source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Can a customer be loyal or regular? I read a lot about the difference between customer and client. There have been a myriad of answers, and the most common thing I could find is the one that matches Hellion's answer here : Client - ongoing relationship with the seller. If you go to the store to buy a box of matches, you're just a customer, but if you always go to that store because you know you'll get good service and good prices, you're a client. Now the question I have heard many people say: Take care of him, he's our regular customer But... Can a customer be loyal or regular? If they can be, they are no more customers but clients! Furthermore, is this sentence correct (or redundant)? He's our regular client! <Q> The line between "customer" and "client" has certainly blurred, but I think there is still a leaning towards a customer being someone who purchases, and a client being someone with an ongoing, more personal relationship with the business in question, and usually more in relation to services than products. <S> Rarely would an architect describe their clients as "customers", while a retail store describing "clients" is likely to be a more high-end store, or one that wants to elevate the value of their "customers", or otherwise be speaking in wider terms: perhaps Walmart head office would talk about "clients", while Walmart store staff would talk about "customers". <S> The choice is a free one, but there remain subtle differences that inform the speaker's choice of wording, based on the earlier, much stronger distinctions. <S> I'm not sure exactly what you mean by asking "Can a customer be loyal or regular?" <S> , but I will point out that there is a difference in value again: a regular customer would be someone who frequents a store, while a loyal customer would be someone who stands up for the store, for example, they continue to frequent the store despite the store going through hard times and having to reduce stock while raising prices. <S> This might drive away regulars, but the particularly loyal will stick by them! <S> A loyal customer could certainly be "upgraded" to a client, to the store owner's mind, in that there is an implied relationship between the customer and the staff, and a stronger desire for staff to "look after" the customer. <S> A casual customer, or even a regular one, might continue to be regarded as a "customer". <A> Client and customer are no longer distinguished in the way they once were. <S> As recently as fifty years ago, client was still by and large reserved for people who sought advice from ‘professionals’ such as attorneys and architects. <S> At that time client still reflected, even if only very dimly, the original Latin sense of the word as “one who is under the protection of” a patron. <S> A client was someone who benefited from the professional’s learning and knowledge, while a customer was someone who had a purely commercial relationship with a tradesperson. <S> In this context, the term client acquired an honorific character. <S> It flattered the person rendering services because it imputed a ‘professional’ degree of expertise; it also flattered the person who purchased the services because it imputed a degree of wealth and status—a person who routinely consults professionals is clearly someone above the common run of customers. <S> And it happily set both at some distance from the vulgarity of commerce. <S> In consequence, from the last half of the 19th century, businesses of all sorts started referring to their customers as clients —‘exclusive’ tailors and hairdressers, grocers, insurance agents, even bookmakers (now calling themselves ‘turf accountants’). <S> And since it is mostly businesspeople who talk about the relationship between buyer and seller, that use has gradually extended into ordinary speech. <S> Instead, customer is used when you wish to focus on the financial aspect of the relationship, client when you wish to focus on the personal service rendered. <A> "customer"=someone who buys goods or services from a store,company etc. <S> "regular customer"is correct. <S> It means he often does his shopping from there. <S> such as a lawyer or architect ,or from a company or organization. <S> If loyal is used ,it means that he supports or likes their services or ideas for advice .
| "client"=someone who pays for services or advice from a professional person, The upshot is that today there is no difference whatever between customers and clients —they are the same people.
|
Does "that's that" always mean "end of discussion"? I have started a question in the sister forum but that didn't get much respond and I take it as a satisfactory answer at that time but I stumbled upon this example of use. The two men both looked thoughtful as they silently walked back to São Romão. "And if I hired you," the tavern-keeper said after a while, "would you come and live here?" "Of course! Why should I stay in Cidade Nova if I’m going to work here?" "And you’ll eat at my restaurant..." "No; my wife’ll do the cooking, but she’ll buy groceries at your store." "Then it’s a deal,” João Romão declared, convinced that this was no time to pinch pennies. And he thought to himself; “Those seventy mil-réis will end up back in the till; it’ll all stay in the family." "So that’s that? " " That’s that! " The "that's that" in this example seems to best to replace with "that's it" or "that's all", as in this situation it just means "is it everything about the generous deal?". It contradicts with the answer in ELU that "that's that" has to be used derogatorily in a situation that a person feels that this is all he can do or take on the situation. Is this a correct use of the phrase? <Q> The phrase "that's that" does generally mean "the matter is finished", but its use is not restricted to cases where you're trying to end the discussion. <S> All the following uses are possible: You're grounded, and that's that! <S> [the matter is finished = <S> that's the end of the discussion] <S> Just add water, and that's that! <S> [the matter is finished = <S> that's how easy it is] <A> If someone asks you how to make a cake, you might give them all the instructions and then say "that's that!", <S> as in that's all, that's the end of the process, and that's how simple it is. <S> Of course, it can also mark the end of a discussion because of the "that's the end" meaning: " <S> No you can't go to the party, and that's that!" <S> Looking at the previous question, "Today's lesson will only cover the introduction about the course. <S> And that's that" seems to have more of this kind of tone, so it would be better there to say "that's all" or "that's it". <S> But of course it also depends on how it is spoken: with a big smile, "And that's that" would seem perfectly appropriate, whereas it seems harsher in writing. <A> The answer that the other person gave on the link you provided is perfectly fine to me. <S> However, perhaps we could extend the meaning of "that's that" to incorporate the context of your example. <S> That's that - in this case means "Job done/Deal done". <S> It also has connotations of simplicity, implying that something is easily done. <S> E.g. Just put it in the machine and that's that. <S> (or "and job done) <S> "That's it" also implies simplicity. <S> In your example the last two lines could be:"So <S> that's it?""That's it. <S> "And <S> that would directly mean "We're finished?" <S> "Yes, we're finished". <S> To summarise, it seems that the meaning in the text you provided is more like "job done/issue resolved", perhaps with an air of surprise: " <S> Oh, that was easy!"
| "That's that" can generally mean "that's all" or "that's the end", or even "that's it", in the sense of "that's how easy it is".
|
Nor there if they yet mock what women meant / who gave them flowers From " The Send-Off ", by Wilfred Owen: So secretly, like wrongs hushed-up, they went. They were not ours: We never heard to which front these were sent.Nor there if they yet mock what women meant Who gave them flowers. I'm curious about the meaning of the "Nor .. flowers" part, especially about the sense of the word "mock" here. Does it mean "We also don't know whether they are alive by now" - and thus whether they are at this moment able to joke about the flowers that the women gave them at their departure? Is it a poetic-license-style change from "Nor if they there (in their current locations) yet mock (joke about) the giving of the flowers by the women"? <Q> Poetry can be challenging to read, especially because poems often have multiple meanings. <S> I'll put forward my interpretation of that line, and I welcome others to share their thoughts as well. <S> The meaning of the word "mock", however, I think is somewhat complicated. <S> I see a couple of interpretations, and I think the author may have meant a little of each: First Interpreation <S> The soldiers who are still alive have found the experience of war to be so awful that they now talk about their contempt for the support they received from the women. <S> Second Interpretation <S> The word "mock" still means "treat with contempt or ridicule", but less literally. <S> The soldiers are not actually talking amongst themselves. <S> Rather, war is so awful that the mere fact that they must serve as soldiers in a terrible war shows contempt for the love and affection they were shown when leaving the town. <S> Third Interpretation <S> The word "mock" means "disappoint or frustrate (the hopes of)". <S> In this interpretation, the fact that the soldiers must fight in a war frustrates the hopes of the women who wished only the best for the soldiers leaving the town. <S> Conclusion <S> I think the author may have meant a little of each of these interpretations. <S> I don't believe he meant that the soldiers were laughing and joking about the flowers, however, since that doesn't match the somber mood of the rest of the poem. <A> Does it mean " <S> We also don't know whether they are alive by now" - and thus whether they are at this moment able to joke about the flowers that the women gave them at their departure? <S> I think it does mean the narrator doesn't know if they are now alive, but has nothing at all to do with men joking about flowers given to them at departure. <S> Instead, it refers back to lines from the first stanza: <S> Their breasts were stuck all white with wreath and spray <S> As men's are, dead. <S> The flowers the women gave the soldiers probably were meant as reminders of home, and as tokens of affection. <S> They were not intended to be like funeral flowers. <S> The phrase “Nor there if they yet mock” refers, I think, to the likelihood that the bodies of those soldiers who departed on the train now lie scattered on the battlefield; and those bodies mock the intentions of the women who gave the men flowers. <A> This is literary interpretation, not English interpretation. <S> There are too many things a poet might mean for us to answer definitively. <S> That said, I'll tell you my initial impression. <S> The poem's title indicates these soldiers are being shipped away from home to go to war. <S> Because the poet wrote a lot of his poetry during World War I, I'll assume that's where the soldiers are going. <S> We see the soldiers leaving, but we don't know specific details, such as the locations where they are going. <S> Woman are giving these soldiers flowers, probably as tokens of affection, yet many of these soldiers are being sent to their deaths. <S> Is there not some irony there? <S> Do people at the train station notice this irony? <S> I believe the poem is peeking into the minds of passersby, who see women giving soldiers flowers as a farewell gift, but these observers mutter to themselves about how that's a premonition of what is bound to happen – <S> how the soldier is, as likely as not, destined to come back home in a coffin. <S> At any rate, the poem is not an easy one to figure out, even for a native English speaker.
| The word "mock" very literally means "treat with contempt or ridicule". You're absolutely correct that the author is basically saying: We never heard where they went or whether they were still alive.
|
"going to be doing" vs "going to do" From NPR : She's been doing a project called Wordless News every day for about a year now and next week she's going to be doing drawings based on stories she hears right here on MORNING EDITION. Is there any difference if I substitute "going to do" for "going to be doing"? Thanks. <Q> Going to be doing drawings means that she will do drawings repeatedly. <A> Not any semantic difference in this particular sentence. <S> For the semantic difference in general see "future progressive" versus "simple future." <A> I'm going to do <S> ** something = <S> i have already decided to do it, foreg:Are you going to eat anything ? <S> No, I'm not hungry.' <S> I;m am doing [present continuous ] <S> when we say what we have arranged to do- for example , arranged to meet somebody, arranged to go somewhere.what time <S> are you meeting an this evening ? <A> The difference here is one of emphasis. <S> The continuous tense emphasizes the process of the activity... treating it as something that happens over time and emphasizing that time. <S> The more simple tense (in this case future) merely treats the event as a point in time... or if repeated multiple points in time. <S> Thus one might say, "I am going to eat dinner at 6 o'clock." <S> In that use the process is de-emphasized, and the time is probably the beginning time. <S> If one were to say "I am going to be eating dinner at 6 o'clock." then one is emphasizing the process, and the time is probably somewhere in the middle, altho <S> it might be the beginning. <S> (To emphasize the middle one would say '... going to still be eating...".
| Going to do drawings means that she will do drawings on at least one occasion.
|
Difference between "across" and "through" walk across the tunnel walk through the tunnel Which one is correct? Can anyone explain me the exact difference between the through and across? I am really confused with these 2 prepositions. <Q> "Walk across the tunnel" <S> could mean the same thing, but only if the context establishes that. <S> It could also mean to enter the tunnel through a side entrance, and exit out another side entrance (i.e. the short way, not the long way); or it could mean to go across the top of the tunnel <S> (e.g. if it's underground and the road goes over it); or variations on those themes. <S> In general, "through" implies entering the middle of something and then going out the other side, whereas "across" implies crossing the middle, but not necessarily going in the thing you're crossing. <A> Across is also used if it's important to mean "on the other side of", or "moving over" something like a river, hole, bridge, etc. <S> Through <S> X is used if you are surrounded by or "in"/"inside" X. <S> So you go through a tunnel, but not across it. <S> If you say you went across a tunnel, it would mean you somehow went over and on top of the tunnel (likely perpendicular to it) and avoided going in it. <S> You might go through a tunnel to get across a mountain range, though. <A> Both of these words are used to indicate a movement from one place to another. <S> Using " across " is somehow like using on . <S> It is used for a two-dimensional and open space (across a wall, city, sheet of paper, road and ...). <S> We took a boat across the river. <S> Looking out across the ocean, he saw land. <S> Using " through ", however, is somehow like using in or inside . <S> Imagine a place which is surrounded by something (for example a tunnel or a forest which is covered with tall trees). <S> When we want to move from one side of this surrounded place to the other, we use "through". <S> Through is used for a movement in a three-dimensional and covered place. <S> I am driving through the tunnel. <S> She loves walking through the forest. <S> About grass and lawn, if we are talking about a place which is covered with tall or long grass, we should use "through": <S> When my dog runs through long grass, it’s difficult to find him. <S> but if we are talking about a field covered with short or small grass or lawn, we should use "across": Tomorrow <S> at this time you'll be chasing peacocks across the lawn. <A> If it's something enclosed , such as a tunnel or passageway, you would usually be said to walk (or pass, or drive) through it from end to end. <S> If it's something more or less open (but still distinctly separate from the surroundings), such as a bridge, you would usually be said to walk (or pass, or drive) across it (and the act is crossing it). <S> Something like an ordinary ground-level road or sidewalk you would walk (etc.) <S> along or alongside . <S> If you are not moving from one end of this thing (e.g., road) to another, but only briefly occupying the same space, you would usually be crossing the road. <S> To cross a tunnel would usually mean that it's buried and you're above it, not within it at any time, although it would be possible to <S> cross a tunnel from another, intersecting tunnel. <A> To move through something, one must be able to be inside it either literally or figuratively . <S> Usually a container or the notion of a container is invoked. <S> Walk through the tunnel <S> Drive through <S> a rain storm <S> Run through the forest <S> Walk through <S> the streets of London in each case a container is established: <S> tunnel , rain storm , forest , the collection of London streets Across usually implies a position of being over or on top of but may mean close by , and may, but not necessarily refer to movement . <S> Referring to movement <S> Walk across <S> a bridge <S> Fly across the country <S> Run across the street <S> Referring to over <S> The bridge goes across the river <S> Hands <S> Across America Referring to close by <S> Sit across from somebody <S> The building across from the station From your examples, one walks through <S> a tunnel is correct <S> walk through the tunnel across to the other side <A> Through is used to cross a three-dimensional place or enclosed object: like a tunnel, forest or jungle. <S> A forest is a three-dimensional place as it is covered with full of tall trees. <S> In contrast, an open field is usually empty, does not cover with trees, which is act like a two-dimensional place. <S> The man is walking across the field. <S> The man is walking through the jungle. <S> Credit goes to this video
| "Walk through the tunnel" means to enter the tunnel on one end and emerge out the other end. We usually use across to talk about moving from one side to the other, usually on the surface. Across is used with surfaces, places, flat objects/areas, or things that you are "on."
|
What's the meaning and usage of “Speak with your feet”? Is speak with your feet similar to vote with your feet ? And should it be used in positive context? For example: Let's vote/speak with your feet by joining the fundraising activity. <Q> It seems to be a non-standard, figurative expression meaning to take physical action (specifically by walking/running), as opposed to, for example, signing a petition, delivering a speech, or writing a rant on the internet. <S> Similarly, and this is a hypothetical example, <S> Speak with your feet against the new law by joining our protest march. <S> Here is a real example: http://portlandmarathon.org/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=120 <S> As I mentioned, it is a non-standard expression, meaning that it is not widely recognised or generally in use. <A> I've heard this as "vote with your feet," i.e. express your support or distaste for, say, Mr. Card's views by avoiding or going to see "Ender's Game. <S> " I've never heard "speak with your feet." <A> For example a friend has betrayed you. <S> Rather than confront your friend in dramatic fashion, you simply walk away from them, literally and/or figuratively. <S> It's linked to the idea that actions speak louder than words. <S> In the context of the above example walking away is like saying: "You know what you did. <S> We're done." <S> In some ways it's a far more effective message than could be conveyed with words, because a discussion, with the friend, on the subject of the friend's betrayal is itself a minor act of friendship even if an argument ensues. <S> Walking away presumes no such friendship and is a stronger -- if less dramatic -- message. <A> To speak with one's feet can also mean to take action without words. <S> One speaks with their feet <S> if they have a bad experience at a restaurant and, instead of verbalising to the staff, they simply never go back to that restaurant. <S> I tend to do this. <S> It's a tangent of conflict avoidance, I'm almost sure. <A> I like many of the responses above and don't disagree. <S> However, I take a bit of a different stance on this. <S> I was fortunate to learn early on in my career that employees support a leader and his or her initiates based on their personal interaction with that leader. <S> This is even more apparent with Gen Z and Gen Y. <S> Often too many leaders stay in the office, let others do their bidding, or lack the conviction to sell their initiatives themselves. <S> To speak with your feet means to lead by example. <S> It is walking the halls, meeting employees, embracing the task, showing them your authentic self and selling your strategies or thoughts directly with them. <S> It also allows you to see their reaction, take in their feedback, and learn from their interactions. <S> To speak with your feet is vital for leadership. <S> Without it, people will speak with their feet and dissent or not willingly pull in the same direction. <S> Here is a great example: http://www.forefrontmag.com/2014/02/how-to-lead-with-your-feet/
| "Talk with your feet" (and minor variations) means to express your opinion or feelings not by verbalizing them but through action.
|
What's the meaning and usage of “Let's keep in touch”? What's the meaning and usage of “Let's keep in touch”? My friend said to me, “Let's keep in touch”I don't know the meaning <Q> Keep in touch is an idiom. " <S> In touch" means "in or into communication". <S> In business, keep in touch usually means "keep posting information to each other". <S> to each other from time to time. <A> "Let’s keep in contact even though we’re parting." An old three-word phrase lots of students write in school yearbooks all over America. <S> Students originally thought that it seems nice to say "keep in touch," just because the majority of people separate off to different colleges after high school. <S> Thus, people figured that it will be a nice little lasting word, just to be polite, and stay friends, and not be forgotten. <S> But thanks to a little invention in 2004 called Facebook, there seems to be an excuse for those people with a "keep in touch" in their yearbook, to actually keep in touch. <S> This is commonly referred to as the Keep In Touch Paradox, by students years later. <S> Some girls may have written the abbreviation in the yearbook as K.I.T., which is just a fast way to write keep in touch. <S> That would be like saying thanx instead of thank you. <A> Strictly speaking, no - there really isn't a difference between them. <S> It's possible that "stay in touch" is a little more insistant and sincere than saying "keep in touch", which is kind of a casual and reflexive remark (like saying "see you later" when you have no idea when or if you'll ever see that person again). <S> If somebody told me "stay in touch" I'd feel a lot more obliged to do so since it would seem like they actually cared. <S> A lot of it has to do with the intonation of the phrase at any rate.
| For close friends, I usually take it as "let's stay close" (as in close friends), by making a call or writing (or tweet, post, etc.)
|
"Over three occasions" – How many times? "Over three occasions, each of 3 nights, a total of 21,830 moths were collected, representing more than 1250 morphospecies." "Over three occasions". Is that just three times, or more than three times? <Q> Over , here, means "across, spanning, in such a way as to cover". <S> It is not the only preposition that works for that, though — another one would be on . <S> And it is indeed advisable for you to replace it with <S> an on to see the meaning more clearly and not have this be a garden-path sentence . <S> If over here meant "above", you would still need a preposition for "across, spanning", but you'd be missing it, and the sentence would stop making sense. <S> You do not collect things period of time, and you do not collect things some occasions. <S> You collect things over the period of time, or on the occasions. <S> So: Over three occasions, each of 3 nights, a total of 21,830 moths were collected. <S> On three occasions, each of 3 nights, a total of 21,830 moths were collected. <S> This means three occasions exactly. <S> On over three occassions, each of 3 nights, a total of 21,830 moths were collected. <S> Over over three occassions, each of 3 nights, a total of 21,830 moths were collected. <S> This means more than three occasions. <S> The last one, of course, is weird, and should perhaps be avoided, especially since there's a less weird alternative right there. <A> Three times, lasting three days every time. <S> A total of nine days. <S> Hence a three-day activity repeated thrice. <S> Over here does not mean above <S> but something that happens over a period of time or is distributed over a period of time. <S> So it refers to the progress that happened spanning the three occasions. <S> Over time, things grew fine... <A> "Over" has (at least) two distinct meanings: It can mean "more than", or it can mean "spanning". <S> Now that you bring it up, I can see how it can be confusing. <S> If you wrote, "We waited over three days", that would mean more than three days. <S> But if you wrote, "I considered this over a three-day period", that would mean that you did it for exactly three days. <S> If you want to make clear that you mean "more than", you can add the word "for". <S> Like, "I considered this for over three days" would clearly mean that you meant more than 3 days, while "I considered this over three days" could be ambiguous.
| Adding a word like "span" or "period" -- "I considered this over a three-day period" -- makes clear that you mean "spanning" and not "more than".
|
Is "And you!" a valid alternative to "You too!"? If someone says "Have a nice day!", can you just answer "And you!"? Does it mean the same as "You too!"? <Q> As a native English speaker, in the U.S., I'd offer "and you, as well" instead of "and you." <S> "And you," by itself, is almost never spoken by a native English speaker (in the U.S.), but appears quite often in spanish: 'y tu', or 'y usted." <S> The most common response would be, "You too!", or <S> "Thanks, you too!" <S> I hope this helps! <A> Short answer: <S> yes. <S> Technically, "And you" probably applies better in certain grammatical situations, especially where the preceding was in second person. <S> Honestly, "and you" strikes me as a little archaic, in part because it's harder to use correctly and thus is generally less used. <A> Answer: yes. <S> (in the UK) Having lived in both the US and the UK, my experience is that you would probably never hear this in the United States, however it is quite frequently used in the UK as an informal 'Same to you, thank you'. <A> Yes. <S> The first time I heard of this saying if from my building's concierge. <S> He has an air of a classic British butler. <S> It felt friendly polite and archaic at the same time.
| "You too" is less formal, but probably applies in more situations, so I would encourage you to stick with that, but it's worth knowing what someone means if they say "and you."
|
The use of "Would have not been" and "Would not have been" in English Grammar What is the exact meaning of "would have not been" and "would not have been" in English grammar? Do they mean same thing? For example, On this principle, if Mr. Lynch had decided to go on hunger strike, the police would not have been entitled to administer forcible feeding. Across the nation are examples of incidents that were the incident not recorded, some police would have not been prosecuted for horrendous. <Q> "Would not have been" is the customary word order. <S> English, like other languages, uses changes of word order to emphasise particular topics in a sentence. <S> My hunch is that it's putting emphasis on the thing not happening . <S> Maybe it's something particularly bad, as in your example. <S> The writer/speaker is trying to put the word "not" closer to the key point, the thing that people are going to get emotional about. <S> If Toby had driven more carefully, those people would have not been killed . <S> However, you could accomplish exactly the same thing by putting some extra stress on the word "not", while using the customary word order. <S> If Toby had driven more carefully, those people would not have been killed. <A> This is only from the perspective of American English, since I don't know other dialects, but I don't find "would have not been" easy to parse; I would describe it as borderline ungrammatical. <S> To the extent that I parse it, it means the same as "would not have been," which is the normal and standard way to say this. <A> Let's try the contracted form and figure out if stressing makes sense: <S> "It wouldn't have happened!""It would haven't happened!" <S> What do you think? <A> To the best of my knowledge, NOT, when stressed like all words being stressed, cannot be contracted. <S> Therefore, you can say either: "It would not have happened" or "It wouldn't have happened" if not stressed. <S> Yet, if you put emphasis on "not" you can only say: " It would have not happened", usually pronouncing the word "not" louder and separated from the other words. <S> You cannot say "it would haven't happened ; you can only say: "It would've not happened."
| Saying "Would have not been" sounds (to me) like it's being done for emphasis, but it's not clear what emphasis is meant!
|
Is "planify" a real word? I'm just wondering if "planify" is a real and commonly used word. For example, is it okay to say: We need to planify this weekend. instead of We need a plan for this weekend. To me as a native Spanish speaker it "sounds" good, but it may not be the case for a native English speaker. <Q> As dictionary.com will tell you, the verb at least does exist . <S> As everyone else will tell you, that's about all it has going for itself, and nobody actually ever uses it. <S> At all. <S> What native speakers are likely to produce instead is "make plans for the weekend" or simply "plan the weekend". <S> "We need a plan for this weekend", while grammatical, is unlikely to occur, either. <S> "We need a plan" is a rather fixed phrase where the plan stands for something like "strategy". <S> So you're likely to hear it in a war room, or in a disaster movie, but in the context of a couple planning their weekend it has a funny touch. <A> The one time I heard the word planify was in Spain. <S> The speaker was a native Moroccan who grew up in Spain and spoke fluent English. <S> I was so amused that I remember it well all these years later. <S> I think "planify this weekend" is identical in meaning to "plan this weekend." <S> However "plan for this weekend" could have a slightly different meaning, depending on the speaker's intent. <S> "Plan this weekend" means to plan what will occur on the weekend. <A> It is not native to English speakers. <S> It is used by French and Creole speakers. <S> Planify, a verb, means to plan, but often has economic nuances to it. <S> Planification is a noun, referring to the process of planning or organizing, again, often with regard to economic organization in French. <S> If you are planning a party for the weekend, in English, you would simply say, "I am planning a party for the weekend." <S> Used as a noun, the state highway commission would have a Planning Department, not a Planification Department. <S> Also for English speakers, the word Department in French or Creole has the additional meaning of an organizational jurisdiction similar to a named state in American English (like Ohio, or Florida, or North Dakota, West Virginia or South Carolina, or Texas). <S> In Haiti the Nordest Department is the name of the northeastern state (a smaller organizational jurisdiction of a country), specifically named and translated as the Northeast State, the one which borders the Dominican Republic at the Atlantic Ocean, aptly, in the northeastern part of Haiti. <S> Their land measurements in the Department are measured by hectares, not acres. <S> American state, county and township jurisdictions are broken down into acres. <S> In the American state of Louisiana, counties are called parishes. <A> Yes, it is a real word, but no, it is not a synonym for having a plan. <S> In technical usage, it means to turn something into a plan , something that is similar to a plan but <S> not sufficiently specific to be actionable. <S> You don't planify a weekend , you planify an heuristic (e.g.). <S> In this sense, it means something similar to "compile", only at a higher level of abstraction, and not down to byte code but to something on a human conceptual scale: Second, and even if the problem is well-constrained, MM builds only components which contain as many constraints as variables since there exists a perfect matching of the corresponding subgraph. <S> Thus, MM is not able to planify non-square components <S> [....] And from that usage it apparently passed into slang to mean "over-specify", and when used of people, to describe what they're doing, it has a negative connotations: <S> Thus, as Melville might have said: <S> Planify away, Mr. Keough! <S> With all your expertise, you cannot micromanage the slippery motives [...] of your product's consumption. <S> Thus you would not say you need "to planify this weekend" <S> unless, I don't know, you were intending on invading Normandy or similar. <S> I'm pretty sure I've planified a few weekends, and implementation started with making sure all our watches were in sync to within a couple seconds. <S> And in using planify this way, I'm being wryly self-deprecating.
