awhile – and to not think about it for awhile, too. <S> Many sages advise people to avoid making major decisions until they have had a chance to "sleep on it:" <S> Make it your rule that you won't make a firm and final decision about any added costs until you've had a chance to sleep on it. <S> In the morning, look at everything with fresh eyes and a well-rested perspective. <S> (William J Hirsch, Jr, 2009) <S> Moreover, it's more than just a catch-phrase; it's apparently been backed up by hard science: <S> The idea that we need to "sleep on it" when faced with a big decision is no joke. <S> We intuitively know that sleep helps us think better, stronger, and prepares our minds for optimal functionality. <S> A Dutch study in 2006 points to the benefits of taking in information and letting the "unconscious" mind during sleep churn through the options involved. <S> Other experiments have also backed this finding. <S> (Michael Breus, 2007) <A> Just adding my 2 cents point out that the phrase doesn't necessarily mean "tomorrow". <S> The phrase is not to be taken so literally in terms of time; it just means, "I will take some time to think and I will allow space for new perceptions and feelings to arise". <S> Sometimes you may "sleep on something" for a few days.
| However, it's worth mentioning that the general gist of the phrase means that give yourself time to consider what you are pondering, and you give yourself time to clear your head as well.
|
Can ages ahead be possible? Harry looked down at his empty gold plate. He had only just realized how hungry he was. The pumpkin pasties seemed ages ago . (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) It seems like ago is the peripheral modifier (CGEL,p436) as the examples in Webster’s . What I’d like to know, now, is if ages ahead can be a possible noun phrase that has peripheral modifier as above? <Q> The corresponding hyperbolic phrase in this particular syntactic context would be "ages away": <S> Breakfast seemed ages away. <S> That, however, could be used to express either prospective or retrospective remoteness. <A> StoneyB's answer ( <S> "Ages away") works for looking at events relative to "now" fine (and carries a little ambiguity, possible to work into past or future.) <S> For looking at events from perspective of time you can use ages later <S> Ages <S> later, the breakfast came at last. <S> If you apply today, you will get a temporary permit sometimes after all your hair turns white, and a permanent license ages later. <A> This is very formal and antiquated, but Robert Frost used "ages hence" in The Road <S> Not Taken <S> : I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: <A> That said, as noted in other answers, typical use would be some other variant. <S> If I were to use "ages ahead", it would probably be comparing two things rather than referring to actual time: <S> According to many myths, Atlantis was technologically ages ahead of all other civilizations at the time. <S> The sentence compares Atlantis to other civilizations that would have supposedly existed at the same time. <S> It claims that Atlantis had technology that was massively more developed, as if from the future, despite being at the same time. <A> If we are referring to the far future, we might say "ages to come". <S> In the ages to come, what will our descendants think of these bulky laptops? <S> If saying "ages ahead" you must refer to what the subject is ahead of. <S> The scientist's research was ages ahead of that of his peers. <S> (In this case we are not referring to the actual period of time, but how long we think it would take his peers to reach the level he is at.)
| "Ages ahead" can be correct use, in particular scenarios.
|
'given in passing in the text' I found the phrase in this sentence, There are way over 10,000 numbered examples in The Cambridge Grammar, and thousands more given in passing in the text . I couldn't parse this last part at first. Not sure if it is "to give in" (which sounds quite wrong), or "in passing" (meaning casually, sounds wrong; not part of the main subject, also sounds wrong), or "passing in" , or it was "given a pass" , or something else. I only know that if I omitted that in passing part, it will make more sense. I looked up "pass in" in a few dictionaries, nothing came up. After some twenty searches or so, I finally found this definition: in passing : by the way; incidentally: he mentioned your visit in passing which is helpful, since I can understand given incidentally in the text . But I am still a bit unsure... Do I understand that sentence correctly? <Q> There are way over 10,000 numbered examples in The Cambridge Grammar, and thousands more given in passing in the text. <S> There are over 10,000 numbered examples in the Cambridge Grammar. <S> These examples are given explicitly. <S> They are defined, they are intended as the primary examples. <S> In addition to those 10,000, there are thousands more provided throughout the book (the text). <S> These other examples however are not explicitly given. <S> For example, say I was trying to explain the number five (5) to you. <S> I am explicitly explaining that five is a number used to count objects. <S> In order to explain it to you, I will also have to explain the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 (because without it, you wouldn't understand 5). <S> I'm not trying to explicitly explain those other numbers though <S> , I am explaining them in passing in order to explain 5. <S> In the case of the Cambridge Grammar, a given idiom or construction of words might be defined in passing in order to explain a more important and specific point. <A> It is, in my opinion, a little confusing to phrase it that way. <S> But I would read it as: (given) (in passing) <S> (in the text) Broken down: <S> given : there are many examples specified or stated within the text in passing : there are many examples briefly and casually mentioned in the text <S> In the text : self-explanatory, but basically the examples can be found inside the text . <S> Written another way: There are thousands of examples which are mentioned casually inside the text. <A> I'd say that a better interpretation of "in passing" would be " said or mentioned as an aside ". <S> So the sentence should read: <S> There are way over 10,000 numbered examples in The Cambridge Grammar, and thousands more given as an aside in the text . <S> Hope <S> this helps.
| They are given "in passing" (in this case, meaning 'casually', 'incidentally').
|
How to understand "Here you are." "You are here" or "Here are you"? When we want to give something to somebody, we may say: Here you are. But I don't understand why this sentence means "I give it to you". What are the differences among them: Here you are. Here are you. You are here. <Q> Here you are / <S> There you are : is commonly used when you're looking for someone (or something) and you found them. <S> For example: you're looking for your brother in the house, and when you found him, you said: there you are! <S> I've never heard of here <S> are you , but I don't think that's a phrase. <S> You can pretty much replace the word here with any other places. <S> Here you go <S> is pretty much used when you're giving someone something. <S> Do note that here you are and here you go are interchangeable, but the common usage of here you are is in my first example. <A> I have a hypothesis that "here you are" -- which is entirely idiomatic English, but grammatically bizarre -- is a contracted form of "here, you are served", in which "here" doesn't refer to "you" but to the thing which you are served. <S> But that's just a hypothesis; as used idiomatically, it makes no obvious literal sense. <S> "Here are you" is barely grammatical, but not at all idiomatic. <S> "You are here" is both grammatical and idiomatic, and can be taken literally, "you are present in this place." <S> It can be used as an exclamation of surprise, "You are here! <S> I didn't hear you come in." <S> or a statement informing the addressed party that they have reached a location, as when talking them through travel, via a cell phone. <S> "Where are you? <S> Can you see the gas station? <S> Oh, then you're right outside my building. <S> You are here." <A> Here you are <S> may be <S> You are here but the emphasis is on here .Same <S> thing for <S> There you are .
| You are here is used when you're basically telling someone that they are... here.
|
What does "... somebody who's gonna call you out " mean? I am trying to understand the meaning of the following sentence, but I don't find in the dictionary what "call somebody out" means in this case, since the only meanings given from the OALD are "to ask somebody to come, especially to an emergency" and "to order or advise workers to stop work as a protest" which don't seem to be the correct meaning in this case. In a relationship, you need somebody who's gonna call you out , not someone who's gonna let everything slide. As side question, Google Translate translates "who's gonna" with che ha intenzione di ("who intends"). Is gonna ever used with that meaning, or is always another way of saying "going to"? <Q> Let's start with removing idioms and colloquialism <S> In a relationship, you need somebody who will complain when you've done something wrong, and not someone who ignores (forgives) your faults. <S> First, "gonna" is a colloquialism for "going to". <S> The standard future form "somebody who is going to..." <S> "let something slide" is an idiom that means overlooking/ <S> ignoring some fault on purpose. <S> Say, you were going 80mph on a road with speed limit of 60mph. <S> There was a policeman with a radar, and they did notice you speeding. <S> They did not stop you, no ticket, no fine, nothing - they let it slide. <S> It's not the same as not seeing the fault - it's choosing not to do anything about it. <S> Your original sentence means that for a successful relationship you need a honest feedback from your partner. <S> If something you do ires them, they should tell you. <S> If you keep doing something wrong and they never protest, it damages the relationship. <A> is gonna = <S> ‘is going to’; it may have, but does not have to have, the specific meaning of intend to . <S> In this case it has a ‘generic’ modality and means ‘will habitually’ or ‘will make a practise of’ to call out <S> is to ‘challenge’, <S> in the agentive senses of that word to let X slide in this context means to ‘allow X to pass unchallenged’ <S> So the sentence may be paraphrased: <S> In a relationship, you need somebody who will challenge you[r actions and attitudes], not somebody who will allow [your] every action and attitude pass without challenge. <A> To put this another way, to call someone out means to challenge someone in some way - usually to challenge their ideas or opinions . <S> For example, if I were to say "all of the other stackexchange sites are stupid except for ELL.SE", I would expect a friend (or person I'm in a relationship with) to call me out on this opinion, and ask me to justify it. <S> The person who wrote this is trying to convey the idea that you should be in a relationship with someone who doesn't let you get away with making false claims or using poor logic, they call you out on those weaknesses so that you can improve. <S> Letting that stuff go (or slide) would be to let you continue to have those weaknesses. <S> A reference for this definition of "call out" was conveniently provided by @snailboat in the comments. <S> See this Wiktionary entry (#4).
| "Call you out" is an idiom meaning in this context telling - sometimes even in a harsh way - that you did something wrong; reacting to your doing.
|
What is the difference between “tedious” and “bored”? Are they identical or are there nuances? As I compile my vocabulary list, I pass by a lot of words that seem identical. For example, “tedious” and “bored” . I've researched the two words: bored: feeling weary because one is unoccupied or lacks interest in one's current activity tedious: too long, slow, or dull: tiresome or monotonous. Does that imply that tedious is doing something that I like (but the process is slow so I say it's a tedious task), but bored is when I do something that I don't like or have no interest in, for example doing homework for school? Are these words identical or do they have subtle nuances? If there are differences, then when should I use each word? <Q> These two words refer to the same feeling, but from different perspectives. <S> How I feel is bored. <S> What I am doing is tedious. <S> I am bored because my job is tedious. <S> It bores me. <A> The two concepts are very much related, and both are used to describe monotonous situations. <S> However, while tedious implies repetitive or monotonous – it isn't necessarily negative. <S> A woodcarver, for example, might painstakingly carve a beautiful piece with hundreds if not thousands of careful and meticulous cuts. <S> Rather than finding this tedious work boring , though, she might describe it as relaxing or even comforting . <S> In other words, one antonym for tedious would be exciting , but another antonym might be stressful . <S> A toll-taker might have a tedious job, but, conceivably, the toll-taker might thankful for that tedium, particularly if it's someone who prefers a job that is steeped in routine. <S> On the other hand, boring seems to connote being too unspectacular, to the point where someone would prefer more excitement or activity. <S> While both words can be (and often are) used in a negative sense, I think tedious can be more neutral in some contexts. <S> I think you correctly touched on this in your question when you talked about doing something that you enjoy even if the process is slow. <A> The activity or the material is tedious. <S> The person is bored. <S> The tedious (boring) material makes you bored. <A> Two issues. <S> One: As others have noted, "bored" describes the state of mind of the person, while "tedious" describes a characteristic of the thing. <S> A person can be tedious, but that means that he is tedious to others. <S> An activity cannot be bored. <S> You cannot say, "My math homework is bored. <S> " You can say, "My math homework is boring." <S> Meaning, it causes boredom. <S> Two: "Tedious" means repetitive, monotonous, or long and drawn out. <S> Those are certainly attributes of a task that can cause boredom. <S> But they are not the only possible things that can cause boredom. <S> I might be bored by a task that is highly varied just because it doesn't interest me. <S> Like, I think writing poetry is boring because I'm just not interested. <S> But writing poetry is a highly creative endeavor. <S> I don't think it would be correct to call it tedious. <A> To clarify the different perspectives stated above the way I see it: bored is a passive sense verb and tedious is the active sense verb. <S> In other words, if you are doing nothing or nothing is happening to you can use bored but if you are doing something or something <S> is happening to you can use tedious . <S> Here some extra information that I found on boredom <S> which re-enforces <S> the passivity of the term: <S> Bored - when an individual is left without anything in particular to do, and not interested in their surroundings. <S> I would say boredom is a state in which you fall into through a tedious action or a disinterested state. <S> Applying to others the word " boring "(adv.) <S> can be applied to an item or person which is seen as uninteresting to you. <S> The actions of that item may be said to be tedious . <S> (Don't get too bored !)
| Put another way, something that is tedious is bor ing.
|
Why does Harry Potter put everything on his plate except peppermints in this passage? Harry's mouth fell open. The dishes in front of him were now piled with food. He had never seen so many things he liked to eat on one table: roast beef, roast chicken, pork chops and lamb chops, sausages, bacon and steak, boiled potatoes, roast potatoes, fries, Yorkshire pudding, peas, carrots, gravy, ketchup, and, for some strange reason, peppermint humbugs . The Dursleys had never exactly starved Harry, but he'd never been allowed to eat as much as he liked. Dudley had always taken anything that Harry really wanted, even if It made him sick. Harry piled his plate with a bit of everything except the peppermints and began to eat. It was all delicious. -- Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by JK Rowling. I don’t get from what reason Harry excluded peppermints. Is it just a dessert that has to be picked up after his meal? Or is there any other reason? <Q> Peppermints are, shall we say, not a normal part of a meal. <S> Like all mints, they have peculiar effects on the mouth, changing the taste of anything eaten after them, usually not for the better. <S> And peppermint in particular tends to be associated pretty strongly with toothpaste. <S> You will sometimes encounter after-dinner mints, which are often mint-flavored ( not peppermint-flavored) chocolates, but could be peppermint candies (the round ones with red stripes), or even, indeed, peppermint humbugs. <S> However, as the name "after-dinner mint" implies, these are something eaten after the meal, as a sort of palate-cleanser or breath freshener. <S> That all said, the passage doesn't imply any particular reason for Harry leaving out the peppermints, and there isn't a cultural reference that you're missing or anything like that. <S> Harry could have been putting off the peppermints for eating after dinner, or perhaps he was just a sensible boy who didn't like his food to taste like toothpaste. <S> (Disclaimer: I hate all things mint in any use other than toothpaste. <S> Mint chocolate chip ice cream, in particular, is a mortal sin in my book.) <S> Note that "humbug" as a type of candy is definitely a British term: <S> on this side of the pond, we only use the word "humbug" in the "bah, humbug" sense. <A> The set of items that were on offer for Harry were: { roast beef, roast chicken, pork chops and lamb chops, sausages, bacon and steak, boiled potatoes, roast potatoes, fries, Yorkshire pudding, peas, carrots, gravy, ketchup, peppermint humbugs } <S> He put on his plate everything except peppermints, i.e. he put the following items on his plate: { roast beef, roast chicken, pork chops and lamb chops, sausages, bacon and steak, boiled potatoes, roast potatoes, fries, Yorkshire pudding, peas, carrots, gravy, ketchup } <S> Perhaps he just doesn't like peppermint humbugs. <S> There are no cultural implications for his choice implied by the passage. <A> "roast beef, roast chicken, pork chops and lamb chops, sausages, bacon and steak, boiled potatoes, roast potatoes, fries, Yorkshire pudding, peas, carrots, gravy, ketchup," are all dinner items. <S> Peppermints are more suitable for a snack, or maybe dessert. <S> Harry was smart enough not to mix dessert with dinner. <A> I think another reason is it is supposed to show that despite his deprived upbringing, Harry's still capable of exercising restraint. <S> I think the scene is also indicative of how wizards do things in kind of a weird way compared to muggles. <S> Muggles wouldn't put anything peppermint out with savory dinner things, but wizards do. <A> I daresay, peppermints humbugs have a pretty strong taste. <S> In fact, they're usually use as palate-cleanser or breath freshener. <S> And I suppose, (because I don't know many British's habits) <S> peppermint humbugs should be offered after dinner and many people could find its flavour hot. <S> But everybody knows, Dumbledore's eccentric. <S> It could be the best explanation! <S> Only Jo Rowling knows.
| Peppermint is a dessert, and it wrecks your palate if you try to eat anything after, so it is prudent of him to not take any. No reason is given for his choice, but presumably it is due to his own personal preference.
|
What does “bookend the future” mean? “Bookend the Future” is the title of the tenth chapter in the book Decisive by the Heath brothers. This is the writer's explanation of the concept: Penstock uses a method he calls “bookending,” which involves estimating two different scenarios: a dire scenario (the lower bookend), where things go badly for a company, and a rosy scenario (the upper bookend), where the company gets a lot of breaks. ( Source ) Although I fully understand the concept, I couldn't define a meaning for the word “bookend” and put it into words so I can recall it easily. According to the Oxford online dictionary, Bookend: as a verb means “to be positioned at the end or on either side of (something).” But I think that this definition doesn’t apply here. As far as I understand it, this concept is a kind of guesstimation . I want to know what a native speaker would understand by the phrase “bookend the future”. (I don’t want to have to recall the whole concept every time to interpret the phrase.) Can you help me with a simple definition for the phrase “bookend the future”? <Q> The verb bookend derives from the noun. <S> Bookends come in pairs: <S> So bookends act like brackets. <S> The writer invites to you "bookend" your predictions for the future by imagining a best case and a worst case for your company; the actual outcome will lie somewhere between these. <A> The writer is making up his own definition for the word: You quote his definition. <S> So you wouldn't expect this to be the normal definition or a widely-recognized definition. <S> He's just told you that he's making it up. <S> It's fairly routine for a writer on a specialized or technical subject to make up his own definition for a word for the purposes of this one article or book. <S> If you are writing something and you find that you are repeatedly saying, for example, "machines that use either petroleum products or steam as their source of power and which produce electricity but where the purpose of the machine is not to produce electricity but to perform some other function", it makes a lot of sense to replace twenty such repetitions of this phrase with one word, and then at the beginning of the article say, "in this article I will talk about machines that etc etc. <S> For convenience I will refer to all such machines as cogenerators ", ie, make up a suitable word. <S> This eliminates a lot of repetition, which makes it easier for the writer and easier for the reader. <S> Not to mention sparing the reader from having to figure out that each time you use this phrase you are, indeed, using exactly the same phrase. <S> Or worse, you say the same thing in different ways each time, and now the reader is not sure if you mean the same thing or something different. <S> The only question that remains, then, is how closely his definition resembles the conventional definition. <S> You quote a dictionary definition. <S> That conventional definition describes "bookending" in terms of positioning things on either end of something. <S> The writer's special definition talks about putting an upper and lower limit on outcomes, i.e. put limits on either end of something. <S> So it's pretty consistent with the conventional definition. <A> Source: <S> FM 6-40 Glossary " bracket the future " is better because a bookend is a static device to stabilize books, but bracketing is a practical exercise to discover a setting for your howitzer to hit a distant target, but one that is within range, and within spotter intel. <S> OVER and SHORT correspond to test shots, the spotter radios (feedback) the firing crew whether the last shot went over or was short of the target. <S> Azimuth is adjusted accordingly. <S> Time is likened to distance in the simile.
| There is a better term than " bookend ", " bracket ", as in artillery fire: bracketing a method of adjusting fire in which a bracket is established by obtaining an OVER and a SHORT along the spotting line and then successively splitting this bracket until a target HIT or desired bracket is obtained.