| "Plan for this weekend" means to make a plan in preparation for the weekend, including actions occurring before the weekend. English speakers would know what you mean if you said you were planifying a party, but they would never say it that way.
|
Some current alternatives to the old-fashioned "Mark My Words" I thought of using this expression but (un)fortunately I did a quick check to find out that it is old-fashioned. I would like to know some current expressions that convey the same meaning. Below is the definition of the idiom under consideration. (You) mark my words . (old-fashioned) something that you say when you tell someone about something that you are certain will happen in the future That girl's going to cause trouble, you mark my words. <Q> Mark my words, the phrase isn't all that outdated. <S> Nevertheless, I tried to think of other alternatives to this phrase, since that's what you asked for. <S> I manage to think of a few: <S> Don't say I didn't tell you (along with other variants) ... <S> you can bank on it <S> You can bet your bottom dollar <S> I'm telling you... ... <S> I guarantee it <S> Here are some excerpts where these phrases mean roughly the same thing as mark my words : <S> Don’t say I didn’t tell you : Two years from now, the GOP will officially split into two parties... <S> (from a news article by Charles Ellison, 2014) <S> And you can bank on this : <S> while crusades may start out as one-man crusades, if the idea behind the enterprise is good, soon you'll have lots of support. <S> (from Magic of Thinking Big , David Schwartz, 1987) <S> We can teach all the right responses in the world <S> but if we never role model them - well, you can bet your bottom dollar <S> you won't see them in your children. <S> (from a book on parenting by Eydie Comeaux, 2003) <S> I'm telling you , there's only one way you gonna get to Norlins now, and that's by cab.(from <S> Old Glory: <S> A Voyage Down the Mississippi by Jonathan Raban, 2011) You can replace the bolded words with mark my words , and the passages will pretty much mean the same thing. <S> As for the currency of mark my words , an Ngram hints that its usage may have peaked about 100 years ago. <S> Yet even in recent years it still dwarfs some of the alternatives I've mentioned: I think the most interesting part of that Ngram, though, is the sudden spike in <S> I guarantee it, which seems to coincide with Joe Namath's famous Super Bowl prediction , further discussed in this column . <A> <A> I disagree -- I think it's not that old-fashioned and a perfectly fine expression that you should feel free to use (speaking from the perspective of American English). <S> You could say "I just know it" or "I'm telling you" to mean roughly the same thing, but I like "mark my words" best. <A> Inspired by the phrase Please listen to me! <S> (while I was watching the movie mentioned in the comment), I can come up with many other common phrases that can be used "when I tell someone about something that I'm certain will happen in the future". <S> In other words, they can replace the part [ you mark my words ] in your example sentence: <S> That girl's going to cause trouble, [ you mark my words ]. <S> Here are some possibilities I can think of, <S> You listen to me (along with its variations, such as You must listen to me , Please listen to me! , and so on) <S> You must believe me (along with its variations, such as Believe me , You have to believe me , <S> You should believe me , <S> You better believe me , You'd better believe me , and so on) <S> Trust me <S> (along with its variations, such as You have to trust me , <S> You better trust me , and so on) <S> Take my word for it <S> (this one is an idiom, meaning Believe me .)
| I think I would be most likely to say, "You just wait and see!"
|
Can we say "She has a black car. She goes to school by the car?" I heard this utterance the other day. My understanding is that we cannot say "by the car" such as "I go to school by car." Is this true for this case in my question? <Q> Transport I go to work by bus <S> but I go home on foot. <S> I hate travelling by train. <S> Modes of transport (by bus, by train, by car, by plane, by bicycle) don’t have an article. <S> Notice that on foot is different. <S> Your example could be <S> She has a black car. <S> She takes it to school every day or <S> She has a black car and a black motorcycle; she takes the car to school every day. <A> "The" brings emphasis to the particular black car here. <S> My father bought me a new car. <S> I travel by the car to work. <S> The reference here is to the car that my father bought me. " <S> That car" would be better usage, but "the car" works here. <S> How is the this for a stylistic technique, maybe in a work of fiction... <S> She has a black car. <S> She travels to school by the car. <S> As it is is a limited edition Ferrari, the car is the talking point of the school and has become almost synonymous with her... <S> The focus is on the car, so "the" goes on to become a stylistic tool rather than a mere article. <S> So while in normal conversation you would say, travel by car ; travel by the car may be used for/with "special effects" in places. <A> or 'She goes to school by car, a black one.' <S> Whilst 'by' is used with modes of transport, you run into difficulty with it if there is an article. <S> One wouldn't normally say, for example, 'She goes to school by the black car'. <S> In that instance one would use 'in the black car'. <A> You are correct, "She goes to school by the car" does not mean " <S> She goes to school by car". <S> So we might have to become fanciful to think of what it might mean. <S> Maybe the school building is near the parking place of the car, so "She goes to school by the car" means that she is "by the car" when she "goes to school".
| You could say, 'She has a black car, by/in which she goes to school.'
|
should go vs should get going What is the difference between "should go" and "should get going"? I read the two links below but I think they seem contradictory to me. The speakers are talking out of their personal usage, and this is perfectly fine. It's only an issue when their personal usage contradicts each other. If there are many speakers would use them in what seems contradictory to me, it could mean that there is no difference in Spoken English, but formal only. So could you tell me the difference by both, explanation and giving example scenarios/sentences. Here are some suggested criteria to use for comparison I compiled from the two links, but you are encouraged to add modify whatever helps make a better answer. Urgency of what makes you get going/go (in other words, the reason) Strength/rudeness vs mildness/softness of the two constructs internal (i.e under your control)/external (i.e beyond your control) Note: You may want to give a prelim answer and then update it from the comments in case you need some clarifications and that might be even better. I didn't give quotes to what seems contradictory because it would make the post long and also to be honest I am not confident that I get the difference clear after reading both. So I thought of starting from scratch. The links would help the reader make clearer answers I believe. External answers: ell.Stackexchange.com: “ I should go” vs. “I should be going ” Wordreference.com: " We should go / We should get going " <Q> from my perspective (American dialect): To "get going" means to take concrete actions to prepare to leave. <S> It can also mean "to hurry up." <S> So, for instance, if I have a lot to do today, and I am dawdling over my breakfast and drinking my second cup of coffee, someone might say "you should get going!" <S> But they probably wouldn't say "you should go!" <S> So "I should get going" is something I'm more likely to use when I'm implying that I have somewhere to go and stuff to do. <S> "I should go" <S> I'm more likely to use when I should leave. <S> (For instance: we are at your house, we just had an unpleasant conversation, and I feel unwelcome: "I should go. <S> " I am at your house for a dinner party <S> and it's time for me to go to bed <S> "I should get going.") <S> Summary : "I should get going" <S> implies I "should" because I have somewhere else to be, whereas "I should go <S> " implies I "should" because it's important that I not be here. <S> This is subtle but becomes more strong when we change "I" to "you." <S> As far as "I should be going," it's something I hear in movies <S> but I don't personally say; maybe it is more British, or maybe it is just old-fashioned. <A> In my opinion, as a native English speaker, there is no difference in urgency nor in politeness between these two statements. <S> Some may perceive slightly more formality to the abbreviated version. <S> "I should go" <S> has a sense of finality about it. <S> It could sound like an abrupt end to the encounter. <S> On the other hand, "I should get going" or "I should be going" seem a bit… softer, I suppose. <S> It's like "I should get going (soon). <S> " <S> It seems a bit less formal as well. <S> It could also just come down to personal style. <S> Personally, I tend to use the second version "I should be going," often followed by "this is me -- going" as I actually depart. <S> This is by no means a normal thing, it's just my thing. ;-) <A> One notable difference is that you can embed an object between the auxiliary and the main lexical verb (present participle form (-ing)): <S> We should get something going for next weekend. <S> We should get someone going on this. <S> We should get ourselves going, or we'll be late. <S> In general, style manuals frowned on the use of "get" in the 20s (and still to this day for technical writing). <S> So it is a less formal structure, used in friendly conversation. <S> Since your question concerns the first person, yes, I agree that there is a sort of conflict between the I who moves and the I who is moved (what you described as internal (I as subject) and external (I as object): <S> :) <S> get being an inceptive verb, the focus is on the beginning of the process. <S> With the infinitive or verbal base the focus is on the entire process of "going" without differentiation. <S> (The infinitive is less anchored in the present moment than the -ing form). <S> A contemporaneous moment in fact... <S> I got myself going <S> I had a hard time <S> getting myself going this morning. <S> etc. <S> :) <S> Causative structures are often complicated :)
| "I should get (myself) going" expresses a bit of regret (or at least emotional involvement) at the idea of having to move oneself away.
|
Construction of Past tense in English I want to say to my colleague that, a few years back, he and I were working in same building. Should I say: This is the same building where we were working. or This is the same building where we had been working. or This is the same building we would work. or This is the same building we worked. I am confused. Please bear with me and explain in simple terms. <Q> As Steve Meinkoff says, the conventional way to say it is, "We used to work in the same building." <S> One could also say, "We worked in the same building. <S> " Leaving out the "used to" de-emphasizes the fact that it is in the past, but that should still be apparent from the past tense. <S> Note that if you say, "This is the same building where we worked", you are no longer saying "you and I worked in the same building", but rather that this building here, the building that you are somehow identifying, is the same building as the one where you worked. <S> That is, you have shifted from saying that you and I worked in the same building to saying that this building is the one that we worked in, as opposed to the two of us working together in some other building. <S> The various sentences you give are all different tenses. <S> In this case the difference in meaning in fairly subtle. <S> This is the same building where we were working. <S> We worked there at some specific time in the past, as opposed to just generally in the past. <S> This is the same building where we had been working. <S> We worked there at some specific time in the past that preceded some other event in the past. <S> Typically "had been Xing" is used with an identification of some other event. <S> Like, "This is the same building where we had been working when Sally arrived." <S> This is the same building we would work. <S> Now you are saying that you worked the building, as opposed to working IN the building. <S> This probably isn't what you mean, as we don't normally speak of "working a building". <S> (It is possible, though. <S> Salesman will talk of "working a building" meaning that they are making sales pitches to people in that building.) <S> This is the same building we worked. <S> Again, you are working the building rather than working in the building. <A> All the examples contain the word "this", which implies that you're standing outside the building in question, or maybe looking at a picture of it. <S> Either way, it's obvious which building you're talking about, which makes the word "same" redundant. <S> So you could just point at the building, and say: We used to work here. <S> "Used to" indicates something that was true in the past, but isn't now. <A> Though for all four versions, constructing the sentences like that suggest that you are going to talk about something else that was ongoing at the same time, like <S> This is the same building we would work in when our other site was closed for repair. <S> The 'would' suggests that you are going to further explicate with some condition that was operating when you were working in that building. <S> The second sentence has a similar issue; using the "were were working" as opposed to "we worked" <S> suggests that you are also going to talk about some event which happened at the same time period you were working in that building. <S> This is the same building where we were working when we heard about 9-11. <S> I think for your purpose, it would be simpler for you to just say We used to work in that building. <S> or We used to work in the same building <S> "Used to" means that you don't work there anymore. <S> (And "used" in this context is pronounced more like "yoost", instead of "yoozed")
| If you're not in a position to specify which building it was, you might instead say: We used to work in the same building.
|
"All you left with is nothing" vs "All you are left with is nothing" "All you left with is nothing. ""All you are left with is nothing." Which one is correct? The latter one makes more sense to me. Thanks in advance! <Q> "All you left with is nothing" means that you left a place with nothing, eg <S> , you went to an event that had prizes, but you didn't win anything, so you left with nothing. <S> Note that the construction "All you left with is nothing" is non-standard and would be best said " <S> And you left with nothing." <S> "All you are left with is nothing" means that you had something <S> but now you have nothing, eg <S> , you saved up lots of money and spent it on stupid things. <S> Now, all you are left with is nothing. <S> Again, this is non-standard. <S> You could say it informally and be understood, but "Now you have nothing left" is better. <A> "to leave with" means to leave a place with an item <S> In the context of your question, "all you are left with" is the first of those, while "all you left with" is the second. <A> Both are correct; they just mean different things. <S> All you left with is nothing. <S> means: <S> All you (had / took with you) <S> when you left is nothing. <S> On the other hand: All you are left with is nothing. <S> means: <S> All you have now is nothing. <S> and it sounds like you previously did have something.
| They are two different phrasal verbs: "to be left with" means to possess something after an event has happened.
|
What is the opposite of "busy schedule"? What is the opposite of "busy schedule"? I read the forum at this link , and it says "loose schedule" is not a good choice. What is the common adjective for this? <Q> Depends a bit on what you mean by "opposite", but the best choice is probably " open ". <S> "My schedule is empty " goes even further than " open ": it means you have nothing planned. <S> "My schedule is loose " would be a way to say that your schedule is flexible (though personally, I would stick to the latter word in this context). <S> In other words, you have things planned — perhaps lots of things — but you can move them around if needed. <S> It's perfectly possible to be busy and flexible at the same time. <S> "I have an easy schedule for tomorrow" means that the things you have planned are all simple tasks that you will be able to complete without much effort. <S> There is also some implication that at least parts of your schedule are open , because part of being easy is not having any time pressure. <S> (Peeling a potato is a simple task if you have 10 minutes to do it. <S> If you only have 30 seconds, suddenly it's a stressful & difficult activity.) <S> If what you're looking for is a way to say the opposite of "I'm busy", i.e. without the word "schedule" in there, then your best bet is to simply negate the statement: "I'm not busy". <A> Another way to say this is that you have lots of free time . <A> I've also heard people aiming for a relaxed schedule , meaning there's lots of downtime between individual appointments, allowing for meetings to be extended or picking up something to eat in between. <S> However, the term could also be understood to refer to a loose schedule, eg. <S> that coming 15-30 minutes late would be completely okay. <A> "My schedule is light. <S> " That is the opposite of a heavy schedule. <S> A schedule isn't busy, the person is busy. <S> A schedule can also be described as "full", "clear", or "open".
| "My schedule is open" means that, while you may have some things scheduled, they are few and far between, so it should be easy for you to fit something else in there.
|
Ambiguity of the idiom - "A friend in need is a friend indeed." Since my childhood, I have been told about this phrase/idiom by my teachers, friends and parents. Since now I see everything written in English microscopically, this seems perplexed to me. A friend in need is a friend indeed. Think about two friends - Jack and Jill. Now, if Jack is in need, does he become friend indeed? Keeping Jack as main person, where is Jill described? The former 'friend' or the latter? Or this is written keeping ONLY ONE PERSON in mind? No second person (as a friend) is required? Furthermore, the adverb indeed is described as the word used to emphasize a statement or response confirming something already suggested. Then... Jack is Jill's friend if (and only?) he's in need (of hers?) all the time! Does the idiom require comma or an additional word somewhere to make it clearer? Like this - A friend, who comes (and probably helps) when you need, is a friend indeed. How the original is grammatical? <Q> This proverb is also common in my first language. <S> Perhaps they were derived from the same origin. <S> In any case, the one in my first language is very clear, and can be translated back as: <S> [A friend (when you're) in need] is [a friend indeed] , where in need means "in tough times", and <S> a friend indeed means "a true friend". <S> Also note that both of these "a friend" refer to the same person . <S> I looked up the relevant word and phrase, and they are helpful. <S> need (singular/uncountable noun) <S> a situation in which it is necessary for something to be done in need (phrase) not having enough food, money, clothing, or other things that are necessary for life <S> indeed (adverb) used for emphasizing that something is true when there is some doubt about it <S> Which supports the interpretation above. <S> In tough times, most of our friends may disappear or try to stay away from us. <S> However, your true friends will always stay close and even try to help us out of the bad situation. <S> In other words, when a bad thing happened to you, it might be a good time to prove which one of your friends are your true friends. <S> In my opinion, the proverb, A friend in need is a friend indeed , is already clear the way it is; and it doesn't need a comma or any additional words. <A> This expression should not be mistaken for one suggesting or refering to two persons at the same time. <S> Rather,it means the quality of sticking close to one's companion(friend)during difficulty.the "indeed"refers to the willingness of a friend to help his friend,which must be put into "action"or "deeds. <S> "Then <S> it becomes fitting to say:"a friend in need <S> is a friend indeed." <A> I believe it is like a pun "in deed-indeed". <S> So if you are in trouble-/need/, you expect some real help- /deed/, the one who provides you with the latter is a true friend /a friend indeed/ <A> A friend in need gives the other person (their friend) the opportunity to do good deeds (mitzvahs). <S> In that way, the friend in need is a good friend, indeed.
| A friend in need is a friend indeed.
|
What would you call the paper you work out your math on? Without computers, we would need to work out difficult math problems on paper. This is still true in math tests, where the teacher would give students a few pieces of paper so they can work out their problems. Usually, students can ask for more paper, if needed. I don't know a specific word for this kind of paper. I was guessing that it might be working paper or jotting paper , but they don't sound quite right. What should I call this kind of paper in English? <Q> Laure calls my attention to scrap paper , which appears from this GoogleNGram almost always to have been more popular in BrE, and to have become more popular in AmE since I left high school. <S> Jim calls my attention to the alternative term work sheet . <S> This works, too; but in my experience it is usually employed when you are supposed to turn in the paper, with your exam, rather than discarding it. <S> A working paper is usually either a) <S> a report on a "work-in-progress" or b) a "working" version of a paper which is still in development and not yet ready for submission or publication. <S> The traditional term in textual criticism for an author's manuscript draft, often full of strikethroughs, insertions and corrections, is foul papers , from which a "clean" version or fair copy is made. <A> In exams at school, we always called it "rough paper", meaning paper that was used only for working out calculations etc. <S> and to be thrown away afterwards. <S> We could also have called it "scrap paper". <S> I have not heard the term "scratch paper" as suggested by the other answerer and whilst I could understand it from context, it would not be a familiar term to me. <S> It sounds more like a phrase used by the older generations, like something my parents might say (I'm 27.) <S> Then again, it could be an area thing, too. <S> I am from the UK. <A> Whilst working at my computer, I often have a 'scribble pad' beside me, to work things out on, or to jot down unfinished ideas
| The usual term when I was in school was scratch paper —scraps of paper you "scratch out" calculations and notes on, to be discarded after results have been fair-copied into your exam answer or essay.
|
What is meant by disturbing in this context My girlfriend and I do not agree on the meaning of the following: "It's disturbing" I say that it could mean two things: it is interrupting it is unsettling But she thinks it can only mean It is unsettling What do you guys think? Can it be a verb in the sentence or not? <Q> It's disturbing. <S> This is a complete sentence using the participial adjective disturbing , meaning (in your words) "it is unsettling". <S> It cannot be the verb <S> disturb meaning "interrupt" because this sense of the verb is transitive and requires a direct object: <S> It's disturbing me . <S> Here, me is the direct object of disturbing , so it's possible for it to have the "interrupt" meaning. <S> But without the direct object, it's not possible. <A> You are correct to this extent: the verb disturb has a range of literal and figurative meanings: You can “disturb” someone's work or routine, or any process or flow, and thus interrupt it. <S> You can “disturb” an arrangement or disposition by moving components. <S> Any of these senses may be expressed with disturbing , the present participle, as the head of a non-finite clause or as a component of a progressive (continuative) construction. <S> Telephone calls are a nuisance, disrupting my thought and disturbing my work. <S> What I heard about his lack of progress was disturbing me. <S> I wish the cleaners would stop disturbing my papers. <S> But your girlfriend is also correct, to this extent. <S> In the sentence <S> It's disturbing <S> the word disturbing does not act as a verb or component of a verb construction. <S> It acts merely as an adjective —linguists call this a deverbal , an ‘un-verbed’ verbform. <S> And as an adjective, disturbing has only the sense of “mentally or emotionally unsettling”. <S> A disturbing telephone call, for instance, is one in which unsettling facts or attitudes are communicated, not one which interrupts your routine. <A> It seems to me that you are feeling unsettled because of her disturbing argument. <S> This verb disturb <S> is very tricky to us learners, because when we say "It is disturbing" , it is disturbingly not a verb anymore; disturbing now becomes an adjective. <S> So grammatically speaking, your girlfriend is at an advantage because interrupting cannot be used as an adjective, while both disturbing and unsettling can, as @snailplane explained. <S> But if she said that the unsettling in "It's unsettling" is a verb, then you can say that she was wrong too. <S> Because, in your example sentences, neither disturbing nor unsettling is a verb . <S> Your advantage is perhaps the face that both interrupt and unsettle are synonyms of disturb , and they are the synonyms in different senses, as @StoneyB explained. <S> A disturbing movie could give me an unsettled feeling. <S> However, if someone interrupted me, it would be more likely that I would feel that they were disturbing me rather than unsettling me . <S> On the other hand, if someone keeps disturbing me, I probably will think that they are so annoying rather than unsettling . <S> And, before I break into a conversation, I might ask "Am I interrupting (something/anything)?" first, because I know that I might disturb them by interrupting their conversation. <S> One last note, as I have often been reminded, each word exists for good reason. <S> Even synonyms cannot always replace each other. <S> And, context is the king.
| You can “disturb” someone's mental or emotional state and thus worry or unsettle them.
|
What does "maximum should be at least" mean? I found this phrase used in a question in a competitive examination. The maximum value of X should be at least ... ("X" and the rest of the question isn't relevant here, so I am omitting it.) What does this statement mean? It seems inherently inconsistent (How could something be the least and the maximum at the same time?), but I could be wrong. <Q> It does sound rather odd, but it is actually correct. <S> Imagine that you are using a car to travel through the desert. <S> On most compact cars (in the US, anyway) the fuel tank is 10-12 gallons (~37 - ~45 litres.) <S> Generally speaking, this is enough to travel <S> ~350 miles (560 km.) <S> Thus, the maximum amount of fuel will take the car a certain distance. <S> But let us say that the desert is 500 miles (800 km) across, with no fueling stations anywhere in that distance. <S> The maximum amount of fuel the car can hold will not be enough to make it across. <S> Therefore, in order to have even a chance of successfully crossing the desert, the car's maximum amount of fuel must be at least 15 gallons (55 litres.) <S> If the maximum does not meet this minimum standard, the car does not have even the possibility of a successful crossing. <S> Because of the confusion that can result from this sentence construction, it's usually better to phrase it something like this: <S> The maximum must be larger/greater than. . . <A> 1) at least is very differently than the least . <S> At least means bigger than a specific value, while the least means the smallest. <S> 2) <S> In your task, you have to show "the maximum should be at least". <S> This might occur in several possible situations: the maximum is impossible to be calculated (science is unable to do that), the maximum can be calculated but the exam takers do not have the ability to do it (e.g. too advanced), the exam takers have ability but there is no time to do it during the exam period. <S> Since you yet want to gain some information from the hypothesis, even if you cannot calculate the maximum, you show at least that it is bigger than a certain value. <S> Another possibility is the maximum can be calculated in a relative time, but the exam wants to test the ability to apply a certain analytic procedure (e.g. known inequality), a procedure which will take less time to apply than calculating the maximum. <A> <A> Here is a simple example of how this can make sense: Choose three numbers from the range 0 to 100 such that the minimum is at least 9 and the maximum is at least 50. <S> 10, 20, and 75 would be a good set. <S> 10, 20, and 30 would not.
| It a nutshell, your maximum value should -also- be higher than a specified threshold, before being taken into account or being considered as useful.
|
A colloquial name for juice boxes What are the colloquial names for juice boxes like the one below of children's size? A juice box, also called a carton or popper, is a small container used to conveniently carry and consume drinks (most often juice). They are frequently made of paperboard with an aluminum foil lining, but variations exist. Juice boxes are most popular with children, although other uses include emergency drinking water and wine. ( Wikipedia ) <Q> I've only ever heard these called juice boxes . <S> I was not aware of any other name for them. <S> But you've actually answered your own question in your question, with the information from the wikipedia article you linked: A juice box, also called a carton or popper , is a small container used to conveniently carry and consume drinks (most often juice). <S> I've never heard carton or popper , but those might be regional terms (or BrE?). <S> I'd just stick with calling them juice boxes . <S> But the answer is in the question! <A> Juice box does not exist in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. <S> These containers are called cartons in British English. <A> A bit long winded, but just how it is. <S> I’ve never heard of poppers in this context before, only as a substitute for the word ‘buttons’, usually by elder folks; though I do believe that ‘Juice Box’ is the American term for cartons of juice.
| In British they’re cartons, just not necessarily juice cartons, rather cartons of juice.