|
Is "I am drinking tea" correct? Grammaticality and worldwide distribution I was having a chat with one of my friends and sipping tea at the same time. He asked me, "what are you doing?" And I replied, "I am drinking tea". It was around 11 in the morning. He said "what an English". Please let tell me if this usage is correct in the context of US and Canadian English. <Q> Perfect English grammar in worldwide use. <S> Sounds like your friend may have meant "what an English person you are!" <S> because tea drinking is a stereotype of us English. <S> Many people think the English love tea... and it might be true . <S> It's also worth noting that if you say "I am having tea" people might think you mean <S> the meal also called tea in the UK. <A> The search on COCA shows following results: Taking tea - 26 <S> Having tea - 43, & <S> Drinking tea - 174. <S> Clearly, ... <S> drinking tea is correct. <S> Nevertheless, I think it's not a good practice to offer <S> drinking of tea to the visitors. <S> Will you drink tea? <S> - Incorrect. <S> Will you take/have tea? <S> - Correct. <S> On the other hand, offering liquor comes as a drink . <S> Will you take a drink? <S> Also, when the case is about a soft-drink, you say: I'm having or taking a soft drink. <S> ( Note : COCA shows one result of 'drinking a soft-drink' from Christian Science Monitor) <A> I am drinking tea <S> is a perfectly acceptable and grammatical sentence. <S> Tea is a beverage, you drink it. <S> It is moreover very common to have a tea break mid-morning. <S> Which sounds awfully British, and quite refined. <S> If instead you have renounced the ancient art of brewing loose tea in a teapot, and like me are now dropping a single tea bag in a chipped mug, filled with freshly boiled water, and waiting exactly one minute before fishing it out with your teaspoon, then say: <S> I'm having some tea. <S> If you say this before 4 p.m people will always understand the beverage . <S> If you say this from 4 p.m and onwards, some British folk might think you are having a light meal, indulging yourself with Devon scones and lashings of clotted cream and jam. <S> But only a few people. <S> People rarely do that sort of thing at home nowadays <S> , it's more likely a couple of rich tea biscuits, or if you're lucky, chocolate digestives. <S> Mmmm.... <S> EDIT <S> The friend who commented “What an English …” didn't get to finish their phrase, for whatever reason, they probably meant: “ What an English thing to do ” <S> However, if “ What an English ” was indeed the complete statement, then he or she was at fault. <S> English is both an adjective and a noun, but when it is used to refer to the people of England the definite article is normally used The English , e.g. The English are a nation of tea guzzlers, every day they drink a 165 million cups. <S> If referring to the language, the article is not needed, e.g.; <S> English is the third most widely spoken language in the world today. <S> Then there is the third meaning, english —note the small letter—which is the spin on a cricket ball. <S> From the context, it is clear that neither of these three meanings were being used. <A> He asked me, "What are you doing?" <S> And I replied, "I am drinking tea. <S> " It was around 11 in the morning. <S> He said "what an English." <S> To my (American) ear, the first three sentences sound natural and grammatically correct. <S> This use of " <S> And" at the beginning of a sentence is informal. <S> Many American English teachers consider it to be incorrect, but it is quite natural when recounting a conversation. <S> I did correct two features of the punctuation: <S> Quoted sentences should start with capital letters, just like unquoted sentences. <S> If a quoted sentence ends with a period, and the wrapper sentence also ends with a period, only the quoted sentence's period is used. <S> The fourth sentence sounds incorrect to me. <S> I would expect: He said, "How English." <S> I would interpret his reaction as being a commentary on what you were doing "around 11 in the morning", and not as a commentary on your dialect. <S> Americans are more likely to drink coffee than tea.
| You could have also said, I am having a cup of tea
|
What does "things went south" mean? What does things all went south mean in the following paragraph? The app has been available in the Google Play store since November 12, apparently with Google's blessing, and Cyanogen says "hundreds of thousands" of users have installed it already. But things all went south on Wednesday, when the Cyanogen team apparently received an email from the Chocolate Factory informing them that the CyanogenMod Installer violated Google Play's terms and conditions. -- www.theregister.co.uk I'm really confused by what this idiom means. Kindly help me out. <Q> The human mind has a natural tendency to make metaphors to describe abstract concepts. <S> In English, one such metaphor is "up" = <S> good, in working order "down" = bad, broken <S> Examples: <S> Is the mail server up ? <S> The server went down yesterday when the hard disk crashed. <S> The dictatorship rose to power in 1969. <S> The regime fell as a result of the coup d'état in 1974. <S> In the heyday of the motor industry, things were looking up . <S> However, since the collapse of the motor industry, Detroit has gone downhill . <S> He hit rock bottom when an alcoholic binge landed him in the emergency room. <S> He has since rebounded . <S> Management approved proposal A, but gave a thumbs down to proposal B. <S> Combine that with the arbitrary convention to orient maps with north pointing up and south pointing down, and you get an idiomatic expression "going south", meaning "turning bad" . <S> Note that these metaphors are not always generalizable. <S> For example, going uphill is not the opposite of going downhill. <S> ("Uphill" usually refers to some kind of struggle.) <S> Similarly, "going north" is not a commonly accepted expression. <S> However, it is possible to say Profits are expected to be north of $3 million this year. <S> … meaning "above 3 million dollars". <A> This (plus a few other English idioms) are used to express that things went bad . <S> Other ways one could phrase this include: <S> things went south <S> things went <S> downhill <S> things took a turn for the worse things turned sour <S> These expressions indicate that things were going well (or, at least, they weren't going too badly) <S> when conditions suddenly worsened. <S> They could be used when talking about the negative trends of, say, a company, a project, a business transaction, a sports match, or a politician's election campaign. <S> For example: He had a comfortable lead in the polls until things went sour . <S> The project looked like it would be completed on time until things took a turn for the worse . <S> A couple related expressions are: things hit rock bottom <S> the bottom fell out but these are perhaps slightly different, in that they seem to imply that things were already getting bad before they got even worse: The Atoms were struggling to climb above .500 when the bottom fell out . <S> Things hit rock bottom when the CFO was indicted on embezzlement charges. <A> It means problems began stacking up uncontrollably. <S> Until certain point the struggle against the problem bore semblance of control and there was a chance of averting it - then something happened, and things went south - the situation got entirely out of control. <S> The flood water was creeping up, but we were reinforcing the embankments with sacks of sand, carrying them to the crests of the embankments on our backs. <S> Then one of drivers of trucks delivering the sacks got the brilliant idea to drive the truck to the crest of the embankment. <S> The embankments soaked with water simply got squished under the weight of the truck. <S> A trickle of water soon turned into a stream, and then into a full-size breach, and things quickly went south - we ran for our lives leaving equipment behind. <S> After the first breach, delivery routes got cut off, new breaches occurred, and soon the nearby power plant got under water too, leaving the electric-powered floodgates without power, and the city at mercy of the flood. <S> In the above - we get from flood prevention to full-scale disaster. <A> Since some people associate south with down, they use it to take the place of 'down' or 'bad'. <S> So the expression "It all went south from there. <S> " just means that everything went wrong from a certain point.
| The expression is just indicating that "It all went wrong/bad (south)."
|
What does the "since" mean? From BBC News: The US, Japan and South Korea say they have since defied the ruling. In this sentence, there is a strange "since" that I cannot understand. In my view, "since" means from a particular time until the present , but what does the word "since" here mean? In other words, I even cannot understand the structure of the sentence. Can anyone tell me? Thanks a lot! <Q> What that ‘particular time’ is, however, does not appear in the sentence itself but in the preceding sentence: <S> China said last week that all aircraft crossing through the zone must file flight plans and identify themselves or face "defensive emergency measures". <S> The US, Japan and South Korea say they have since defied the ruling and flown military aircraft in the area. <S> That is, the US, Japan and South Korea say that since China issued that [ruling] they have defied it. <S> This may be understood in either a continuative or an existential sense (see this ): <S> CONTINUATIVE: <S> The three nations have been defying the ruling continuously throughout the timespan from China's statement to the present. <S> EXISTENTIAL: <S> The three nations have defied the ruling at least once during the timespan from China's statement to the present. <A> Your understanding of since is correct. <S> Perhaps you might get confused with the sentence structure, and <S> maybe also "which particular time" this "since" begins. <S> Let's look at the sentence. <S> I will use parentheses to make it easier to understand, (The US, Japan and South Korea) say (they have since defied the ruling). <S> I believe that you already know that the word "they" refers to <S> "The US, Japan and South Korea" . <S> Now let's analyze this clause: (they) <S> (have since defied) <S> (the ruling). <S> The verb is "have defied" . <S> We also have the adverb "since" to indicate "since when they have defied the ruling". <S> This implies that the reader should have already know this "when", usually from the previous sentences. <S> I found your news in BBC's website. <S> Here are some sentences before the sentence you asked: <S> China says it scrambled fighter jets to monitor US and Japanese planes as they flew in its newly declared air defence zone in the East China Sea on Friday. <S> China said last week that all aircraft crossing through the zone must file flight plans and identify themselves or face "defensive emergency measures". <S> If I understand the news correctly, "the particular time" that our "since" starts from would refer to "last week" , or more specifically the last "Friday" . <A> The meaning of "since" in this context is "since then." <S> So we therefore look at what "then" refers. <S> There was a ruling issued by the Chinese about its airspace on such-and-such a date and time. " <S> Then" refers to this particular time. <S> So "since" has an implied antecendent, which is, "the time that the Chinese issued the airspace ruling."
| Your understanding of since is correct ‘from a particular time until the present’.
|
I find this example sentence for “shuffle” quite subtle, vague and complicated The sentence is quoted from the Oxford American Dictionary under its entry for shuffle : He shuffles out of the consequences by vague charges of undue influence. Apparently, "he" has got out of some consequences , but I can't tell if he does this by being charged or charging someone else . What is the "undue influence" and how does it relate to the vague charges ? I just can't make heads or tails of this sentence, I am lost in it. What on earth is the speaker talking about? Would anybody be kind enough to paraphrase the whole sentence for me? <Q> (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_influence .) <S> For example, I might have to reveal something I do not usually tell anyone to my doctor. <S> If he used such information against me, he would commit an "undue influence" . <S> "Vague charges" means the charges are not concrete enough. <S> The word vague means uncertain , or unclear . <S> The sentence <S> "He shuffles out of the consequences by vague charges of undue influence" <S> might look a bit unfamiliar (OAD noted the definition as archaic ). <S> It also looks almost like it needs a verb-ing after that by , e.g. "avoid the consequences by denying..." , "avoid the consequences by admitting..." , "avoid the consequences by having the court hold the claims..." . <S> How should we understand the sentence, which has no verb-ing after by ? <S> @WendiKidd's suggestion clears this up. <S> You should interpret the sentence as: he can avoid the consequences by claiming that someone else unduly influenced him (and made him do the actions he should be in trouble for). <S> In case you get confused (as I did) and wonder why "shuffles out of ... by ..." should be interpreted that way, please read on. <S> To gain the insight for such usage, besides recalling some simple phrases such as "he goes to school by bus," <S> I searched the web and found some interesting similar uses. <S> Having full passages, the contexts should be much clearer. <S> Here are some of them: if it has managed to avoid the consequences by way of vertical integration, then I am slightly jealous. <S> ( ref ) <S> So if we want to foster innovation in students we need to learn to accept massive, continual failure. <S> Else, we simply will avoid the consequences by inertia. <S> If you do nothing you run no risk of failing in doing something. <S> ( ref ) <S> [excerpt from a chat log] ( ref ) <S> How about we just stop the whole ridiculous idea of DST!? <S> Damn that's tonight. <S> I hate this time change. <S> This is the body's natural time. <S> It's Daylight Savings Time that is the killer. <S> I know how we can avoid the consequences by no more day light saving time! <A> It can be paraphrased as: "He avoided the consequences by implying that somebody (else) exercised power (influence) improperly". <S> Not your everyday spoken English! <A> This sentence might be easier to understand if we try and imagine it in context. <S> Let me frame it as the answer to a question: <S> Question: <S> He's always breaking the rules, why doesn't he get in more trouble? <S> Answer: <S> He shuffles out of the consequences by vague charges of undue influence. <S> Break it Down <S> Shuffles out of the consequences <S> The definition you've cited describes "shuffle out of": <S> Get out of (a difficult situation) in an underhand way. <S> This is basically just saying that he should face consequences but avoids them, while implying that the way in which he avoids them is not entirely honest. <S> The rest of the sentence describes the manner in which he avoids them. <S> by vague charges <S> Vague is an adjective describing the plural noun 'charges'. <S> It means that the charges are not clearly and fully described. <S> Often when one makes up excuses, they are intentionally vague to protect against future examination. <S> Charges is being used here in the 'accusation' sense, although I think a better synonym for this specific usage would be claims in the sense of "a new statement of truth made about something, usually when the statement has yet to be verified". of undue influence <S> This phrase describes the type of charges he is vaguely making. <S> They are charges of undue influence . <S> This means he is saying that someone has used their position of power to influence him in an improper way. <S> In other words, that someone else made him do it. <S> Paraphrase <S> Question: <S> He's always breaking the rules, why doesn't he get in more trouble? <S> Answer: <S> He gets of trouble by making vague claims that someone made him do it.
| "Undue influence" is a legal term used when someone is taking an advantage over another person using his social or professional position.
|
Really + [adjective] vs So + [adjective] Sentence A : She's really sensitive when it comes to talking about her husband. Sentence B : She's so sensitive when it comes to talking about her husband. My question is: from these two sentences, which one that is more widely-used especially in native English speaker environment. <Q> Both of your examples are typical usage for American English, and they have essentially the same meaning. <A> I think 'so in this context <S> adds some astonishment with the fact that she's emotional; whereas really simply talks about the fact that she's emotional. <S> This may make it clear: <S> Yes, I met her for the first time. <S> She's really tall <S> (I had some idea about her height <S> and then it turned out to be real!). <S> Yes, I met her for the first time. <S> She's <S> so tall (that I had to look up to talk to her!). <S> (Here, so serves as " To a very great extent or degree " and suggests that the speaker is actually astonished and didn't think that she could be that tall ). <A> Sentence B seems a little incomplete. <S> When someone is "so something," that often precedes further clarification: <S> She is so sensitive when it comes to talking about her husband <S> that I always avoid the subject . <S> On the other hand: She is really sensitive when it comes to talking about her husband <S> so I always avoid the subject . <S> The <S> so in the second sentences is a conjunction meaning therefore . <S> The Collins dictionary goes into this nuance of the word so : <S> so ( adv .) <S> (followed by an adjective or adverb and a correlative clause often introduced by that ) to such an extent ⇒ <S> the river is so dirty that it smells <S> When so is used to simply mean very , that may work better with an exclamation point at the end: <S> She is so sensitive when it comes to talking about her husband!
| The second one might be slightly more emphatic than the first, if only because if so isn't strongly emphasized then the listener might think the sentence is incomplete, because they would be expecting a "so ... that ..." construction.
|
Is it 'thumb is up' in 'thumbs up'? It was a thumbs up on the new filtration plant at Thursday's village board meeting This is so common but then I never thought too deep unless I became a fan of English language after joining this site! Is thumbs up actually (your) thumb is up ? But then why thumbs ? And not thumb's up - thumb is up (for this matter)? Is thumbs up actually everybody's thumbs up? But then why not thumbs're up ? In above-mentioned case, it says a thumbs up . The article a ? Okay, while doing thumb(s)-up, you don't do it with both the thumbs but with one . So, it's actually thumb's up ! <Q> I searched a bit more and found some interesting information which might give us some clues why we use "thumbs up" (with an 's'), not "thumb up". <S> Gestures: <S> Their Origin and Meanings , who uses the term <S> The Thumb Up in the article and also provides a few images that clearly shows "The Thumb Up", seems to suggest that the term was originally used in Rome, but it seems to signal death, e.g. Dixon, 1896: 'To turn the thumbs up. <S> To decide against. <S> The Romans in the amphitheatre turned their thumbs up when a combatant was not to be spared.' <S> So according to such use, the "thumbs" should refer to those thumbs of people who are in the amphitheater. <S> However, this is not the only theory for this "thumbs up" gesture. <S> You can find many proposed theories of its origin in Wikipedia , which states "The source of the gesture is obscure, but a number of origins have been proposed." <S> For example, this web page says, <S> The thumbs up sign is most commonly (but wrongly) thought to descend from gladiatorial contests in which the audience determined whether the combatant was eligible to live or die by a thumbs up/ thumbs down vote. <S> But there are other theories. <S> There is a old English saying ‘Here’s my thumb on it!’ <S> which was used to seal a bargain. <S> The two people involved each wetted a thumb and then extended it, held upwards, until the two raised thumbs came into contact with one another. <S> It is easy to see how this custom could lead to, or support the idea of holding out a raised thumb as a sign of friendly agreement or approval. <S> The signal has also been used by some ape species, who may just be celebrating the fact that they, like we, have opposable thumbs in the first place. <S> Again, it seems that there are more than one person involved in the act up this use of "thumbs up". <S> Considering these two convincing alternatives of <S> thumbs up 's origin, it's quite plausible that it was originated with the plural thumbs indeed. <A> (One) thumb up ( used as a gesture ) = <S> you are generally showing your approval; you are expressing happiness or wishing someone good luck. <S> (Two) <S> thumbs-up (as in the expression) = an agreement or approval; or a great success ; or even a manifestation of one's happiness. <S> a reaction that shows you like something such as a plan or idea, or that you will accept it <S> Note that many online dictionaries spell thumbs-up with the hyphen. <S> This is something I hadn't noticed until I began researching. <S> Hyphens are normally used in compound nouns and verbs, but nowadays the trend seems to be declining and many will either leave spaces or combine the two or more words into one word. <S> Thumbs up is therefore a compound noun , and as a result you can use it with the indefinite article. <S> It looks plural but the meaning is singular. <S> It means a strong and (sometimes) very enthusiastic approval. <S> "Voters gave a thumbs up to building swimming pool for the town" . <S> Usage notes: often used in the form give the thumbs up (to something): <S> "We have been given the thumbs up and will begin work next week" . <A> There is a gesture which consists of pointing with both thumbs upward. <S> The phrase "the thumbs up" is the name of this gesture . <S> As such, it is not really divisible into "thumb" and "up". <S> We can think of it as having a long name "the well-known two thumbs up gesture", "the thumbs up" being is its popular nickname. <S> Moreover, that "thumbs up" is a category representing manifestations of that gesture, so that we have " a thumbs up" ("an instance of the two thumbs up gesture"). <S> My assistant gave me the thumbs up, indicating success. <S> = <S> My assistant gave me the well-known two thumbs up gesture, indicating success. <S> Several spectators gave me a thumbs up as I tore through the finish line tape in first place. <S> = <S> Several spectators gave me an instance of the two thumbs up gesture. <S> The difference between "a" and "the" is basically the class/instance distinction. <S> " <S> The thumbs up" means we are taking the point of view that this gesture exists as a single abstraction only: there is only one thumbs up in the world, and if we see two people at two different time and places give us "the thumbs up", it is the same entity showing up in two places. <S> " <S> A thumbs up" refers to the manifestation, where the point of view is to regard each one as a separate instance. <S> I received probably more than fifty thumbs up from passers by outside city hall, when I protested the closure of Jenkins Memorial hospital. <S> = <S> The viewpoint that these are instances that can be treated as separate and counted. <S> Fifty people gave me the thumbs up. <S> = <S> The viewpoint that this is one abstract thing, like "encouragement" or "support". <S> Fifty people gave me one thing. <S> Interestingly, we cannot regard, say, "smile" as a class in this way: <S> Fifty people gave me {*the | a} smile. <S> Ah, but no: <S> indeed we can. <S> But the nuance is that this is some special kind of smile. <S> A <S> : Three girls gave me the smile today, man! <S> B: <S> Dude, what are you talking about. <S> What do you mean "the smile"? <S> A: <S> You know, the smile! <S> Like this. <S> ("A" grimaces like a monkey). <S> B: <S> Oh, the smile. <S> You devil, you! <S> Did you get their phone numbers? <A> The ancient Romans used a thumb in gladiator matches. <S> It was used as a signal to spare or to kill a defeated gladiator. <S> It is worth noting that there are funerary sculptures from the Minoans (preceding the Romans and the Greeks) using that signal <S> (though a thumb down signal apparently was a good thing).
| There is also the idiom; (give a) thumbs up to somebody or something to show approval of or support for someone or something
|
When should I use fatherland instead of motherland? Is it politically correct to use either word (fatherland, motherland) to refer to the country of birth? Which one is more appropriate and when? <Q> Let's look at a subtle difference between these two nouns: <S> Fatherland <S> (n): an individual's native country. <S> But it is used more to show patriotism . <S> And, Motherland (n): individual’s native country. <S> The YourDictionary gives an example for fatherland that reflects patriotism - He called upon them to defend the socialist fatherland. <A> Both of these terms are a little loaded. <S> In particular in my mind "fatherland" conjures up Nazi Germany, so I would never use it (but maybe that's just me). <S> I guess I could use "motherland" if I was feeling particularly sentimental, but "homeland" conveys the same with less baggage. <A> They both been "native country." <S> But with some slight differences. <S> "Motherland" is more of a reference to the physical "land," that makes up a country. <S> Think, "Mother Earth."
| "Fatherland" is more of a reference to NATION, that is the concept.