|
The action of getting bite-sized pieces of bread Imagine you have a piece of loaf of bread or a pita bread, and you have a bowl of thick lumpy soup. You don't have a spoon, so you hold the bread in one hand, and you pinch the bread with your thumb and index fingers from the other hand to cut a small piece that is as big as a spoonful, or a bite-sized piece. You take that piece and dip it in the soup and then you eat it. The questions are: 1- What do you call the process or action of taking from the bread with your thumb and index fingers? 2- What do you call that pinch of bread that is more or less as big as a spoonful? <Q> Here are my answers, though the second one may not be as satisfying as you'd like: <S> I always say that I tear off a piece of bread. <S> I don't say cut because I'm not using a sharp tool (such as a knife or scissors). <S> I call it a small piece of bread . <S> I'm afraid I can't come up with any better term than that. <S> I have to say, though, I love the Italian term <S> Mari-Lou A gave in her comment , la scarpetta . <S> I might just start saying that in English, even though I'm sure few people will understand me without explanation :-) <A> Going out on a limb here <S> but I don't think there is an English equivalent of the Italian, scarpetta, which translated in English is little shoe . <S> One theory behind the origin of the word is that the piece of bread used to mop up the sauce acts like a shoe by scraping or sliding across the plate. <S> I really can't think of anything which comes close. <S> Italians love their bread, and their pasta and will happily eat the two side by side. <S> The British less so, in the past they would tend to butter their slices of bread or small rolls and eat them before the arrival of the main course. <S> This was always something that struck me odd whenever I went to British restaurants. <S> Now of course, garlic bread seems to be ubiquitous, and I'm sure Americans and British love to soak up sauces. <S> I'm digressing, back to to the OP question. <S> I would use a verb to describe the action of absorbing sauce, meat juices, or indeed soup with pieces of bread. <S> mop clean or soak up (something) by wiping He was mopping his plate with a piece of bread <S> dip <S> Put or let something down quickly or briefly in or into (liquid) <S> soak Make or allow (something) to become thoroughly wet by immersing it in liquid <A> 1: I'd have to agree with @snailplane that the most likely name for the action is to rip off or tear off a piece of bread. <S> 2 <S> : You could call it a bite of bread if you would pop it into your mouth whole, or a chunk of bread (you could even qualify it as a small or large chunk), but I wouldn't go as far as calling it a hunk . <S> In my estimation, a hunk would be a full serving <S> (a piece big enough that you could not possibly fit it into your mouth all at once), a chunk would be more than a comfortable mouthful (probably 2-3 normal bites' worth of bread, but people being what they are, you might still stuff a whole chunk into your mouth all at once), and a bite would be something that you could have bitten off and chewed comfortably. <S> (All of these are approximate and are subject to regional variation, of course.)
| However, you could also pull off , if the bread is soft and doesn't require a lot of effort to separate a piece; or break off , which can be used in general but might lead people to think the bread was very hard, or twist off if you actually do twist the bread in order to separate it.
|
What does "as you might expect" mean? As you might expect , I did not take Mr Farraday's suggestion at all seriously that afternoon, regarding it as just another instance of an American gentleman's unfamiliarity with what was and what was not commonly done in England. Can might here mean certainly? Or it has its usual sense, that is probably? <Q> I believe the phrase is idiomatic, and the expression simply means "as expected," or "as can be reasonably expected. <S> " A synonym would be unsurprisingly , while a similar idiom would be "it's no surprise that..." As you might expect , typically the bigger the overall operating budget, the higher the average salary. <S> The class description starts out with the word class , as you might expect , and the name of the class. <S> As you might expect , someone who has had just one or two late payments typically looks better to lenders than someone who has had a dozen. <S> One book mention that the phrase can help put two people "on the same side of the fence": <S> Helpful Phrase #1: <S> “As you might expect” This little gem suggests that you and your customer share a worldview. <S> It puts you both on the same side of the fence. <S> It also allows you to share information with the customber, while suggesting "I know that you already know this." <S> I think might gets used in this phrase because it sounds more polite and less presumptuous than, say, "As you would surely expect. <A> The phrase means it would be reasonable for somebody to expect something, and they may or may not expect it. <S> It does not mean they certainly expect it, because you don't usually know with certainty what another person does or doesn't expect. <S> While in some cases it could be implied that there's a high probability that the other person expects it, even that is not always the case. <S> The phrase could be used in the sense of, "As you might expect, if you considered the matter carefully, ...", with the speaker believing the other person hasn't actually thought enough about the situation to have formed an expectation. <A> It has one of its usual modal meanings—expressing that something is epistemically less certain. <S> As you expect, ... As you might expect, ... The first statement sounds certain. <S> The second statement sounds less certain . <S> In this case, expressing uncertainty makes sense. <S> The author can't be certain about what the reader expects; they can only express a strong possibility that a reader might expect the following statement. <S> And this implies that the following statement is reasonable to expect , which is the real purpose of those four words.
| " For all practical purposes, that phrase would pretty much mean the same thing, but might is gentler, and allows for the possibility that the other person might actually be surprised instead.
|
How to say that something is worthy In this sentence: We design to create a world in human dignity and as possible I want to say that we design to make a world that is worthy for humans to live in, as possible as it is . "As possible as it is" means: Our abilities are limited. So we may can't do something ideally, but it is still worthy because we have used all of the current possibilities. I want to say that's not about quality to use "good" instead. I have used translators. Is it true to say this that way? Does it mean anything, after all?What the better sentence ? Edit: How about this one ? We design to create a world that is worthy for human to live in, and as much as possible. <Q> To me, "as possible as it is" is unnecessary. <S> It's already implied. <S> Also, "create a world" sounds more like we're designing a new game, where we can create as many alternate worlds as we want to. <S> The phrase "make the world a better place" is more idiomatic. <S> So, I would like to offer this: We design to make the world worth living in. <S> We design to make our world worth living in. <S> If you want to emphasize that what you can do is limited, you might say: We design to make the world as worth living in as possible. <S> But that sounds a little wordy, and a little clumsy. <S> If you want to emphasize that you will do everything that you can do, you can also say: We design to make the world worth living in, every way we can. <S> But that might not be what you really wanted to say. <A> The sentence "We design to create a world in human dignity and as possible" makes little sense in English, and its end is outright ungrammatical — it appears as if you cut it off in the middle. <S> Do not use it. <S> Your explanation of what it is you are trying to say is much better: "We design to make a world that is worthy for human to live in, as possible as we can". <S> It still has a couple mistakes, though: humans should be plural, and "as possible as we can" is ungrammatical, it should be "as good as we can" (a more idiomatical altermative still would be "to the best of our abilities"). <S> The sentence is still a bit clumsy overall, but there are any number of possible rewordings, and which one is the best is in the eye of the beholder. <S> I am specifically not starting a list here, so as not to turn this into a subjective and argumentative question. <A> " inasmuch as " may sound old-fashioned, but it seems a good match as you are speaking of rather lofty ideas, and I think it goes well with words like "worthy" and "design": <S> We design to create a world that is worthy of humans, inasmuch as we are able. <S> If you want something more straightforward and less poetic, then you could try: <S> We aim to create a world deserving of humans, to the extent that that is possible.
| We design to make the world worth living in, and as much as possible.
|
How do I respond to my Professor's email, wherein he has mistaken my gender? I am a Chinese student. I was emailing a professor for graduate study opportunity. He replied with the title: Dear Mr. Li Actually, I am a female. Would it be a little strange if I told him in my reply? and how do I put this, should I say "I am a female?" Thank you very much. <Q> How about you reply like this: <S> Dear Professor Smith, (content of your reply) Thanks and Regards, <S> Ms. Li Wei <S> That avoids the issue of "correcting" him altogether. <S> He would hopefully get the hint. <S> Edit : Per StoneyB's suggestion in the below comment <S> , I changed Miss to Ms. . <A> I agree with the suggestion offered by Happy & StoneyB; that is, you could simply sign your name with "Ms.", and hope that he notices and gets the hint. <S> That said, your question asked about a good way to phrase it. <S> I think the best policy is to be gracious and try not to embarrass the other party. <S> As for the use of "female," you could use that, or you could say "a woman" instead. <S> Here's what I might recommend: <S> By the way, I noticed you greeted me using "Mr." <S> Perhaps there's a little mix-up there, as I am a woman. <S> No offense taken. <S> By the way, I noticed you greeted me using "Mr. <S> " I just wanted to let you know that I'm a woman. <S> But please don't worry about it. :-) <A> This is a recurring problem in email conversations for people with Chinese names, as when only seeing the English transliteration and not the actual Chinese character of the name, it can be impossible to infer the person's gender. <S> Title, function Company name <S> Contact details <S> I don't know if you're using a signature, but this would definitely be a subtle way of letting the professor know that you're female and also of avoiding this problem in the future. <S> Maybe in this case, since the professor has presumably already seen your old signature, you could think about about explaining this to him in the postscriptum of your next email: <S> PS: I happened to notice that you adressed me as Mr. Don't worry about it though, <S> that's actually not the first time this has happened. <S> Since my name makes it very easy for this to occur, I have now added a little hint to my signature. <A> For anyone curious to know how it ended, @wei responded : <S> Thank you all for your answers and suggestions. <S> I replied last night using happy's suggestions. <S> The Professor replied me with even a Chinese sentence, if I translate it, it would be "Sorry, Miss Li, is it?" <S> (and he also wrote English expressing similar meaning of apology) <S> I really think it is not easy to keep email contact with foreign professors. <S> Sometimes I think I should talk about academic questions in every email <S> sometimes I think it is kind of unnatural. <A> Knowing more about the style of his answer would help focusing this diplomatic operation better, but Happy's excellent suggestion is almost surely the best bet. <S> If you still don't quite like it for some reason (you haven't marked it accepted), here's an alternative idea <S> , that might work. <S> Assuming his answer was encouraging, and you are replying him because your case is proceeding (rather than to just tell him you are a woman ;) ), then that means a CV must be involved somewhere in the process. <S> So, just add a field to your personal data section: Gender: female <S> (In case you've already submitted one without that, you can almost always find a way to re-send an updated/fixed version.) <A> This happens all the time in academia and in the business world, too. <S> I would just suggest always getting in the habit of putting Ms. in front of your name when there may even be the hint of an issue. <S> I work at a university where there are lots of students coming and going <S> and I see this all the time. <S> Believe me the professor is probably trying to be diligent and will definitely notice if there is a Ms. in front of the name the next time. <S> I know I would. <S> If it happens repeatedly after you start using the Ms. prefix, then I would explicitly call attention. <S> But probably not before. <S> After all, at this point it is just a single character mistake in an email (Mr. vs. Ms.) <S> and I would treat it as such until it is clear that the prof. is clearly not paying attention.
| In some business conversation I encountered, people would add a hint to their email signature, for example Li Wei (Ms.) You might also soften the blow by using an emoticon.
|
What is the difference between "tedious to" and "tedious for"? Which of to or for should I use in the following sentence? Nevertheless, as correcting one’s written work seems to be quite tough and sometimes [ tedious to or tedious for ] both students and teachers, it is important to do it in a proper way. And what is the difference between the two alternatives? <Q> Usage of prepositions is often highly idiomatic in most languages, and English is no exception. <S> This is an example of that, and a bit challenging to explain. <S> Googling "to vs for" will show numerous attempts which you may find helpful. <S> I'll add yet another attempt. <S> "I sent a book to Bob" means that a book began in my possession and ended in Bob's possession. <S> "I sent a book for Bob" means that a book began in my possession, and my intention was that it should end in Bob's possession. <S> So, in this case (there are many other uses of both to and for), to has a sense of transfer, and for has a sense of direction at a recipient. <S> In your example, the tedium is directed at students and teachers, so for is correct. <A> The nuance differs. <S> 1) <S> The activity was tedious. <S> 2) <S> The activity was tedious for him. <S> "Tedious" is innately linked to his performance of the activity. <S> Depending on the context, it may imply the share of the activity that fell to him was tedious, or that he lacked the ability to perform the activity easily. <S> 3) <S> The activity was tedious to him. <S> Here, "to him" reflects his feelings about the activity. <S> Others might or might not agree, but to him the activity seems tedious. <S> Typically in English one normally sees "it was tedious for him" but "it seemed tedious to him", which makes the distinction clearer - the second case makes the subjectivity of the judgement explicit. <S> Compare "Going outdoors was tedious for him" vs "Going outdoors was tedious to him". <S> In the first instance, replacing "was" with "seemed" changes the nuance of the sentence, but in the second instance it does not. <S> I would suggest similar syntax applies to a whole range of adjectives that imply judgement e.g. "Being absent from his post <S> was strange for him" and "Being absent from his post was strange to him". <S> Given that you are describing the activity as actually tedious rather than expressing the feelings of others, "for" is correct. <A> Tedious for. <S> "Tedious" is not doing or giving anything to the students and teachers, and it's not followed by a verb. <S> I can't explain exactly why it's for, but "tedious to" just sounds wrong unless it's directly followed by a verb. <A> My two cents... <S> Let's try this by replacing the subject in your sentence 'both students and teachers' with a simpler one: 'me'. <S> What is correct you think? <S> 1. <S> This is tedious for me.2. <S> This is tedious to me. <S> I am sure you think the first one is correct. <S> The sentence you want follows the same grammatical structure. <S> Hence, you need to use 'tedious for'.
| "Tedious" is an innate property of the activity as described.
|
Is the usage of "if" correct here? The only way to know you've done the job is if I go in with you. I guess the sentence describes that only if I go in with you, I can know that you've done the job or not . But is the sentence correct? Can "if" be used like that? <Q> I suspect what is troubling you here is the use of an if clause as a nominal. <S> [ SUBJECT <S> The ... way ] ... <S> [ VERB (copula) is ] <S> [ COMPLEMENT NP <S> if I go in with you. <S> ] <S> You are right to be troubled. <S> This usage is not yet accepted in formal English, which requires either a) <S> a “canonical” complement clause (preferably one with an infinitive) or b) an adverbial, reflecting the semantics of way : <S> a) complement clauses ok <S> The only way to know you've done the job is to go in with you. <S> ok <S> The only way to know you've done the job is for me to go in with you. ? <S> The only way to know you've done the job is that I go in with you. ? <S> The only way to know you've done the job is my going in with you. <S> b) adverbial: preposition phrase with gerund clause complement <S> ok <S> The only way to know you've done the job is by going in with you. <S> However, the if clause used this way is very common in informal English. <S> In fact, there's a corresponding informal use of <S> the if nominal as object of a preposition <S> : I can’t know if you’ve done the job except if I go in with you. <S> And note that there is some warrant for it, or at least an analogy, in the entirely acceptable use of if in place of whether to head a free relative nominal: <S> I can’t know if you’ve done the job. <S> So it cannot be regarded as a mistake in informal contexts. <S> And it is such a useful construction, simultaneously expressing both means and contingency, that I expect it will become acceptable even in formal contexts within the next generation or so. <A> if' is being used here so as the first person can check whether ( if ) the second person does the job. <S> So that's why 'if' is used. <S> Here are some examples that you can see how 'if' is being used. <A> The only way to know you've done the job is if I go in with you. <S> The sentence is correct. <S> If here is the condition that serves the previous clause. <S> This answers your question. <S> But then... Do you see something interesting here? <S> It actually emphasizes on whether that person has done the job rather than the status of job i.e. being completed. <S> The only way to know you've done the job is if I go in with you - <S> If I come with you, then only I see that you are doing the job and not anyone else! <S> The status of the job (being completed) can be convinced/conveyed in other ways (such as telephone or simply a text) as well. <S> But then here, the job-giver wants to ensure that the job-doer did the job themselves and did not take any assistance!
| Yes, it is correct. '
|
What is an appropriate sentence for this problem? There are two boxes A and B. The size of A is twice that B. I will allocate(divide) six apples to(into) the boxes. Four apples are allocated to A and Two apples to B. What is an appropriate phrase? "The apples are allocated to the boxes based on their size"Or " The apples are allocated to the boxes in proportion to their size"?Or ... <Q> The number of apples kept in the boxes are as per boxes' sizes. <S> This said, four apples in Box A and two in Box B. <S> That's because the Box A is double in size than that of the Box B. <A> Here are some possible alternatives, We pack our apples by box size. <S> We pack our apples according to the sizes of the boxes. <S> The apples are packed by box size. <S> The number of apples packed varies by box size. <S> The number of apples packed in each box depends on box size. <S> The number of apples in each box depends on box size. <A> If I may restate your question with (I hope) fully corrected grammar: 1) There are two boxes, A and B. 2) <S> The size of A is twice that of B. -or- <S> A is twice the size of B. -or- <S> A is twice as big as B. 3) I have six apples to be placed into boxes. <S> 4) <S> Apples are allocated to boxes based on the box sizes. <S> 5) <S> Therefore, four apples go into box A and two into box B. <S> In statement 1, the verb must agree with the plurality of the noun, so you say "are", not "is", because you are talking about more than one box. <S> In statement 2, "twice larger than" is not standard phrasing. <S> The options listed are all valid alternatives. <S> In statement 4, first of all we need the noun and the verb to match plurality again, so we say "are" because we still have more than one apple. <S> Then, note that it is important to specify what item's sizes are being used as the basis of allocation. <S> If you say "apples are allocated into boxes based on their sizes", I don't know if you mean the size of the apples, or the size of the boxes.
| The number of apples packed depends on box size.
|
I'm positive that vs I strongly believe that In general, which one is conveys a stronger conviction/opinion? I did some quick google search but didn't find any interesting results. I'm positive that or I strongly believe that <Q> "I'm positive" is typically used for factual questions and means there is no doubt whatsoever. "Are you sure that you have enough money to pay for a sandwich?" <S> "Yes, I'm positive, I have two thousand dollars in my pocket!" <S> or "No, I'm pretty sure, <S> but I'm not positive, let me count." <S> By contrast, "I believe" is more typically used for opinions . <S> "I believe" expresses an opinion and "I strongly believe" simply makes the opinion more strong (just like it says). <S> You can also use "believe" for a fact. <S> If you use "believe" for a fact, rather than an opinion, then it's inherently weaker than being positive. <S> You can say for instance, "I believe that I am older than you, but I'm not very confident in that belief. <S> " Again putting "strongly" here increases certainty. <S> The word "positive" can also be used to mean "optimistic," but typically means that one is optimistic in disposition, not about a particular opinion or fact. <A> When you are positive about something , you are optimistic. <S> You are pretty hopeful or expect that to happen. <S> When you strongly believe it , it's more of your stance/confidence with affirmation. <S> If things don't happen the way you thought. <S> In case where you were being positive will simply accept it as it was just your hope and expectation. <S> There are still chances that next time, you may still give it a shot and again be positive. <S> Whereas <S> In case where you strongly believed , you'll lose confidence or faith in that belief. <S> There are less chances that you again believe the same story and go for it in the future. <A> Stating that you strongly believe acknowledges that it's your belief, as all knowledge is ultimately. <S> Both express much certainty but 'positive' allows for no doubt while 'I believe' hints at the idea being questionable by acknowledging it to be an belief held.
| However, "positive" means that you are 100% certain.
|
"Stay home" or "stay at home" – which is correct and why? Stay home . Stay at home . When "home" functions as an adverb, it can modify the verb "stay". There are other examples, such as "go home",but there is no expression: Go to home . So I wonder which one is correct. <Q> People used to think that prepositions had to come before a noun. <S> However, in 1924 a writer called Otto Jespersen realised that prepositions are always prepositions, even if we don't use them with a noun. <S> He also realised that some prepositions never come before nouns. <S> It took a long time for people to change their thinking. <S> Now, if you look in a modern grammar such as: <S> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language <S> Huddleston & Pullum, 2002 <S> Oxford Modern English Grammar , Aarts, 2011 ... <S> you will see that prepositions are a class of words like nouns, verbs and adjectives. <S> It doesn't matter what kind of words we find them with. <S> Home in English, is a preposition. <S> There is another word home which is a noun. <S> We can use prepositions and preposition phrases as the complement of the verb BE : <S> She is in <S> She is in the bath <S> She is out <S> She is inside <S> She is inside the shop <S> She is away <S> She is around <S> She is about <S> She is abroad <S> She is home <S> Prepositions can take other preposition phrases as a complement. <S> In other words we often use two prepositions together: <S> She is out of touch <S> She is away from her desk <S> She is round about somewhere <S> She is at home <S> The Original Posters examples <S> The verb STAY usually takes a locative complement. <S> Usually this complement is a preposition phrase. <S> The sentences: Stay home Stay at home ... are both grammatical. <S> The preposition to is unusual because we usually need to use it with a noun. <S> So we see: <S> Go to work <S> Go to the shop <S> Go to a concert <S> The word to can't usually come before another preposition: <S> *Go to inside <S> *Go to away <S> *Go to out <S> *Go to abroad <S> *Go to home <S> *Go to at home <S> Notice, though that if we use the noun home instead of the preposition home , then we can use the preposition to <S> Go to my home <S> Go to different homes in the area <S> Go to homes before you buy them <S> I went to an old peoples home. <S> Hope <S> this is helpful! <A> Now that you mention it, it's an inconsistency in the language. <S> For every other place I can think of, we say "go to" or "stay at/in". " <S> Go to work." <S> "Stay at work." <S> "Go to the store." <S> "Stay at the store." <S> "Go to France." <S> "Stay in France. <S> " <S> Etc. <S> No fluent English speaker would say "Go store" or "Stay library". <S> But with "home", we routinely omit the prepositions. <S> "Stay home" is just as acceptable as "Stay at home", and people almost never say "go to home", it's always "go home". <S> Hmm, we do say "Go upstairs" and not "Go to upstairs", but I think that's because we're thinking of "upstairs" as a direction rather than a destination. <S> But note that when used as an adjective, it becomes "stay-at-home", as in, "a stay-at-home mom". <S> No one says, "a stay-home mom". <S> Idioms and conventions are not always totally logical or consistent. <S> That's what makes learning English such an adventure. <A> I am an English learner <S> but.. I've been told that 'home' in <S> "I'm home!" <S> is an adverb and my dictionary do say 'home' is used as an adverb. <S> I had been long believing that 'home' is a noun but <S> Collins Dictionary also says it's used as an adverb. <S> I've learned that the grammar is something came after the usage and <S> , for instance, I've learned that 'the hard way' <S> in "I learned it the hard way" is also an adverb. <S> I saw a dictionary in my native tongue has 'the hard way' describing as an adverb. <S> It's an adverb phrase and my grammar book does mention there's something like 'adverb phrase'. <A> Both are correct. <S> Nevertheless COCAE shows Stay home far too frequently used as compared to Stay at home. <S> Go to home <S> is okay though very very rare. <S> One of the examples - <S> There was a few times I had to get rental skates, go out on the ice, get her off of the ice so that I could go to home and go to work. <S> To me, this was surprising - <S> Go home <S> (verb) - return home! <S> The above mentioned answer answers your concern about you telling someone to stay at home and not go out. <S> In addition, stay-at-home can also be used as an adjective as J.R. thought worth mentioning here. <S> Velma works for IBM, and Bruce is a stay-at-home dad. <S> Or: Next year, we plan to start a stay-at-home business.
| The word at and home are both prepositions.
|
when do we use 's in a phrase Which of the following phrases are correct? "Tasks execution time" or "Tasks' execution time" do we need to use 's in the above phrases or not? and why? And, what is the correct form of this phrase: "the minimum amount of the execution of the tasks" ? Any help is appreciated. <Q> We use 's to express the idea of belonging when the first noun is a person, a country or an organization, especially if you can express the same idea with "have". <S> Example: My brothers' clock <S> Furthermore, "Of" is used with inanimate objects to define possession. <S> Example: <S> The window of the house <S> Lastly, we have the noun modifiers: We can use noun modifiers to show what something is made of or to show measurements, age or value. <S> Also we often use two nouns together to show that one thing is a part of something else. <S> In this case we've got "tasks" as a noun and "execution time" shows a characteristic of the noun, hence the correct phrase is: Tasks execution time . <A> You use an apostrophe to show that a thing or person belongs or relates to someone or something: instead of saying the party of Ben or the weather of yesterday, you can write Ben’s party and yesterday’s weather. <S> Here are the main guidelines for using apostrophes to show possession: Singular nouns and most personal names <S> With a singular noun or most personal names: add an apostrophe plus s: <S> We met at Ben’s party. <S> Personal names that end in –s With personal names that end in -s <S> : add an apostrophe plus s when you would naturally pronounce an extra s if you said the word out loud: <S> He joined Charles’s army in 1642. <S> Note that there are some exceptions to this rule, especially in names of places or organizations, for example: <S> St Thomas’ Hospital <S> If you aren’t sure about how to spell a name, look it up in an official place such as the organization’s website. <S> With personal names that end in -s <S> but are not spoken with an extra s: just add an apostrophe after the -s: <S> The court dismissed Bridges' appeal. <S> Plural nouns that end in –s With a plural noun that already ends in -s <S> : add an apostrophe after the s: <S> The mansion was converted into a girls’ school. <S> Plural nouns that do not end in <S> -s <S> With a plural noun that doesn’t end in –s: add an apostrophe plus s: <S> The children’s father came round to see me. <S> The only cases in which you do not need an apostrophe to show belonging is in the group of words called possessive pronouns - these are the words <S> his, hers, ours, yours, theirs (meaning ‘belonging to him, her, us, you, or them’) - and with the possessive determiners. <S> These are the words his, hers, its, our, your, their (meaning 'belonging to or associated with him, her, it, us, you, or them'). <S> Source <A> If you want to be particular (still?), you may go with <S> The time for the execution of tasks <S> Nevertheless, it's interesting to know that when a noun modifies another noun and functions as an adjective it's called as a noun adjunct or attributive noun . <S> The apostrophe can be dropped when a plural head noun ends with 's' functions as an adjective and not as a possessor. <S> Having said this, Teachers College, Department of Veterans Affair and so on is valid.
| As far as the time for executing task/s is concerned, the term is Task Execution Time (TET) .