|
What does "go" here mean? "it could be. Madame 's got a gallery somewhere filled with stuff by students from when they were tiny. Suppose two people come up and say they're in love. She can find the art they've done over years and years. She can see if they go . If they match. Don't forget, Kath, what she's got reveals our souls. She could decide for herself what's a good match and what's just a stupid crush." A passage form Never Let Me Go. Does it means if they(the Madame people) can go to check the arts? or if they(the lovers) are really in love? <Q> "Go together" is an idiom meaning <S> "are well-suited to each other", "are compatible", or "make a good pair". <S> You might say, "This lamp and this chair go together" meaning that you think the styles of each are such that they are attractive when placed next to each other. <S> We often say that two people "go together" meaning that we think that they make a good couple. <S> (Perhaps I should clarify that we also say "those two people go together" meaning that they are involved in a dating relationship, which phrase, I think, has totally different origins but ends up being a closely-related idea. <S> The two ideas go together. :-) <S> The word "go" can have other meanings that would fit here, like "work", as in, "Does this car go? <S> " <S> meaning, "Does it work correctly, does the engine run, etc.? <S> " But the next sentence is "If they match", so I think the writer is stating the same idea in two different ways for emphasis, "If they go [together]. <S> If they match." <A> The meaning can be inferred here from the mention of two people. <S> Go here is in the sense of to be acceptable or suitable <S> That is, Madame can see, based on the art in her collection, whether the two people are a match for each other, whether they harmonize. <S> Although I'm not accustomed to hearing this usage in discussions of romance, you could use it any field where complementarity is important, like cuisine, music, fashion, or decor: <S> These shoes and this purse go well. <S> That color is fine for the den, but will it go in the nursery? <S> And I would further say that in all cases it is more common, at least in the U.S., to use phrasal verbs like go with or go together to express the same sentiment. <S> You wouldn't think that egg yolk, sugar, and cayenne pepper go together, but that's how you make a Mae West . <S> Nothing goes with football like beer. <A> I'm not quit sure, but I think 'go' <S> here means 'go together', and if it's that, it means if they can stand each other and live together well.
| I think "go" here is an abbreviated version of "go together".
|
What is difference between "accomplishment" and "achievement" It seems that in my native language is used only one word for translating both words "accomplishment" and "achievement". Are they synonyms? Are there some difference in usage of these words? <Q> The content of this answer was taken from Translation Directory . <S> An accomplishment is a job or project that has been completed. <S> Accomplishments Accomplishment also involve change, but they present the events they refer to as bounded in time. <S> They can be decomposed into two endpoints (the beginning and the culmination of the event) and a process part. <S> Examples of accomplishment are "build a house", "run to the store". <S> Accomplishments can occur in the progressive. <S> They do not occur with time-span adverbials, but do occur with time-frame adverbials. <S> John is running to the store. <S> John ran to the store in an hour/*for an hour. <S> Achievements Achievement are like accomplishments lacking a process part. <S> They denote punctual change. <S> Examples of achievement predicates are "reach the top", "win the race", "find his glasses". <A> I heard an interesting point of view recently regarding this. <S> An achievement is the actual result usually gained against an external or standardised measurement. <S> It doesn't imply success necessarily. <S> An accomplishment is often the acceptance of a goal as being completed successfully. <S> As an example a student may have achieved an 'F' for an exam. <S> This is a measurable assessment based on the results of sitting the exam. <S> However if the student was aiming to get an 'A' then she may not have accomplished her actual goal. <S> If she achieved that 'A' grade then both the accomplishment and achievement would be aligned. <S> If her goal was to just achieve an 'F' then that would be her accomplishment. <A> Let's take the example of athletes. <S> When one completes a race without any cheating, like use of drugs, one has really achieved. <S> When, however, one uses drugs, one has only accomplished the task of completing the race, without achieving anything apart from managing to use drugs in the race. <S> I learnt this from a debate I followed on BBC Television some two or three years back, about whether drugs should be allowed in sports or not. <S> I can't exactly recall the program, but the above difference was given by one of the discussants against use of drugs in sports.
| An achievement is a goal that has been reached.
|
find/make a time for something? -- Shall we go for a vacation? -- Let's __ a time for it. A. make B. find C. get D. fix I narrow the answers down to "make" or "find", and I prefer "find", but there is "make an appointment". What do you think? I also wonder if "time" can be used as a countable noun? I thought it was always uncountable. I would have said "let's find some time for it" instead. What would you think? Thank! <Q> finding a time implies that unallocated time was available and it just needed to be identified and allocated for your purpose. <S> making a time implies that a deliberate decision was made to do something instead of other things. <S> That is, you made the time available by actively forgoing something else. <A> I think much "make time" is more common than "make a time. <S> " I suspect most instances of "make a time" are coming from non-native speakers. <S> ("Find time" is more common than "find a time" although the latter sounds better, but still quite wrong, than "make a time.") <S> But "fix a time <S> " works well when we use "time" as a count noun meaning "date." <S> The sentence "shall we go for a vacation" strikes me as excessively old-fashioned, but maybe it is just British. <S> More commonly, at least in American English, one would say "Let's go on a vacation" or "Do you want to go on a vacation?" <A> I think "fix a time" is the best answer because it covers more aspects of a vacation whereas other terms may imply an effect on time such as finances and logistics, which might not be relevant to both parties.
| In fact, "fix a time" is quite common and in my opinion is the best answer to this question.
|
"Experienced the *fastest* growth"? I have a question about this sentence: Canada experienced the fastest growth in Internet usage. From what I know about superlatives, the grammar structure is: S + be + the + adj. Therefore I am confused about the example. Is the sentence correct? <Q> Yes, it's grammatical. <S> The use of superlative adjectives is not confined to the structure you describe. <A> For using superlatives, there is no formula S + be + the + adj. <S> Although this is common, it is not a rule. <S> The only "rules" are that the comparison is between at least two , and you can use the adj. <S> + -est , <S> or most or least . <S> My most embarrassing mistake tonight was forgetting the name of the hostess. <S> My biggest mistake tonight was forgetting the name of our hostess. <A> The structure you gave is A valid structure, but it is not the ONLY valid structure. <S> Of course the specific words have to make sense in context, but a superlative is an adjective and can be used like one. <S> There's the structure you gave: "Our Internet is fast." <S> "Our Internet is the fastest." <S> But adjectives are used in many other ways. <S> "Today I drove a red car." <S> "Today I drove the fastest car." <S> "Bob, a bald man, took off his hat." <S> "Bob, the biggest man, took off his hat." <S> Etc etc.
| Grammatically, you can use a superlative in any or almost any sentence structure in which you could use an adjective.
|
What does "Virtua" mean? The word "Virtua" is in the name of a lot of video games, for example: Virtua Tennis Virtua Fighter Virtua Racing I couldn't find a definition online. <Q> It's a name, made up on the spur of the moment, probably meant to resemble Virtual. <S> Brand names and trade marks don't have the follow the traditional rules of grammar :) <A> I could not find the word virtua either. <S> Many times, the game makers and webmasters choose the word close to a meaningful word (here, probably virtual ). <S> This generally happens as the main phrase as a website URL is not available or the phrase/game virtual tennis is already registered. <S> It's not observed that every game name conveys a message or have a proper spelling . <S> Game makers and webmasters do enjoy such flexibility. <A>
| It's a word that was made up by Sega and applied to many of their early 3D games.
|
Can I use "The sun is falling on me" while describing that there is heat? Can I use the above mentioned sentence to indicate that the sun rays are falling on me? Or is there any proper sentence to express it? <Q> There are the less techical and more poetic forms: <S> I was bathed in sunlight. <S> I was sun drenched. <S> I basked in the sunlight, <S> I felt the sun on my face/skin. <S> The sun warmed my skin. <S> I was sun-kissed. <S> It real can go on like this for a while. <S> Our relationship with the light of the sun is a long and complex one, so there are many pharses used to describe it. <A> The sun is falling on me is certainly incorrect. <S> If the sun falls on us, we burn in less than a nanosecond! <S> The better adjective is intense sun rays . <S> Some months back, the news that drew everybody's attention mentions it. <S> That's what happened to London motorist Martin Lindsay, who told the BBC that the wing mirror and badge portions of his Jaguar had melted due to intense sun rays reflecting off the Walkie Talkie tower. <S> Oxford explains intense (v) : Intense (adj): of extreme force, degree, or strength as in the heat is intense . <S> There's no need to mention you in this context. <S> When the heat is intense, it affects everyone. <S> So, simply to answer your question. <S> The heat is intense outside. <A> One idiom is “the sun is beating down on me” (for oppressively hot or burning sunshine). <S> To describe that the light falling on you, without any mention of heat, you could say “the sun shine is falling on me” or “the sun light is...”. <S> But it sounds incomplete <S> , why is the sunlight significant? <S> It would be more common to say something like “I am getting hot in the sun”. <S> In this case “in the sun” would be understood to mean “exposed to the sunlight”; you're not actually inside the sun. <S> If there is not too much heat, you might say “the sun is warming me”. <S> If you're talking about a saying where there is strong ambient heat (not necessarily from hot sunshine), a native English speaker would more liken it to being in an oven, rather than falling into the sun: <S> “It's like an oven out here!” <S> “I'm baking” <S> “This heat is like a furnace.”
| “The sunlight is falling on me, and I am getting hot” would be more meaningful.
|
They have been to Washington (they are there now vs. they are back now) I have have been reading about the present perfect and come across this example on this page . First have a look at the example and then find my question below, please. The Martin family are on holiday in North America. Here are their travel plans: Monday – am Niagara Falls, Canada. pm Fly to New York City. Tuesday – New York City Wednesday pm.– Arrive in Washington Thursday - Washington Friday– am Fly to Boston It’s Wednesday morning. Are the sentences true or false? [The Martin family have already (been) to Washington.] [The Martin family have not yet been to Boston.] [The Martin family have visited New York City.] Let's suppose it is Wednesday evening ( not morning). How do we differentiate between: Yes, they have; which means they have arrived and they are there now which I think is what the authors would write if it was Wednesday evening, and Yes, they have; which means they have gone and come back as in: Have they been to Washington? Yes, they have. Some related information: An interesting answer to the question: Have been to/have been in a place A Youtube video of an English teacher teaching the present perfect tense with verb to be: The verb "be" in the present perfect tense: have been . Clicking on the link takes you directly at 2m:53s where he uses this example: The have been in Washington since Monday . <Q> Restatement of the Question <S> I'm going to restate your question in the following way... <S> (I'll explain why by the end of the post.) <S> As of Wednesday evening, how would a fluent speaker answer each of the following questions: <S> Has the Martin family been to Washington yet? <S> Has the Martin family been to Boston yet? <S> Has the Martin family been to New York City yet? <S> Short Answer <S> I would answer those questions in the following way: <S> The Martin family is currently in Washington. <S> Not yet. <S> Yes, they have. <S> Long Answer <S> The key is that whenever you ask if someone has completed an activity that has a duration, there are really three possible answers: <S> Yes. <S> [The person has completed the activity.] <S> Not yet. <S> [The person hasn't started the activity.] <S> They're doing it now. <S> [The person has started the activity but hasn't finished.] <S> Asking if someone "has been" somewhere yet is asking about an activity with a duration -- the activity starts when the person arrives and finishes when the person leaves. <S> People will normally distinguish between the three possible situations (hasn't started, started but not finished, finished) in their answer. <S> The result is that it's hard to say whether the statement "the Martin family has been to Washington" is true or false, since it's a little of both, which is why I suggested restating your question the way I did. <A> The Martini family is due to arrive in Washington on Wednesday afternoon. <S> We have this information, we know their plans. <S> We also know that they are staying in Washington on Thursday, and flying to Boston on Friday. <S> It is Wednesday morning . <S> A friend asks me: Are the Martini family in Washington (yet)? <S> Me: <S> No, not yet. <S> They must be still on the plane <S> Therefore, the Martini family are not in Washington. <S> Wednesday evening . <S> The same friend could ask three questions: 1) <S> Are the Martini family in Washington (yet)? <S> 2) <S> Have <S> the Martini family arrived in Washington? <S> * 3) <S> Have <S> the Martini family been to Washington? <S> My answers: 1) <S> Yes, they are . <S> They arrived this afternoon. <S> OR 1) <S> Yes, they are already in Washington. <S> 2) <S> They arrived in the afternoon. <S> 3) <S> They're still in Washington, <S> they're staying for two days but they're flying to Boston on Friday morning. <S> Therefore, the family Martini are in Washington. <S> It is early Friday afternoon . <S> A different friend asks me: 1) <S> Are the Martini family in Washington? <S> 2) <S> Have <S> the Martini family arrived in Washington? <S> * 3) <S> Have <S> the Martini family been to Washington? <S> My answers: 1) <S> No, they aren't . <S> 2) <S> Yes, that was on Wednesday. <S> They're going to Boston now. <S> I don't know if they've arrived yet. <S> 3) <S> Yes, they went on Wednesday and stayed two nights there. <S> They should be on their way to Boston now. <S> I don't know what time their flight lands. <S> Therefore, (on Friday) the family Martini are not in Washington. <S> they are travelling to a different destination. <S> In other words, they have been to Washington. <S> Some speakers will also say: " <S> The family have gone to Washington. <S> " This is considered ungrammatical or careless by some. <S> The past participle of the verb be should be used in cases such as these, when we want to express that someone has gone to a destination and is either coming back home or going to a different place. <S> Been is used to describe completed visits . <S> If somebody has been to Washington twice, he or she has travelled there and back twice. <S> If somebody has gone to Washington, he or she has not yet returned. <A> "They have been" means they was there <S> and they are not there now. <S> It is the Perfect Tense. <S> Prefect has the sense "finished" here. <S> Not to mix with the Prefect Continuous Tense! <S> They have been doing something till now. <S> They are still doing it now. <S> In your example the verb "be" in its form "been" is a main verb, and in the "have been doing" <S> it is a service verb. <S> So, we can't say "They have been to Washington" at Wednesday evening yet. <S> You say, "They are in Washington" instead. <S> Also, look at this post on EL&U .
| Yes, they have .
|
The pronunciation of the word "a" Most times we hear that the word a is pronounced as [ə], but sometimes I hear that the word is pronounced as [ei] in American English. Such as the following sentence: From VOA Special English: She says governments must make that goal of a continental free trade area a reality. The first a is pronounced as [ei], the sencond a is pronounced as [ə]. Why? Does it have some regularity in it? <Q> The two are fairly interchangable, in my opinion as a native [British] speaker. <S> [ə] is more common in general, but really there's not much in it. <S> [ə] can be dragged out more than [ei] when hesitating. <A> The way I see it is, when you stress, you use ei instead of schwa. <S> A quote note from Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary <S> ei is the strong form, while ə is the weak form. <S> Weak form word. <S> The strong form / ei / is used mainly for contrast (e.g. "This is a solution, but not the only one."). <S> The weak form only occurs before consonants, and is usually pronounced /ə/. <S> In rapid speech, when /ə/ is preceded by a consonant, it may combine with the following /l/, /n/ or /r/ to produce a syllabic consonant (e.g. 'got a light' ...; 'get another' ...). <A> The word is pronounced "uh" as shown in a dictionary with a Schwa mark. <S> Please bring me a (uh) book. <S> If the person brings you two books <S> you say"I want <S> a (ei) book, not two!" <S> When you are stressing the word you pronounce it "ei". <S> Many teachers teach this wrong, always teaching little children to make the "ei" sound. <S> No one who is speaking pronounces it that way...unless the word is being stressed. <S> Then, and only then, is the word pronounced "ei" .
| When emphasizing, we tend to use use [ei] more often than when not emphasizing.
|
"Not I" or "Not me"? After asking about “me” for answering a question. at Answering a question with "Me" instead of "I" + <auxiliary verb> , I think I understand how to use “me” for answering a question. However, I just remembered reading a children book, The Little Red Hen , many months ago and I found some sentences from that book. “Who will help me to plant this wheat?” the little red hen asked her friends. “ Not I, ” said the cat. “Not I,” said the rat. “Not I,” said the pig. I don’t understand why those animals say “Not I.” I think they should say “Not me.” Or is it that for speaking we should say "not me", but for writing "not I" is more appropriate? <Q> Mignon Fogarty explains the situation fairly well at the following page. <S> http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/it-is-i-versus-it-is-me <A> "My brother eats sprouts but not I" must be correct, because "not I" is short for "I don't eat sprouts"; it's not short for "Me don't eat sprouts"- unless it's a Neanderthal in a cartoon speaking. <A> The correct usage is "Not I". <S> The supposed performer of the the action of helping is the subject "I", not the object "me" <A> " Not I " is grammatically correct but old-fashioned and formal. <S> People don't speak like that nowadays. <S> " Who took my book? " <S> If you say " Not I " that means " I didn't take your book " If you say " Not me " (which is the prefered version) <S> that means " It wasn't me who took your book " <S> The same is in the affirmative sentences, where the " I " version is formal. <A> I suspect I is correct <S> but 'not me' would be emphatic i.e. (implied) <S> definitely not me (and correct). <S> And re the <S> Who took my book example, it should strictly be 'it wasn't I who took...' because (nerdy here) <S> the verb to be takes a complement (I, she, we) not an accusative (me, her, us)i.e. <S> the 'it' and <S> the I are the same thing (exit left before someone shoots me) <A> If you want to convey a slightly old-fashioned or posh persona, say ‘Not I’; if you want to be down with the kids say ‘Not me’. <S> Either is fine, both would be understood. <S> I’ll leave it to you to decide whether ‘Not I’ is simply correct or hyper-correct.
| As discussed in the comments above, "Not I" is the more formally correct structure, but "Not me" may be more common in everyday speech.
|
Is there a single word that means "not many people"? I am writing about beaches. There are sandy, notManyPeoply beaches. notManyPeoply beaches are beaches with only a few people on them. How do I say it in one word? I'm looking for a positive adjective to describe that the beaches are not overcrowded. In Russian it is "немноголюдно". <Q> How about uncrowded ? <S> Does it count as positive? <A> The proper meaning is that there is nobody there. <S> However, it is also used when there are only a few people somewhere, in an exaggerated sense. <S> For instance, suppose we are on a street with many restaurants on a busy night, such that most of them are full, and we see a place with people seated at only one table, with seven other tables empty. <S> The natural thing to say is "Look, that place is deserted!" <S> or "there's nobody in there", which isn't factually true. <S> "Deserted" is neutral; it is positive or negative based on the context. <S> " <S> Let us find a deserted beach where we can be alone". <S> Places that are deserted habitually are isolated, abandoned, uninhabited, solitary, vacant and so on; all such words have a different nuance of meaning. <S> "There are sandy, isolated beaches. <S> " is not a bad way to express your sentence. <A> Update to my silly verse, after critiques and down-votes: never mind the words used in it, the "quiet, peaceful, secluded" (offered above, especially Damkerng T's quiet ) are the best choices, IMHO. <S> There are sandy, quiet beaches, free-to-roam , <S> Unencumbered by people, lapped by foam. <S> Splashed by languishing azure, <S> beachgoer-free Bather-fetterless and softly lulled by sea
| One useful word which says that there are no people somewhere, or very few, especially in a place where people are sometimes expected to be, is deserted .
|
Referring to noon today What would a native English speaker say when he's making a promise to meet at today's noon? For example: I'm going to meet you this noon. Does the sentence above sound weird to a native English speaker? What would be the best and most polite way to rephrase this in a native English speaker environment? <Q> It seems strange for me to say to a friend: "I'm going to meet you at ...". <S> It's as if I were telling them what to do. <S> It's fine if the listener is your child, but otherwise? <S> I suppose if the listener had forgotten about our appointment then it would be then possible to say: What? <S> Don't you remember? <S> I'm going to meet you today at noon . <S> The preposition used with noon is at .However, it is worth pointing out that not all English native speakers will say, noon . <S> British speakers will tend to opt for midday or even lunchtime . <S> The latter is often said, especially between employees working in the same company. <S> Their lunchtime may or may not start at 12.00. <S> Obviously, if they are both at their desks until 13.00 then lunchtime would be at that hour. <S> Therefore a British English speaker might say: We're meeting at midday , today. <S> EDIT : <S> If you have not already arranged and fixed a meeting with your friend then Hellion's suggestion is the most appropriate one. <S> With promises, the modal will is commonly used. <S> I'll meet you today at noon <S> I'll meet you (tomorrow/on Monday/this Tuesday etc.) <S> at midday A more polite sentence is to form a request or suggestion using one of the following modals: shall , would , could, and can. <S> 1) Shall we meet today at noon? <S> 2) <S> Would you mind if we met today at noon? <S> 3) <S> Could we meet at midday? <S> 4) <S> Can we meet each other at lunchtime? <A> Yes, that does sound a bit off, even though "this morning" and "this afternoon" can both be perfectly valid. <S> (I think that it's because "noon" is a specific point in time, rather than a span of time.) <S> Most likely <S> If you need to clarify what day you'll be meeting, you can say I'll meet you at noon today. <S> [or "at noon tomorrow", or "at noon next Tuesday"] <S> (you can also put the time after the date if you want, as in "today at noon".) <A> In this case, context is everything. <S> It is almost never the case that when talking to someone it is ambiguous as to whether you intend to meet them at midnight rather than at noon , and hence most native speakers would simply say: <S> I'll meet you at 12 ! <S> Let's meet at the cafe at twelve o'Clock . <S> In the unlikely event that there is ambiguity, you can always just say noon : <S> We're going to gather at my house to watch the cricket, which starts at noon . <S> The ship will be getting into the Maldives at noon . <A> "Noon" is generally understood as 1200 hours. <S> If you mean "high noon", when the sun is highest overhead, this varies with time of year on official time systems. <S> In Hawaii, this was 1247 in mid-February, crept back to 1229 in mid-May, and is now 1230 on 23 May. <S> "Meet you at 12 noon" might not be elegant, but perhaps the clearest way to express that thought.
| I would simply say I'll meet you at noon.
|
Using "where" twice in a sentence I wrote this sentence: "Don't know if it was written intentionally. But I came across a piece of writing from a reputed source, where "antisocial" is written where "unsocial" would be appropriate." Is it ok to use "where" twice in this sentence? Does this sentence make any sense? <Q> Nearly all native speakers would understand it without difficulty. <S> (I qualify that because speaking in absolutes is dangerous.) <S> However, as the comments have noted, repetition of the same word in one sentence is normally discouraged. <S> (As an example, see Carolyn Jewel's site , which popped up in a quick search.) <S> This isn't because it's syntactically wrong, it's because people are only human. <S> Humans in general crave novelty, and when a writer misuses repetition, boredom sets in. <S> There are times and places where repetition is appropriate. <S> AllWriteFiction discusses correct use of this writing technique. <S> It's a powerful tool, but like any tool it can be damaging as well as creative. <S> Regarding the particular writing sample you're inquiring about, my personal reaction is to reword it slightly (in the same way Tyler James Young notes in the comments): <S> I don't know whether it was deliberate, but in this piece of writing I encountered recently, the author used antisocial in a context where I feel unsocial would fit better. <S> It's a reputable source, but... <S> TL;DR: <S> The sentence as written is technically correct, but should probably be reworded so as to avoid disconcerting the reader. <A> Yes, it's okay, and it makes sense, but it's a bit awkward, somewhat like @Jim's example of " Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, " though that is an extreme example of awkwardness that obscures the intended meaning, however logically clear it might actually be. <S> In your example, the meaning is clear enough, though one might still have to read it over a couple extra times to be sure. <S> Another problem is that repetitive word use sometimes gets criticized, and syntactical variety is often taken as an element of good writing. <S> You may want to explore the deeper issue, which is also addressed briefly here . <S> As suggested there, you might consider some alternate word choices, such as, "A reputed source, in which / wherein "antisocial" is written where "unsocial" would be appropriate," or alternate organizations, such as, "A reputed source, the author of which wrote "antisocial" where "unsocial" would be appropriate." <S> "A reputed source that used "antisocial" where "unsocial" would be appropriate." <S> As an aside, you might also like to know the difference between unsocial and asocial . <S> Even as a personality psychologist, I didn't know it myself, and had never seen the word "unsocial. <S> " I like it! <A> There are a few things I would change; the double "where" doesn't really bother me, but the punctuation, the missing subject pronoun, tense, and word order do. <S> But your short text is quite acceptable. <S> You could leave it at that and the reader would be informed. <S> In the end it's all a question of style. <S> Anyway, here's my contribution. <S> I don't know if it was written intentionally <S> but I was surprised to read from a reputable source, the word "antisocial" instead of "unsocial". <S> The preposition; instead of , is used in cases where one "thing" is substituted with another. <S> "He ordered chicken instead of fish" I could use "when" as a conjunction, I don't know if it was written intentionally, but I was surprised to come across the word "antisocial" when "unsocial" would have been more appropriate. <S> And it was from a reputable [author/publication/newspaper etc.] <S> too. <S> When 5. <S> conj. <S> Whereas; although: *She stopped short when she ought to have continued* And finally, because that small piece could be rewritten fifty different ways, using where : I don't know whether it was intentional or a misprint, but I was surprised to read in a reputable source the word "antisocial", where "unsocial" should have been used. <S> Where conj. <S> 11. in or at which place; <S> and there : "They came to the town, where they lodged for the night" <A> If you only wish to follow the Flaubert's rule not to repeat the words, try: <S> But I came across a piece of writing from a reputed source, where "antisocial" is written whereas "unsocial" would be appropriate." <S> I wouldn't say the sentence mentioned is incorrect grammatically. <S> But stylistically, it is not so good. <S> I would write instead: <S> But I have seen a text, in a reputed source, with the word "antisocial" used instead of the more appropriate "unsocial".
| The sentence as it is written is grammatically correct.
|
"Important to me" or "Important for me" I cannot easily figure out which one is more appropriate to use: It's important to me. It's important for me. Are they the same? If not, what's the difference? <Q> The simple explanation is that " important to " is something you value, while " important for " is something you need, or that will help you in some way. <S> A nice example is: <S> " It is important for you to get well " ~ your life will be improvedby returning to health <S> " It is important to your family that you get well " <S> ~ they put a highvalue on you being healthy. <S> There is a large grey area, particularly if you are talking about personal experiences. <S> Passing an exam, for example, is something you put a high value on (or you would never have started the course) and will also benefit you in terms of career. <S> In this case, it is ' important to ' and ' important for ' you. <A> The word for is used to address the object, target or use of an action/activity. <S> It's also used for rightness. <S> ' <S> Important for ' me - in my opinion, this is essential. <S> Getting this job is very important for me, I'm in great financial crises. <S> My kid's education is very important to me, I'll put her in the best school in the town. <A> In most cases the to part would work for the for one but not the other way around. <S> But if you are picky, the first one means that whatever you are talking about is important to you because it's affecting you. <S> In the second one you are merely expressing your thoughts and the thing may or may not affect you.
| In your example, they probably means the same thing. On the other hand, 'Important to ' is to show the direction toward - I'm the receiver, it'll affect me.
|
What's the best way (word or phrase) to say "out of pattern"? Person 1: Flipkart.com sends the ordered materials to your home via post within 2-3 business days. Person 2: Meh, I have seen them being late; one of my friends got his ordered material after 10 days!! Person 1: I would say that is a out of pattern case! So what is the best way to say "out of pattern" here? I want to mean a "discreet" occurence i.e. which does not usually occur. "Discreet" is the word I use in my mother tongue in this case. Can it mean the same in English too? <Q> Given your context, I would say: That's not the norm. <S> NOAD defines norm as "something that is usual, typical, or standard". <S> You might also word it as: <S> Well, that's an exception. <S> Other words you could consider are aberration or atypical , as in "That sounds like an aberration," or "That seems like an atypical case to me." <A> Person 2: <S> Meh, I have seen them being late; one of my friends got his ordered material after 10 days!! <S> Person 1: I would say that was the exception rather than the rule . <S> Merriam-Webster defines the idiom as: “ not common or usual : not often done, seen, or happening : rare ” <S> For something a little more colloquial, you can say that was a once in a blue moon episode. <A> You can say unusual , e.g., "That's an unusual case" . <S> But it might be enough just to say <S> Another word is atypical , but it might be more suitable in writing. <S> By the way, I take it that you meant discrete , not discreet . <A> A phrase with a structure similar to " out of the pattern ": <S> That's out of the ordinary . <A> I'd not use out of pattern because it doesn't really sound idiomatic to me. <S> In the context provided, I'd say, That's a bit unusual. <S> That's a bit odd. <S> Or something along these lines. <A> If it's merely a small deviation from the pattern, That's irregular. <S> That's an irregular behavior. <S> is a semi-formal (in formal contexts - just standard, in informal contexts - humorous) way of phrasing it. <A> You could say: <S> This is not the usual case. <S> This is out of the ordinary. <S> This is an atypical case. <S> This is a nonstandard case. <S> However, I would stick to " abnormal " as in " This is an abnormal case. ". <S> Something that is abnormal is out of the ordinary, or not typical. <S> Abnormal is a combination of the Latin prefix ab which means “away from,” and the English word normal. <S> It essentially means “not normal,” or "unusual.” <S> Abnormal implies that whatever is “not normal” is also undesirable.
| "That's unusual" .
|
What's the meaning of "Late Wednesday night"? Does Late Wednesday night mean last Wednesday night or on Wednesday this week, but in the late night ? The translation tells me that the first explanation is right, but I cannot find a relative explanation in the dictionary. The dictionary says: late is used to refer to the part near the end of a period of time , and has some examples: a late eighteenth century building in the late 1980s So, which meaning is correct? <Q> It means "Wednesday night, at a late hour". <S> Not even necessarily this Wednesday - this is not specified. <S> It's the same phrasing as in the dictionary <S> and I don't think "late" ever means "last" like you implied. <S> Possibly you confused it with "latest", which would mean "last" but used mostly with events marking time, not with common day/month/etc ("during the latest Burning Man fair, last August" - you wouldn't say "latest August"). <A> It would depend on context. <S> Typically though, at the very least the phrase is referring to 'late in the night on a Wednesday'. <S> In general, Late Wednesday night without any additional qualifiers could refer to any number of Wednesdays, though. <S> It could refer to the next upcoming Wednesday, late at night. <S> It could also refer to any Wednesday in the past or future, at late at night on that day. <S> Some examples: <S> "How was your week?" asked Sam. <S> "It was good. <S> Though late Wednesday night John and I went to a party; just to find that it had been cancelled..." replied Jake. <S> In this case, the speaker is referring to the most recent Wednesday. <S> Context is provided by the question posed by Sam. <S> Even without that question, Jake's response uses the past tense, implying that a past Wednesday is being referred to. <S> "Three years ago, on a late Wednesday night, there was a murder in this apartment." <S> In this case, the speaker is referring to a Wednesday night from three years ago. <S> "In three weeks, late Wednesday night, we are having a party at my house." <S> In this case, the speaker is referring to a Wednesday night three weeks from now. <S> In all cases, the only thing that changes is which Wednesday is being referred to. <S> The 'late' and 'night' only refer to what time of the day is being discussed rather than which day it is. <A> Late Wednesday night meaning is closer to on Wednesday this week, but in the late night . <S> Regarding the other two examples, they can be rephrased as a building built in the end of the eighteenth century and in the end of 1980s .
| It could refer to last Wednesday (the most recent Wednesday in the past), late at night.
|
How do I instruct my daughter to take out the books as per her school's time-table? The scene is I'm instructing my 8-yr-old daughter to take out the text-books and notebooks as per her time table for any day. It's clear that I can say - Rhyme, take out the books as per your time-table. But then, is there any shorter way? Take out your time-table? or Put your subjects for tomorrow sounds improper. <Q> It’s not quite clear what you mean by taking books out ‘as per’ a timetable. <S> Taken literally, it would mean “Take out your books at the time or times your timetable calls for you to do so”; since you appear to be issuing a current rather than a prospective command, that time would be now. <S> If that is the case, this might be expressed Rhyme <S> , it’s time to get your books out. <S> Your original reference to ‘tomorrow’, however, make it more likely that what you mean is “Take out your books and set them in the order in which your timetable says you will need them”. <S> If that is the case, you may say exactly that the first time you are instructing her; thereafter, when she has learned the drill, you may say Rhyme, get your books ready [for tomorrow]. <S> In any case, avoid the phrase as per . <S> It’s a fossil from 19th century commercial English, and although it survives (regrettably) in some business contexts it is not used either in conversation or in formal writing. <S> It is certainly far too pompous and stuffy an expression to be used with children, except in jest. <A> We rarely refer to a school schedule as a "time-table". <S> The word "time-table" is most often used to refer to the schedule of trains or airplanes, or of an organized project. <S> For schools we generally talk about a "school schedule" or "class schedule". <S> (I'm speaking as an American here. <S> Maybe this is different in other English-speaking countries.) <S> As StoneyB says, it's not quite clear from your question whether you mean the books she needs, the books she will need at some specific time, or all the books she will need over an extended period of time. <S> "Get out the books you will need for tomorrow." "Get out all the books you will need next week." Or maybe, "Arrange your books so that you can find the ones you will need for each class" or something of that sort, if that's what you mean. <A> I'd probably just ask her <S> Do you have your books [ready] for tomorrow?
| Conventional phrases would be: "Get out the books you need now."
|
How is "pwned" pronounced, and what does it mean? Following the new Troy Hunt web site , http://haveibeenpwned.com/ , I'm curious to know exactly what it means and how to pronounce it. Since it seems there are many jokes about it, I don't want to make a mistake with my English colleagues. Troy gives us the following definition: Pwn: from the verb own, as meaning to appropriate or to conquer, compromise or control. <Q> As you may know, pwn is a typo for "own." <S> In the context of a game, "own" is slang for "completely defeat the opponent; win by a large margin. <S> " The word "pwn" is only used for "own" in this sense. <S> Because it originated on the internet recently, is slang, and has no obvious pronunciation, there is no uniform pronunciation for "pwn. <S> " I have personally heard native English speakers argue that it should be pronounced like pawn, like pone, and like own. <S> My personal preference is pone; that seems to be the funniest pronunciation. <S> It is safe to say that this word is quite slang (though not vulgar). <S> Many, perhaps most, English speakers will not understand you if you use it. <S> On the other hand, it's ubiquitous on the internet. <A> It is typically used in internet talk and means owned. <S> i.e. I pwned him in a game of Battlefield <A> Well, lots of people pronounce it 'poned', 'pawned' or even owned. <S> I prefer 'pone' but to be honest, there is probably no right way to say it. <A> Something no ones mentioned is that the p may not be a typo even if it is next to the O on the keyboard. <S> Within the letter P you have the vertical line of an "I" joined with an "O". <S> I'm guessing the original intent <S> was that it was a trick leet shortening of "I owned". <S> The pronunciation I think is as everyone else has said , poned. <A> it was a hacker culture term years before gamers got hold of it. <S> i heard it back in the late 80s / early 90s. <S> pwn is a typo because on standard english keyboards the o and the p are right next to each other, the i is on the other side of o, not between them. <S> i pwned that system... <S> meaning you got an exploit that gave you total access to do what you wanted with it. <S> pronounced, it's either just own or pone (like corn pone, not p-one). <S> pronouncing the p was kind of a n00b thing to do. <S> definitely not 1337. <S> pwn, pwns, pwn'd, pwnage, pwnzor look up leet-speak <S> it's older than you think! <A> I have heard it pronounced "poned" (sounds like "owned"). <S> Since it originated as a typo for "OWNED" I'd say that pronunciation makes the most sense. <A> I prounounce it as p-eu-nd, or pew-nd. <S> (a word that sort of rhymes with pew-nd: ew)
| The way I've always heard it pronounced is poned (it rhymes with own) It is a typo for 'owned'.
|
What does "crack" mean in this sentence? Karen closed her accounts, only to have the criminal crack open the new ones she'd opened and drain those too. Before this sentence, the passage stated that a criminal stole Karen's purse, which contained her ID card and some credit cards. Then the criminal used the credit cards to scam thousands of dollars from her. So what does "crack" mean here? Is it a verb or noun ? I feel it should be something like "deceive", but I cannot find a proper definition in my dictionary. If it is a verb , how do I interpret the word "open" after it? Does the word "crack" have some such use as crack do sth. ? If it is a noun , what's the exact meaning of it? Thanks. <Q> (When you break something, it is quite likely that it will also make a sound of cracking.) <S> Perhaps you might be a bit more familiar with this usage: <S> Police said they have cracked the case of ... <S> It is quite natural that the acts of "cracking" and "opening" usually come together. <S> Thus, the phrase verb: crack open . <S> Here is its definition by the Free Dictionary, crack open [for something brittle] to break or split open. <S> The egg cracked open and a chick worked its way out. <S> The side of the mountain cracked open and molten lava flowed out. <S> The sentence in your question means: <S> the criminal cracked open the new accounts she had opened. <S> Usually, to crack open a bank account is not an easy thing to do. <S> Also note that, crack open can also mean open just only a little (see "Would you please crack open the window? <S> " <S> in J.R.'s answer). <S> I also recommend reading the whole of J.R.'s answer. <A> When crack is used with open , that's usually to indicate one of two things: <S> Something is opened only by a small amount , i.e., only by the size of a crack <S> Something is opened but <S> it was not easy to open <S> (this is the usage in your question) <S> Examples of the first usage would include: <S> Would you please crack open the window? <S> (i.e., open it just a little bit; I don't want it wide open ) <S> Examples of the second usage typically involve things like nuts, safes, and computer accounts. <S> When opening something with a hard shell (like a walnut, or a cooked lobster claw), you typically do so by cracking it open. <S> There's often a challenge involved; sometimes you can't even do it without the aid of a tool (although there are some exceptions, such as an egg, which will crack open relatively easily). <S> Words like "safecracking" refer to that challenging aspect of opening a safe. <S> You don't want to open the safe just a little bit, you want to open the safe by some illicit means. <S> The same goes for computer accounts – <S> the difference between logging in to an account and cracking open an account is the amount of work involved with obtaining the password or hacking the account. <A> The word "crack" is a verb here, and it is in the subjunctive mood. <S> The specific pattern here is: have [subject] [present-tense-subjunctive-verb] Of course, there are patterns with other modal verbs and so forth. <S> For instance: I'll have Johnny <S> do his homework <S> I will have you kids <S> be quiet. <S> Bob had the plumber <S> fix the boiler. <S> I watched the seagull crack open the clam by dropping it. <S> For most verbs, the present tense subjunctive uses the infinitive form. <S> Normally, the verb would conjugate to match the subject: "Johnny does", "kids are" and "plumber fixes". <S> If you don't have a good feeling for subjunctives, you may be confused by "criminal crack". <S> What is that, the noun "crack"? <S> If it is the verb, why isn't it "criminal cracks?" <S> Further confusion may be caused by "crack open", where you might suspect that "open" is a verb; when in fact it is an adjective denoting an open state, as in "open book". <S> If you know subjunctives, but not "crack open", you might be fooled into reading it as: <S> * had the (criminal crack) [open: subjunctive] the new ones. <S> [Maybe a crack is some kind of person, who can be of a criminal type?] <S> In fact "crack" is an adjective for someone with great skill; but for this meaning to be in effect, the grammar has to be "crack criminal" not "criminal crack". <A> To add to J.R.’s last paragraph: in the past few decades, crack (as a verb) has acquired the meaning of “commit computer crime”. <S> Most people consider crack to be synonymous with hack in this context;some people in the computer security field prefer to use hack to refer tosolving difficult computer problems (such as penetrating security systems),without the connotation of malice. <S> See <S> Is the term “hack” more positive or more negative? <S> on EL&U. <A> "Crack" means "to break into", as in "safecracking" or " cracking a password ". <S> "Hack" means "to do something fun or useful", as in driving a cab, writing a sports story, playing golf, putting a police car on top of a Great Dome , or " hacking together a computer program ".
| The verb crack is used here in the sense of to break .
|
Which one is correct, "in the USA" or "in USA"? I want to know, what are the differences between "in the USA" and "in USA"? When to use "the" before a nation's name? <Q> You would say "in the USA" (although it's worth pointing out that you would say "in America," not "in the America"). <S> As chrylis pointed out, the word <S> the is linked to the word States . <S> So, to answer the question, "Where was this car made?" <S> (assuming the car was made in Detroit), one could say any of the following: <S> It was made in the United States. <S> It was made in the States . <S> (somewhat informal, but acceptable, esp. <S> conversationally) <S> It was made in the USA. <S> It was made in America. <S> It was made in North America . <S> (less specific; refers to the whole continent, but still a valid answer) <S> It was made in the Americas . <S> (even less specific, refers to two continents, plus Central America, too) <S> Getting back to your original question (when to use <S> the when referring to a nation), that happens when one of the key words in the country's name requires an article. <S> This could be because of a word like Kingdom or Republic : <S> I bought this in the Republic of Korea . <S> (but: I bought this in South Korea. ) <S> I bought this in the Dominican Republic. <S> I bought this in the UAE . <S> or because of plurality <S> : I bought this in the United States. <S> I bought this in the Philippines. <S> I bought this in the Bahamas . <S> Be careful, though! <S> Not all countries ending with "s" are plural: <S> I bought this in Honduras . <A> We put "the" in front of the names of some countries, though for most we do not. <S> Basically we use "the" in front of names that are "descriptions" rather than simply a name, like "the United Kingdom" and "the United States". <S> We don't use "the" in most cases where it's plain name, like "France" or "Latvia". <S> Some countries have "long forms" of the name that add descriptions and so call for "the", but also have a short form where we do not use "the". <S> For example, "I visited China", but "I visited the People's Republic of China". <S> Note no "the" in the first case <S> but we do use "the" in the second case. <S> There are a few countries with names that don't sound like descriptions but that do use "the". <S> Examples I can think of off the top of my head are "the Bahamas" and "the Philippines". <S> We used to say "the Ukraine", but I understand that nation has said that it prefers to simply be called "Ukraine". <S> I've heard both "Gambia" and "the Gambia". <S> You just have to learn these special cases by rote. <A> "In the USA" is correct. <S> America is composed of states and 'states' is a noun. <S> You can address it as America. <S> For example, you can say that "ABC lives in America". <S> But to be more specific, ABC lives in the United States of America <S> looks more complete. <A> USA is an abbreviation for United States of America , and the is used because the proper noun is a noun phrase whose main noun is the ordinary noun States . <S> The definite article is also used in other country names (and their abbreviations) that are phrases made from ordinary nouns, such as the United Kingdom or the People's Republic of China . <S> Other languages have similar usage; the official name of Argentina in Spanish is <S> la República Argentina <S> (the Argentine Republic), and the country is referred to in Spanish as la Argentina . <A> Although other responses are correct, if we want to decompose the word USA into its meaning, I would say that "USA" is a designation of "The United States of America" like "BMW" is a designation of a unique name. <S> So you can say "Made in USA". <S> But it's just my opinion.