|
"Do you know of any" usage "Do you know of any English coaching centers nearby?"Is that sentence correct? I added "any" unintentionally while I was talking, and I wonder if that is grammatically right. "Do you know any English coaching centers near by?" is perhaps the right one. Isn't it? <Q> Know means you have direct knowledge about something while know of is indirect. <S> Consider your example. <S> Do you know of any English coaching centers nearby? <S> can be interpreted as: <S> have you heard of any English coaching centers nearby? <S> (you may not have been to any of them) <S> Do you know any English coaching centers nearby? <S> can be interpreted as: <S> have you ever been to any of the English coaching centers nearby? <S> (you must have been to one of those centers and was once involved in their activities) <S> In summary, I would say the former is asking if I'm aware of the existence of any centers while the latter is asking if I have had experiences with any of the centers (and if I'm able to make recommendations). <A> Both sentences are equally correct and mean the same thing. <S> Nearby is one word, though. <A> "Know of" is better than "know" here, because to "know of" is to be aware of the existence of something, which is what you are asking: do there exist any coaching centers in the area. <S> Contrast: ? <S> Do you know of any good dentists in the area? <S> This is somewhat questionable. <S> You cannot know whether a dentist is good or not simply by being aware of their existence. <S> So this is essentially asking: have you heard from other people that there are good dentists in the area, and do you remember who those dentists are? <S> If someone tells you that he has been to a good dentist and gives you the contact info, you thereby know of a good dentist. <S> But you do not know that dentist. <S> Do you know of any dentists in this area? <S> = <S> Do you know whether there exist dentists in this area and where? <S> (Have you seen a dentist's business signage on a building somewhere around here?) <S> Do you know any dentist in this area? <S> = <S> Are you familiar with a dentist in this area? <S> (Is there a dentist here <S> you have visited?)
| "Know of any" is correct; you probably heard it before and picked it up.
|
Awake or Awaken Which one is correct? Were you awaken at 1 am yesterday? Is this grammatically correct? Can you tell me meaning of awake properly? How is it used as Adj., and as verb by giving some examples? I awoke at 11 am today. Is this correct? Actually, What is the difference between wake and awake? I have searched a lot on Google but all in vain. I am not getting their difference. <Q> Awake has two meanings: <S> As an adjective it describes a person or animal's state. <S> It may only be used as a predicate adjective , in the predicate of a clause, not as an attributive adjective before a noun: <S> ok <S> John is awake and at work. <S> ∗ Awake John is at work. <S> As a verb it is intransitive—it takes no object—and means “to become awake (adj) ”. <S> It is an irregular verb, with the past form awoke ; two different past/past participles are in use, awoken and awaked : <S> I awake at four o'clock most mornings. <S> I awoke at six o’clock this morning. <S> I have awoken/awakened early only twice this month. <S> Awaken is a transitive verb requiring a direct object. <S> It means “cause [someone or something] to become awake”. <S> It is a regular verb: both the past and past participle forms are awakened : <S> My wife awakens me if I oversleep. <S> My wife awakened me at seven o’clock. <S> He was awakened by a loud crash. <S> I woke at four o’clock. <S> My wife woke me at four o’clock. <S> I was wakened at four o’clock. <S> In pre-20th-century texts wake may also have another meaning: to “stay awake”. <S> These verb uses are fairly complicated; but it is simplified by the fact that none of them are used much in colloquial English today (which is one reason why the past and participle forms are so variable). <S> Instead, the phrasal verb wake up (past woke , <S> past participle woken ) is used in both transitive and intransitive senses: I wake up at four most mornings. <S> My wife woke me up at seven o’clock. <S> He was woken up by a loud crash. <S> You will need to recognize the different forms and meanings in your reading; but for your own work you can use wake up in any context or register. <S> ∗ marks an utterance as ungrammatical <A> Your first sentence is incorrect because awaken should be in the past tense if you are speaking of the day before. <S> So it should read: <S> Were you awakened at 1am yesterday? <S> Idiomatically speaking I would say it is more common (at least in the US) to say Were you woken up at 1am yesterday? <S> This blog is actually a really great reference if you read through it all: http://whosyoureditor.blogspot.com/2011/01/awake-vs-awaken-vs-wake-vs-waken.html <A> As rhealitycheck says, "awaken" in this case should be in the past tense, "awakened". <S> Or perhaps you intended to use an adjective. <S> "Were you awake at 1 am yesterday?" <S> In any case, "awaken" is a somewhat archaic word. <S> In modern English we generally say "wake up". <S> For example, "Did you wake up at 1 am yesterday?" <S> or "Did someone wake you up at 1 am yesterday? <S> " or "Were you woken up at 1 am yesterday?"
| The verb wake, woke, woken/wakened is also used in both transitive and intransitive senses.
|
What does "Significant Other" mean in Wheel of Life? What does "Significant Other" mean in Wheel of Life? Someone asked me to rank my level of satisfaction with each area of my life by specifying a number between 0 to 10. So more "Significant Other" means more what ? <Q> In other words, your spouse, fiance(e) or serious boyfriend or girlfriend. <S> Edit:After reviewing the edited question, my answer remains the same. <S> Basically, it is asking you how satisfied are you with the person you are currently in a relationship with. <A> The question, as it is currently written, is asking you to evaluate how satisfied you are with your “Significant Other” or the “Romance” in your life. <S> If you are not in a special relationship with someone else (usually thought of as someone with whom you are particularly intimate), then you might evaluate how satisfied you are with that fact. <S> For example, if you were single and painfully lonely all the time you would record a low score for this sector, and if you had several relationships that are individually fulfilling or fulfilling in the aggregate you might score your satisfaction rather high even though you would not say that you have a “Significant Other” per se. <S> Elsewhere, like in the tool on this page , that sector is named “Partner, Love, Relationship”, synonyms which may assist your interpretation of the question. <S> Wheel of Life tool on mindtools.com <S> Below this tool, however, the authors there suggest that you try making your own labels. <S> The idea behind creating this wheel for yourself is that it allows you to see your levels of satisfaction across the areas of your life that are important to you personally. <S> From that same page: <S> Start by brainstorming the 6 to 8 dimensions of your life that are important for you. <S> Different approaches to this are: <S> The roles you play in life, for example: husband/wife, father/mother, manager, colleague, team member, sports player, community leader, or friend. <S> Areas of life <S> that are important to you, for example: artistic expression, positive attitude, career, education, family , friends , financial freedom, physical challenge, pleasure , or public service. <S> From mindtools.com article , emphasis mine <S> For many people, the cultivation of a special relationship with someone else is a driving goal that is a source of satisfaction when it has been achieved and is maintained. <S> This might be a means of starting or expanding a family, it might stem from a desire for some specific type of intimacy or a desire for specific types of support, some combination of these, or just about anything! <S> How you interpret the question is ultimately up to you. <A> Significant Other is a gender– and sexual-orientation–neutral way to refer to your husband, wife, fiancé, fiancée, boyfriend, or girlfriend; that is, anyone with whom you are in a committed, monogamous romantic relationship. <S> (for the edit) the question is basically asking how satisfied you are with your romantic relationships; the category "Significant Other/Romance" is intended to include all of your romantic activities, whether you're in a committed relationship with a "significant other", still in the 'exploratory' stages of looking for a partner, or not in a relationship at all.
| "Significant other" refers to the person you are in a serious relationship with.
|
What is the difference between "general" and "generic"? I am finding an example to clearly differentiate and demonstrate the use of these two words. At the moment, I am relying more on my feelings to decide which word to use. Say I am writing an article that talks about a solution or framework, should I say: It is a general solution to kill computer virus. It is a generic solution to kill computer virus. I want to show that the framework is normal, does it job, nothing fancy and that's about it. If the two sentences above are correct, what are the perceived meaning of each sentence? <Q> "General" carries a connotation of having broad applicability rather than being limited or specialized in some way that limits applicability. <S> "All-purpose" comes to mind. <S> "Vanilla" is used similarly. <A> Let me start by saying that 'kill computer virus' is unusual to hear. <S> One would typically say 'remove computer virus' as they are understood to be only files or data in particular places that allow them to control the machines behavior and are in no way actually alive. <S> According to Merriam-Webster, the words are synonymous. <S> However a bit of history might give better context as to their common use (in the U.S., which <S> the only first-hand knowledge I possess.) <S> The term 'generic' became most popular in the U.S. with white-label goods that were sold in stores cheaper than their brand-name competitors. <S> The 'generic' goods were essentially without a brand or manufacturer markings on the label. <S> These have since been largely replaced by brands that are 'owned' by a given store as the 'generic' products were perceived to be inferior. <S> Brands like 'Members Mark' (Sam's club/Walmart), 'Kirkland' (Costco) and others have replaced the traditional 'generic' goods as the inexpensive alternative. <S> In this situation, 'generic' implied that there was no company to which one could complain if there was a defect with the item. <S> In my opinion, 'generic,' therefore, has a mildly negative connotation to it, whereas 'general' or even 'generalized' (for those that prefer 'utilize' over 'use') does not. <S> My company would never offer a 'generic' solution for sale as the presumption would be that it would be inexpensive and potentially inferior to a brand-name solution. <S> In answer to your final statement: I want to show that the framework is normal, does it job, nothing fancy <S> and that's about it. <S> I would use 'general.' <S> Given more freedom, one might also consider 'simple', 'adequate', 'minimal', 'minimalistic' or even 'elegant,' depending on what other characteristics you might wish to convey. <S> I hope this helps... <A> Prefer generic over general when you are using in computing or for program code. <S> Generic (Adj.) - written to operate on any data type, the type required being given as a parameter. <S> On the other hand, General (Adj.) <S> - not specialized or limited to one class of things (-this is one of the meanings). <A> I believe the difference is in the way these two adjectives modifie the noun. <S> general kind of affects the entity from the outside, as in stating its position/state, without regard to the object itself, in itself. <S> For example, a general solution is a solution that can be adopted to address different problems/situations, though it itself might not have been constructed with the goal of commonality/sharing in mind - it just happened to suite different needs, i.e. general. <S> generic on the other hand is a quality of the thing itself, and as such affects it by definition, not stance. <S> For example, a generic module is one built so as to fit different systems - it is designed specifically with that requirement in mind, so its workings are adaptable/configurable to tailor different conditions. <S> It also follows from the previous that the adjective general , and since it's a state, not a physical attribute or intended defining quality, implies being common to all at the same time, whereas generic might rather mean being applicable/tailored to one at a time, i.e. configurable/adjustable.
| "Generic" connotes an unremarkability or plainness coming from a lack of development towards a specific application.
|
How to say that a movement is not linear We know that growth is not linear. We won't reach the target in a straight-forward path. We move phase-by-phase. Now I'm looking for a word to describe it. The growth is not linear, it's... (What)? <Q> You might consider sporadic : happening only occasionally or at intervals that are not regular - OALD <A> The growth is not linear. <S> The adjective linear , as you identified here, means the growth does not happen straightaway. <S> It involves many things and hence, we achieve it gradually, steadily and phase-by-phase. <S> Non-linear growth is quite popular and generally used in the language. <S> I strongly recommend that <S> but since you are particular about using a positive/single word, one of the options could be - <S> - This word is the closest to something happening step-by-step. <S> The origin as stated here - Middle English: from the noun piece + -meal from Old English mǣlum, in the sense 'measure, quantity taken at one time '. <A> You might also consider erratic : acting, moving, or changing in ways that are not expected or usual : not consistent or regular http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/erratic <A> I don't think my dialect of American English has such a word <S> , I think "growth happens in stages" might be what you are looking for.
| The growth is not linear, it's piecemeal.
|
In formal writing, when to use bullets and when the numbers? While writing documents, blogs, articles, webpages and the like , I always get confused whether use bullets or number down the list of entities. Specifically, I want to know the preferred way (bullets or numbers) to list down the items while describing... a) Services of the company b) Benefits of the service c) Industries we serve in, and d) Why choose us (for product/service) <Q> Bullets describe items that are usually not separable (so ranking and order are not important) and will not be referenced later. <S> For example: All applicants must provide the following documents: <S> Application form Proof of address <S> If you need to reference them, then it is better to use: <S> All applicants must provide the following documents: a <S> ) Application form b) <S> Proof of address Item b) can be any utility bills, bank statements or letters fromgovernment agencies. <S> In formal writing, bullets make your writing seem compact and packed. <S> If it is about an idea or description, it is recommended to unpack the ideas into separate paragraphs. <S> (Insert details here) <S> Benefits of the service (Insert details here) <S> Industries we serve in <S> (Insert details here) <S> Why choose us (Insert details here) <A> No way is 'preferred' in all circumstances. <S> Which you use should be governed by your purpose in bulleting or numbering. <S> In this answer, for instance, you can see at a glance that I am treating two subtopics, and you can see at the same glance where each begins. <S> Note, however, that bulleting is generally deprecated in the most formal academic prose. <S> Such writing typically develops its points in much longer arguments, often several paragraphs or pages long, so bullets would not make the structure 'jump off the page'. <S> Headings and subheads, often typographically distinguished, are more effective. <S> Numbering is employed when you wish to make a specific sequence of points evident—this first, then this, then this—or to facilitate cross-reference between passages—for instance, 'see 2.1.3, below'. <S> This sort of structuring is common in academic and legal writing; but it is not usually emphasized by 'hanging' the numbers in the margin. <A> There are no fast rules, Go with what promotes better communications. <S> Never use bullets for sequential instructions. <S> If you are listing more than 4 items, I would use numbers. <S> Imagine if you wrote a job description and listed several tasks. <S> If during the interview, you want to communicate with the interview panels or the interviewee a task on the list, it is easier to mention the number rather than say, "the 13th bullet or the 5th bullet from the top/bottom."
| Bulleting is employed as a visual device to make your structure more evident. For writings that are less formal, bullets are fine. And if ranking or order (e.g. steps to bake a cake) is important, then it makes sense to use numbering. For your use case, I recommend writing it as separate paragraphs with headings, e.g. Services of the company
|
A verb to describe a "Power Cut" In each of the following sentences, what are the natural English verbs/phrases you would use? You are using your computer and then a power cut "happens?". You were beside your computer doing nothing, then your friend walked in and asked you why you were not typing the document. You wanted to tell them: "the power is gone/the power has gone"? <Q> In American English, a localized electrical failure is a power outage or electrical outage ; one covering a neighborhood or wider area is a blackout . <S> The preferred British term appears to be power cut . <S> If you are using your computer and it loses power from the mains, you would say the power went out or the power has gone out ( go out by analogy to fire or light, meaning to be extinguished ). <S> When asked why you aren't typing by a passerby who hasn't noticed, you would similarly explain the power is out . <S> Absent a major disaster or malfeasance , power cuts to consumers due to shortages are uncommon, so there isn't common terminology surrounding such events. <S> They may be described as rolling blackouts in the media or load shedding by engineers. <S> Power shortage is not in common usage for failure events, only to describe the overall state of the electrical grid (e.g. if additional transmission lines are not built, the state will face a power shortage by 2035 ). <S> When a shortage of current causes a temporary drop in voltage, the event is known as a brownout . <A> I would say You're using your computer <S> and then the power goes out. <S> I tell my friend <S> "The power went out" or "we lost power." <A> The current answers are correct. <S> I would just add an informal term: "pull the plug", to denote when the power is cut off from some people or place. <A> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/power-cut?q=power+cut <S> when electricity stops generally. <S> It usually affects more than one building simultaneously, in an area. <S> If the lack of power only affected one, particular device, like a computer, that would not be a power cut . <S> That would be something else; a problem with that device.
| If the power stops throughout a building, that's a power cut . In the UK, people normally talk of a power cut
|
is it grammatically correct? two -ing words together The situation was going irritating at that time. I am starting eating my breakfast now. Are these statements correct? Can I use two -ing words together? Can you explain by giving few more examples? <Q> There is no rule forbidding two <S> -ing <S> forms close or next to each other if the idiom requires it. <S> We're going fishing/hunting/dancing. <S> However, most speakers avoid using similar constructions close to each other, except when they are deliberately emphasizing a parallelism. <S> Consequently, your second example would usually employ a different construction: I'm starting to eat my breakfast now. <S> The pressure is not so strong in your first example, however, since irritating has today the status of an independent adjective. <S> It has been, as the linguists say, ‘deverbalized’, so it is not perceived as a present participle. <S> “The situation was getting irritating” would not be strenuously avoided. <A> Two gerunds cannot be put together when they both function as verb inflections: <S> I am starting <S> *eating | to eat my breakfast. <S> If a gerund functions as a genuine noun, then another gerund can be put in front of it it, if that gerund functions as another noun, adjective, or verb inflection: Starting running again after many months of inactivity is difficult. <S> [ verb -ing + noun] The leaking plumbing was repaired. <S> [adjective + noun] <S> The marketing meeting went well. <S> [noun + noun] <A> The two examples you gave are not correct as written. <S> They should be: <S> The situation was getting irritating at that time. <S> I am starting to eat my breakfast now.
| There doesn't appear to be a consistent rule for two "-ing" words in a row, based on these examples.
|
How do I use "also" in a sentence? Which of the following sentences are grammatically correct in written text? You also are allowed to see your son. You are also allowed to see your son. Also, you are allowed to see your son. You are allowed to see your son also. <Q> All are grammatically correct, but can have slightly different meanings. <S> You also are allowed to see your son. <S> This could mean that in addition to other things that you are allowed to do, you are allowed to see your son. <S> Depending on context, it could mean that in addition to others being allowed, you are too. <S> E.g. "Your son's wife is allowed to see him. <S> You also are allowed to see him." <S> You are also allowed to see your son. <S> Pretty much the same as the previous. <S> We would be less likely to use this form to say #2 above, i.e. that you are allowed along with others who are allowed. <S> This would more likely mean #1, in addition to other things, you are also allowed, etc. <S> Also, you are allowed to see your son. <S> In addition to other things, you are allowed to see your son. <S> This differs from the first two in that it can be used when the other things are not permissions, while the first two would generally be used only to discuss several different permissions. <S> That is, for example: You are allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. <S> You are also allowed to see your son. <S> Versus: <S> Your deposit will be refunded. <S> Also, you are now allowed to see your son. <S> Finally, You are allowed to see your son also. <S> This one is most different. <S> It would normally be used if there are specifically others that you are allowed to see, and your son is one of those. <S> Like, "You are allowed to see your daughter. <S> You are allowed to see your son also. <S> " You wouldn't use this form with other permissions or with other things that are not permissions. <S> But note that if you put a comma between "son" and "also", then it becomes the same as "Also, you are ..." <A> This English. <S> SE answer says that also is often used with the verb. <S> I don't really know whether You are allowed to see your son also is correct, but it looks/ <S> sounds like it isn't. <S> And Also, you are allowed to see your son sounds/reads strange, but looks like it's correct. <A> The place that "also" takes in a sentence decides what the sentence would mean: to further explain, even if words in a sentence do not change, it is the particular place which "also" occupies in the sentence that the meaning of the sentence gets changed. <S> Let me try to spell out a simple rule how the placing of "also" in a sentence changes its meaning: "also" when appears in a sentence qualifies the following word which denotes an object or action (or inaction) or, where there is no such following word, the preceding such word. <S> This rule does not apply in the case where "also" appears in the beginning of a sentence followed by a comma or where "also" appears in the end of a sentence preceded by a comma. <S> In this case, the entire sentence gets qualified by "also". <S> This, I think, clears all doubts. <S> However, as already explained above, none of the sentences which the question cites is grammatically incorrect.
| You also are allowed to see your son and you are also allowed to see your son are correct, according to e.g. this site .
|
Can "expertises" as a plural form be used? I've seen here that there is no plural of expertise, so what should I do in the following sentence? the different expertise is/are complementary. To put into context, we have a multidisciplinary consortium with partners of different "expertise" (or maybe skills is a better word) Stated more generally, can a "mass noun" be a subject? If yes, can I put the verb in plural to show that it is used as a plural? From your answers, it looks like I should completely reformulate my sentence. Should I really avoid this? <Q> Don't be confused by what you've read in that thread. <S> You've managed to come up with a sentence where expertise needs to be pluralized. <S> You are talking about two or more distinct kinds of expertise that complement each other. <S> I have no problem with: <S> In order to perform well in this job, the manager needs expertise in management, programming, scheduling, and testing. <S> These different expertises are complementary. <S> If you're not bold enough to pluralize expertise , you can get around the problem by saying: <S> In order to perform well in this job, the manager needs expertise in management, programming, scheduling, and testing. <S> These different kinds of expertise are complementary. <S> Some times ago, there was a similar debate on ELU about the plural of equipment . <S> In that case, the debate got rather heated, because the user didn't provide any legitimate example construct where equipments might be a better word. <S> As one extra note to those who remain unconvinced, who stand ready to click the downvote button: Ignore those red squiggly lines from your spell-checker! <S> There is ample precedent . <S> Read on: Often in putting together a new combination they lack specific expertises , and in the pressure of competition they do not have time to develop them in-house . <S> (from the book The Nature of Technology: What It Is and <S> How It Evolves , by W. Brian Arthur, 2009) <S> These four expertises – that of the educator, the political orator, the judge, and the general – oversee aspects of that moral life itself, which the statesman regulates overall . <S> (from the book Reason and Emotion: Essays on Ancient Moral Psychology and Ethical Theory by John Madison Cooper, 1999) <S> There is even one book – ironically entitled Rethinking Expertise – that begins by defining a "Periodic Table of Expertises": <A> You are right. <S> The word expertise is a mass noun. <S> Expertise (mass noun) - expert skill or knowledge in a particular field. <S> You can say: Services by experts from different areas/fields/domains are complementary. <S> If you want to use expertise anyhow: <S> The service from the expertise from different domains is complementary. <A> You could say you employ people within different areas of expertise, or people with varying skill sets. <S> Your example phrase lacks a bit of context, but I could imagine it flowing somewhere around these lines, including the notion of expert(ise) and skill sets in one sentence: <S> When you decide to hire the services of our experts, their wide variety of skill sets is complementary.
| Here's my recommendation: Use expertises .
|
What is the meaning of the word "context"? "The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning". The above is the first meaning of the word "context" in the definition of context from The Free Dictionary website. Could somebody explain me what it means? Because I don't understand what it is saying. And also the above website quotes the following example sentence "it is unfair to quote out of context." What does it mean? <Q> Consider the following sentence: If you prefer small towns, New York City is a bad place to live. <S> Now imagine quoting only the part that says: <S> New York City is a bad place to live. <S> Strictly speaking, this is an accurate quote, because the quoted part is taken directly from the original sentence with no changes. <S> But it's very misleading, because the quote omits important information that you need to understand what the speaker was really saying. <S> That omitted information is context . <S> Without context, the speaker appears to be simply saying that New York is a bad place to live for everybody. <S> When the context is supplied, it's clear that the speaker is only saying that New York is a bad choice for people who prefer small towns. <S> That's why it's unfair to quote someone out of context <S> --to repeat something the person says without enough information to prevent readers or listeners from misunderstanding the true meaning of the quote. <S> Similarly, if you ask a question about English here, you may be asked to provide additional context, such as an example sentence that illustrates the problem you want to solve. <S> Many words and phrases can have different meanings based on context, so it may not be possible to answer the question without more information that narrows down the possible answers. <A> Context is anything that goes along with the text that could change its meaning. <S> It may mean other text in the same work, or it may mean where you find the text, or who is reading it. <S> It also can be extended to non-text situations such as in: <S> Can you give me more context? <S> I can't guess what this object is without knowing where it is from. <A> You have to know the setting to give meaning to the word or event. <S> Like the word "trunk " it could mean the trunk of an elephant,or a branch of a tree or a big container. <S> Unless use in a setting or stage <A> When you say something is out of context you basically mean it's out of place. <S> Let's say I'm talking about book <S> and you suddenly suggest a movie <S> , that's obviously out of context --meaning <S> it's not relevant to what I was talking about. <A> Context refers to the situation within which language functions. <S> It may be physical, environmental, social or institutional. <S> It includes events, culture, or social conventions that can influence language use. <A> The term ' CONTEXT ' means the collection of words surrounding the specific word to determine the appropriate meaning of the statement. <S> Every word yields different meaning in different contexts. <S> Let's take an example to make it more clear; the term "MINE" can be used in different contexts. <S> Like "This house is MINE (possessive)" or "A MINE (refers to explosive material) is concealed under the ground."
| Context is the information necessary to correctly interpret a word or phrase that could otherwise be interpreted in a number of different ways.