| "In the USA" is correct.
|
What does "take the points raised" mean? Sorry I lost the context of the phrase, but as far as I remember when I looked up the phrase on Google I felt it didn't matter. I felt it had one meaning. At any rate, could you tell me whatever meaning you know, or where I could look into it. The phrase is:"take the points raised". Is it an idiom? P.S: I've just found the post . Two guys discussing a grammar question. Now one of them wrote the following as a reply quoting from the other guy: So - and please help me understand this - to take the points raised: "...not impossible, in my opinion, but 'Have you ever been there?' is more natural in the situations I can think of" Why? I tried to explain why it was both 'natural', and correct grammar in terms of the sentence provided. <Q> When you "raise a point", you are bringing up an issue to be discussed. <S> One possible sense of take is consider , as in "take, for example, the lowly worm." <S> (You are not being asked to physically acquire a worm, but to think about some aspect of it.) <S> Thus, when you want others to examine the issue that someone brought up, you can ask them to "take the point raised". <A> The quote is not the idiomatic " <S> I take your point"; it's a more literal use of points as in "objectives" or "questions", and take as in "consider". <S> point n. 15. <S> An objective or purpose to be reached or achieved, or one that is worth reaching or achieving: <S> What is the point of discussing this issue further? <S> 16. <S> The major idea or essential part of a concept or narrative: <S> You have missed the whole point of the novel. <S> 17. <S> A significant, outstanding, or effective idea, argument, or suggestion: <S> Your point is well taken. <S> take v.tr. <S> 25.b. <S> To consider; assume: <S> Take the matter as settled. <S> This sense of take is often used with "Let's". <S> Let's take the first question you asked. <S> Let's take your points one by one. <S> Thus, your "to take the points raised" can be rephrased as "to consider the issues that have been brought up". <A> The verb "to take" has various meanings, in addition to "to physically seize and remove something". <S> About conversation, it can mean: to accept or withstand something which is said in some way. <S> "take a compliment"; "take an insult"; "take an order" to agree, concede or acquiesce: "I take your point." <S> "Point taken." <S> "I can take a hint." to understand or interpret a statement or situation. " <S> So, I take it that you're quitting?" <S> to consider something. <S> "take into account"; "take into consideration"; "take the points raised" These meanings overlap. <S> To consider something, we understand and interpret it, and also we perhaps accept it to some degree. <S> In this case the writer probably means something like: <S> In consideration and acceptance of the points raised, let me reiterate my revised idea so you can check whether I have the proper understanding. <A> Update: <S> Please note that the expression to raise my point(s) is quite common in conversation. <S> It means that the speaker has just brought "his or her point(s)" up into the discussion. <S> The term "raised point(s)" refers to some ideas or arguments that were put forward by someone in the discussion. <S> Once someone has raised his or her points, anyone might invite everyone in the discussion to consider the points that were just made, in order to discuss the raised points in further details. <S> One common expression among others is to take the points raised , which means to consider that already mentioned points . <S> For further details on this typical usage, you can read Martha's and Hellion's answers. <S> My confusion was caused by unfamiliar punctuation (and quite likely, my non-native'ness) which convinced me to interpret that specific line in an unusual way (unusual both for anyone and myself, actually). <S> In case you might be curious, you could read the details in the comments below. <S> (If all you want is the answer to your original question, you don't really need doing so.) <S> Also note that the word take <S> can mean several things. <S> (Most seemingly simple words are like that. <S> They seem to be easy, but actually, they can convey a wide range of different subtle senses. <S> Quite often, they will convey multiple senses at the same time.) <S> You can read Kaz's answer for more details on take . <S> The following is my original answer, based on the (mis)understanding that take the points in the question should be interpreted idiomatically. <S> I leave it here because it is a useful piece of information by and in itself. <S> The phrase take someone's point is idiomatic. <S> From Wiktionary , take someone's point verb 1. <S> ( idiomatic ) <S> To agree with what a person says; to understand a person's argument and be persuaded by it. <S> 2. <S> ( idiomatic ) <S> To grasp the essential meaning of what a person is saying. <S> Synonyms <S> - ( grasp the essential meaning ): get someone's point, <S> see someone's point, take someone's meaning
| After someone has raised a point, you can refer to it as "the point [that has been] raised."
|
What does prolific mean? The Oxford dictionary says that it means plentiful. Can it be used to express a connotation like "Very talented and prolific singer"? <Q> “Very talented and prolific singer” is a perfectly normal use of the word prolific . <S> It means a singer who wrote or performed a lot of songs ( prolific ) and who did that well ( talented ). <S> Prolific alone is only an indication of quantity, not quality, even though prolific tends to be slightly laudative. <S> You can say that someone is a “prolific but mediocre singer”. <S> Note that prolific generally means “which produces a large amount” or “which gives a large amount”, not “which contains a large amount”. <A> for example: Since then, Hull has became hockey's most prolific scorer. <A> Not an incorrect usage but not the best wording either. <S> Since prolific essentially means "produces many", is the writer of this sentence meaning that the singer sings often? <S> (Prolific doesn't mean often.) <S> Sings many songs? <S> etc. <S> The sentence isn't totally clear.
| Yes, "prolific" means someone who is prolific produces a lot of something, especially works of art, books, etc.
|
"I don't know what" vs "what I don't know" Have a look into these two sentences: I am waiting for what I don't know. I am waiting for I don't know what. My question is: (a) Is there any difference in meaning between #1 and #2? (b) Which one is correct and why? Please explain grammatically. <Q> It's equivalent to <S> What I don't know is what I'm waiting for . <S> I'm sorry I haven't finished the report. <S> I am waiting for what I don't know: the final costs from Stepney. <S> Once I've got that I can let you know where we stand. <S> Your second example, "I am waiting for I don't know what", says that you are waiting for something <S> but you don't know what it will turn out to be. <S> It's equivalent to <S> I don't know what I'm waiting for . <S> I am waiting for I don't know what: maybe a contract, maybe bankruptcy, maybe a loan. <S> John just told me to wait. <S> However, the first sequence of words could, if rephrased in speech or re-pointed in writing, be equivalent to the second example: <S> I am waiting—for what, I don't know. <A> The interesting thing here is that the "wh-clause" "what I don't know" can be hypothesized to be derived from the canonical sentence <S> "I don't know what", which happens to be the other one you're asking about. <S> Yet the meaning is different. <S> The difference is in the position of the wh-word. <S> In wh-clauses, the wh-word--such as who, what, or when---moves to the front. <S> If it doesn't move to the front, then you do not have a wh-clause. <S> So, "what I don't know" is a wh-clause, whereas "I don't know what" isn't. <S> The wh-clause is a nominal clause which denotes whatever the wh-word refers to. <S> "I'm waiting for what I don't know" is somewhat nonsensical, but it has a valid grammatical form. <S> We can make a very similar sentence which makes sense: I want to learn what I don't know. <S> The "what I don't know" wh-clause serves as a noun, denoting that which I don't know (and that is what I want to learn). <S> On the other hand: I'm waiting for I don't know what is an instance of transformation; perhaps extraposition . <S> (The extraposition examples resemble this situation). <S> That is to say, we can regard it as a rearrangement of the canonical sentence, where the "I'm waiting for" part moves to the front: <S> I don't know what I'm waiting for. <S> Note that in this sentence, the "wh-clause" is "what I'm waiting for", not "what I don't know" So basically the difference between your two sentences is the role of what. <S> In one it is "what I don't know" and in the other it is "what I'm waiting for" (rearranged by a transformation which moves the <S> "I'm waiting for" part away from "what" out to the front of the sentence). <S> Lastly note that although "I'm waiting for what I don't know" is nonsensical (how can you wait for something that you don't know?) <S> , the same words in the same order can express this: I'm waiting. <S> For what, I don't know. <S> This has the same meaning as "I don't know what I'm waiting for", or "I'm waiting for I don't know what", or "I'm waiting; I don't know for what". <A> The first sentence approaches correctness (and equivalence to the second one)if <S> you punctuate it as <S> I am waiting; for what, I don't know. <S> which, in turn, is basically a compact form of I am waiting. <S> For what? <S> I don't know.
| Your first example, "I am waiting for what I don't know", is an unlikely construction; it could be used to say that there is some piece of information which you lack, and you are waiting to receive it.
|
Where do people pronounce "route" as ro͞ot, and as rout? Where do people pronounce "route" as ro͞ot, and as rout? In Maryland of U.S., I hear only rout, and I was looked at strangely when I said ro͞ot as if I wasn't speaking proper English. When I changed myself to get used to speaking rout, I hear only ro͞ot in TOEFL examination. <Q> According to the Harvard Dialect Survey (click to see the map), route (as in, "the route from one place to another") a. rhymes with "hoot" (29.99%) b. rhymes with "out" (19.72%) <S> c. <S> I can pronounce it either way interchangeably (30.42%) <S> d. <S> I say it like "hoot" for the noun and like "out" for the verb. <S> (15.97%) <S> e. <S> I say it like "out" for the noun and like "hoot" for the verb. <S> (2.50%) <S> f. other (1.40%) <S> (11137 respondents) <A> This, and several other, pronunciations, are influenced by spelling, and not from ancient variations in the pronunciation (contrast the marry/merry merger) and hence we don't expect it to be tied to one region. <S> This map confirms this, although there do seem to be some tendencies: http://www4.uwm.edu/FLL/linguistics/dialect/staticmaps/q_26.html <A> I am from Buffalo like "out." <S> Wife from Cali "root." <S> Causes family problems anytime the topic comes up like today watching drag racing at Route 66 Raceway. <A> In England and the rest of the UK, route and root are pronounced the same and rhyme with the words loot and moot . <A> I'm Aussie <S> and I'd prefer 'rowt' version of route as not to confuse it with 'root' in the bedroom, so to speak. <S> You get stupid comments when saying something similar to 'I'm taking this route (root) to the woods today' like 'Great, who is she?' <A> I am from Massachusetts and we have always pronounced it "root" - not matter what you are referring to. <S> As I paper route, route 1, what route you're going to take. <S> But I have realized that most people outside of New England pronounce it route with the "out" sound. <S> And most times when you hear it on tv it's pronounced that way too. <S> But us New Englanders like being different :) <A> I'm no professional, but my teacher told me that "route", when referring to a way/path taken (eg Route 10 in Pokemon), is pronounced sounding like "hoot". <S> The sound which rhymes with "out" is only used in "router", as in the networking device.
| It's all pronounced root.
|
Which article to use in "I demand [a/the/] video of this birthday" I want to ask a friend for a video of her daughter's birthday, so what should I put after demand below? I demand the video of this birthday. I demand video of this birthday. I demand a video of this birthday. Which of these versions is correct? I am using demand in a joking manner. <Q> Use <S> the <S> if you know that one video of the birthday exists, or that there are plans to create such a video, and that your friend knows about it too. <S> This is the core use of the —to designate something known to both the speaker and hearer. <S> If there are two or more such videos you may use <S> the <S> if you specify which one you are demanding: I demand the birthday video your girlfriend created. <S> You may also use <S> the to demand all the raw video footage of the birthday, so long as both you and your friend know that such footage exists. <S> Use <S> a if you don't know that a video of the birthday exists; or if you know two or more exist and you don't care which you get so long as you get one of them; or if you earnestly desire that such a video be shot and edited. <S> Perhaps you only want a few seconds to incorporate in another video piece. <A> Demand is a really strong word. <S> I would say "I demand the video (recording) of this birthday (celebration)."Or <S> "I demand a copy of the video (recording) of this birthday (celebration." <S> However, if it's a close friend and it's all friendly and stuff, I probably wouldn't use "demand", unless it's in a joking situation. <A> If you want to use the idea of demand in a joking matter, it is better to phrase it as "If you don't give me the video, then (consequence)." <S> This is how friends might more realistically joke with each other. <S> Or even better, "You had better give me that video." <A> As @EugeneT says, demand is a very strong word; generally it would only be used in a negotiation between neutral-to-hostile parties. <S> (When two warring countries sit down to negotiate a cease-fire, for example, they might each bring a list of things they will demand as part of the settlement.) <S> If you are making a demand, generally there is an implied (or explicit) ultimatum behind it: "You give me what I demand, or else I will cause some unpleasant consequence!" <S> So you probably want to use a friendlier phrasing most of the time, and especially in this situation. <S> Some suggestions: <S> I need to get a copy of the birthday video from you. <S> Can you send me a copy of the birthday video? <S> Please send me a copy of the birthday video.
| Use the ‘null-determiner’ (∅, no article) if what you want is some raw video footage of the birthday, but not necessarily all that is available.
|
Can the word "Vote" & "Rate" be interchanged? I am building a system in which user can vote up/down point for a product (just like Facebook Like function) besides voting up/down, user can give a comment on it. But I am not sure which word should I use? Should I use the word "Vote" or "Rate"? In dictionary, Vote: is you set a preference to something & Rate: is you rank something. <Q> When you vote , you get either a "pick your favorite from the list" choice or an "express your approval of this item" option. <S> pick-your-favorite voting: Vote for one: <S> [] Frederick J. Flontstein [] Barnabas P. Rubbhauser [] Dean O. Sauris <S> express-approval voting: vote for this answer by clicking the up-arrow next to it! <S> When you rate , you get to assign the thing in question to some particular point along a scale: 1(bad) <S> 2 <S> 3 <S> 4 <S> 5 <S> 6 <S> 7(great)please rate the service today: <S> o o <S> o <S> o <S> o <S> o <S> o <S> When you rank , you place several objects in order of preference relative to each other: <S> My personal ranking of the four major citrus fruit flavors would be orange, lime, lemon, grapefruit. <S> For your application, I would say vote is the best choice. <A> If you have a range (say, 1 to 5), you can ask your user to rate. <A> "Rate" would be more appropriate for the scenario you described. <S> Since users don't necessarily have to choose one product out of a bunch, and (I assume) <S> products will have ratings uninfluenced by the existence of other products, "Rate" would make more sense. <S> This would result with a "Rating" for that product. <S> In contrast, if you were to do a poll and requested users to vote for which product they recommended as best for the month, the word "Vote" would be applicable. <S> EDIT : <S> I came back and read the answers from other users, and realized that I was wrong to suggest "Rate" in a strictly up/down scenario. <S> " <S> Vote up" and "Vote down" could be used, with a result showing the "Number of upvotes/downvotes" a product has. <S> I apologize for the confusion, but had to fix it, so that other users won't be mislead. <A> "Vote" and "rate" are similar, but not really interchangeable. <S> Voting is a "yes" or "no" construct. <S> In mathematical terms, it would be "binary," that 1 or 0. <S> Rating is evaluating degrees of goodness. <S> From 1 (worst) to 10 (best), or vice-versa. <S> Something like an 8 would be "more good than not," but not necessarily a yes or no.
| I think you are better off using vote in the described context.
|
"He even SPRUNG for the good stuff"? In the movie "The Mechanic" (2011) I came across the following piece of conversation: "Liquor fairy paid me a visit last night. Left me a big old bottle of scotch." (This part is pretty understandable as the movie hero had left his interlocutor a bottle of alcohol, "a fairy" because the interlocutor had been sleeping at the time of delivery.) But the continuation: "He even sprung for the good stuff." I can't understand this. I would appreciate it if anyone could explain. <Q> This can be because the thing is expensive in absolute terms, or because cheaper alternatives are available, or because the subject is paying for other people (often in addition to himself). <S> It's common to say that one springs for a more expensive model. <S> “He even sprung for the good stuff” means that not only did the unnamed person buy scotch for the narrator, but that person even brought good scotch, which presumably costs more. <S> Spring for can have a connotation that the person is indulging in a luxury. <S> Some dictionaries (for example the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary list spring for as specifically meaning paying for someone else. <S> But this is in fact not always the case, and I think it is not the primary meaning of the expression — <S> spring for only connotes paying for someone else because the person is paying more than the minimum (which would be their share). <S> For example the Camdbridge American English Dictionary gives the example phrase “To increase the radio's performance, spring for a powered antenna”: a powered antenna costs more than an ordinary antenna, but gives better performance. <A> "To spring for" something is an informal/slang phrase meaning to pay for or buy something. <S> e.g. "don’t spring for the album until you’ve heard it" means don't pay for or buy the album until you've heard it. <S> So "he even sprung for the good stuff" is indicating that the movie hero bought a good quality bottle of scotch. <A> You should say, "he SPRANG for the good stuff. <S> " That's in the past tense. <S> The past participle construction is "he HAS sprung for the good stuff." <S> Both of these are past forms of "spring," which literally means to "jump" or "reach," but figuratively means "pay." <S> (As in, to "spring" for the check or bill.)
| “Spring for” is informal English (mostly US) meaning “pay money for”, with the nuance that the subject is paying more than what one might expect.
|
What are the more formal words for "clerk"? As title, what are the more formal words for "clerk", who deal with the paper works.Administrative jobs, managers, secretaries, people standing behind the counters taking your forms... Edit: It should be a serious formal word to express that this person is specialized or interested in dealing with PAPERWORKS, DOCUMENTS, and so on. Finally:I must have some sort of delusion. I found that the word/phrase I was looking for is simply Clerical workers . Note: While Matt has given the "correct" answer, the findings from J.R. are also quite mentionable. I'm sorry that my "accepted answer" could only go to one of you. Also thank you Sean despite got a little off. <Q> I would go with one of the following: <S> An <S> [administrative] assistant ( esp . <S> with junior staff) <S> [Office] support staff (slightly more broad than just clerks, but often used synonymously) A bureaucrat ( esp. <S> with mildly negative connotations) <S> Clerical staff <S> But there's nothing wrong with using the word clerk , it's not informal, and it's a widely understood word that would be readily understood by your readers. <A> In government offices, these are commonly known as either administrative officers or administrative assistants, depending on their levels of responsibility. <A> A person who keys in data is a data entry keyer or a data entry operator or computer operator not a data entry clerk. <S> A receptionist could be an information specialist not reception clerk or an administrative support clerk. <S> A typist is a typist or keyer not a clerk typist or typist clerk. <S> A word processing operator is just that or maybe a text editor but not a word processing clerk. <S> Office workers are office assistants, office specialists, staff support specialists or administrative support specialists. <S> Well you wouldn't want to use the last one because you would come up with an embarrassing acronym.
| Clerk is an overused term.
|
How can I know the correct pronunciation of any word? Can you tell me any website which has best pronunciation of the words. I, frequently, find many words,of which I want to know the pronunciation.But, I can't know because of non-availability of any source. thanks. <Q> It has sound recordings with American and English pronunciations of words. <A> I'd like to recommend Macmillan's dictionaries to learners. <S> They list pronunciations for both British and American English, and they have not only IPA transcriptions, but also recordings you can listen to. <S> For example, try looking up the word car . <S> You can find entries on Macmillan's site for both British pronunciation and American pronunciation . <S> In each entry, you can read a transcription of the word in IPA, and you can also click the "Pronunciation" button to hear a recording. <S> Try reading along with the transcriptions while you listen to the recordings. <S> You'll be able to hear what the symbols mean in context. <A> I've found this web site helpful if you're looking for information on how people actually pronounce words in different parts of the world: <S> http://www.forvo.com/languages/en/ <S> Disclaimer <S> Not all these pronunciations are the "correct" pronunciations, but they are by native English speakers, and they highlight regional differences in pronunciation. <A> Learn IPA (it's not that bad) and then use the wiktionary. <S> It's free, available online (and downloadable as an app for most tablets), and best of all, has recordings of pronunciations of many words.
| Cambridge Dictionaries Online http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ , is a good resource. Of course, you can also consult Macmillan's guide to pronunciation symbols , including Adrian Underhill's phonemic chart .
|
Word choice when solving math problem Suppose I have an equation x+2y=3 and label it (2). And I have a previous equation x+y=2 labeled (1). Now I want to put the two equations together and solve them, what should I write? <Q> It is worth mentioning that there are many approaches and methods to solve a system of equations. <S> We can solve it algebraically. <S> We can solve it numerically. <S> We can solve it by using elementary algebra. <S> We can also treat the whole set of equations as a matrix and solve it with a method called row reduction (also known as Gaussian elimination ). <S> However, I usually prefer the simplest choice when I have many. <S> And I would like to quote from this page in Wikipedia , The simplest kind of linear system involves two equations and two variables: <S> One method for solving such a system is as follows. <S> First, solve the top equation for x in terms of y: <S> Now substitute this expression for x into the bottom equation: <S> This results in a single equation involving only the variable y. Solving gives y = 1, and substituting this back into the equation for x yields x = 3/2. <S> This method generalizes to systems with additional variables (see " elimination of variables " below, or the article on elementary algebra .) <S> The example above should illustrate how to describe mathematical operations we needed in order to solve a set of equations well enough. <S> See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_solving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial#Solving_polynomial_equations <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_polynomial_equations <S> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Algebra/Solving_Equations <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_elimination <A> I wanted to give you a few more options that are less formal than the other answers. <S> In a mathematical proof where I can assume that the reader already knows about systems of linear equations and Gaussian elimination, I'll sometimes use the following constructions: (1) x+y=2 (2) <S> x+2y=3 <S> Using equations (1) and (2), solve for x and y: <S> -or- <S> y <S> = 1 <A> I don't know in what way <S> you mean by "put the two together". <S> All I can think of is that: You want to solve the y and <S> x with addition method . <S> Write them like: x+y=2 (1) x+2y=3 (2) <S> - If we add the two equations (or in this case, subtract <S> Eq. 1 from Eq.2), we will get -y <S> = <S> -1 <S> , therefore y=1. <S> Next, we substitute 1 in for y into any one of the equations. <S> If we choose to substitute in the first equation, we will get x = 1. <S> P.S. <S> This is also called elimination method for linear equation. <S> There are some other methods too, like Gaussian Elimination, Substitution, Graphing, Matrices, etc. <S> These methos are usually used for linear equations (linear inequalities). <S> As for the non-linear ones, you have to solve them in other ways. <S> For example, use factoring for quadratic equations, P.P.S <S> * : Based on Frank's comment, this would form a system of linear equations which can be solved some methods, one of which is addition/elimination . <A> I would say that the user should equate the two equations. <S> If (1) x+y=2, then x= 2-y. <S> If (2) x+2y=3, then x=3=2y. <S> Equating <S> the x's, 2-y=3-2y Rearranging terms, (2y-y)= 3-2. <S> y=1 Plugging into 1), x=2-y=2-1=1.
| I truly believe that the best phrase to say what you described in your question is solving equations , or solving a set of equations , or solving a system of equations . Combine equations (1) and (2): x = 1
|
Is it grammatically correct to use "be" in this context I want to say "happy new year" to my old professor. I wrote this: Dear Ms. XXX I hope next year be full of success and happiness with great health for you. Is "be" correct here? <Q> As "next year" is in the future, you need to use the future tense. <S> "I hope next year WILL BE full of success and happiness for you." "Be" is almost always used as part of "will be" (future), "to be" (infinitive), "can be" or "may be" (conditionals). <S> You could also say, "I wish you success and happiness next year", no doubt many other variations. <A> No. <S> it's not correct. <S> You can say wish you full of success, great happiness and health next year <A> You can make the structure consistent by saying, "I hope the new year will be full of success, happiness and good health for you." <S> Stick to "good" <S> if you're just trying to be polite and friendly. <S> "Next year" is also corect, but tends to refer to a specific event: "Let's get together again next year. <S> " If you're just making a general statement about the upcoming year, it's better to say "new year."
| "Great health" is correct, but sounds awkward unless the person was suffering from a severe illness and you are hoping they recover.
|
"The links are not working" vs. "the links don't work" My manager at work has sent me two links for competitors in order to check their products. Unfortunately, these links are not working. I want to send a reply to my manager to inform her of this problem. Which of the following two replies is correct? Dear Ms. XXXX, The links don't work. Dear Ms. XXX, The links are not working. <Q> I'm going to ignore the salutation, because that wasn't what your question was about. <S> "The links don't work." <S> - This implies that the links are never going to work until someone fixes whatever is wrong with them. <S> "The links are not working." <S> - This implies that the links didn't work when you tested them. <S> They may have worked before and they may work after. <S> Regarding the level of formality, for example, whether or not you should use contractions, you can be too formal in an email. <S> That will depend on your particular workplace. <S> In some places, being overly formal can be interpreted as your being sarcastic. <A> Either one is grammatically correct, but they differ in the level of formality. <S> I work in a relatively formal work environment, and I would use the second one when writing to my manager, since it sounds a little more formal to me. <S> In fact, I might say: I'm terribly sorry, but the links don't appear to be working. <S> This language may be too formal in less formal settings. <A> E-mails are usually less formal in their salutations than written letters. <S> By the way, if your manager is a male, it should be "Mr. <S> " If she is a female, it should be "Ms." <S> Ms. XXX, (<- did you see the comma there?) <S> The links are not working. <S> You might make it a little bit less abrupt. <S> Ms. XXX, <S> Unfortunately, the links I received in your email yesterday are not working.
| Both are correct, but have slightly different connotations that are related to time.
|
"at which time" vs. "at what time" I am confused with the grammar here. Which is grammatically correct? At which time will you call me? At what time will you call me? And why? <Q> In this sort of context which usually refers to a choice between previously defined alternatives. <S> For instance: I have some time free at 9:30, at 11:00 and at 1:30. <S> At which time will you call me? <S> What is used when there are no such previously defined alternatives. <S> I have no appointments tomorrow, so I can talk at any time. <S> At what time will you call me? <S> Both, however, are quite formal. <S> Most people would say, simply When will you call me? <A> I believe that though at which time is not grammatically wrong, you should stick with At what time will you call me? <S> or even better: <S> What time will you call (me) <S> (again)? <S> Another idiomatic phrase is: When will you call? <S> Generally, when you ask a which question, it implies a choosing from choices. <S> Asking for time usually an open question, so using what is better. <A> I'll add that "at which time" can also be used to introduce a non-restrictve relative clause: <S> The museum will remain closed until 6:00am, at which time we will open the doors to visitors.
| Substituting "at what time" in place of "at which time" would not be appropriate in this sentence.
|
How should I answer 'Happy New Year'? When someone says, "Happy New Year," how should we answer? "Happy new year to you, too." Or just: "Happy new year!" Or in some other way? <Q> It's a matter of taste. <S> In the interest of being different, I usually reply "Nifty New Year to you." <A> I wanted to reply Happy new year in English to my students (our new year is Norouz mass.) <S> In my opinion, " to you, too " or " same to you " are both OK. <A> The most common response is to echo back the same thing: "Happy New Year!" <S> This also applies to any "common" holiday, meaning one that is not personally related to you. <S> So it's the same for "Merry/Happy Christmas" , "Happy Easter" , and various country-specific holidays: "Happy Thanksgiving" , "Happy Fourth of July" , and so on.
| The most common reply is an echo of "Happy New Year", but often one will hear "And (also) to you!"
|
What to call someone who does not sleep much I don't think it is sleepless because it is much used for sleepless nights not for people, but I found an incident in Coca where it was used to describe a man. Anyway, if you have a sleepless night it means, I think, that you want to sleep but you cannot because you have a medical condition whatever level it is, but not because you have a lot of work you want to finish. If there isn't any, then I would like to know if there is a word that describe someone who does not sleep a lot at night because that's his nature or they love night life. It is an old house, painted white and well kept, standing behind a low stone wall tufted with moss, and it dates back to 1790. There are many rooms for a sleepless man to walk through. I knew that if I were a better person, I would have stayed up with him, the way I used to do each year. But I was tired, and longed for sleep the way I used to long for the press of our two bodies. And besides, I didn't want to go through this yet again. The wife : a novel by Wolitzer, Meg. Note: if you think the title of the post is not quite right fix it please. <Q> I think you can use a night owl , or a night-person . <S> I think a sleepless man is fine. <S> Another similar word is an insomniac (a person who suffers from insomnia), but I believe that you know it already. <S> Actually, what you describe sounds pretty much like me myself. <S> :) <S> Sometimes, people called me a vampire , a batman , or a dark knight , which is not quite to my taste. <S> In casual chatting, I personally prefer a night dweller or a man of the night more. <S> Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's page <S> Night owl : <S> A night owl or evening person is a person who tends to stay up until late at night. <S> The opposite of a night owl is an early bird, a lark as opposed to owl, someone who tends to begin sleeping at a time that is considered early and also wakes early. <A> Night Owl <S> A night owl is specifically someone who stays up late at night. <S> Evening/Night Person <S> An evening or night person is more generally someone who does better in the evening or at night, meaning they're more awake or productive at those times. <S> Sleepless Man <S> I understand what this phrase means, but it sounds literary to me. <S> I wouldn't use it conversationally. <S> Man of the Night <S> There's a term at least in American English, "lady of the night", which is a euphemism for a prostitute. <A> <A> One who suffers from insomnia (difficulty sleeping) would be called an insomniac.
| You could call that person "a nocturnal creature" to suggest that they party often late into the night; or if you wish to point out that they're not getting enough sleep, they are sleep-deprived . I would stay away from the term "man of the night", since my first reaction would be to interpret it to mean a male prostitute.
|
Using “she” pronoun to refer to a ship Why—and based on what—do we use “she” with “ship” in the English language? Why do we consider a ship female when we know that it is not alive? <Q> Lots of reasons have been given, but the real one might be lost to human memory. <S> Some say it's because sailors love them like they love women. <S> Others say it's because it was feminine in Old English (Old English still had grammatical genders). <S> Some give eccentric but nonetheless poetic reasons. <S> Read for yourself and take your pick : <S> Why is a Ship Called She I, for myself, favour this one: <S> The ships were [the sailors' livelihood, their home and their love. <S> As a compliment to the women they loved, they named their sailing vessels after them, telling them that it would remind them of the ones they left behind for the months and sometimes years they would be gone. <S> Plenty more to read on the subject: A poem, Why is a ship a "she"? <S> On a blog : Why is a ship called a SHE? <S> On grammarphobia : <S> Why did we start “she”-ing ships? <A> It might be the best to answer this question by quoting from Wikipedia <S> (Gender in English), <S> A system of grammatical gender , whereby every noun was treated as either masculine, feminine or neuter, existed in Old English, but fell out of use during the Middle English period. <A> Not just ships. <S> Many other things are subject to personification . <S> Perhaps you are not old enough or familiar enough with '60s Golden Oldies to remember the Beach Boys: <S> Just a little deuce coupe with a flat head mill <S> But she'll walk a thunderburn like (she's) standin still <S> She's ported and relieved <S> and she's stroked and bored. <S> She'll do a hundred and forty with the top end floored <S> She's my little deuce coupe <S> You don't know what I got <S> But you may know Stephen King's female of the species, Christine : <S> Firearms, too, have been feminized, from the 15th century bombard <S> Mons Meg to the classic Brown Bess musket and the recalcitrant Martini-Henry rifle, of which Kipling wrote: <S> When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch, Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch; <S> She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich, <S> An' she'll fight for the young British soldier. <S> A little higher up the evolutionary ladder, contemporary farmers (at least in Illinois) routinely refer to individual plants in their crops with a masculine pronoun: <S> Soybeans do a wonderful job of compensating, so if you give a plant a little room to grow, he’s gonna get big. <S> He’s gonna get big <S> , he’s gonna branch a lot, and bush out and youknow have probably have a lot more beans on a individual plant that’s not competing so much with a plant right next to him. <S> ( private collection ) <S> Why this should be <S> I cannot say. <S> I only know that it pleases Great Mother Language when those of who enjoy complicated and intimate relationships with our tools and creations are able to transcend our narrow anthropomorphism. <A> I lived for several years in Newfoundland, where English pronouns had an interesting interpretation. " <S> She" referred to any overwhelming and mysterious power that controlled or affected the lives of men. <S> These powers included: women, cars, ships, the Atlantic ocean and even (in one case) the lock on someone's locker. <S> Women and men equally used "she" in reference to these things. <S> The other pronoun "he" referred to men, animals and God. <S> I do not recall the pronoun "it" being used for much, but it probably referred to small objects of little importance or impact. <A> Damkerng's answer(No.2 above) is almost certainly correct. <S> The basic structure of English is from German. <S> However, both the word for ship (das Schiff) and boat (das Boot) are neuter.
| Modern English retains features relating to natural gender , namely the use of certain nouns and pronouns (such as he and she) to refer specifically to persons or animals of one or other sex, and certain others (such as it) for sexless objects – although feminine pronouns may optionally be used when referring to ships (and analogous machinery) and nation states.
|
Totes my goats! What the heck does this mean? There has been that annoying Sprint commercial ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRibRj770J8 ) on the TV lately where Malcolm McDowell screams out "Totes my goats!". So I'vegoogled that but was not satisfied with the explanation from the urban dictionary and sites alike. So what is it anyway? <Q> Totes is a shortened form of totally , amplified with the common present-day slang suffix <S> -s <S> (compare, for instance, awks for awkward ). <S> It was documented on Urban Dictionary as early as 2003 and has probably been around considerably longer: totally itself was identified by F.Zappa and M.U.Zappa, (“Valley Girl”, 1982) as a core emphatic in Proto-Valspeak. <S> Several sources attribute its first appearance, and perhaps its coinage, to the 2009 bromantic comedy <S> I Love You <S> , Man (but, again, it may have been around longer) † : <S> SYDNEY: <S> You know what, we should jam together sometime, man. <S> PETER: <S> Yeah! <S> Totally! <S> Totes magotes! <S> Cool! <S> A comment on this very clip at YouTube clearly (and possibly ironically) demonstrates exactly the same formation processes at work on “crazily adorable”: <S> Totes McGotes, it's cray-cray adorbs . <S> — <S> TheAndrewj96 ADDED: <S> The suggestion by Damkerng T. and the source linked by fayalif, that the gotes piece represents G.O.A.T. = <S> Greatest Of All Time is attractive and plausible. <S> I suspect, however, that this is a retrospective folk etymology. <S> Certainly most users betray no consciousness of this origin, spelling the syllable gote rather than goat . <S> ADDED, 10/23/14: † <S> And now Eric Duft's answer establishes that the phrase was in use as early as 2001. <A> I haven't ever seen the movie I Love <S> You Man. <S> I had several friends that used the term back in 2001 and 2002. <S> The same friends would use the term "cool beans" and "cool beans marines". <S> The term "totes magotes" in synonym form means awesome or slang "sweet" or right on, or cool <S> bro, right on man. <S> For an example, person #1 says "I think I gotta drop some anchor man"; person #2 says " right on bro , have a good time." <S> Foreign example: <S> person #1 says "I think I gotta drop some anchor man"; person #2 says " totes magotes , have a good time." <A> While I cannot authoritatively prove it, I think it is a nonsense phrase that is just meant to convey emotion in a meaningless way. <S> Compare "Yahoo!" <S> (the word, not the site) which derives from a degenerate species of humans in Gullivers' Travels but means excitement, and "All my eye and Betty Martin." which conveys an opinion that it's trash. <A> It can be considered as an exciting way of saying 'yes' or 'totally'. <S> It is actually from a movie <S> I Love You, Man . <S> You can have some more information from Urban Dictionary
| Totes magotes is an emphatic reduplicative form, comparable to easy-peasy or itty-bitty .
|
How should I respond to a request to join our team? A person would like to join our team and I also would like to have him on board. How might I respond to his request mail? Would this be correct? It'd be a great pleasure for us you joining our team. <Q> It'd be a great pleasure to have you in our team and on the board. <S> I see two areas that perhaps need improvement. <S> First, using it'd as a contraction for <S> it would may be acceptable for conversation and for less formal communication; however, in this example, "great pleasure" introduces a degree of formality that clashes with "it'd". <S> So, either expand the contraction: It would be a great pleasure to have you in our team and on the board. <S> or else use less formal language throughout: <S> We'd love to have you as part of our team, and on our board. <S> Secondly, I don't like the preposition choice for " in our team." <S> There may be some regional variations, but I believe the better word to use would be " on our team." <S> It's true you can find instances of <S> both in literature: <S> However, when we examine the instances of "in the team," the word team is sometimes being used as a qualifier, such as: <S> The game was ready for dramatic changes in the team concept ... <S> In the team meeting the next day, her behavior was discussed. <S> So I'd be inclined to suggest: It would be a great pleasure to have you on our team and on the board. <S> However, while researching which would be the better preposition to use, I noticed that in was sometimes used in the medicine: <S> The work of the nurses in the team also helped to ensure that concerns about the existing and future functioning capacities of patients... <S> All the specialists in the team are sued. <S> The patient can then ask for full repayment of all damages from all the specialists involved, and sometimes even the hospital. <S> so maybe "in" is in fact the better word to use, <S> but it just sounds a little off to me because I don't work in a hospital. <S> NOTE: <S> I don't know where I got the idea that this was for a hospital board – that seems to be part of an earlier answer, and not part of the O.P.'s question – so my last point may be irrelevant. <A> 2.Thank <S> you very much for your attention. <S> 3.Thank <S> you for your interest. <S> 4.Thank <S> you very much for participating in my team. <A> It'd be a great pleasure to have you in our team and on the board. <S> This is fine but there is better way to express it with 'thanks'. <S> Also, after thanking, it's better to put some information about your service for what the user has joined. <S> Thank you for your interest in joining our team and getting on the board. <S> [Service/board's name] is committed to [service purpose]...and then...the ending note. <S> For example, if the team/board is of doctors, you may reply as mentioned below <S> - Thank you for showing interest in joining our team and getting on the board. <S> Doctor's Board [hypothetical name] is committed to provide genuine information about the diseases, new drugs and the latest research papers from renowned medical institutes. <S> We shall review your application and get back to you soon.
| It is correct and some more suggestions are: 1.I'm so thankful for having you in my Team.
|
Lots of Email or Lot of Emails? If you are trying to tell someone on an email about the fact that you are sending them too many emails, do you say " Lots of " Email or " A lot of " Emails? <Q> I have seen both, and used both, so I would say neither is obviously incorrect. <S> If you read Wiktionary , they note that “certain style guides recommend against the countable use of email” but also that people do it all the time. <S> I would also just note two other things: Email is an accepted spelling, however so are e-mail, eMail, and email. <S> Second, the root word mail is not flexible in this way: you must say lots of mail . <S> “Lots of mails” is not incorrect, but very archaic and incorrect sounding. <A> Why not "too many emails"? <S> That sounds better than either "lots of emails" or "a lot of email". <S> "A lot" means many. <S> Another way to say it would be " <S> Sorry I've been sending you so much email". <S> I would consider emails to be a shortened form of "email messages," so yet another safe way to say it would be " <S> Sorry I've been sending you a lot of email messages." <A> Email is the shortened version of electronic mail. <S> If you were talking about non-electronic mail, bills, letters and such, you would say 'I receive a lot of mail' and not 'I receive a lot of mails'. <S> Mail is both plural and singular, so email should follow the same rule. <A> Both are correct. <S> You can say either: I'm sending you a lot of emails. <S> ✅ or <S> I'm sending you lots of emails. <S> ✅ <S> Both are informal styles, but Lots of is more informal than a lot of . <S> Reference: <S> Cambridge dictionary - grammar .
| By the way, I think you would want to say a lot , not lot .
|
Origin of "Let the cat out of the bag" What is the literal meaning of "let the cat out of the bag"? Why would someone put their cat in a bag? What did the cat ever do to them? <Q> Evidently, only a shyster puts a cat in a bag – honest business people put in piglets. <S> The Phrase Finder (a handy resource for learning about the origin of idioms) says: One [suggested origin] relates to the fraud of substituting a cat for a piglet at markets. <S> If you let the cat out of the bag <S> you disclosed the trick - and avoided buying a pig in a poke (bag). <S> This form of trickery is long alluded to in the language and <S> 'pigs in a poke' are recorded as early as 1530. <S> The same website also explains: A poke is a sack or bag. <S> A pig that's in a poke might turn out to be no pig at all. <S> If a merchant tried to cheat by substituting a lower value animal, the trick could be uncovered by letting the cat out of the bag . <S> The Phrase Finder also list a second possible origin of cat (that of a cat o'nine tails), but it calls that theory the more dubious of the two. <S> Many phrases stick around long after their origins seem quaintly outdated. <S> In fact, I'm looking forward to explaining to my grandchildren what “sounds like a broken record” means: Back <S> when I was your age – before there were iTunes cards, before there were CDs – we would walk to the record store, and buy our music on these big, black vinyl disks that we'd carry home under our arm. <S> If we weren't careful with them, one might get a scratch, so when it was played on the turntable, it would “skip”, and play: I'll never dance with an... <S> I'll never dance with an... <S> I'll never dance with an ... <A> It is just a phrase. <S> Also, pets are often carried around in handbags. <S> It's a matter of interpretation. <S> Carrying a cat in a bag would be a secret. <S> And letting it out would be giving away the secret. <A> Let the cat out of the bag is an idiom. <S> From Wiktionary , to let the cat out of the bag <S> 1. <S> (idiomatic) <S> To disclose a secret; to let a secret be known, often inadvertently. <S> It was going to be a surprise party until someone let the cat out of the bag . <S> Another similar idiom (also listed in that Wiktionary's page) is spill the beans .