|
Idiomatic way to say "doing something for somebody" What is the idiomatic way to say "doing something for somebody" when they are supposed to do it, not you ? Say for example a school mate asks you to do the assignment she's been given. How would you say it?"He asked me to do his assignment [ don't know how to say it in place of him?]" UPDATE: Following some of the comments I received, I want to clarify that the context is not necessarily academic cheating.What I'm trying to find -provided that it exists- is a translation from my language (Italian) of a subtlety in meaning when you do something for somebody who were supposed to do this thing and you decide, whatever the reason, to come forward and carry it out for her. A couple of examples more: a colleague is assigned a task, but can't (because she doesn't know how) or doesn't want to do it (maybe because of laziness). Then you do the task for her (either because she asked you for help or you simply decided that somebody had to do it) a death sentence is handed down to someone and you step up begging to be taken instead How would you rephrase the [ for somebody ] part in the two sentences above?Again, maybe I'm struggling because I can see a slight difference in meaning in Italian, when perhaps in English there is no straight translation <Q> In any case, the phrase for someone doesn't have to mean that the person you do something for must be lazy. <S> This, again, depends on the context. <S> Compare: <S> He asked me to do his assignment for him . <S> I offered myself to do his assignment for him . <S> Here are some examples of in place (of) , in someone's place , instead (of) , and stead , I found on the web: <S> John came to help in place of Max, who was sick. <S> When the king's cloaked challenge is answered, Fluellen stands in place of him, representing him, and receiving the blow. <S> She knew she should not have sent him to work in her place tonight. <S> "O king, take my life instead of hers . <S> Let me die in her place ," he pleaded. <S> ... <S> it was Judas who was crucified instead of him , ... ... <S> she had to ask their family doctor to prescribe instead of him making it available to begin with. <S> Take me instead ! <S> Not my boy! <S> The chairman spoke in her stead . <S> The marketing manager was ill and her deputy ran the meeting in her stead . <S> So, you can say any of these followings (choose wisely, register is important), <S> He asked me to do his assignment for him . <S> He asked me to do his assignment in place of him . <S> He asked me to do his assignment in his place . <S> He asked me to do his assignment instead . <S> He asked me to do his assignment instead of him . <S> He asked me to do his assignment instead of him doing it himself . <S> He asked me to do his assignment in his stead . <S> (formal) <A> As far as an idiomatic way of phrasing it, some phrases I would suggest are "picked up the slack" or "took up the mantle", <S> e.g.: "Karen didn't know how to do the task she was assigned, so I picked up the slack and completed it on her behalf." <S> ("Pick up the slack" implies that the other person is not doing their fair share and you are compensating for them, either as a favor or out of necessity because someone has to do it. <S> "Slack" is like loose rope drooping down when you're playing tug-of-war or something and is an indication that someone is not contributing to the best of their ability.) <S> "After Cathy quit the club, no one wanted to take over organizing the bake sale for charity until Bob took up the mantle and saved the day." <S> (This idiom comes from the Bible. <S> In the Bible, a prophet named Elijah left his cloak behind when he ascended to heaven. <S> A new prophet named Elisha picked up this mantle to wear and also took over Elijah’s role as prophet.) <A> It's like doing something on behalf of someone else. <S> So you will do it on behalf of that person. <A> Another term for this concept is "to do something on someone's behalf" <S> John was to busy to complete project, so I did it on his behalf. <S> This phrase is also, perhaps most often, used when one person or entity is acting as an agent for another. <S> I asked the bank to send the payment on my behalf. <S> In general, "on X's behalf" means "in place of X, and for X's benefit" or "as a substitute for X". <S> It does not suggest cheating, but a legitimate or requested substitution.
| There are a few phrases that you can use, such as in place (of) , instead (of) (also stead ), to express the "doing something for somebody", depending on the context.
|
repeating "your" in a list? I'm a French native speaker and I would like to know if "your" should be repeated as in the following example: I translate your document, your ad, your website. Could we simply say: I translate your document, ad and website. What would be the impact of both sentences?Are both forms grammatically correct? Thanking you in advance for your help, Ophelie <Q> Use your second example, "I translate your document, ad and website." <S> You left the conjunction out of the first example, but I understand that you are asking about the repeating use of your . <S> It is OK to repeat the possessive pronoun, but, on the other hand, there is no need to do so. <A> Originals: <S> I translate your document, your ad, your website. <S> I translate your document, ad and website. <S> I'll assume you're writing to a customer. <S> First, the verb tense needs to be modified. <S> I will translate... <S> I have translated... <S> I translated <S> So we'll use "will" and we have: <S> I will translate your document, your ad, and your website. <S> I will translate your document, ad and website. <S> The difference is only in the emphasis of pointing out that you doing all three things. <S> For example, in verbal negotiation: <S> Customer: <S> Your price is $150, but your competitor said he would translate my document for only $100. <S> You: <S> But you need more than just the document translated, and <S> you know I do good work. <S> I'll tell you what. <S> I'll translate your document, your ad, and your website all for only $120. <S> I know my competitor can't beat that or my quality. <S> Another scenario, this time written: Customer (posted work): <S> I need the following translated: Document, Ad, and Website. <S> You (in writing, and wanting to be concise but specific): I will bid to translate your document, ad, and website for $120. <A>
| Unless you wish to create a writer's craft repetitive tri-colon tone to strongly express something, I would suggest using the shortest form or you would be guilty of tautology.
|
What do we call that green coloured substance inside our nose in English I had caught fever and and my nose was running. I want to know that what to call the stuff that comes out of a running nose, in English. In Hindi, we say "Naak". <Q> It's mucus : the slimy protective secretion of the mucous membranes, consisting mainly of mucin <S> You have mucous membranes in places besides your nose, though, so if you need to be specific you can refer to it as nasal mucus . <S> You can also refer to it as nasal discharge , meaning a substance coming out of your nose. <S> There are a number of informal terms for mucus, most of which sound quite childish. <S> Nonetheless, I'll list them: <S> Snot (uncountable). <S> This is a term for nasal mucus in its normal liquid form. <S> This is an American term for a piece of dried nasal mucus. <S> A bogey (countable, UK usage). <S> This is the UK counterpart of booger . <S> A nose goblin (countable). <S> This means the same thing as booger (although FumbleFingers says it's less common; see the comments for discussion, if you'd like). <S> Of these, I think <S> snot is the most acceptable when used by an adult, but they're all rather informal. <S> If you're talking to a doctor, nasal mucus or nasal discharge would be fine. <S> If you're just describing liquid coming out of your nose, but you don't want to use medical-sounding terms like nasal discharge , then you can say your nose is running or that you have a runny nose . <A> Keep taking this medication until the mucus clears out of your sinuses. <S> Parent to parent : <S> You should have seen my baby last week; she had snot running all down her face. <A> My Welsh grandparents always referred to a runny nose as "candles."
| The medical term is mucus , but a common informal word is snot : Doctor to patient : A booger (countable, US usage).
|
How to say "a small and not so important question" concisely? How to say "a not so important small question" concisely? For example, if I am studying math, and there's a terminology that looks wierd. Its nomenclature gradually becomes a preoccupation to me. I just want to know the reason of this name. However, this has nothing to do with my serious study of math. Hence, it is "a small and not so important" yet curious question to me. <Q> A single noun for this would be minutia <S> (plural: minutiae ). <S> It's of Latin origin, and is used to describe trivial details (as Dipak suggests, trivial is a good adjective to use here) or minor details . <S> None of these three terms explicitly refers to questions, but I would say that they sound natural in this instance. <S> I have experienced what you describe many times, especially when studying! <S> A concise way to describe it would be "getting bogged down in(/with) <S> the details" . <S> The phrase implies that the details are relatively minor/trivial, because they are preventing you from achieving something more important, but you could say "I'm trying to study this problem, but I keep getting bogged down with minutiae" <A> You can precede your question with this: <S> I'm curious, {question} ? <S> When you say that you are curious, it removes the requirement for relevance to the current topic. <S> It is often said as a way of side-tracking for a short moment to clarify a trivial detail; in order to clear the mind of 'preoccupation' as you say. <A> I believe the answer your are seeking is, to ask a trivial question <A> Trivial means there is a simple obvious answer. <S> You could describe the question as "incidental". <A> A single noun for this might be curiosum : A possibly unimportant point of interest.
| A good word with which to preface the question would be "incidentally".
|
Usage of Active Voice without subject Is it possible to use active voice, if we don't want to mention the subject.For example: Is it possible to convert "The room was cleaned " as an active voice statement <Q> To turn your sentence into an active voice you need to introduce a grammatical subject. <S> If you do not want to name the subject you can use a dummy subject such as "someone". <S> Someone cleaned the room. <A> No, you can't. <S> Here are a couple examples of short passives from A Student's Introduction to English Grammar , p.243: <S> Passive : Mistakes were made. <S> Active : <S> *Made mistakes. <S> Passive : <S> Your car was damaged. <S> Active : <S> *Damaged your car. <S> The passive allows you to avoid saying who made mistakes or who damaged the listener's car. <S> The active does not; it requires a main clause subject, so the active counterparts are ungrammatical. <S> You can, of course, come up with a similar-looking sentence with the same meaning by supplying a grammatical subject (as in Laure's answer), but then you no longer have an active voice counterpart; you have a slightly different sentence. <A> Rule for Passive-to-Active: <S> The passive-voice sentence must have a direct subject . <S> e.g. <S> "The letter was being mailed by Marylin " -> " Marylin was mailing the letter", as Marylin is the direct subject in the passive-voice sentence. <S> whereas, "The room was being cleaned" cannot be converted to an active voice as there is no direct subject. <S> Rule for Active-to-Passive: <S> The active-voice sentence must have a direct object . <S> e.g. <S> "The man is eating burgers . <S> " <S> -> " Burgers are being eaten by the man", as Burger is the direct object in the active-voice sentence. <S> whereas, "Parrots live in the rainforest" cannot be converted to a passive voice as there is no direct object. <A> There can two answers: <S> Someone cleaned the room. <S> or: Somebody cleaned the room.
| To turn your sentence into an active voice when the subject is not given, you need to introduce a grammatical subject. If you do not want to name the subject you can use a dummy subject such as " someone " or " somebody ".
|
Which is correct in the following sentences, them or ones? Which of the following sentences is correct? I don't believe in UFOs, because I have never seen them. I don't believe in UFOs, because I have never seen ones. <Q> * <S> I don't believe in UFOs because I have never seen them <S> This phrasing implies that if UFOs did exist, there would be a definite, countable set of UFOs and that you could reasonably expect to view every member of that set. <S> * <S> I don't believe in UFOs because I have never seen ones <S> This is incorrect because the number "one" should not be pluralized. <S> (There are occasions when the word "one" is used as a label rather than as a number, for example asking "Do you have a couple of ones?" <S> to indicate that the asker is requesting some $1 bills, but that's not the case here.) <S> I don't believe in UFOs because I have never seen one <S> I don't believe in UFOs because I have never seen any Both of these are acceptable. <A> "Them" is okay. <S> "Ones" is never correct because it is not a word, but you could use "one". <S> I don't believe in UFOs, because I have never seen them. <S> I don't believe in UFOs, because I have never seen one. <S> Expressing a quantity is irrevelant within the context of the sentence. <S> To remove attention from specifics about a quantity, use "any". <S> I don't believe in UFOs, because I have never seen any. <A> I would prefer "ones" meaning some UFO's. <S> "one" would also fit meaning a single one. <S> I would not say "them" because you don't speak of a definite number of UFO's.
| If you were referring to a particular type of UFO, or to the specific UFOs that someone else claimed to have seen, then you could use "them".
|
Difference between "document" and "documentation" I usually see these two words especially in the context of programming. I see both words being used in similar situations. Can any one tell me the difference? <Q> It is also as a verb ('Documentation' is not). <S> " <S> The scientists documented the lab experiments to prove the herb's medicinal properties." <S> The word 'documentation' is an uncountable noun and is a collection of or body of material of any subject/topic. <S> " <S> This is just one report, where is the documentation for the whole project?" <A> Document is a form of information that means record,or a capture of things and events so information will not be lost. <S> But the process of to save, to improve and make essential is documentation. <A> In IT especially we tend to use documentation as a plural for document. <S> In the above example, "This is just one report, where is the documentation for the whole project?"we could have <S> very well asked "... <S> where are the documents for the whole project? <S> " <S> We don't usually say this in other contexts " <S> Where are the documents for the sale of property?" <S> or "I have misplaced the documents for the adoption" is more common. <S> As the first remark noted, documentation is also the activity of creating documents. <S> So a timesheet could have activities like coding, testing and documentation. <S> (Where I work we spend most time on the last!) <A> For example other than IT: When you apply for a loan, you must submit the required documents or documentation? <S> I would opt for documentation rather than documents.
| The word 'document' is a countable noun which means paper or some report.
|
What's the meaning of "get me"? Seeing her coming out of the darkness like a ghost ship still gets me every time. I usually see some expressions like get someone happy/angry , but what's the meaning of "get someone"? <Q> It means it induces a strong emotion. <S> It is not always clear if the emotion is surprise or terror or delight or sadness. <A> A sentence such as "That scene still gets me every time" is fine by itself. <S> Your example gives me a mixed feeling of "gets on my nerve", "catches me off guard", or even "takes me by surprise", because it seems to be about a scary movie. <S> It also reminds me of that famous line <S> "You had me at hello" in Jerry Maguire . <S> To understand simple words in every occasion is one of the most difficult things in language learning. <S> I wasn't even sure if I could find a good definition in any dictionary for this <S> get in your sentence. <S> Luckily, I finally found some on the Free Dictionary, get v.tr. <S> 13. <S> c. <S> To evoke an emotional response or reaction in: Romantic music really gets me. <S> d. <S> To annoy or irritate: What got me was his utter lack of initiative. <A> According to the context and situation you can supplement: it always gets me in a certain state/nervous/frightened/in a special mood/in a furious state and so on. <S> Such elliptic use, that is self-evident things are omitted, is very frequent in language. <S> Unfortunately "shortenings" in language is no chapter in grammars. <S> But if you observe language carefully you could fill a dictionary with shortenings.
| "It really gets me when ..." could refer to any strong, unexpected emotion.
|
Where to use 'entire' and where 'whole'? At times, some suggest using 'entire' for something while others prefer 'whole'. How to decide whether a noun will take 'entire' or 'whole'? The whole/entire project done is full of error. The whole/entire town is affected by deadly virus making everyone a zombie! For the whole/entire season, I ate grapes and nothing else to cleanse my body. <Q> The meaning of the two words is the same. <S> But "whole" is the Germanic word (in German heil,without no part lacking), and "entire" is the Latin word (integer). <S> So the difference is not a semantic one (that is in meaning), but a stilistic one. <S> " <S> whole" is colloquial, "earth-bound" language. <S> At a house wall I read: "We don't want no piece of the cake, we want the whole bakery. <S> ""entire" as a Latin word is more elevated or a bit academic style. <S> If the guys who had written that slogan on the house wall had written "the entire bakery" that would have been a stylistic faux pas, because those guys don't use Latin or academic words, they use simple words. <A> However, there are certain idioms that demand "whole" , such as these: <S> "whole new ball game" "go whole hog" <S> "whole nine yards" "whole nother thing" "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" "the whole shebang" "the whole enchilada" <S> We also tend to prefer "whole" with food words ("whole milk", "whole grains"). <S> Indeed, according to the COCA collocate set for "whole" , about a third of the top 100 collocates for "whole" are food related: 10-OUNCE ANISE CEREALS FLOUR <S> KERNEL <S> OKRA <S> SNAPPER <S> 16-OUNCE BAGEL <S> CLOVE FOODS <S> LEGUMES <S> PEPPERCORNS <S> VEGGIES <S> 28-OUNCE BREADS <S> CLOVES <S> FRUITS LOW-FAT PITA WHEAT <S> ALLSPICE BUNCH <S> CORIANDER GRAIN <S> MILK <S> RYE <S> ALMONDS <S> CARDAMOM CUMIN GRAINS OATS SKIM <S> Whereas, <S> the collocates for "entire" tend to be academic in nature: APPARATUS <S> CONSUME <S> ECOSYSTEMS <S> GENERATION <S> PERMEATE SEQUENCE <S> VILLAGESARSENAL <S> CONTENTS EDIFICE <S> GENOME <S> PERMEATES <S> SLAUGHTERED VIRTUALLYBATTALION <S> CONTINENT ENCOMPASS <S> HEMISPHERE <S> PLANET SPAN WARDROBEBODY <S> CONTINENTS <S> ENCOMPASSED <S> HERD <S> POPULACE <S> SPANNED <S> WATERSHEDBRIGADE CORPUS ENCOMPASSES <S> LENGTH <S> POPULATION SPANNING <S> WIDTHCAREER COSMOS <S> ENCOMPASSING LIFETIME <S> PROCEEDING SPANS WIPECAREERS <S> COVERING <S> ENCYCLOPEDIA <S> OCCUPIES REGIMENT <S> SPECTRUM WIPEDCATALOG <S> COVERS ENGULFED OCCUPY REGION <S> SPEND WIPINGCAVITY CREW <S> ENSEMBLE OEUVRE <S> REPERTOIRE <S> SPENT <S> WORLDVIEWCITIZENRY <S> DESTABILIZE <S> ENTERPRISE <S> OPERATION <S> RETHINK <S> THREATENSCIVILIZATIONS DEVOTE EPISODE <S> ORDEAL REVAMP <S> THROUGHOUTCLAN <S> DEVOTED EXPANSE <S> ORGANISM ROSTER <S> TORSOCOASTLINE DEVOTES FLEET <S> OVERHAUL ROTATE <S> TRACTCOHORT DEVOTING FLOCK <S> PENINSULA <S> SAMPLE <S> TRANSCRIPTCONGREGATION <S> ECOSYSTEM GALAXY PERIMETER <S> SEMESTER <S> UNIVERSE Seems to be common in geography/ecology ( ecosystem, peninsula, coastline, population, watershed ), biology/medicine ( body, generation, genome, organism, torso ), astronomy ( cosmos, expanse, galaxy, planet, universe ), and military/history ( arsenal, battalion, brigade, crew, destabilize, fleet, occupy, operation, perimeter, regiment, roster ) <A> It seems that there is a little difference between “whole” and “entire”. <S> However, sometimes they may not be interchangeable: “Would you like to eat the whole cake?” <S> sounds fine to me, while “Would you like to eat the entire cake” may not sound “that” correct.
| Generally speaking, "entire" is more formal than "whole", but they are more or less interchangeable.
|
Each person have or has? And about "it"? Each person have or each person has ? And more: Each person have/has its own way to learn or each person have/has his own way to learn ? I'm asking this because I found some contradictions on the internet and I'm here to get a more concise answer. Thanks in advance! <Q> You can use any of these alternatives, Each person has his own way ... <S> Each person has her 1 own way ... <S> Each person has their own way ... <S> When I was young, Each person has his ... <S> was common. <S> Then, the preferred usage changed to Each person has his or her ... and later Each person has her 1 ... . <S> Nowadays, singular they is also acceptable. <S> See also <S> : Is there a correct gender-neutral, singular pronoun (“his” versus “her” versus “their”)? <S> 1 Also note that even though you can use her as a pronoun for someone who you don't know his or her gender, it's better to use his or her or singular their in general, unless they are all female. <A> "Each person has ..." "Each" is a singular noun. <S> When we use "each" we are considering people one at a time, so we use the singular. <S> It's something like saying "One out of a million is ... <S> " Even though there's a set of a million to choose from, at the moment we're only discussing one. <S> We don't say "each person have its ... <S> " We don't normally use "it" to refer to people. <S> People are "he" or "she" or "they". <S> There are just a few exceptions to this for unknown people. <S> Like if someone asks whether an unknown person is male or female, we may reply, "It's a man" or "It's a woman". <S> Though we more often say, "He's a man" or "She's a woman. <S> " We also sometimes use "it" in questions about an unknown person, like "Who is it?" <S> As Damkerng says: There's an old convention that when the gender is unknown, use the masculine. <S> So you would say, "Each person has his ..." if the group is male, is a mix of males and females, or is known. <S> You would only say "Each person has her ..." if the group was all female or was a group that is normally thought of as female. <S> Using the masculine for both male and female is considered sexist by some, so now it is common to say "he or she", or to use "they" as a singular pronoun for a person of unknown gender. <S> " <S> Each person has their ..." <A> English unfortunately does not have gender independent pronouns. <S> One must know that and all the people who think using he/she in a sentence meant for a general person does not mean it is sexist. <S> The language does not give the liberty to decide gender in pronouns. <S> The answer to the question would be: <S> Use a verb like say will and make the sentence - Every person will have his/her own way to learn. <A> To avoid the embarrassment of choosing his or her, more and more Americans prefer the use of plurals forms, especially plural pronouns. <S> Then always say "each....has their..." can be the most straightforward solution.
| Each person has his or her own way ...
|
How do I say that something was decreased and became X times less? How do I say that something was decreased and became X times less? In a sentence like: The new file is 20K while the old file was 100K, that's a decrease in 5 times ? Or: The file was 100K and it decreased by 5 times , becoming only 20K? For instance, I found this topic where someone said: "Decreased by 8 times" doesn't mean anything to me at all. What are the most used and naturally sounding constructions for this types of sentences? <Q> I suggest that quick and easily understood ways of saying this are <S> The file size decreased by 80%, from 100k to just 20k. <S> The file size decreased to 20% of its original size, from 100k to just 20k. <S> The file size decreased to one-fifth of its original size, from 100k to just 20k. <A> It makes sense to say that something "decreased by 80%" or "decreased by 1/3". <S> I don't know what "decreased by 8 times" would mean. <S> Decreased by 8 times what? <S> When someone says that it "increased by 3 times" they mean by 3 times the original value, so if it used to be, say, 100 -- well <S> , sometimes they mean it is now 3 times the original value, i.e. 300 <S> , other times they mean that it added 3 times the original value, so it is now 400. <S> But "decreased by 8 times"? <S> If it used to be 100, is it now negative 700? <S> Possible, I guess, depending on what it is we're measuring. <S> It is reasonable to say that something "decreased 7 times", meaning that there were 7 occasions on which it decreased. <S> Like, "While it looks like I got raises every year on paper, my salary has really decreased 7 times in the last 12 years if you adjust for inflation." <A> Indeed, if something decreases (by) a number of times, I have a hard time understanding what is meant exactly. <S> It is a lot more informational to use a construction like: <S> The file size decreased by 80%. <S> The problem with "decreased (by) 5 times" is that nobody knows how much a one-time decrease is. <S> "Decreasing 5 times" would indicate that it somehow decreased in size 5 times, first from 100 to 84 (??), and so on. <S> But you would never say it decreased once of <S> it went from 100 to 84, since that 1-time decrease only means "16" in case of an 80% decrease :) <A> The other answers are correct, but the common English expression that is the actual equivalent of what you are referring to is The file size decreased by a factor of five.
| In the case of your file size, it decreased to one fifth of the original size.
|
Does an uncountable noun take an article if it has an adjective before it? We all know that uncountable noun does not take an article. But then, if there's an adjective modifying an uncountable noun what should happen? An article before adjective + uncountable noun? OR No article before adjective + uncountable noun? My research: I found some examples of having article + adjective + uncountable noun such as... A soothing music. A deadly pollution. A hot tea. A hard work. And the like. <Q> The short answer is no. <S> The long answer is that nouns can convert class from mass to count or vice versa. <S> There's an old joke that if you have a really powerful machine that turns anything into powder ("a universal grinder") then you can make any noun from a count noun into a mass noun -- "that's a lot of man on the floor." <S> To go the other way, you don't even really need a machine -- whenever you are comparing multiple instances of a mass noun, you convert it to a count noun: "the sands of Texas are whiter than the sands of Florida." <S> As a result, you will find many instances of nouns that are usually mass nouns being converted to count nouns. <S> For your examples, I find "a soothing music" hard to parse, "a deadly pollution" makes sense (we are imagining several instances of pollution, <S> this one a deadly one), "a hot tea" is fine (with food items that are mass nouns, we convert them a lot when we are ordering them at a restaurant, e.g. I'll have a tea), "a hard work" sounds terrible to me when describing the mass noun "work" (which means labor) <S> but there is also a count noun "work" (a creation arising from a lot of labor, like the works of Beethoven) and here it makes sense to describe one as "hard." <S> But the point is that the adjective has nothing to do with it. <S> It's just that the mass noun has been converted to count, and there happens to be an adjective. <A> I already chose oerkelens' answer <S> but I found something useful while reading Swan's Book. <S> I think it's very helpful and thus answering here. <S> With certain uncountable nouns – especially nouns referring to human emotions and mental activity – we often use a/an when we are limiting their meaning in some way (and we generally limit it by putting adjectives ). <S> Here are the examples - We need a secretary with a first-class knowledge of German (NOT... with first class knowledge of German ). <S> She has always had a deep distrust of strangers. <S> My parents wanted me to have a good education (NOT .... <S> to have good education ). <S> (Adapted from Practical English Usage , section 149.4) <A> No, the adjective plays no role here. <S> What does, is context. <S> While music, pollution, tea and work can all be used as mass nouns (and regularly are) as in these examples: <S> They played lovely music at that concert. <S> There is heavy pollution in this city. <S> When you have a cold, I recommend drinking hot tea. <S> Hard work will make you forget your worries. <S> When you are referring to a specific instance of the concept, yuo do use an article, which can be either definite: <S> The loud music they played here hurts my ears. <S> The heavy pollution in this city is bad for my health. <S> The hot tea you gave me burned my lips. <S> The hard work you did was in vain. <S> Or indefinite: <S> In the restaurant they played such a lovely music! <S> The old diesel engines cause a deadly pollution in this city. <S> It is cold outside! <S> I could do with a hot tea! <S> That is a great work of art! <S> (Yes, that last example is cheating... <S> I couldn't come up with a better example :) )
| The adjective does not change the syntax.
|
Are the feelings always a noun? Are feelings always a noun? For example, "headache" or "nausea". Why I am asking this question is because I always have a problem with countable and uncountable nouns. First job is identify the nouns. Thus, I am asking is feeling a noun always. <Q> A noun is generally defined as "a person, place, thing, or idea". <S> So yes, "headache", "nausea", "happiness", "depression", etc, are all nouns. <S> The state of feeling a certain way is an adjective. <S> So in "I feel nauseous" or "The happy man left the room", "nauseous" and "happy" are adjectives. <A> "Feel" is a verb. <S> It's present participle is "feeling", as @Damkerng T. mentioned in the comments. <S> However, " feeling " is also the noun. <S> It is countable .Here <S> are some examples of its usage: <S> I have a feeling tonight's going to be a good night. <S> It's an uncomfortable feeling, knowing that it could all be over soon. <S> I hate feelings of pain; headaches, nausea etc. <A> I couldn't resist citing this welll-known phrase: I have a bad feeling about this (just to make an example of feeling used as a countable noun) <A> The question asks about feelings, which may refer to: Normal body sensations, like warmth and sleepiness Feelings as symptoms of a disease, like a headache and nausea Heart feelings or emotions, like joy, peace, fear or anger Certain mental states, like confidence, uncertainty A noun is a word that refers to a person, place, thing, event, substance, or quality ( Cambridge Dictionary ). <S> You can say that a feeling is a quality, so, in general, all feelings as independent words are nouns. <S> Most body sensations, <S> emotions and mental states are uncountable. <S> You don't say warmths, joys, angers or confidences. <S> Still, some can be countable, for example, "I have a fear of driving. <S> " or "I have many fears." <S> Feelings as symptoms of a disease may be countable or not, which depends more on the usage of the articles in medical terminology rather than on grammar. <S> Example of countable symptoms <S> : I had a headache/frequent headaches, a fever/frequent fevers, a pain/frequent pains. <S> Examples of uncountable symptoms <S> : I had nausea and jaundice. <S> Some symptoms end with -ing, but they are still nouns, like itching or bloating. <S> And of course, you can express feelings as adjectives: happy feeling, painful arm, etc.
| So a thing that you are feeling or can feel must be a noun, because it is a "thing".
|
Is lesser mortals a right word? Can we use the word "lesser mortals" in an official usage? I am really concerned whether this word is a slang or an appropriate word. <Q> The phrase is used in a humorous way or probably in a taunting way. <S> "Do you see the way he treats us after becoming the CEO of the company?" <S> "Of course, he's now the boss buddy! <S> For him, we are like lesser mortals!" <S> This means that he treats them as people with no significance, importance, value, capability etc.. <S> All season they have managed to compete with just 3 players with us lesser mortals playing up to help out - YourDictionary . <S> Related answer here. <A> When you use lesser mortals to designate actual people (as it is usually done), you do insinuate that someone else behaves as if they are divine. <S> Although this is fine when meant jokingly or sarcastically among friends or colleagues, I would certainly be wary of using it in any official communication, since not everybody might be very pleased when they are told they behave like a god - it insinuates arrogance, for one thing. <S> In general, a very good rule, also in this case, is "when in doubt, don't". <S> If you are not sure if you can use a certain word, idiom or expression in the mail, letter or speech that you are preparing, simply do not use it . <S> Be on the safe side and use something you are sure about. <S> Your lesser mortals may refer to the people on the work floor, to "the other players in the team", to "the students". <S> Simply describing what you mean without using any idiomatic jokes or references may tend to make your text a bit boring, but you avoid the risk of insulting people with an inappropriate joke. <A> In the term "lesser mortals", it means others are lesser than someone superior in knowledge, capability etc. <S> even though each one of us is mortal and will die. <S> (It does not mean others are less likely to die and we are more mortal.) <S> Deriding anyone by assuming an air of superiority should be avoided in official communication as people have to work as a team in offices. <S> So this term should not be used in official communication like emails or blogs. <S> It can be used in blogs if referring to someone who is an outsider like rival companies who are not doing so well. <S> For example, "For lesser mortals it remains a dream to match our year on year profits". <A> Referring to others as "lesser mortals" would be seen as extremely rude, arrogant, and prone to instant punishment by the "lesser mortals". <S> In an official document, it is unlikely that you would be able to use the word without upsetting someone.
| Referring to yourself and your group as "lesser mortals" is usually meant in a sarcastic way, to set the group apart from someone who thinks they are better than the rest, but clearly isn't. So, depending on what you mean with "official usage", I would probably say "no, do not use it".
|
Asking 'the pleasure of your company' in an invitation This is a great site - I would happily pay for this advice. I must fess up and say I am a native English speaker (albeit an Irish one) but I'm running into trouble wording a party invitation . Is it correct to ask the pleasure of your company? - My husband doesn't seem to like 'requesting' this. Cathie Godwin and Vincent Clancy were married on May 21 2013. We ask the pleasure of your company at ____ on Saturday, ____ 2014 to celebrate cocktails 6.30pm, dinner and dancing. r.s.v.p. to _____ by St. Patricks Day <Q> When you seek a direct object, you typically ask for something. <S> However, I would use neither of those words. <S> The best words are found in Maulik's post, though for some reason he did not state it. <S> When sending out invitations, use request . <S> It's very common, polite, and not seen as begging, while asking/seeking for something does. <S> Saying "I ask for the pleasure of your company" almost sounds as if you're begging them to come, and not in a good way. <A> We ask the pleasure of your company - is fine and <S> okay! <S> Asking for the company in this way is quite common in an invitation card. <S> That's asking for gratifying the hosts. <S> Pleasure (n) - <S> The state or feeling of being pleased or gratified. <S> Nevertheless, if it's wedding invitation, the honor of your presence is preferred instead of the pleasure of your company . <A> Well, the short answer is <S> It's you party <S> and you can cry if you want to <S> as it is your party, you may do anything you want. <S> If we start with what might be considered to be the most formal and proper invitation <S> Request <S> the pleasure of the company of has been used by the White House for formal occasions and the diplomatic corps since using the third person (not using I or you) is the most formal way to phrase an invitation. <S> Except for possibly Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II who actually uses a third person to extend invitations <S> (source: rozsavage.com ) <S> http://www.melbournekitchensandbaths.com/images/layout/invitation-from-the-queen.png Less formal occasions and lower level diplomats (Ambassadors, Secretaries of State) might use Request the pleasure of your company <S> The pleasure of your company is requested <S> (source: muslimjournal.net ) <S> If one is a mere mortal and it is a party with your friends, one may use Please join us <S> You are invited <S> Hope you can come <S> In asking for a response to an invitation, R.S.V.P. <S> (all caps) RSVP répondez, s'il <S> vous plaît is often used and is a formally phrased request by the inviter for a confirmation of attendance. <S> The request is formal since it is using the formal "vous", though people have taken to using "RSVP" as a shorthand without the formal distinction. <S> The modern non-French non-formal equivalents might be the favor of a response is requested the favor of a reply is appreciated <S> please let us know if you can make it <S> It's your party, since you're probably not inviting foreign dignitaries or heads of state <S> and it's probably not a once-in-a-lifetime event (wedding), don't get hung up on the wording. <S> Your invitation is the one year anniversary of your marriage, so you will probably have many chances to word several invitations over the coming years. <S> If your wedding was formal/orthodox, you may want your celebration to be less so. <S> A fun invitation is a great way to set the mood before the party has even started, just be sure to have a great time!
| When one is seeking "the pleasure of someone's company" one usually "requests" it.
|
The difference between sentences mentioned here (1) I am to explain the position. (2) I have got to explain the position. (3) I have to explain the position. Please tell me when the meaning of above sentences is one and the same. Also, why and under what circumstances we have to use the above sentences. <Q> They are somewhat different. <S> If you say, "I am to explain the position ", I'd think that you are going to explain me the position. <S> If you say, "I have got to explain the position" , I'd think that you must do that . <S> If you say, "I have to explain the position" , I'd think the same as the second one <S> [Oxford defines it the same as have got to ]. <A> (1) I am to explain the position.(2) <S> I have got to explain the position.(3) <S> I have to explain the position. <S> The sentence (1) is a little old-fashioned, and means roughly that you are going to explain the position, according to some plan. <S> It's not very different from "I will explain the position," in fact is probably not at all different, but it does suggest that there is some plan out there assigning you to explain the position. <S> The sentences (2) and (3) are synonymous, and mean that you are required to explain the position. <A> (1) I am to explain the position. <S> This is about intent: I will, I'm going to. <S> It may also denote duty: <S> *it is my task, to explain..." but not necessarily. <S> As others mentioned, it's old-fashioned form, and rather less formal (formal versions wouldn't skip the verb: " <S> I am supposed to..." or "I was tasked with explaining..."). <S> (2) I have got to explain the position. <S> You won't see this sentence in the wild . <S> "got" is thrown in after "have" in informal speech, but then, in informal speech "I have" is always contracted to "I've". <S> What you will see is: (2) I've got to explain the position. <S> This is a fairly common form: "I have no other choice, but to explain the position". <S> It'd about compulsion, duty, need <S> - it's not just that the speaker will explain; the speaker can't refuse explaining (or not doing so would be very undesirable). <S> (3) I have to explain the position. <S> This is equivalent to the above but acceptable in formal contexts. <S> While you wouldn't write "We've got to test... <S> " in a scientific paper, writing "We have to test" is perfectly fine. <S> This is also normal in common (non-formal) speech, possibly carrying slightly more emphasis than (2). <S> Note, in this case "I have to" is almost never contracted to " <S> I've to". <A> I disagree with the hair splitting that others have engaged in to answer your question. <S> [although this is also an answer, i'd leave this as a comment if i could.]
| The answer is simply this: the examples you posted are equivalent and interchangeable.
|
What is Difference between Have to and Should? I have a question that what is the difference between following statements. You have to do this. You should do this. I am confused. <Q> "Have to" implies the necessity behind the requirement of doing a particular task. <S> ''Should'' finds usage to refer to an ethical responsibility. <S> From what I interpret, use of the two differs on the basis of responsibility and compulsion. <A> "Have to" is an obligation, "should" is a (strong) recommendation <A> We use 'have to' when something is an obligation, it is necessary to be done. <S> As in: We have to win this match to qualify for the next round. <S> 'Should' is used to <S> Give suggestions or advice <S> :You should brush your teeth every day. <S> To indicate probability:If I should be late, go without me. <A> This type of wording is often used in requirements manuals, specifications, policies, and procedures. <S> Each such document should clearly define its terms to avoid ambiguity. <S> If this is from a policy manual that you need to adhere to, you should clarify the exact meanings of these terms. <S> A somewhat "famous" set of specifications for geeks of the world is the RFC specifications used for the Internet specs and include typical definitions for these types of terms. <S> Here's an excerpt from https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt , for "MUST" and "SHOULD" . <S> MUST - <S> This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification. <S> [This is the equivalent of your "have to". <S> - CoolHandLouis] <S> SHOULD - <S> This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. <S> The RFC defines the following words/phrases: "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL".
| While ''have to'' sounds more like a compulsion to which there may even be penalty / punishment, ''should'' signifies the onus of doing something that may display how responsible someone is.
|
What is this "to?" We were driven into our rooms to shelter us from the spray of the sea. What is this to ? <Q> The "to" here before the infinitive "shelter" has the meaning of "in order to shelter" or"with the purpose to shelter". <S> The to-infinitive explains why we were driven to our quarters. <S> This infinitive is a bit different from normal to-infinitives which are mostly connected to verbs (I want to do it, I'll try to do it). <S> Here the to-infinitive is added to a complete sentence (We were driven into our quarters) <S> so you know it can only be a to-infinitive explaining <S> why? <S> - If you want to be clearer you can use the longer formula with "in order to + infinitive". <S> In German Grammars this special infinitive is called "finaler Infinitiv" (final from Latin fin-is end pupose). <S> I have looked into the register of an English grammar (Eastwood/Oxford) <S> but I don't find a term for this special kind of infinitive. <S> PS <S> As I have just found out this kind of to-infinitive is treated in English grammars under the heading "clauses of purpose". <A> It indicates that the following verb (in its plain form) is the head of a subordinate infinitival clause. <S> We were driven into our rooms [ to shelter us from the spray of the sea ] . <S> Here, the infinitival clause is an adjunct of purpose . <S> It tells us why they were driven into their rooms. <S> As an adjunct, it is a non-essential part of the sentence and can be removed without rendering the sentence ungrammatical: <S> We were driven into our rooms. <S> Adjuncts of purpose are not entailed , so it's possible to write your sentence even if they were not ultimately sheltered from the spray of the sea. <S> It only tells us the purpose at the time of the action. <S> There are a number of other ways to phrase adjuncts of purpose. <S> Here are two alternatives: <S> We were driven into our rooms [ in order to shelter us from the spray of the sea ] . <S> We were driven into our rooms [ so as to shelter us from the spray of the sea ] . <S> These alternatives have roughly the same meaning. <A> The "To" is the grammar particle of the the verb " to shelter ". <S> It is also a preposition . <S> Basically, it gives "shelter" the meaning of "taking cover" as an action, instead of a noun.
| In this sentence, to is an infinitive marker , a type of subordinator.
|
What's the differences between 'get it right' and 'make it right'? I know that both "get it right" and "make it right" have a meaning of "correction", but what's the significant difference between them? <Q> The two phrases can be used in different contexts, so it'll be hard to explain ONE difference that always holds true. <S> That said, I'd suggest that: "Get it right" means, " <S> Get your facts straight." <S> "Make it right" means, "You messed up and hurt someone, now go fix the situation." <S> For example: <S> Did you hear Justin Bieber got arrested for cocaine? <S> No, that's not true – he tested positive for alcohol and marijuana. <S> Get it right . <S> And then: I don't know why you thought it would be so funny to throw eggs at Mrs. Murphy's house. <S> She's only been nice to you. <S> You need to march yourself over there and make it right . <S> You're right, Dad. <S> Not only will I help her clean up the mess, I'll offer to cut her lawn for free for the rest of the summer. <S> As I said, though, that's only one way to distinguish the two phrases. <S> A math teacher might tell her students: Be careful when you do your arithmetic. <S> Make sure you get it right . <S> But then, if the students turn in answers with a lot of mistakes: I want every student to correct their assignments. <S> Any place where I've marked a problem wrong, you need to make it right . <S> Essentially, make it right <S> refers to fixing something your got wrong, whereas get it right <S> is an exhortation to not get it wrong in the first place. <A> "Get it right" means that you are going to do something right the first time. <S> You're working on a project, and you are determined to do it the correct way. <S> "Make it right" means more to fix something that is already wrong. <S> You've taken something already created (or some harm already done) and decided to fix it. <S> If it's so bad that it can't be repaired, you might scrap it and start over, planning to "get it right" the next time around. <S> "Make it right" also has more of a moral connotation. <S> He had his TV stolen from his house, but the cops will catch the thief and make this right." <A> In 'making it right' you are asking a person to correct an injustice, to change a state from being unfair to fair. <S> The person who is being asked obviously has some ability, power or influence to be able to alter whichever situation you are trying to make fair again while the person asking lacks or is unable or incapable of changing the unfair situation themself. <S> " <S> Honey, please make it right between your parents". <S> "You are our last hope, you have to make it right <S> no matter the sacrifice". <S> With 'get it <S> right <S> ' you are asking someone to succeed during their next attempt, which could be the first attempt, but could also be additional attempt at achieving something they failed at achieving before. <S> It is said from someone in a position of power to someone below them, since this is not something a soldier would ever say to a general, an employee to a boss, or a child to their parents (unless they got no manners). <S> A coach, a teacher, a parent, a team mate, or anyone with a stake in another person succeeding at some task is likely to say this as long as they are above or equal to them. <S> Saying 'get it right' will sound unusually harsh coming from a spouse, or close friend if used incorrectly, and for some reason I want to add 'bozo' to the end - "get it right bozo... or you are fired!" <S> "You will keep marching around the barracks all night and every night, if that's what it takes for you to get it right." <S> So "make it right <S> " is addressed to a position of power in a polite, almost pleading way, hoping that they will accept. <S> While "get it right" is never addressed to a position of power unless you want to sound insolent and rude on purpose.
| To "make something right" most often means to make amends for some wrong that has been done to someone. "
|
What's the difference between a restaurant and an eatery? Eatery is defined on OALD as: a restaurant or other place that serves food In that case, can I call McDonalds an eatery? Or can I call any single one restaurant in the city I see an eatery? <Q> Eatery is a much less formal term than restaurant . <S> It isn't a put-down, precisely, but you wouldn't call Spago or The Four Seasons an "eatery" except as a joke. <S> On the other hand, you can certainly call McDonald's an "eatery", but that isn't the sort of establishment that is usually called that, either. <S> For me, "eatery" brings to mind a small place with a limited menu, possibly poor lighting, dinky countertops, and a, um, "chef" with a greasy apron and some sort of thick accent. <S> But I might also use it as a catch-all term for a place that serves food, if I want to be deliberately vague about whether said place is a fancy sit-down restaurant, a less-fancy "family" restaurant, a diner, a thinly-disguised bar, a fast-food joint, or a roach coach. <S> For example, if we're driving up to the relatives -- an 8 hour drive if we're lucky and don't hit traffic on the outskirts of New York City --, around 5:00 p.m. I might be heard to say, "If we don't find an eatery soon, I'm gonna keel over from hunger." <A> I can't verify wheter "eatery" is more AmE or not. <S> In any case it looks more AmE.Probably <S> there is no waiter <S> , there is no table cloth on the table, the furniture is cheap and so on. <S> Word formation: With the ending -ery you can make up place names from verbs or nouns. <S> In Italian the ending is -eria: pizza, pizzería, café, cafetería. <S> In German the same ending is -erei:backen, Bäcker, Bäckerei. <S> In English: to bake, baker, bakery. <S> You can add the ending even to compound verbs. <S> I found: to play out, playoutry - a place where games are played. <S> I have looked at various dictionaries, only The Free Dictionary says: 1900-1905, American. <S> But in the meantime eatery is common in British English, too. <S> There are two accepted spellings: eatery and eaterie. <A> Yes, you can call McDonald's and any restaraunt an eatery. <S> Eatery (Germanic): "a restaurant or other place where people can be served food. <S> " <S> (eat + -ery "a place for eating") <S> Restaurant (French): "a place where people pay to sit and eat meals that are cooked and served on the premises." <S> (restaurant "food for restoring one's strength) <A> A restaurant is a relatively large place which invests in the ambiance and experience, along with the food. <S> The best they have is a few benches. <S> Take it as an open kitchen that happens to sell food, great for take-aways.
| An eatery is a smaller place with food as its main focus.
|
What's the meaning of "ever" here? From NPR: Obama's State Of The Union And Your Economic Reality OBAMA: Average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by, let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren't working at all. What's the meaning of "ever" here? I've looked the word up in the dictionary, but couldn't find a proper definition. Is it only used to emphasize the context? <Q> You want to look at the phrase more than ever. <S> That means that something is true more now then at any time before (or after). <S> So Americans are working more than ever . <S> Means that Americans are now working more than they did at any time before. <S> So they work more now than they did last year, or a hundred years ago. <A> This is the first definition given in the Oxford Advanced Learners <S> Dictionary : <S> 1 <S> used in negative sentences and questions, or sentences with if to mean ‘at any time’ <S> Nothing ever happens here. <S> Don't you ever get tired? <S> If you're ever in Miami, come and see us. <S> ‘Have you ever thought of changing your job?’ <S> ‘No, never/ <S> No <S> I haven't.’ <S> ‘Have you ever been to Rome?’ <S> ‘Yes, I have, actually. <S> Not long ago.’ <S> She hardly ever (= almost never) goes out. <S> We see them very seldom, if ever . <S> (informal) <S> I'll never ever do that again! <S> And this is the second <S> 2 <S> used for emphasis when you are comparing things <S> It was raining harder than ever. <S> It's <S> my best ever score. <S> The definition ‘at any time’ in the first definition continues in the second, which is what is in play here <S> —Obama is drawing a comparison (‘more’) between how hard Americans work today and how hard they worked in the past: <S> So: “Americans are working more than [ they worked ] at any time [ i.e., any time in the past ] just to get by.” <A> As you might be knowing, ever can mean "always" or "at any time". <S> " <S> For example, if I never completed more than half my homework, but today completed three-quaters of it, I would have completed my homework more than ever.
| More than ever" is used to imply that the action has been carried with more intensity of frequency then before.
|
I don't understand the meaning of a phrase: "elections are all there is to democracy" what's the meaning of this phrase: "elections are all there is to democracy" in: Perhaps this explains why descriptions of democratic politics often create an impression that elections are all there is to democracy <Q> When saying: <S> X is all there is to <S> Y. <S> we mean: <S> X is the essence of Y. or: <S> X is the most significant part of Y. <S> When this saying is used, the importance of other parts of Y are diminished. <S> Often, though, when this expression is used, X is not one specific thing, but a set of things. <S> For example: To make a good lasagne, you need a savory sauce, fresh cheese, and the right blend of meat, spices and vegetables. <S> And that's all there is to it. <S> Here's an excerpt from a book that follows this same basic pattern: <S> You would say that peace is peace, and that is all there is to it. <S> This is saying, essentially: <S> Don't overcomplicate things; peace is peace – what else is there to know? <S> So, back to your example usage: Descriptions of democratic politics often create an impression that elections are all there is to democracy. <S> However, the first part of the sentence makes it clear that this would be a fallacy – that, in reality there is more to democracy than elections. <S> As for the wording, though, here are a couple of alternative ways that myth could have been stated: Elections are all there is to democracy. <S> In the end, democracy is really all about elections. <S> There's really not much more to democracy than elections. <S> Elections are the essence of democracy. <A> all there is to democracy= everything that there is to democracy Consider the following sentence and how we form a relative clause out of it: John bought the book. <S> The book (that) <S> John bought... <S> Likewise, consider: <S> There is everything/something, etc., to democracy. <S> Everything (that) there is to democracy... <S> Since 'all' equals 'everything', the above can be rephrased as: All (that) there is to democracy... <A> Elections are only one component of what we could consider a democracy. <S> Another element might be "rule of law". <S> A system that has elections may or may not be what we would class as a democracy, depending on the presence or absence of several other factors. <S> The author is making the point that a false impression can be created by superficial descriptions of democracy as simply involving voting.
| The phrase "elections are all there is to democracy" means that, if you have elections, you pretty much have democracy.
|
How to describe this plot? Is it good to say the smaller the parameter is, the outer the curve. or alternatively, the bigger the parameter is, the inner the curve. I don't feel they are natural. What do you think? I am not sure if "outer" and "inner" here can be used as the comparative degree form of adjectives "out" and "in"? Can "out" and "in" be adjectives? Thanks! <Q> I think you're intuition is telling you the right thing: those don't sound natural. <S> One way to say it might be, The greater the parameter, the greater the value of Y with respect to X. <S> although that sounds a bit technical. <S> If you wanted a more informal way to say it, you could try, <S> The curves move higher on the graph as the parameter increases. <A> If you want to avoid technical-sounding explanations, you can just say "the bigger the parameter is, the flatter the curve is." <S> Alternatively, "the smaller the parameter is, the more rounded the curve is. <S> " <S> (It's more accurate to say that the curve is rounded than to say it's round.) <S> "Is" is implied in this case. <S> Now, out and in are prepositions, and outer and inner are adjectives. <S> So, outer and inner are not comparatives of out and in, although they look as if they are. <S> (The comparatives of outer and inner are "more outer" and "more inner".) <A> The smaller the parameter, the bigger the curvature . <S> The larger the parameter, the smaller the curvature . <S> The (concave) <S> graph flattens-out at about 1.3 and above. <S> The slope-of-the-graph (aka "the curve") <S> flattens-out at about 1.3 and above. <S> So you might be trying to say something like <S> , "We see the effect of <SomeTechnicalThing> where the curve flattens-out at higher values of the parameter." <S> A more complete description might be, "The variable slope is always negative, decreasing (concave) at smaller X values and flattens-out (becomes linear) at about 1.3 and above."
| Less formally, you can say "the bigger the parameter, the flatter the curve."
|
Why "would" instead of "will" in this sentence? The goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iranˈs nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful . (Source) what does would imply here? If it implies future, why will has not been used? A good link teaching would thoroughly would be really appreciated. Specially, distinguishing between the senses of would is not always easy. <Q> I'm not sure you need a link explaining the full ins and outs of "would" in order to understand the answer to this question. <S> "Would" is (correctly) used in this sentence to express the fact that such a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution does not currently exist, or at the very least, one has not been agreed upon. <S> (This is a great example by the way, since various situations in Iran are/have been very difficult to resolve!) <S> We shouldn't use "will" (which would describe a concrete future), in cases such as these, where an outcome is very dependent on many factors (or conditions). <S> "Would" is the English language's conditional form. <S> " <S> Conditional" indicates that an outcome expressed with "would" is only possible if certain "conditions" are met. <S> Think of "would" as "the furthest future possible". <S> I hope that at least answers your specific question. <S> To read more on "would", first check out its primary definitions (which give you some nice examples). <S> This article also helps you on other aspects of this modal verb (past habits etc), and this article may also be of interest. <A> The difference in meaning is very slight, and I think "will" works okay in that sentence. <S> So in your example, I think the odds of negotiation perfectly satisfying everyone are low, so I prefer "would" in that sentence. <A> Contrary to the implications of the posted comment, I don't think there's any suggestion of "poor English" in using <S> would rather than will in the first position within OP's cited context. <S> It's entirely a matter of stylistic choice whether they're seeking a solution <S> that... <S> would ensure... <S> will ensure... <S> ensures... <S> It's also largely just a matter of style whether that the aim is that Iranˈs nuclear program... would be exclusively peaceful. <S> will be exclusively peaceful. <S> ... <S> but it's probably fair to say is exclusively peaceful <S> carries a stronger implication that Iran already has an ongoing nuclear program 1 <S> (the two "conditional/future" alternatives might be slightly more likely if no such program yet exists). <S> Having said that, an utterance which "stacks/cascades" two consecutive conditional or future tense verb forms might well be considered unnecessarily complex and therefore somewhat clumsy. <S> Most native speakers would probably prefer to use present tense for at least one of the two positions in OP's example . <S> I've provided a link to the full context there, where I see no reason to take issue with any of the phrasing - it looks perfectly well written to me. <S> 1 <S> Or, as per StoneyB's comment, that the ongoing nuclear program is in fact "exclusively peaceful". <A> Contrary to the implications of the posted comment 1 , I don't think there's any suggestion of "poor English" in using <S> would rather than will in the first position within OP's cited context. <S> It's entirely a matter of stylistic choice whether they're seeking a solution <S> that... <S> would ensure... <S> will ensure... <S> ensures... <S> It's also largely just a matter of style whether that the aim is that Iranˈs nuclear program... would be exclusively peaceful. <S> will be exclusively peaceful. <S> ... <S> but it's probably fair to say is exclusively peaceful <S> carries a stronger implication that Iran already has an ongoing nuclear program 2 <S> (the two "conditional/future" alternatives might be slightly more likely if no such program yet exists). <S> Having said that, an utterance which "stacks/cascades" two consecutive conditional or future tense verb forms might well be considered unnecessarily complex and therefore somewhat clumsy. <S> Most native speakers would probably prefer to use present tense for at least one of the two positions in OP's example . <S> I've provided a link to the full context there, where I see no reason to take issue with any of the phrasing - it looks perfectly well written to me. <S> The exact phrasing was probably hammered out over many hours of negotiation by many fluent speakers of English; repeated use of the conditional, which carries overtones of this is all somewhat provisional and speculative is quite natural in the context. <S> 1 <S> Both footnotes refer to comments on the later duplicate question, where this answer was first posted. <S> 2 <S> Or, as per StoneyB's comment, that the ongoing nuclear program is in fact "exclusively peaceful".