| The phrase itself means "letting out a secret". It has a French origin as 'poque' and, like several other French words, its diminutive is formed by adding 'ette' or 'et' - hence 'pocket' began life with the meaning 'small bag'.
|
What does the phrase "minimum of introspection or self-analysis" mean in this sentence? "These situations are best resolved with the minimum of introspection or self-analysis." This is where I found it: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/introspection Does it mean the situation requires us to introspect, as in even the barest amount of instrospection would resolve the situation. Or does it mean the situation would best be resolved if only the least possible time was spent on self-analysis (while more on let's say communication or discussions about the problem). <Q> Without context, OALD's "illustrative example" is rather odd, since on average <S> we're probably more used to being advised to be more introspective and self-analytical than we would be naturally, when dealing with situations that need "resolving". <S> But in fact, it's from a book by policeman- <S> turned-author-turned-social anthropologist Dr. Malcolm Young , in the context of police officers often needing to act quickly and dispassionately in emotionally-charged situations (where they should just "follow procedure", and not get emotionally or intellectually involved). <S> In general, the construction X should be done with the minimum Y is used it contexts where the speaker (or writer) implicitly acknowledges that some Y will be necessary, but it should be kept to a minimum . <S> Of course, it's always possible <S> X can be achieved with no Y at all. <S> But if the speaker is an authority on the subject, you should assume this isn't likely. <S> The advice isn't to avoid Y completely (which would probably be phrased differently). <S> You're being advised that you will need Y , but as little as possible. <A> Both of your interpretations are quite close. <S> However, the sentence doesn't state that the situation requires us do any introspection. <S> It just states that "the minimum of introspection" is the best way (to resolve it). <S> Also, the sentence doesn't state that the minimum of introspection (or the minimum of self-analysis) will also need the minimum time, although that is quite likely. <A> I might offer that it would likely be used in a context when 'introspection or self-analysis' may likely lead you away from doing whatever it is you should do. <S> It could also be used when giving direction to perform actions that some people would find offensive or cold-hearted.
| It means that of all the possible ways to resolve the situations, the minimum of introspection (or in another word, self-analysis) is the best way to resolve them.
|
"(a) few hundred people", "(a) few hundreds of people"? Which is correct? A few hundred people ... A few hundreds of people ... Does it make any sense without an article or A is necessary? <Q> A few is used to express a count or estimate of items: I saw a few people. <S> I saw a few dozen people ... <S> which may also be expressed, rather old-fashionedly, as a few dozens of people <S> I saw a few hundred people ... <S> or a few hundreds of people — again, an old-fashioned use <S> Bare <S> few is used as either an adjective/determiner or a pronoun to express a low proportion of items: <S> Few people today believe the earth is flat. <S> Few of those present were sober. <S> Consequently, bare few would not be be used with ‘dozens’ or ‘scores’ or ‘hundreds’ as a count or estimate. <S> This would occur only if these terms had, in context, the special sense of groups of twelve or twenty or one hundred items. <S> In Anglo-Saxon England, and for many centuries after, the hundred —approximately, a territory supporting one hundred households—was a fundamental administrative division. <S> By the middle of the 19th century <S> few hundreds had any legal role. <A> The reason you say "hundreds of people" but "a few hundred people" is that the word "hundred(s)" is serving a different function in each phrase. <S> a few hundred people <S> In this phrase, "people" is the noun, and "a few hundred" is a determinitive phrase modifying "people" (how many people?). <S> hundreds of people <S> In this phrase, "hundreds" is the noun, and "of people" is a prepositional phrase modifying "hundreds" (hundreds of what?). <S> The two phrases mean essentially the same thing: a group of people numbering somewhere between 200 and 1000. <S> They're just constructed differently. <S> This difference is the reason you can't say "a few hundreds of people". <A> Note that the usage has changed over time. <S> My familiarity is with money, so I see in old references "10 millions of dollars", now I would find "10 million dollars". <S> The first way is not grammatically incorrect, but it is so archaic that it would probably sound and feel wrong to many English users today. <A> It's "a few hundred people". <S> You could also say, "hundreds of people attended the show", or whatever. <S> But not "a few hundreds". <S> I am not aware of the reason for this. <S> Similarly, "it would take a few thousand dollars to repair the house" or "he spent thousands of dollars on repairs to his house."
| Either "hundreds" is a noun, in which case you can't say "a few hundreds" in the same way you can't say "two hundreds", or it's part of a determinitive phrase, in which case it should be "a few hundred", not "a few hundreds".
|
What is the difference between "being" and "having been" in this context? Being a teacher, she likes children. AND Having been a teacher, she likes children. What is the difference between these two? <Q> Being a teacher, she likes children. <S> When I read this, I assume: 1) <S> The woman is a teacher. <S> She teaches for a living. <S> 2) <S> She likes children. <S> 3) <S> There is some relationship between her love of children and her profession. <S> The exact nature of the causality is unclear – perhaps she got into teaching because she likes being around children, or perhaps she's grown to enjoy being around children because of her profession. <S> Or maybe the writer assumes that all teachers like children. <S> Regardless of the particulars, though, which are left unstated, the sentence seems to imply that the two facts are somehow linked. <S> Having been a teacher, she likes children. <S> This tells me: 1) <S> The woman was a teacher. <S> She used to teach for a living. <S> 2) <S> She likes children. <S> 3) <S> There is some relationship between her love of children and her former profession. <S> Again, the exact nature of the causality is unclear – perhaps she likes children because they bring back memories of her time in the classroom. <S> Nevertheless, this sentence also seems to imply that the two facts are somehow linked. <A> If you say: Being a teacher, she likes children. <S> you imply that she is still a teacher. <S> You wouldn't say it if she were retired or had changed jobs. <S> Having been a teacher, she likes children. <S> means she was once a teacher <S> but she isn't any more. <S> Answer edited to take J.R.'s comment into account. <A> The first one implies that she is a teacher NOW and that she like children. <S> The second ones implies that she WAS once a teacher and may still be if you included a duration of her teaching career for example:Having been a teacher for thirty years she likes children. <S> But that aside the first one focuses on the present and the second one focuses on the past, on her having been a teacher at some point in the past. <S> In fact I think that the second sentence could be worded like this:Being a former( having been a) teacher she likes children. <A> Being a teacher, she likes children. <S> First sentence sounds like that because she is a teacher <S> so she likes children as she remains most of the time among the children. <S> Having been a teacher, she likes children. <S> This sentence gives impression that she has been teacher for a long time and still she is a teacher and likes children. <S> To give past impression we can write it as :- "Having been a teacher earlier she liked children." <A> As if should she had chosen another career, she would not like children. <S> "Having been a librarian, she dislikes children" Presumably had this person NOT become a librarian she might like children. <S> The first sentence simply means that since she is a teacher she like children. <S> Which is to say that a teacher must like children. <S> That is of course, not always true <S> but it is what the sentence means. <A> Questions of causality are irrelevant to the initial question of the difference between "being" and "having been". <S> "Being a teacher" names a present state of the person described. <S> "Having <S> been a teacher" names a past state of the person described. <S> The choice between the two depends on whether the describer wishes to emphasize the presentness or the pastness of the named state, though neither presentness nor pastness necessarily excludes the other. <S> One described as "having been a teacher" may still be a teacher in the present, and one described as "being a teacher" may yet have been a teacher in the past. <S> Further elucidating and hopefully not confusing, the complete sentence includes reference to two states - teacherhood and fondness for children - either of which may be placed in the past or the present. <S> Again, the fact that the sentence contains an implicit "because", though relevant to understanding the logic of the sentence, has no determinative influence on its grammatical organization. <S> That is wholly dependent on the perspective of the describer. <S> "Being a teacher, she likes children." <S> - "Teacher" as a present state of the person described when that person is in the present of the describer. <S> "Having been a teacher, she likes children." <S> - "Teacher" as a past state of the person described when that person is in the present of the describer. <S> "Being a teacher, she liked children." <S> - "Teacher" as a present state of the person described when that person is in the past of the describer. <S> "Having been a teacher, she liked children." <S> - "Teacher" as a past state of the person described when that person is in the past of the describer. <S> More generally, it is important to understand that, not only does the present have a past and a future, but each point in the past or the future - taken as present - also has a past and a future. <S> So the important bit is to be clear on what point in time is "the present" for the sentence in question, after which the placement of other points in time - and thus the tenses to be used for them - also becomes clear.
| "Having been a teacher, she likes children" seems to indicate that her liking of children is dependent upon her career (now ended) as a teacher.
|
What's the meaning of "....don't you black or white me" Beat me, hate me You can never break me Will me, thrill me You can never kill me Jew me, sue me Everybody do me Kick me, kike me Don't you black or white me It's from MJ's track, my favorite one. I understand the meaning that he wants says 'NO' to racism but then are words black and white used as verbs here? Also, Everybody do me? <Q> The way I would interpret black-and-white (when used as a verb) would be: <S> Don't put everything into [two] absolutes when you're talking with me. <S> Two common idioms are: <S> It's black-and-white. <S> It's not black-and-white. <S> When something is either morally right or morally wrong, it's often said to be black-and-white , meaning that there are no shades of gray. <S> For example, one might argue that stealing is wrong; it's simply not right to take what doesn't belong to you. <S> Someone else may counter, though, by pointing to the legend of Robin Hood. <S> Though a thief, he was lionized, because he didn't steal for his own gain. <S> Rather, he stole from the rich, and gave to the poor, who were being oppressed by the rich. <S> Some folks tend to see a lot of things in black-and-white, meaning they leave little wiggle room for "it depends on the circumstances. <S> " Others have more of a "shades of grey" worldview, meaning they understand there are exceptions to every rule, and certain situations call for going outside the lines. <S> NOAD reads: black and white adj . <S> (of a situation or debate) involving clearly defined opposing principles or issues <S> In a cry against racism, "Don't you black-and-white me" has a nice dual meaning. <S> On one hand, it says, "Don't judge me simply by the color of my skin." <S> But it also can mean, "Don't be looking at the world like there is never any room for compromise. <S> " Those two thoughts feed off each other pretty well. <S> That said, song lyrics and poetry aren't always easy to decipher; people have been inserting meaning <S> that wasn't every intended into song lyrics for a long time. <S> I believe one of the Beatles once quipped that whenever someone offered some interpretation of one of their songs, they might go along with it if they liked what the person said – even if those ideas were never in their minds when they wrote the lyrics. <S> So there's really no way to know for sure, unless the author happens to be a member of ELL, and wants to chime in. <S> That said, the dictionary meaning of black and white can be ascertained, <S> so I believe this answer may still be of some use for the English learner, even if I've read too much into the songwriter's work. <A> " <S> In other words "Be more concerned with who I am than with whether I'm black or white, or whether I'm 'trying to be white' or 'trying to be black', or whether any aspect of my personality has to do with conforming to racially motivated expectations. <S> " <S> It also likely has the double meaning of "do not make me the object of rigid 'black and white' categorization in general". <S> The first interpretation is strongly supported by the appearance of Kike in the previous line, and Jew before that. <S> "Kike me" is a play on "kick" in the same line, and is probably a metaphor for name-calling. <S> "Kike me, but don't black or white me" may be something like "go ahead, <S> call me something <S> ; it doesn't bother me as long as you're only mouthing off (to be shocking or whatever), and are not adopting the underlying categorization as your actual mode of reasoning (even when you're silent)." <A> I agree with you. <S> I'm familiar with black and white , and I think it can be used as a verb. <S> (Isn't it amazing that I can say I "google" every day in English?) <S> I think the black or white in the lyric, Don't you black or white me , can be interpreted as either Don't you (black or white) me or <S> (Don't you black me) or (Don't you white me) . <S> As for <S> Everybody do me , it sounds pretty much like the use of <S> do in the title of the movie Beavis and Butt-Head <S> Do America to me, thought it should be does . <S> But then again, this is a lyric. <S> (I think I get his sub-text about <S> everybody is not just one person, and do is not just about one single doing.) <S> In this context, I interpret this line as: Everybody [did/does/can do/and might continue to do] all the mentioned nasty things mentioned in the previous lines.
| Part of the meaning of "don't you black or white me" here is likely something like: "do not make me and my personality, style, behavior or my art the object of categorization by race.
|
What does "thing" mean in "this is the thing"? “THIS IS THE THING ABOUT NICKLEBACK…they get a lot of hate, but they are still very proud of themselves, and they do very well regardless of the hate that they get.” Does it simply mean the situation of things? or the situation has to be somewhat strange , hard-to-grasp and ironic to qualify for the use of "This is the thing" ? <Q> The Oxford Idioms Dictionary for Learners of English <S> , 2nd ed. <S> gives the following definition: <S> the thing (about/with something) is <S> (spoken) used to introduce an important fact, reason, or explanation: <S> ○ <S> I know you want to expand the business. <S> The thing is, we haven't got the money to do that. <S> ○ <S> I'm really sorry <S> I didn't call you. <S> The thing is, I've been really busy lately. <S> Your example is a variation on this idiom: <S> The thing about Nickelback is, ... <S> This is the thing about Nickelback. <S> These two examples mean the same thing. <S> They introduce a topic (Nickelback) and let the listener know that you're about to say something important about that topic. <A> In this context, it could be substituted with "matter at hand", "essential/main point/issue/problem", or something similar. <S> The "thing" doesn't have to be ironic, but "the thing is" that the speaker thinks the "thing" is important to emphasize. <S> The main function of the phrase is to draw attention to what is said next, which "is the thing". <A> I'd view the entire sentence as a kind of colloquial filler, along these lines: <S> Look. <S> Here's the thing about English. <S> What you have to understand is... <S> It certainly introduces the topic and indicates you're about to say something (hopefully) interesting about said topic, but it comes across to me as unnecessarily verbose. <S> Notice, for example, that the meaning of the paragraph doesn't change if you remove the whole first sentence. <S> You just get to the point faster.
| In my own words, I'd say that this phrase optionally sets a topic of discussion (given with "about topic " or "with topic "), and then it announces to listeners that you're about to say something important about that topic .
|
What does "that of" mean Please help me to understand the meaning of following paragraph; I'm having particular trouble with the part that reads "that of": It is also extraordinarily difficult to meet the third criterion for causal studies, that of controlling for all other potential causal influences. Please paraphrase it, many thanks <Q> The that here is not subordinating, but adjectival. <S> the third criterion for causal studies, that of controlling is the same as the third criterion for causal studies, that [criterion] of controlling or the third criterion for causal studies, [the criterion] of controlling or the third criterion for causal studies, [i.e. the criterion] of controlling <S> So, what the sentence says, is <S> It is very difficult to meet the third criterion. <S> The third criterion is "controlling for all other potential influences". <A> "That of" is mostly used to compare two things ( that is used as a pronoun). <S> Example: <S> The population of New York is greater than the population of San Diego. <S> Can be transformed to: <S> The population of New York is greater than that of San Diego. <A> It is also extraordinarily difficult to meet the third criterion for causal studies, that of controlling for all other potential causal influences. <S> maps to <S> It is also extraordinarily difficult to meet the third criterion for causal studies, (which is) controlling for all other potential causal influences. <S> so <S> that of → which is <A> While 'that' has many meanings, the meaning here is defined by Merriam-Webster.com as : that , <S> pronoun ... <S> 1c : <S> the kind or thing specified as follows <S> * the purest water is that produced by distillation ... <S> Recall the original sentence <S> : It is also extraordinarily difficult to meet the third criterion for causal studies, that of controlling for all other potential causal influences. <S> In the original sentence, 'that' is a pronoun in apposition with the preceding noun phrase 'the third criterion ...' <S> This definition of 'that' implies that there is more than one criterion. <S> The following phrase 'of controlling for...' specifies which criterion is being referred to. <S> A paraphrase could be: <S> It is also extraordinarily difficult to meet the third criterion for causal studies, which is the criterion of controlling for all other potential causal influences.
| Using this definition, 'that' implies there is more than one kind or thing, and the phrase following 'that' will specify which kind or thing is being referred to.
|
"I would so much like to thank you" or "I would like to thank you so much"? Are both of these sentences acceptable? I would so much like to thank you. I would like to thank you so much . If both are acceptable then which one is more formal? And what part of speech is [so much]? Adverb? Edit: For future reference, I add some citations from Google Books and COCA as current evidences to the possibility of splitting the collocated verbs "would like" in modern English. You can do a Google search to find others but I want to quote from sources that are generally more credible. And I can assure you, Jonathan, that as far as we are concerned, we are going to make every effort on our part. We have done everything we can also to create the right environment, and we do hope that the Chinese leaders in Beijing will similarly be sincere in their effort and we will work together to see His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, as a solution, not a problem MANN The people of Tibet would so much like to see him , and I know that he would like to see them. He has been invited back to Tibet. The governor of Tibet says that as long as he recognizes that Tibet is part of China, he is welcome to return. Do you think he will go back? Source: CNN Insight, 2003 via COCA My dear Fraulein, For your dear, kind, friendly letter I would so much like to thank you . You know, of course, what pleasure you give by remembering me, and yet gratitude is never expressed in words ... Enchanting Jenny Lind - Page 210 - 1939 The translation is as follows : Leipzig, 2yd Dec, 1845. My dear Fraulein, For your dear, kind, friendly, letter I would so much like to thank you , and say how much pleasure you have given ... The life of Jenny Lind - Page 56 - 1978 In her message of thanks to the people after the April 30th celebrations, Juliana said in a nationwide broadcast: " I would so much like to thank you all personally , for what you have written to me, for your gifts, and for everything which I so value ... Europe - Issue 235 - Page 244 - 1983 <Q> I would like to thank you so much <S> I would so much like to thank you <S> Here the so much is a modifier to "would like"; it means that your desire to offer thanks is very strong. <S> In both cases I believe it qualifies as adverbial in nature. <S> Generally speaking, I would say the first is preferred simply because it's the intended meaning. <A> The sentences have a different meaning. <S> In one, the modifier "so much" is applied to "to like", whereas in the other one it is applied to "to thank". <S> "So much" is a common intensifier added to "thank": <S> Thank you so much! <S> On the other hand, "I would so much like" usually has the connotations that "I want to do something, but I cannot for some reason". <S> I would so much like to travel, <S> but I'm broke. <S> This interpretation could apply to a sentence about thanking: I would so much like to thank Bob for his excellent advice, but I can't seem to be able to get a hold of him. <S> For this reason, I would avoid the form "I would so much like to thank you". <S> If someone said it to me, I would jokingly reply with, "Then please do; is there anything standing in your way?" <A> "I would like to thank you so much ." <S> Another way of saying this is "I would like to thank you very much ." <S> In the above sentence, the phrase so much is an adverbial phrase, as it describes the nominal infinitive to thank . <S> To thank here is a nominal infinitive acting as the direct object in the sentence.
| Here the so much is a modifier to "thank"; it means that you desire to offer thanks, and the thanking would be particularly grateful.
|
What "subzero temperature" mean? Is it below zero F or below zero C? What "subzero temperature" mean? Is it below zero F or below zero C?Is it different from "freezing"? <Q> It would mean the same as freezing in scales where the freezing point of water is set at zero, such as Celsius or Réaumur, but not in scales where zero is set to something else, as in Leiden or Rømer. <S> In Fahrenheit, zero has no particular significance, but it is not uncommon to say sub-zero temperatures to emphasize the coldness (0°F is about -17.78°C). <A> When dealing with a weather forecast in the U.S., subzero means below 0°F. <S> It's a convenient way for the weatherman to say, "It's going to be dangerously cold!" <S> In a similar way, on a warmer day, you might hear a forecaster saying things like, "with lows in the teens" or "with highs in the upper 20s." <S> However, at a scientific conference, if I heard a researcher say, "The ion-doped material performed better in subzero temperatures," I'd probably assume she was talking about temperatures below 0 <S> °C, since scientists often use Celsius temperature scales, and because that's such a key benchmark temperature on the Celsius scale. <A> In some fields of physics, a "subzero temperature" may even mean a temperature below 0 Kelvin, see <S> e.g. the Wikipedia article on negative temperatures. <S> However, to emphasize the concept, other terms can be used, for example "sub-absolute-zero temperature" is used here . <A> "Subzero" means literally below 0. <S> It's impossible to say in which scale without context. <S> If the scale is not clear from context, the term is vague. <S> Since, according to Wikipedia , Fahrenheit scale is used only in 5 countries (Bahamas, Belize, Cayman Islands, Palau and United States) <S> , I would suspect , if said by someone from that countries, it's Fahrenheit scale. <S> In any case I would assume <S> it's Celsius scale. <S> If the text comes from continental Europe, I'd be sure <S> it's about Celsius scale. <S> Most people there aren't aware of Fahrenheit scale at all.