| The exact phrasing was probably hammered out over many hours of negotiation by many fluent speakers of English; repeated use of the conditional, which carries overtones of this is all somewhat provisional and speculative is quite natural in the context. Based on my American dialect, I would prefer to use "will" when I think the thing in question is very likely to actually take place, and "would" indicates that there is a strong doubt.
|
"It is almost the reverse that is true" - Weird? Once American films looked slick and commercial compared to Europeanimports; ... (A) now, almost the reverse is true (B) now it is almost the reverse that is true Another similar question to what I've just asked. Clearly, A is correct. As far as I can see the other choice looks grammatically fine, but does it sound weird? Ambiguous? I don't know. A comma is also missing, but I guess that might be a typo. <Q> Let's write (B') for ... <S> now, it's almost the reverse that's true. <S> In very formal writing I would prefer (A) to (B) to (B') <S> (because some, myself not included, feel strongly that contractions should not be used in formal writing, and because (A) is less wordy than (B)). <S> But in speech or most written contexts (A) and (B') are fine; (B) sounds weird. <S> All are grammatically correct. <A> It sounds awkward. <S> This is more natural: <S> Once American films looked slick and commercial compared to European imports, however now the reverse is almost always true. <A> I'd drop the "is true". <S> "Once American films looked slick and commercial compared to European imports, now it's the reverse." <A> You find A correct? <S> How? <S> I'd not say ... <S> almost the reverse is true... <S> Instead, I'd go for .... <S> the reverse is almost true... <S> or maybe, Now, it's almost reversed. <S> Are there such choices for this question? <A> There is a problem with a placement of the adverb 'almost' in both the alternatives given. <S> I wouldn't say it is outright wrong, but these alternatives would have been more to the point: Once American films looked slick and commercial compared to European imports; ... <S> (A) now, the reverse is almost true.(B) now, it is the reverse that is almost true. <S> Having said that, I would mention that both options are grammatically correct. <S> However, the first one is slicker (like the past American films the sentence mentions). <S> We would use that in speech. <S> The second one is more apt for formal writing in classic English. <S> In any case, I would go with the first option for all my purposes.
| The only reason (B) sounds weird is that the contractions "it's" and "that's" don't happen in it.
|
Reduce redundancy in this sentence I am writing: A pattern is a set of terms, which captures a term and its surrounding terms to provide context. Which I found that the word term appear too many times, is there any elegant way to reduce the redundancy and simplify the sentence? <Q> But since I don't understand what the original means (a more serious problem than redundancy), this may be incorrect. <A> Suggested Answer: "Patterns provide context to a term "T" by forming a set containing "T" and its surrounding terms." <S> ORIGINAL (without comma): <S> A pattern is a set of terms which captures a term and its surrounding terms to provide context. <S> DEFINITION: <S> Pattern is a SetOfTerms = {TargetTerm, SurroundingTerms} EQUIVALENCE: Context(TargetTerm) := Pattern <A> How about this: Patterns are a set of terms, which captures an item and its surrounding details to provide context.
| You can get rid of one "term" by saying: A pattern is a set which contains a term and its surrounding terms.
|
What does "I know who I want to take me home." mean in "Closing Time" song? I heard a English song named Closing Time and there is a line in the lyrics: I know who I want to take me home. What is the meaning of this? It seems should be like these: I know who I want to take home . or I know who want to take me home. <Q> I know who I want to take home. <S> You want to take someone home. <S> And you know who that is. <S> * <S> I know who want to take me home. <S> I know who wants to take me home. <S> Someone wants to take you home. <S> And you know who that is. <S> I know who I want to take me home. <S> You want to go home with someone. <S> And you know who that is. <A> "I know who I want to take me home" means "I know who it is of whom <S> I want that he takes me home". <S> So neither of your alternatives are correct: <S> In your first rewording, you are saying that there is a person whom you want to take home, and that you can identify that person. <S> In your second rewording, you say there is a person who wants to take you home, and that you know who that person is. <S> (Also, you have a verb-agreement mistake in there, the "who want" should be a "who wants".) <A> The song is actually about the lead singer, Dan Wilson's, daughter's birth. <S> They covered it up a little to seem like a bar song so it would be accepted main stream, but when he says "I know who I want to take me home. <S> " It is actually his daughter saying it in the hospital. <S> He mentions it in a college reunion video on YouTube . <S> I didn't know until recently either <S> , I had always assumed that of course there is someone you WANT to take you home <S> but whether they will or not is a different story. <S> Enjoy! <A> It means that the singer sees someone that he likes, and he wants to go back to her house. <S> In reality, the song was written about the singer's anticipation of fatherhood, and this is from the perspective of his future baby who is seeing its parents for the first time. <S> The baby wants the parents to take him home. <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_Time_(Semisonic_song)#Interpretation <A> In the context of the song(without the hidden insight about the baby—which I don't buy, even if the songwriter allegedly said it—and just considering the context of the bar) it is actually not clear whether the singer wants someone to take him to HIS OWN house, or to THEIR (that other person's) house. <S> The connotation could be different. <S> Yes, he wants to be driven by (her?), but he might only be saying he feels safer if she is the designated driver to take him home when he's too drunk to drive. <S> But if he wants her to take him to HER home, he clearly has romantic intentions <S> (whether he'll be too drunk to act on them <S> is another question). <S> But that double entendre makes it a better lyric than, say "to drive me home".
| What the author is saying instead is that you know a person that might or might not want to take you home, but you want him to take you home.
|
How to distinguish "are" and "aren't" in American accent? The question have confused me for a long time. How to distinguish "are" and "aren't" in American accent? Usually, the pronunciations are: are is pronounced as /ə/ or /ɑ:r/ aren't is pronounced as /'ɑːrənt/ According to my hearing, many Americans would omit the final /t/ in aren't , making it /'ɑːrən/, which is very close to the pronunciation of are(/ɑ:r/) . In fact, I almost cannot find any difference.You can hear this sentence here . It says: These aren't the only governors touting comebacks. But for me, the aren't in the sentence is more like an are , isn't it? Can anyone tell me how to distinguish the two words? Thanks. <Q> I'm from the Midwest US. <S> So in a sentence starting <S> Those are the only... <S> I pronounce <S> are the as [arðə]. <S> While in Those aren't the only... , I say [arʔðə], also with a bit of nasalization before the glottal stop (not sure how to write this). <S> Listening to your recording, this is exactly what that speaker did -- there's a noticeable gap between aren't and the . <A> Are in everyday speech will often (almost always?) be part of a contraction with the pronoun they , i.e. "they're", whereas aren't (are not) won't be contracted with the pronoun, and it will receive some emphasis. <S> So, frequently the parsing rhythm combined with the difference in vowel sounds (they're, they aren't) will be the best clue. <S> They're háppy to do it. <S> They áren't happy to do it. <S> But how to distinguish "they are" from "they aren't"? <S> Native speakers will say "are" quickly and with hardly any emphasis whatsoever, whereas "aren't" will be given much greater emphasis. <S> They are háppy to do it. <S> They áren't happy to do it. <S> The speaking in that recording is on the rapid end of the spectrum. <S> But if you listen, the word aren't in <S> "these aren't" receives considerably greater emphasis than 'these'... <S> These áren't . <A> I'm from the Southeastern US. <S> That omitting the final "t" sound is in a good many words. <S> But when we do it, we usually pronounce the last sound a little differently than usual. <S> I mean, it's basically the same sound, but we time it differently and such. <S> For example, even though we don't pronounce the "t" in "aren't", we still say "aren't" differently than we would "aren'". <S> Same thing between "different" and "differen", or "mitigate" and "mitigae". <S> It's real difficult to describe the difference on paper. <S> It's <S> kind of like we don't say the last sound quite as long, or that we stop making the last sound very suddenly. <S> Except that might not be 100% true, and we really slightly alter the sound into something more like a gutteral whisper, and we use something like a different, harsher tone. <S> In this way, relatively soft sounds like "ay" and "n" are kind of hardened and are made to sound more like "ayt" or "nt". <S> We fake the "t" sound essentially. <S> Again it's something really hard to describe, but hopefully this helps.
| When pronouncing aren't in a sentence, I replace the [t] with a glottal stop [ʔ].
|
I am a male or I am male? Which one is correct? I want to describe my gender. I have two choices below: I am a male. I am male. Which one is correct? Or both are fine? <Q> There is very little difference between the two, and they're used interchangeably. <A> If your intention is to indicate your gender , you might wish to instead say: I am a man. <S> The word “male” can be used to mean the same thing, but it is more strictly a designation of biological sex , such as might be used in a medical setting. <S> For this reason, some people might consider use of “male” as either a noun or adjective a bit odd-sounding, or cold in a way. <S> Both of your proposed alternatives are grammatically correct. <A> Both are fine. <S> Do you want to use a noun or an adjective? <S> That's the only difference here. <A> Personally, the second form seems like it would only be used in response to a question, such as: "Are you male or female? <S> If you were expressing the thought independently, so as to give some idea of your perspective, the first form would be more common. <S> "I am a male, who is 50 years old, and I'm concerned about the rollout of the Affordable Care Act." <A> To my basic grammar knowledge, an adjective is a 'describing' word; the main syntactic role of which is to qualify a noun or noun phrase, giving more information about the object signified. <S> Male is an adjective, so if it takes an indefinite article it requires a noun next to it. <S> You may say that my argument is contradictory since I used an adjective , an adjective can be used as adjective depending on the context it's used in a sentence. <A> Either is fine. <S> "I am a male" means I am a man. <S> "I am male" means " <S> I am "not female" (and implies the above).
| "I am a male" is closer in meaning to "I belong to the group of people who are male", whereas "I am male" describes your gender directly. Both are fine and mean almost the same thing.
|
Does `remembered to do` imply doing it I remembered to lock the door. When I use remember this way, does it always imply that I actually did the action. Maybe I can use it in the sense "didn't forget" -- I just remembered to do something, but didn't do it. For example: I remembered to call him, but the phone was broken so I couldn't do it . I remembered to take the medicine but decided not to . <Q> Simply remembered to does not imply going through with that action. <S> It must be specified whether or not the action was taken. <S> For e.g. I remembered to lock the door after I reached the office <S> would mean that in effect, the door was not locked. <S> So, baseline, remembered to in itself <S> does not imply that the action was indeed carried out. <A> Great question. <S> I'm a native English speaker and if another native English speaker told me "I remembered to ...." then I would assume that he did the action even though it's not logically implied. <S> But if he said "I remembered that I needed to ..." then it leaves open the question whether the action was done. <A> As a native English speaker, I would say yes, if you say "I remembered to (do something)", then you did that something. <S> You can, as noted, qualify that with a "but" phrase that spells out what went differently than intended.
| Without any other qualifiers, though, "remembered to" always implies that the stated action was performed.
|
to afford *doing* something 1) They can't afford to go out very often. 2) They can't afford going out very often. A native speaker has said that the second usage can be heard in a colloquial speech, but it is incorrect. Is it true? <Q> I searched The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) for both strings. <S> Here's what I found: afford to go 182 results <S> afford going 5 results <S> There's a strong preference for the infinitival complement, so I suggest that you use it in your own writing. <S> That said, I would accept the other version as grammatical. <S> This is just my personal judgment, but Jim left a comment which agrees , so I'm not the only one. <S> This may be part of a larger trend that some have called the Great Complement Shift , although at the moment the infinitive is still strongly favored; there isn't much evidence in favor of a shift to the gerund for this particular verb yet. <S> Of the five results in COCA for afford going , four are from the spoken language sub-corpus, and one is from the news sub-corpus. <S> This, along with the relatively small number of results, supports the idea that it might be considered more colloquial. <A> Both are okay. <S> Nevertheless, COCAE shows the verb afford + to + infinitive quite common similar to the examples you stated. <S> I think the verb afford just like love and hate <S> takes both - gerund and infinitive after it. <S> They cannot afford going out very often - used less frequently. <S> This is all about verb pattern. <S> Further reading here and here addressing similar concern. <S> For particular this topic, see here . <A> The Collins dictionary (online) has only to afford to do. <S> Obviously for AmE the problem is a bit different, but I would say the normal verb construction is to afford + to-infinitive. <S> ButI'm <S> not astonished that some people in spoken language use the gerund after to afford. <S> Simply because the borderline between to-infinitive and gerund after a verb is overlapping and the borderline that grammars draw is actually a bit arbitrary and mainly due to convention. <S> But people don't speak English with a grammar in their hand. <S> And so you can hear sometimes a gerund used as object after a verb even when grammars say the normal verb construction is verb + to-infinitive.
| They cannot afford to go out very often - used more frequently.
|
Is a false myth a truth by definition? One meaning of word “myth” is something that is a widely held but false belief or idea Source: Google, “define myth” By this definition, then, a “false myth” is something that it is not a “true myth”, that is, it denies the definition of a “myth”. As I see it, it can either be that it is not a “myth” because it is not widely believed, or because it is not false. However, I've seen a lot of times the phrase “false myth” used to emphasize the falseness of the myth. Is this a genuine usage? <Q> I searched the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) for myth and false myth . <S> Here's what I found: myth 7786 results false myth 2 results <S> So less than one in a thousand occurrences of myth is accompanied by the word false . <S> It's not exactly a common collocation! <S> And although this is just my personal opinion, the phrase sounds a bit odd to me—possibly because I take myths to be false by definition. <S> I wouldn't recommend that you use it. <S> That said, we can look at actual usage and see how people use the phrase. <S> Both of the results in COCA appear to agree with your assessment—it's "used to emphasize the falseness of the myth". <S> And that meets with my expectations: I think myths are false by definition, so any myth is a false myth. <S> You could, however, use "false myth" the way you want to. <S> There's nothing stopping you from doing so—after all, the term isn't a well-established one, so it doesn't have an agreed-upon meaning. <S> But if you do so, make sure you define your terms clearly! <S> Your readers may not be able to guess what you mean unless you do. <A> The phrase "false myth" is ambiguous because "false" can mean both "untrue" and "not genuine/real". <S> By this definition, then, a "false myth" is something that it is not a "true myth", that is, it denies the definition of a "myth". <S> As I see it, it can either be that it is not a "myth" because it is not widely believed, or because it is not false. <S> This meaning makes sense, but it is probably rarely used. <S> I've seen a lot of times the phrase "false myth" used to emphasize the falseness of the myth. <S> This makes slightly less sense. <S> I don't like it. <S> Because "myth" implies false, my initial interpretation is to assume that "false" in front of it must mean something different. <S> Because of the ambiguity, the phrase appears to be an auto-antonym , a word (or in this case, a phrase) that is its own opposite, and can only be understood by context. <S> It should be avoided. <S> Instead of "X is a false myth", say what you mean: <S> X is popularly believed to be a myth, but it is not. <S> Or for the emphasis meaning: <S> X is a ridiculous/ludicrous/wild myth. <S> For the first meaning, you can also use "faux myth". <S> The word "faux" can only mean "not real", so is not ambiguous. <A> Your instincts are correct. <S> The word “myth” is already understood to indicate disbelief on the part of the speaker. <S> The problem is that myths are generally believed by somebody in the past or present, so the word will sometimes pop up in relation to hotly contested subjects where somebody writing or speaking is attempting to make a point more strongly. <S> It might in some cases serve a legitimate purpose in its context. <S> If one was discussing truth, for instance, it might make sense to refer to something as a “false myth” to set it in strong contrast to an example of objective truth (not meaning to suggest a contrast with a “true myth” which is a contradiction of terms). <S> I think this neo-platonist put it best, way back in the fourth century: <S> — Sallustius <A> The meaning you've stated is the second meaning. <S> The primary meaning of "myth" is "A traditional story, esp. <S> one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. <S> " <S> I'll admit that pop culture definitely uses "myth" as a synonym for "misconception", but "false myth" is not redundant in educated speech. <S> (Of course, that's how a languages changes and adapts, and what was once casual or uneducated usage becomes the norm, but at least according to most dictionaries, we're not there yet.) <S> We can even appeal to pop culture and argue that the "Myth Busters" (TV show) doesn't disprove every "myth" they examine.
| “A myth is something that never happened but is always true.”
|
What is the meaning of "clocking" in this sentence? The federal Minimum wage in the US is $7.25 per hour. Ten states have higher minimum wages with Rhode Island clocking in 50 cents higher at $7.75. What is the meaning of clocking? Why not use "closing"? <Q> I think the existing answers are potentially misleading. <S> It's true that to clock in originally gained currency in the 40s in respect of workers recording the time of starting work (often, in a factory, where they might also clock on , and clock out or clock off when they finished work). <S> But in recent decades, the specific phrasal verb clock in has acquired another sense. <S> It's now often used to mean record <S> / achieve a "score" in a competition (where OP's "minimum wage comparison" can be seen as a "competition"). <S> This usage is particularly favoured where the "score" values are time-based, but OP's example is by no means uncommon. <S> Note that the more common phrasing here would be with Rhode Island clocking in at 50 cents higher . <S> In such contexts, to clock in is usually followed by at [the actual recorded value], but in this specific case that would be clumsy - since the actual value is expressed as 50 cents higher at $7.75 , we'd have two occurrences of the same preposition in undesirably close proximity. <S> Having said all that, I agree with other answers/comments making the point that OP's cited usage could (but doesn't have to ) be seen as a punning allusion to the factory timekeeping origin of the expression. <S> Finally, I'll just say that if the writer had used clocking up instead of in , he wouldn't have had to think about whether to follow it with at (which is rarely used after up ). <S> But then his pun would be diluted. <A> Think of it as "clocking in", not just "clocking", and I believe you'd understand why. <S> Though you can write "closing in" instead of "clocking in" and the meaning will still be roughly the same, using "clocking in" makes the line much more interesting, in my opinion. <S> Workers usually need to clock in and clock out of their work. <S> The basic sense of clock is to measure or record something (though it's usually about the speed). <S> By playing with words, the sentence jumps off the page and puts me into the context of labors and minimum wages instantly. <S> Here are the definitions for "clock in" and "clock out" from the Free Dictionary: clock in - register one's arrival at work clock out <S> - register one's departure from work <A> The federal Minimum wage in the US is $7.25 per hour. <S> Ten states have higher minimum wages with Rhode Island clocking in 50 cents higher at $7.75. <S> It's the time you spent working in a factory or office. <S> If you say you're on clock, that means you're in working hours.
| Another very similar idiom is clock up - to reach a particular number or amount .
|
Can "multiply" be a noun? Can Multiply be used as noun, such as in "matrix multiply"? I heard of this from some Americans. Or should it be "matrix multiplication" instead? <Q> Agree with FumbleFingers. <S> The experts from any domain have their own language and way of convincing the message. <S> I'm a healthcare provider and while describing/discussing medical things among us, we generally overlook grammar because for us, that's trivial in that case. <S> I searched several dictionaries but could not find the word multiply as a noun. <S> In my pro version of WordWeb <S> (cannot give link here as it's not online) it says... <S> Multiply as a verb and adjective . <S> Derived: <S> Noun: multiple, multiplication, multiplier. <S> I further tried to understand the term in mathematics as well. <S> As you got it right, the correct term is Matrix Multiplication. <S> So, maybe, the experts use it in an informal way but the message is convinced. <A> It needs to be "multiplication". <S> "Multiply" is strictly a verb. <A> As in, "I performed one multiply followed by two adds." <S> In this case, a multiply refers to a mathematical operation. <S> It's often used this way in math and computer science. <S> It's similar to how we say, "I went for a run." <S> run <S> is normally a verb but in this case it's a noun.
| Multiply can be a noun.
|
What accent shoud a foreigner use in an English-speaking country, if the foreigner can do most accents? I've watched so much American, Canadian, British and Australian shows/videos/sitcoms/movies/lessons that I can now do most of those different accents. Of course, I will not be as good as the native speakers, but if I go to say Australia, or Canada, which accent should I use there, how will people accept it? For example, if I try mimicking Australian accent, it will probably be good enough, but not as good as my American accent so what would be the proper way to go about this? Or I go to Canada and I pronounce "about" and "out" in the distinctive way they do, even though Im not Canadian, so I dont have to do it? Will I fit better in Australia as the foreigner that speaks Australian English a bit off (if thats an expression) or the foreigner that speaks American English (even though not American in the first place)? <Q> I have had the same question myself in French. <S> There are a range of opinions on this. <S> The fact is, though, that this will get you into trouble sometimes. <S> I think the safest bet (although it is not what I would always do myself) is: whatever country <S> you go to, adopt the most standard pronunciation of that country . <S> Certainly in the US it will make you more understandable if you pronounce word-final r, for instance. <S> That's true even if you land in one of the (diminishing) areas of the country where it's not pronounced, because everyone is used to hearing the standard dialect in broadcast media. <S> It is interesting, because there are a lot of folk theories about linguistics and dialect. <S> In the US, for instance, the general folk theory is that standard American (like you hear in most movies, as you would hear in, say, the rich suburban areas of most northern cities) is "English without an accent." <S> Interestingly, most people who speak "with an accent" i.e. not with the standard accent (e.g. especially the south, also the rural midwest), talk about the language in this way too, even though it is linguistically nonsense. <S> In particular, I imagine that if you adopt a regional accent in America, some folks would think you were making fun of them for trying to speak "with an accent" or that you were pretentious, trying to be something you were not (which is a little silly given that anyone learning a foreign language is trying to pronounce it as well as possible). <S> This is a very unfortunate attitude, but you should at least be aware that it exists before trying to pick up a regional accent. <S> I'd specifically caution against trying to imitate African-American Vernacular English, because there is a lot of nasty and ignorant stigma surrounding that dialect, and people may mistake you for someone who is racist and making fun of the dialect (also, because the dialect is so stigmatized, many of its native speakers don't use it for official business, so it would seem very out of place for a foreigner to attempt that). <A> Speak in your natural accent. <S> What you think is <S> a good English/American/Australian accent probably has quite strong overtones of your native language anyway, and you run the risk of sounding like you're mocking people. <S> By all means adopt local dialect words but speaking with a foreign accent is absolutely not a problem. <A> Pronunciation is the last thing you should be worrying about: pick one dialect and let your use of that constitute the identity you project. <S> Lexicon (the words) is more important; grammaticality is even more important (save yourself effort and concentrate on mastering the formal register); and the most important thing of all is the content of your speech: be aware of what topics are sensitive or tabu, and what opinions will excite dismay, ridicule, or hostility. <S> Act <S> III Shaw's Pygmalion , a play about a young woman seeking to better herself by mastering the essentially 'foreign' dialect of a higher class, illustrates very amusingly the difference between 'proper' pronunciation and 'proper' lexicon, grammar, and content. <A> Pick a high-brow British accent and stick with it, when in America. <S> To few it will sound snobby for the most part Americans for some reason defer and respect it. <S> As long as it's not overdone to the point that you can't be understood I'd think it will serve you well.
| My personal preference is for the hyper-local accent always, i.e., try to imitate the people who are around you, whatever they may speak.
|
"I have ever been to New York. "Is this sentence correct? I'm not a native english speaker.I know this sentence is correct. Have you ever been to New York? (O)I have never been to New York. (O) I have ever been to New York. <<<< ???Is this sentence correct in grammar? or possible? or natural? <Q> In short, "ever" cannot be used to make an assertion, but rather to ask a question, or an embedded question (wh-clause). <S> For instance He is asking me whether I have ever been to New York. <S> Have I ever been to New York? <S> I don't think so. <S> I have <S> never been to New York. <S> The wh-clause <S> " whether I have ever been to New York" cannot be used by itself; it is dependent on another clause. <S> Also note that we can make a statement with "ever", if it is negative. <S> This is based on the principle that "never" can be regarded as a condensation of "not ever" I have not ever been to New York. <S> Finally, structures like "have I ever been ..." are possible, if they express irony or emotive emphasis. <S> For instance, "Boy, have I ever been cheated!" <S> This could somehow apply to New York. <S> A <S> : Have you been to New York? <S> B: <S> Have I ever been to new York! <S> I spent three weeks there just last year and actively explored the city for something like ten hours a day. <A> Sorry for the technical jargon. <S> The word ever is a negative polarity item (NPI), and can only be used in contexts which license NPIs: negative declarative clauses ("I have not ever been to New York") interrogative clauses ("Have you ever been to New York?") <S> conditional clauses (" <S> If you ever go to New York") <S> You cannot use NPIs in positive declarative clauses, so * <S> Huddleston & Pullum have a footnote on never and ever at the bottom of page 823: <S> Never is likely to be preferred over verbal negation when ever immediately follows not or the negative verb; a more natural use of frequency ever is seen in <S> I don't think he ever loses his patience . <S> Ever can be used in juxtaposition to never with emphatic effect; this device is associated primarily with informal conversation, but can be found in other styles too: Any risk of a prime minister abusing this power is effectively eliminated because he can never, ever put a political crony into the job . <A> The word ever is used to describe at any time . <S> "Have you ever been to New York?" <S> Means, at any given point of time, have you (ever) visited the state? <S> This can be answered - <S> No, I have never been to New York. <S> OR <S> * <S> Yes, I have been to New York [preferably with number of times since it has the word ever ]. <S> Even shorter answer is - No, never or Oh yes, thrice. <S> I have ever been to New York as a response to that question does not sound okay to me. <A> When you try to answer the way the question is put, here, for the question Have you ever been to New York? <S> (O) I have never been to New York. <S> (O) is a negative answer, and right usage. <S> But, you cannot use "ever" instead of "never" and say "I have ever been to New York. <S> " That is not even a possible answer for a positive reply. <S> Nevertheless, you may use, "I have been to New York" , to say that you have gone to New York, or you can mention number of times you have visited and so on
| "I have ever been to New York" is not grammatical.