| It means below zero on whichever scale is in use or generally understood— centigrade, Delisle, or what have you.
|
Meaning of "pioneers" in the sentence The pioneers left a blazing trial of courage and chivalry. In this sentence, does the word pioneer mean explorers , inventors or settlers ? It is answered as settlers here. But I think it ought to be explorers , because the word left in the sentence sounds like the pioneers left something for the subsequent visitors. <Q> I'm not personally a big fan of this kind of exercises (the one mentioned in the question). <S> It's too often that the context wasn't clear enough. <S> However, let's analyze it. <S> Here are the definitions of those keywords I chose from what Google gave, <S> blaze (v.) set an example by being the first to do something; pioneer. <S> "small firms would set the pace, blazing a trail for others to follow" courage (n.) strength in the face of pain or grief. <S> chivalry (n.) <S> the combination of qualities expected of an ideal knight, esp. <S> courage, honor, courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak. <S> Here are some of the definitions for pioneer , a person who is among the first to explore or settle a new country or area. <S> synonyms: settler, colonist, colonizer, frontiersman, frontierswoman, explorer, trailblazer, bushwhacker "the pioneers of the Wild West" a person who is among the first to research and develop a new area of knowledge or activity. <S> "a famous pioneer of birth control" synonyms: developer, innovator, trailblazer, groundbreaker, spearhead; founder, founding father, architect, creator "an aviation pioneer" <S> And innovator is not very far from inventor . <S> However, let's get back to the sentence, <S> The pioneers left a blazing trail of courage and chivalry. <S> With the words <S> courage and chivalry <S> , the word inventor is an unlikely answer (though it can be argued that many inventors were also full of courage and chivalry qualities). <S> The basic sense of the word inventor is "a person who invented something." <S> Also, the word colonialist is not quite the same as colonist . <S> The Free Dictionary defines <S> colonialist as a believer in colonialism. <S> This makes colonialist not a good answer. <S> Thus we are left with two good choices: <S> explorers and settlers . <S> Here are their definitions, explorer (n.) a person who explores an unfamiliar area; an adventurer. <S> settler (n.) a person who settles in an area, typically one with no or few previous inhabitants. <S> When talking about leaving something behind ( a blazing trail in this case), settler seems to fit better. <S> However, in my opinion, both of them ( explorers and setters ) can be a good answer. <A> I think the writer of the question is using pioneers in the sense of American pioneers , the people who migrated to settle the western parts of the United States. <S> This is why the closest answer is settlers. <S> However I think it's a poor question since the single sentence really doesn't give enough context to make it clear that that's what they mean. <A> We should know the context. <S> Without it, there is even one more possibility - the pioneers as a kind of soldiers, who perform construction and demolition work in the field to facilitate troop movement. <S> It fits the best. <S> All meanings are : One who ventures into unknown or unclaimed territory to settle. <S> One who opens up new areas of thought, research, or development: a pioneer in aviation. <S> A soldier who performs construction and demolition work in the field to facilitate troop movements. <S> Ecology <S> An animal or plant species that establishes itself in a previously barren environment. <S> The "choosing" question, as usually, is incorrect - it is ambiguous at least and the best meaning is not proposed. <S> Because of the "manliness", inventors are inprobable(not impossible though). <S> Colonialists are OK, the settlers were colonialists, but it doesn't fit emotionally - "colonialists" have negative connotation and "chivalry" - positive. <S> Settlers could be OK if we can be sure the author takes them positively. <S> An Indian author rather not. <S> Explorers are definitely OK. <S> They could and did expose all those qualities and are taken positively by all sides. <S> I would say that explorers are the best answer of the proposed ones. <S> But with question set so badly you can never tell what they meant.
| Obviously, pioneer is a synonym for settler , colonist , explorer , and innovator .
|
Why Listen to Music, why not Listening Music Maximum time I face this problem by saying listening music . Is there any traditional cause behind this? Can we use listen music or listening music ? Seems there is only a slight difference, but why is listen to music the right way to say it? <Q> It means “be attentive to sounds”. <S> Consequently, these are complete sentences. <S> I listen. <S> Listen! <S> ... <S> (This is a command, with the subject <S> you understood.) <S> If you want to indicate that you are attentive to a particular kind of sound you must express this with a prepositional phrase. <S> I listen to music. <S> ... <S> Music is playing and I attend to it. <S> Listen for the bell. <S> ... <S> The bell will ring; be attentive, so you notice when that happens. <A> "Listen" or "listening" is an important difference in verb tense; "to" is a preposition, as would be "with" if your meaning were different. <S> Both your verb tense and choice of preposition determine the meaning of the sentence. <S> For example, at first glance: "Listen to music" appears to be a command/suggestion. <S> "Listening to music" appears to be a statement about what you're doing right now. <S> "Listen with music" appears to be a suggestion to listen to something (other than music) with music added. <S> For instance, you might be listening to a dialogue between two people, then adding dramatic background music to make it more interesting, and asking someone to listen to the second version with the added music (maybe after having listened to the first version without music). <A> Listen is an intransitive verb which means that the verb cannot have a direct object. <S> So in the sentence: I listen to music. <S> music is an indirect object because the verb and the object are connected using to . <S> If you had: I listen music. <S> It would be a direct object because there is no preposition liking the verb and the object. <S> So this is incorrect.
| Listen is an intransitive verb: it does not take a direct object.
|
Difference between “is” and “it is” in a sentence What is the difference between “is” and “it is” in a sentence? Please make sure that the password is at least 8 characters long. Please make sure that the password it is at least 8 characters long. A boarding pass is required. A boarding pass it is required. Is raining today. It is raining today. The food is good. The food it is good. Is great. It is great. Thank you! <Q> In the first, second, and fourth sample sentences, you already have a subject, the password , a boarding pass and the food , and therefore don't need to include an it . <S> However, if you add a comma after the subject, you can include it . <S> The resulting sentence puts an added emphasis on the subject (though, this is quite uncommonly used): <S> The food, it is good. <S> Picture someone saying that sentence: The food <S> *pause <S> * <S> it is good . <A> I wonder if I have understood your question correctly. <S> However I'll try to answer. <S> In English verbs are normally used with the subject they refer to. <S> This is because most verbs do not change their ending to adapt to a singular or plural subject. <S> For example, we say "you are " both when we are talking to one person only or to a group of people, as much as we say <S> "I have " and "they have " . <S> Without a proper subject we would not be able to correctly understand the meaning of a verb. <S> The verb "is" refers to a third person singular but this is not enough to make a sentence correct and complete, so we use it in conjunction with either he , she or it . <S> Coming to the sentences you list, it is only required in the third sentence ( It is raining today ) because in the other sets of examples there is a proper subject and adding it would be wrong. <A> The password, a boarding pass and the food are the subject of is in the given examples, so you do not need to add an extra subject it . <S> In "it is raining", it is the subject so you cannot leave it out. <S> So in short, only in the phrase "it is raining" <S> do you use "it", in the other examples "it" should not be there.
| Although it may be more common to use in other languages, the it part is left out in English (I'm not sure if leaving it in is incorrect grammar, or just not done in practice).
|
What is the meaning of this credit card information? You will not be charged interest on each new purchase for a minimum grace period of 21 days if you pay the new balance total in full by the total minimum payment due date for the account statement on which such new purchase first appears. You will always be charged interest on balance transfers, access cheques, deposits and cash advances from the date such transactions occur." This statement is from my credit card. I feel this sentence is too complicated for me to understand. Is it saying that after I buy something with my credit card, I have to pay off its full amount in 21 days in order to not be charging any interest? So I have to pay twice a month in order to not pay any interest? Can someone explain the first sentence in a grammatical way? <Q> Legal writing is not the most comprehensible in any language. <S> As described in the page Legal writing , "Perhaps most obviously, legalese suffers from being less comprehensible to the general public than plain English, which can be particularly important in both private (e.g., contracts) and public matters ..." <S> It is always wise to read legal document carefully. <S> One way that I found effective to deal with legal writing is to parse it mechanically. <S> This works because the main goals of legal writing are accuracy and precision. <S> Here is how I would parse it, <S> You will not be charged interest (on each new purchase) (for a minimum grace period of 21 days) <S> (if you pay the new balance total in full) (by the total minimum payment due date for the account statement) (on which such new purchase first appears). <S> Here is how we can interpret the sentence: You will not be charged interest on each new purchase . <S> You will not be charged so for a minimum grace period of 21 days . <S> On the condition that you pay the new balance total in full <S> And you must pay <S> so no later than the mentioned due date (the total minimum payment due date as printed on the account statement) <S> The mentioned account statement is the one that the new purchase first appears in. <S> It might still be not quite easy to understand, even after broken down like that, but that's the nature of legal writing. <S> The trickiest part is the term grace period . <S> The "minimum grace period" part guarantees you that if you don't "fall out of grace", you have at least 21 days to purchase things in advance. <S> And because when you make a new purchase, its record will appear on the next month statement, the actual number of days you can make a purchase before you need to actually pay your money would be somewhere between 21-52 days (i.e., the grace period plus number of days in a month). <S> In short, you need to pay only once a month. <S> Be sure to pay no later than the due date. <S> This link might be able to explain the "grace period" in more details: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/grace-period-avoid-paying-interest.php . <A> Sadly, legal English often seems to favour long sentences with minimal punctuation. <S> Attempting to extract the important parts: You will not be charged interest ... for a minimum ... period of 21 days, [as long as] you pay the new balance total in full, by the total minimum payment due date. <S> What this means in practise is that there will be a cut-off date 21 days before this month's due date. <S> Any purchases made on or before the cut-off will be charged on this month's due date. <S> Any purchases made after the cut-off will be charged on next month's due date. <S> Hence there will always be at least 21 days between a purchase and the due date. <S> The maximum will be 52 days, for any purchases made the day after the cut-off (in months with 31 days). <S> So you only need to make one payment a month, on the due date. <A> What it means is that every month, you get a statement for purchases which were made previously. <S> This is issued on a "statement date", and includes purchases that may have happened almost a month ago, or purchases that just happened very recently: perhaps on the statement date. <S> You then have a "grace period" to pay the statement. <S> There is a "due date" which is later than the "statement date": 21 days later. <S> This means that for the most recent items, there is a 21 day interest-free period. <S> For items purchased early in the statement period, the interest-free period is longer than 21 days. <S> Hence the 21 days is a "minimum". <S> What is really obscure are the rules for what happens if you do not pay the full statement amount by the due date: <S> specifically, how you recover your "interest free status" in that case.
| All the purchases listed in the statement are interest-free if you pay the full statement amount by the due date.
|
Is there a word in English meaning "see something incorrectly"? For example, I saw someone just now. I thought he was Jack, but turned out he was not.Or, I saw something and recognized it as something else incorrectly. Is there a word for such situations? I know if I read something wrongly, I could say "I misread it". and if I hear something wrongly, I could say "I misheard it". But I cannot find the word "missee" in any dictionaries. Is there something else people use? <Q> Here are my possible answers, I'm sorry. <S> I thought <S> you were someone/somebody else. <S> I'm sorry. <S> I mistook you for someone/somebody else. <S> I'm sorry. <S> I've mistaken you for someone/somebody else. <A> Despite its absence from many dictionaries, mis-see or missee is not unknown. <S> OED 1 gives its first citation as 1591, and you may find it recurring across the centuries in Google Books right down to the present. <S> (But you would do well to look for it in its inflected forms missees , missaw , <S> misseen since most instances of missee represent missy as a name or title <S> —the spelling usually indicates that a pidgin-English speaker is being quoted.) <S> It is by no means a common word, and most of the uses found in Google Books <S> are drawn from literary criticism; but if you use it, in writing or in speech, I don't think you will be misunderstood. <S> ADD: <S> Here are some contemporary uses in entirely colloquial contexts: <S> Maybe you missaw it as Spikes? <S> ( from a Pokémon forum ) <S> Unless I mis-saw, didn't Christine's fondant start from shop-bought marshmallows? <S> ( from a forum on UK TV shows ) Out on the highway pickin' up clues / <S> So much is mis-seen, so much to lose ( from a John Fogerty song, “Premonition” ) <S> I only got to examine them peeking in from the side, rather than actually handling them, so <S> I may well have been mis-seeing what I thought I was seeing. <S> :) from a sewing forum ) <A> You asked for a word , and one word is misidentify. <S> COCA shows the result of the word misidentified . <S> You may say this (as I said in my comment) - I misidentified him as Jack. <S> Oxford explains the word misidentify Misidentify (verb) with object: identify (something or someone) incorrectly. <A> I think "I mistook you for someone else" is the most natural sounding option for your situation. <S> As others have said, "missee" is not a commonly used word. <S> In for other similar situations, "misheard" is acceptable. <S> "Misread" is another word you could use, and you could also use it for things other than the printed word. <S> If you see an ambiguous situation, and you jump to the wrong conclusion, you can say that you misread the situation. <A> I misperceived you as someone else. <S> Seeing is a form of perception. <S> Nobody sees the world objectively.
| Try " misperceive ."
|
What does the idiom "think nothing of" mean? I have seen (in an online conversation) the idiom think nothing of <something> for the first time. (The context was more-or-less something like this: "I am surprised that intelligent people, who think nothing of calculating complicated integrals, cannot master basics of English grammar." This is just a paraphrase, you can replace integrals with any ability which is considered complicated and English grammar with anything considered relatively easy.) I have seen the phrase think nothing of it in Wiktionary , when it is used as form of saying thank you. But this seems to be a different idiom. When I searched for "who think nothing of" , most occurrences I see could be understood as "who do not mind doing something". Although the first pages of search results are with negative connotations. <Q> Oxford explains it: Think nothing of - Consider (an activity others regard as unusual, wrong, or difficult) as straightforward or normal. <S> In other words, when you do something unusual without thinking of others, you do it easily. <S> The FreeDictionary explains it. <A> "John thinks nothing of calculating integrals in his head. <S> " Most people think this task is very hard, but John does it with little apparent effort. <S> "John thinks nothing of driving 60 miles to work every day. <S> " Most people would consider this too much trouble, but John doesn't care. <S> "John thinks nothing of killing anyone who stands in his way. <S> " Most people believe this is morally wrong, but John doesn't care. <A> In your sentence, "I am surprised that intelligent people who think nothing of calculating complicated integrals, cannot master basics of English grammar," it essentially means, "People who find it trivially easy to calculate..." which fits with your interpretation as "do not mind doing" the calculations. <A> Just for completeness, I'll add that the phrase "think nothing of..." can also be used in the following way: <S> Think nothing of it. <S> This sentence can mean either "you're welcome" or "don't worry about it" depending on context. <S> For example: Person A <S> : Thank you so much for helping out with the party last weekend! <S> Person B <S> : Think nothing of it! <S> Person A: I'm sorry for dropping that book on your foot! <S> Person B: <S> Think nothing of it.
| To "think nothing of X" is to consider X to be normal or acceptable, when we might reasonably consider or when most people would think that X is very difficult or ethically unacceptable.
|
"Their money was not earned easily." Suppose that when I was a child, my parents' wages were low. Is it good to write: I knew that their money was not earned easily. So I rarely ask them for allowances to buy candies or toys. In particular, is it good to write their money was not earned easily ? I found money was not earned easily appears very rarely in Google search. <Q> "their money was not earned easily" may not be a commonly used set phrase, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. <S> If you were writing very formally, however, the more common "was hard earned" might be better. <A> There are two main ideas that you want to convey: <S> your parents were <S> not well paid (or underpaid ), and their money was hard earned . <S> To rephrase your sentence to be more idiomatic, here is one possible way: <S> When I was young, my parents were not well paid. <S> I knew that their money was hard earned, so I rarely ask them ... <A> and I think it is well said. <S> Yes, you could say, "They had a low income", but that's not as colorful. <A> As OP has discovered, money isn't earned easy (or easily ) is not a particularly common turn of phrase. <S> There are no written instances of either of those exact forms in Google Books, but there are hundreds of instances of money <S> doesn't come <S> easy (and easily ). <S> Far more common (Google Books claims about 11,200 results ) is... <S> money was hard to come by ... <S> which I think focusses more on the fact that there wasn't much money, even if you worked hard . <A> Just to point out, you already provided a better idiom: "I knew that their wages were low . <S> So I rarely asked them for an allowance to buy candies or toys." <S> However, some others may be more popular: <S> they didn't make much money, we were poor, we didn't have much money <S> , they didn't have much money, they were underpaid <S> I suppose any of those could work, depending on what you want to mean and the "voice" you want to use.
| "Their money was not earned easily" is not a commonly-used phrase, but it is perfectly clear what you mean
|
What is the word for a policy taking effect? Usually a policy will go through different stages: making a draft, being revised, being approved by the government, and then taking effect. Is there a single word for "taking effect" of a policy? For example, I was born shortly before the introduction/enaction/beginning of some policy. Thanks! <Q> The common phrase is go into effect : I was born shortly before the Snail Rights Act went into effect . <S> Of course, that's an invented example. <S> Let's look at some real examples from COCA : <S> In June 2002, the McCain-Feingold Act went into effect , banning federal party committees from raising "soft money" donations from labor unions and corporations outside the scope of federal campaign finance law. <S> Texas Senate Bill 1107, which went into effect Jan. 1, amended a state law to require proof of bacterial meningitis vaccination for new students younger than the age of 30 attending college for the first time. <S> At issue is whether the penalty people will pay for refusing to buy insurance amounts to a tax. <S> If it does, the argument goes the court can't hear the case until someone actually pays the tax, which won't happen until 2015 after that part of the law goes into effect . <A> The new policy { starts | begins } on Jan 1, 2015. <A> The exact context may make a difference, but on average I think the most common term would be... <S> implementation - the realization of an application, or execution of a plan, idea, model, design, specification, standard, algorithm, or policy. <S> It's a particularly common usage in computer science and the IT industry, but it's also perfectly suitable in the context of government policies, etc. <A> I would use "enter into force", which is a common (legal) term for the point at which a decided-upon norm becomes enforceable against violators. <A> Another way to say that a policy went into effect (using @snailplane's language) is to use the phrase "effective date": <S> The effective date of this policy is June 1, 2014. <A> I'm pretty sure I've heard the term 'rollout' used to indicate the time a policy is to become effective. <S> One example can be found in the Washington Times here. <S> The article is titled "Planned rollout of new D.C. cameras hits a snag" and talks about the cameras not issuing live tickets starting on Monday as planned as some cameras haven't been issuing 'warning' tickets for a full 30 days. <S> In that context, the writer clearly is referring to the date the cameras begin issuing 'real' tickets as the 'rollout' date. <S> TFD says: roll·out <S> ( n .) <S> 1. <S> The inauguration or initial public exhibition of a new product, service, or policy <A> I think you are confusing two very different things, policy and law . <S> A law is drafted by parties who have an interest in its content. <S> If a constitutionally (and politically) competent legislator can be persuaded to bring it forward, the law is proposed to whatever body is constitutionally charged with legislation. <S> That body considers the law, debates and often amends its provisions, and ultimately (there may be further constitutional hoops to jump through) enacts it. <S> Upon enactment, the law takes effect: becomes binding upon all citizens and corporations which fall under its provisions. <S> It now falls to the executive and judicial authorities (supposing these to be entities distinct from the legislature) to implement the law: to put it into practical effect through public exercise of the public powers these authorities wield. <S> A policy need undergo none of these events, because a policy is not a law ; it is merely a principle <S> adopted by some entity as an appropriate guide to its subsequent actions. <S> A policy may be embodied in a written statement, or it may be an entirely tacit and even unconscious assumption. <S> It may be published and trumpeted, or maintained surreptitiously. <S> It requires no formal enactment beyond the assent of those who agree to be governed by it, it is binding upon no-one at all (including those who adopt it), and it cannot be enforced or implemented except by extra-constitutional means, taking effect on whatever occasion, to whatever extent, and by whatever means, its adopters choose.
| A single word for a policy being in effect is simply either of the verbs "to start" or "to begin".
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.