|
Is there a verb for a town made into a city? How would this sentence be completed? "It was a small town but in 2005, the government _ _ it into a city". I can only think of "made into" but that doesn't seem very right and I think there is a verb for governments 'declaring' it a city. <Q> I think it depends on the idea you are trying to convey. <S> If you mean this in a more informal sense, like the population has grown and people think "town" implies a place smaller than this place now is, you might say "built it into a city" or "grew it into a city". <S> "Made it into a city" and "turned it into a city" could also work. <S> They'd be more general. <A> I believe the word you're looking for is "incorporated". <S> Incorporated and Unincorporated <S> - What's the Difference? <S> How Does a Town Become Incorporated? <A> You can use "turn" as well. <S> But wait for native speakers' opinion. <A> The problem here is a mix up over agency. <S> At least in the UK, the government doesn't [verb] a town into a city. <S> The town applies to become a city, which is granted (or conferred) or not by the government. <S> As the government doesn't initiate the event, and is therefore not the agent in thematic relation terms, there is no associated verb. <A> In the UK, cities are created by Royal Charter , so the sentence would normally read It was a small town but in 2005, it was granted a Royal Charter and became a City. <S> This could be shortened to something like "The City of Brighton & Hove was chartered in 2001 as part of the Millennium celebrations" but note that even then the agent of chartering is not stated. <S> The passive voice is always used. <S> a better verb than chartered would be created .
| If in the political environment where this place is located there is a legal distinction between a town and a city, then you might say "officially designated it to be a city" or "achieved the status of a city".
|
Can I say "think down" as an alternative of "look down"? You know when someone says "people are looking down upon somebody" Today I asked somebody "will people think down on my code if I do this and that.." Is this correct? Looked for this expression in Google, couldn't find it. Also, should it be "alternative of" or "alternative to" in the title of this question? Context: In a programmers forum I asked a question how to do a particular task in my code. They offered a few methods, and I said I disliked one of those "best practices" and I would like to stick with a practice of mine. So then I asked "what if other developers look at my code, will they think down on it" meaning "will they think its badly written". <Q> <A> Look down on someone is quite a common phrase. <S> Look down on - regard (someone) with a feeling of superiority. <S> In that way, "Will people think down on my code ... <S> " does not sound okay to me. <S> So, the phrase think down on is not an alternative to look down on . <S> An edit after the OP added the context: <S> Will they think it's badly written is plain, simple and unambiguous. <S> You can certainly go for it as it makes it a better choice. <S> However, other alternative includes: <S> Will other developers think that my code is not a good practice to follow? <S> In fact, I just searched on the Internet and found that for coding , 'practice' is the better word to use in such condition. <A> How about "look down on my code"? <S> From The Free Dictionary: look down on somebody/something : to consider someone or something as not important or of value | look down your nose at somebody/something <S> “A lot of people look down on us because we're homeless,” she says. <S> Look down on or look down upon <S> They look down on our efforts all the time, no matter how much we try. <S> Source: Basic American Grammar and Usage by Marcel Danesi p.186, Barron's Educational Series, Inc. 2006 From the CORPUS OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ENGLISH <S> These aristocratic and professional families have always tended to look down on business as something rather distasteful. <S> Source: <S> What makes peoples rich? <S> (cover story) by Richard Lynn, National Review 1991 <S> In our time, the dominant class consists of intellectuals (very broadly and loosely defined) and knowledge workers. <S> Its members tend to look down on business and to elevate freedom of speech and personal morality over the economic freedoms required by a healthy economy. <S> Source: <S> Individual Liberty and the Constitution by Robert Bork, American Spectator 2008
| We don't really "think down on" something, but we can "think lowly of" or "think poorly of" something.
|
What is the meaning of "all the way up" , and what is the function of "up" here? Peter was the smartest kid all the way up until the fifth grade. What is the meaning of "all the way up" , and what is the function of "up" here? <Q> Although all the way" was explained in other answers already, I would like to discuss "up until" a little, along with its function (part of speech). <S> To understand the phrase "all the way up until", you should regroup the words into "all the way" and "up until", like this: <S> Peter was the smartest kid [all the way] [up until] the fifth grade. <S> You could ditch "all the way" out <S> and/or replace "up until" by "until" and the sentence will still have roughly the same meaning. <S> Peter was the smartest kid all the way until the fifth grade. <S> Peter was the smartest kid up until the fifth grade. <S> Peter was the smartest kid until the fifth grade. <S> The phrase "up until" has a similar meaning to "until". <S> In Macmillan Dictionary, it's listed under the definitions of both "up" and "until". <S> And because in your sentence "up until" is followed by a noun phrase ( the fifth grade ), it is used as a preposition . <S> Here are the definitions of up until in Macmillan Dictionary: until [CONJUNCTION, PREPOSITION] as a preposition (followed by a noun): She continued to get a salary until the end of March. <S> as a conjunction (connecting two clauses): I stayed there until he arrived. <S> 1. <S> happening or done up to a particular point in time, and then stopping Baker is expected to be here until the end of the week. <S> I was employed by a manufacturing company until 1999. <S> You'll just have to wait until they call your name. <S> up until: <S> Up until now, everything in Katherine's life has been taken care of for her. up adjective, adverb, preposition [...] <S> PHRASES <S> [...] <S> - up to/until/till something used for giving the latest time that something can happen, or the end of a period of time <S> Laura was here up until about 5 minutes ago. <S> The building was used as a hospital through the 1960s up to 1972. <S> We can make the delivery any time tomorrow up till about 10 pm. <A> So "all the way up until fifth grade" means he was the smartest kid from the moment he started school until he had "moved upwards" to the fifth grade. <S> The use of "up" in a temporal sense is not uncommon - we seems to like to think as the passing of time as something that moves in an upward direction. <S> We grow "up", for example, as we get older - or at least, that is what we are expected to do. <S> ;) <A> all the way is used as an idiom there. <S> all the way (idiom) - during the whole period of time. <S> up <S> probably refers to the top rank/degree in smartness among other pupils (until fifth grade). <A> All the way up has been already explained up there. <S> But, to make things simpler, ALL THE WAY UP (UNTIL) is a long way of saying UNTIL. <S> Example: <S> He was top of his class all the way up (until) grade 9. <S> is the same as <S> He was top of his class UNTIL grade 9.
| Up refers here to the idea that as you go to school, you move "upwards" trough the grades. All the way means "the whole time" (or "the whole distance or journey").
|
What does "His soap box doubles as a tee box" mean? Consider: Republicans were quick to pounce on Obama’s water-intensive golf weekend. “We have seen this brand of hypocrisy from President Obama before — this time it seems his soap box doubles as a tee box .” What does "His soap box doubles as a tee box" mean? <Q> The first paragraph gives an insight about this. <S> President Barack Obama traveled to California on Friday to highlight the state’s drought emergency at two events near Fresno, calling for shared sacrifice to help manage the state’s <S> worst water shortage in decades. <S> He then spent the rest of the weekend enjoying the hospitality of some of the state’s top water hogs: desert golf courses. <S> It's probably a tongue-in-cheek comment by RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski . <S> Check out the meaning of the words used here: soapbox (without space) - <S> A platform raised above the surrounding level to give prominence to the person on it. <S> tee box <S> - Starting point where a golfer puts a ball into play for a hole. <S> In this context, it means that the president simply did both - political work by addressing the 'water shortage issue' but (then) also playing golf on the ground that requires 'too much water' to maintain. <A> Soap box is an idiom that indicates a box someone stands on when speaking in public, usually trying to convince people about something. <S> "To double as" means to have two functions at the same time. <S> So this is a word play on Obama combining political publicity work with the pleasures of playing golf. <A> To put a slightly finer point on the phrase in general, it implies that when you play golf with this particular person you are going to have to endure them preaching to you or stumping for their position. <S> (Had to slip another idiom in there for you :) <S> A lot of guys I've played with go up onto the tee box and then begin to yap away while everyone else waits for them to hit. <S> If someone said this phrase to me about someone else, I would be sure not to play golf with them. <S> It can be very annoying.
| A tee box is the area on a golf course from where the players "tee off", they start to play from there.
|
Meaning of "Get to" Please clarify the exact meaning of "get to" in the quote below. All good-hearted souls get to pass through There is a bubble shield approaching them that he is afraid he would not be able to pass through it so he ask the good witch about it and she says that in answer to him. Thanks in advance. <Q> The meaning of All good-hearted souls get to pass through is <S> All good-hearted souls are allowed to pass through <S> See sense 14 at Wiktionary's page for the verb <S> get : (intransitive, followed by infinitive) <S> To be able, permitted (to dosomething); to have the opportunity (to do something). <S> I'm so jealous that you got to see them perform live! <S> The finders get to keep 80 percent of the treasure. <S> The to here is part of the infinitive form of the verb to pass . <A> I am expanding on the answer provided by CopperKettle, well as CopperKEttle mentioned, get to <S> can mean allowed to there is another way you can look at it, <S> Let me try to explain it with a few examples 1) <S> If you win the lucky draw, you get to go on a cruise to Hawaii 2) <S> If you join our group, you get to enjoy the weekend in a cabin by the lake. <S> 3) <S> You get to eat dinner only after you finish the homework 4) <S> You get to vote once you turn 18 <S> In sentences 1) and 2) get to means that you have been "provided with an opportunity", in sentences 3) and 4) get to means you are "allowed to". <S> So in the sentence under question "All good-hearted souls get to pass through" <S> get to can mean 1) <S> and you are given permission to do that 2) <S> All good-hearted souls get the opportunity to (get to) pass through - in this context, you are presented with the opportunity, you can decide to take it or leave it. <S> So next time when you come across "get to", <S> well you get to decide what it means. <A> The difference between “get to” and “have to” tasks all has to do with motivation. <S> “Get to” tasks are reinforcing in and of themselves. <S> They’re enjoyable, which is why we look forward to them. <S> “Have to” tasks, on the other hand, are reinforcing only in the sense of relief we feel when they’re done. <S> Finishing a “have to” task feels good, because there’s a sense of completeness. <S> Until the “have to” task has been finished, it looms over our head.
| All good-hearted souls are allowed to (get to) pass through - in this context, you want to do something
|
What's the meaning of "finish dead last"? From NPR Last year, Consumer Reports did a survey of thousands of U.S. flyers. Spirit finished dead last . In fact, Consumer Reports said Spirit's rating was among the lowest of any company they've ever rated. I know that finish last means wind up as the last position in a race, competition etc . But What's the meaning of dead in the middle of the two words? After looking up the dictionary, I found that dead could be mean completely . So does the sentence implicate that Spirit not only finished last, but also was far behind other companies? <Q> By itself, the expression might mean "in last place, far behind the competition," or it could simply mean, "in last place, behind all other competitors." <S> In this context, the word dead is used for emphasis, as if declare, "Not just near the bottom, but at the bottom." <S> You might ask, "Doesn't the word <S> last imply that on its own already? <S> " Yes, it does! <S> However, the expression dead last is still used rather often – even if it is sometimes a tad redundant. <S> (Excellent question, by the way.) <A> For example, if competitors finish with times of 3:13.2, 3:13.9, 3:14.2, and 5:39.7, the difference between first and third would be only a second, but the difference between third and fourth would be more than a minute and a half. <S> There isn't an exact formula to determine when the phrase "dead last" is appropriate; it tends to suggest that the difference between the competitor's performance and the next better competitor is large in both absolute and relative terms. <S> It's possible for multiple competitors to finish "dead last" if the differences among their performances are small compared to the difference between the best of their performances and the performance of the next better competitor (e.g. in a 6-contestant race, if competitors finish with times of 1:00, 1:01, 1:02, 1:03, 5:37, and 7:23, the last two contestants could be described as finishing "dead last", since the field may be divided into "people who finished in under 1:05" and "people who took more than five times that long". <S> The latter two contestants might officially be credited as "finishing", but their performance would be qualitatively worse than anyone else's. <S> Had the sixth competitor's time been bad enough, it would make sense to describe that competitor alone as being "dead last", but there's no clear line where the distinction should be made. <A> I think it goes something like dead sure means very sure. <S> Up to a great extent. <S> Dead in that sense may mean extremely. <S> dead <S> (adv) <S> - very; extremely The company's worst performance it was as it listed the least...in fact terribly bad.
| If a competitor scores or finishes "dead last", that generally implies that the competitor's performance was much worse than anyone else's.
|
How can I say that I admire someone? Can you suggest some ways of saying "I admire that guy"? First of all, is the sentence below correct? I admire someone Secondly, how can I change it to avoid always using the same sentence? <Q> First of all, yes, that sentence is perfectly sound. <S> In order to rephrase it, it would depend on the type of admiration, since the word "admire" has more than one definition, just as "relationship", "respect", or "love" <S> can mean several different kinds of relationships, different kinds of respect, different kinds of love, etc. <S> You're welcome to look this up in a dictionary to see the different usages for this word and others, and if you'd like to see other words that have similar definitions, I'd recommend using a thesaurus. <S> Below is a link for each. <S> http://dictionary.com <S> http://thesaurus.com <A> I'd have to know more about the kind of feelings you're trying to convey, but one slang term gaining traction in the U.S. is man crush . <S> The Urban Dictionary has several meanings listed at their site; I'll share this one: <S> man crush - for a man to have a very close platonic friendship and/or admiration for another man. <S> Another book defines the term by saying: man crush - a form of hero worship, or the desire to either be or emulate the other man <S> The term can be used in one of two ways: <S> I've had a man crush on Ronaldo since the last World Cup. <S> During the last World Cup, Ronaldo was my man crush. <S> When Barack Obama was a candidate, one columnist wondered: <S> Why do men as diverse as Colin Powell, Michael Eric Dyson, Andrew Sullivan, Tom Joyner, Ted Kennedy, Bill Richardson, Christopher Hitchens and numerous others, appear to have such a "man crush" on Sen. Obama? <S> ( The Obama Man Crush , published in The Root , July 18, 2008) <S> I should point out that this is a rather trendy slang term. <S> I'd caution against overusing the term, lest you start to sound silly. <S> But you did specifically ask for alternative ways to express admiration for someone, and this is one way to do that. <S> From what I've heard and seen, it seems to be an expression largely used by men among men about other men. <A> Another expression for this that is very common is to say "I look up to someone." <S> Examples: <S> "I really look up to Simone Biles for her courage and self-discpline." <S> "I look up to Lionel Messi for his good sportsmanship." <S> I would be careful about using man crush , as it is very slangy and is often meant to be kind of funny. <S> Usually it would be used by a man, with the meaning that he is a fan of another man. <S> However, I have seen it used by women in the context of "Man Crush Monday," where Monday is for posting photos of hot guys on social media. :)
| Yes, "I admire someone" is a correct sentence and it would be fine to use it.
|
"if the train was leaving" vs. "if the train were leaving" (indicative vs. subjunctive): difference in meaning Suppose we have two sentences, one in the indicative mood: If the train was leaving, you would have heard about it. and the other in the subjunctive: If the train were leaving, you would have heard about it. What is the key difference in meaning? Am I right to guess that in the first sentence the speaker is unaware of whether the train was indeed leaving, whereas in the second sentence he knows that the train was not leaving? <Q> The subjunctive mood is quite rare in modern English, or you can say that in many cases it has evolved to overlap with the indicative . <S> The second sentence you are giving is one of the remaining forms, in the second conditional we use "were" for first and third person singular, instead of the indicative "was". <S> The other example has the exact same meaning. <S> The difference is that, strictly speaking, it is grammatically incorrect. <S> However, there seems to be a strong tendency among native speakers to use " <S> was" instead of "were" in this case, since in any other case we say "I was" and "he was". <S> And to answer your question, there is no difference in meaning, <S> only two forms for the same thing, one of which is "grammatically correct", and the other - more and more popular, and, in my opinion, soon to be seen as "grammatically correct". <A> The short answer is both sentences have the same meaning. <S> I would say that usage is the only difference. <S> Although "if it was" is regarded as incorrect, this ngram indicates the use of the more acceptable "if it were" is declining (perhaps because it is seen as formal). <S> The longer answer is more interesting and it tells us about the subjunctive mood in Old English. <S> The first question that rises is what we mean by subjunctive mood . <S> Since we are at ELL, I will try to keep this answer simple while crossing my fingers to not start a flame war :). <S> So... a verb can be classified by different criteria, for example: tense (past, present, future) <S> : depending on the time when the action/event described by the verb takes place. <S> aspect (perfect, continuous, perfect continuous, simple): without going into details, just say, the aspect of a verb describes the action/event further (is the action/event happening before another event/action? <S> is it a continuous action? <S> is it a continuous action that happened before another even/action? <S> is it none of the previous?) <S> mood (indicative, subjunctive, imperative) <S> The indicative mood is the mood used most often, because is the mood we use for actions/events that happened, are happening or will happen. <S> The subjunctive mood , however, is used for actions/events that didn't happen but could've, or actions/events that won't happen but could. <S> Here's the most important point in this answer: <S> how can we express the subjunctive mood in English? <S> As often happens, the answer to this question evolves with history. <S> Old English had more forms to express the subjunctive mood than modern English . <S> This doesn't mean that modern English cannot express the subjunctive mood. <S> It means that: the forms used in Old English are in decline and are often regarded as too formal. <S> alternative forms are created in modern English : the use of past tenses, the use of would, should...: <S> it is essential that the state should have no hand in regulating the press <S> it would be better if they would tell everybody in advance some of old forms still remain: <S> were : <S> I wish it were Summer <S> be : <S> a Florida judge has recommended that he be allowed to work other infinitive forms : <S> God save the Queen <A> Fortunately, it's simpler than that. <S> "Were" is more correct when invoking this particular conditional case (I believe it's called the subjunctive case). <S> It's common to hear it the other way, depending on where you are, but it <S> it's never correct. <S> You'll want to say <S> "If the train were leaving, you would have heard about it."
| There is no difference in meaning, just in usage.
|
"We could see the lava slowly advancing towards the town just ten miles away" “We could see the lava slowly advancing towards the town just ten miles away.” I picked up this sentence from an English book. I wonder why it doesn't need the verb to be : “We could see the lava is slowly advancing towards the town just ten miles away.” <Q> The sentence <S> We could see the lava slowly advancing towards the town just ten miles away is grammatically correct. <S> The part beginning with "slowly advancing.." is called participial clause . <S> It is built around the participle advancing . <S> We could rephrase it as <S> We could see that the lava was slowly advancing towards the town just ten miles away To do this, as you see, we would need to add that ( not strictly necessary; see J.R.'s examples) and was , thus turning it into a subordinate clause . <S> This one would be built around the verb to be , with the subordinator that connecting it to the main clause. <S> Note that we use to be as <S> was (past tense) in the subordinate clause, according to a set of conventions called " sequence of tenses " (Wikipedia), also covered here . <S> We do this to make the verb agree with the past tense of "could see". <A> We could see the car. <S> We could see the car moving toward us. <S> A <S> "to be" verb could be used, but I would usually use <S> was with could , and is with <S> can : <S> We could see the lava. <S> We could see the lava advancing towards the town. <S> We could see the lava was advancing towards the town. <S> We can see the lava is advancing towards the town. <A> "Towards" means that the distance between the town and the lava is getting smaller. " <S> Forward" doesn't give a frame of reference that includes both the lava and the town, it just means moving towards the front (the front of what?). <S> "Toward" means to move in the direction of (in this case in the direction of the town). <S> Just FYI, "advancing" is a verb. <S> "Towards" is a preposition like "under" or "through". <S> Forward is an adverb, modifying "advancing". <S> The word can also be used as an adjective (the forward deck of the boat), a verb (I will forward the letter), even a noun (a position on a sports team).
| We don't need a verb because we are merely describing what we could see:
|
What does "That terrible job will by itself destroy your mental health" mean? What does this strange sentence mean? That terrible job will by itself destroy your mental health. What does this "by itself" mean? Is this grammatical? <Q> NOTE <S> The original question had the phrase as That terrible will by itself destroy your mental health. <S> I can see two ways this sentence would make sense, but the two ways imply a completely different meaning. <S> You will have to provide more context to know which of the two isapplicable: <S> Paranoia is a terrible thing. <S> That terrible thing will, by itself, destroy your mental health. <S> The will is a terrible thing. <S> That terrible will, by itself, destroy <S> s <S> your mental health. <S> You will notice that in both cases I interpret "terrible" as an adjective. <S> In the first case, I added something for the adjective to modify (paranoia), and I read the verb in your sentence as "will destroy". <S> In the second case, I interpreted "will" as a noun, and I read the verb as "destroy s . <S> In both cases, I added commas around "by itself" to make the sentence more clear. <S> I would have guessed the author meant the second option, meaning that one's will can, by itself (without help from anything else) destroy a person's mental health. <S> " <S> Destroy" does need an s then. <S> After the edit, it turns out that the first interpretation was the correct one. <S> Something will, without the help of anything else, accomplish to destroy your mental health. <A> " by oneself " means alone, on one's own, either with nobody else present or with nobody else's help <S> For example: I was sad because I was by myself <S> (no one was with me) <S> I did my homework by myself (with no help) <S> So "That terrible job will by itself destroy your mental health" means that the job alone, without help from anything else, will destroy your mental health. <A> It's grammatical, though it's a little awkward. <S> "By itself" is being used as an adverb to modify destroy . <S> In other words, even if everything else about your life was totally peaceful and sane, this job would still drive you crazy . <A> Sentences starting with a that usually looks like this: <S> That terrible job by itself will destroy your mental health is inevitable Since the last part is missing, we must assume that it is one of those sentences that lacks the complete structure, as seen in a conversation. <S> Things turns out positive. <S> by itself could mean terrible job . <S> Look at this sentence: <S> My work by itself is my own reward <S> This implies that no other reward is necessary, but the work itself provides satisfaction.
| As we are talking about a job, not a person, we use "by itself", meaning on its own, with nothing else "helping" it. No, that sentence is not grammatical, unless "terrible" is read as a noun, which seems highly unusual.
|
What's the meaning of "The prospect of big national savings is what's driving the case for more energy-efficient lighting"? From NPR Hefner replaced some low-efficiency bulbs in Cole's home with energy-saving bulbs. Then the host said it will save a lot of money for her on her electric bill, then: The prospect of big national savings is what's driving the case for more energy-efficient lighting. I guess "case" means the situation where people use energy-saving bulbs, but what's the meaning of "driving" here? What's the meaning of the whole sentence? <Q> "Driving" means it is taking the case forward, it is the main reason for the case. <S> If you are "driven" by something, it means that you are strongly motivated to do something. <S> You can give money to a medical charity, because you are driven by the ideal of a disease-free world. <S> The case for that charity can also be driven by that ideal, meaning that the main reason for the existence of that charity is that ideal. <S> The sentence can be read as: <A> When you read driving in this case, think of driving a nail, not driving a car. <S> The hammer drives the nail in a particular direction; likewise, certain forces can drive people to act a certain way. <S> We can be driven by fiscal or market forces, such as possible cost savings or tax incentives, or we can be driven by emotions, ambitions, addictions, needs, or social causes. <S> Greed is what drove the investment adviser to bilk his customers. <S> Hunger is what drove the poor man to steal a loaf of bread. <S> The prospect of a promotion is what drove Linda to work 12 hours every day, six days a week. <S> The high price of gasoline plus concerns about lowering air pollution were the key driving forces behind the development of the hybrid automobile. <S> But always Shackleton was driven by the need to test his personal abilities and to emerge the victor in competition . <S> (Beau Riffenburgh, 2008) <S> It might be worth mentioning that writers don't always explicitly say which force is driving the individual or the group, but assume the reader can figure it out. <S> He was driven to be the best athlete he could be. <S> Despite the fact that her confidence was in tatters, she was driven to fight for what she wanted, to win what she'd come for, and to spare no effort to reach her goal . <S> (Bi Feiyu, 2010) <A> "Case" in this sense means more like "argument". <S> "Driving" means something more like "strongly motivating" in this context. <S> People are making the argument that we should switch to energy-efficient bulbs, and the big motivation for suggesting this plan is the savings.
| The reason why we promote energy-efficient lighting is the prospect of big national savings.
|
Does standard English support gendered forms of nouns and verbs? I've heard it said that there is no rule for gender of nouns/verbs, and they are neutral.But others say that it is possible, such as vixen for fox . How do I know which word to use in such cases? <Q> The oldest form of the English language had grammatical gender, but lost it by the 13th century, except in pronouns: the only grammatical role played by gender today is determining what pronoun should be used to refer to an entity, and that is (with a very few exceptions, such as ships and countries) determined by “natural gender”. <S> And even that distinction has been fading since the 1960s, when the feminist movement called attention to the discriminatory effect of using gendered pronouns. <S> We still deploy pronouns to distinguish between human and non-human, but where humans are involved we try strenuously to avoid distinguishing male and female except where that distinction is topical. <S> In the same way, nouns which distinguish female and male animals ( cow/bull , mare/stallion ) are still safe to use, as are nouns which distinguish female and male people <S> ( woman/man , girl/boy ) when the distinction is immediately relevant. <S> But use of male terms to embrace both women and men is deprecated now—for instance, we are called upon to speak of humankind rather than mankind , of a mail carrier rather than a mailman . <S> The use of suffixes to distinguish female and male animal and agent nouns has largely vanished, too. <S> Vixen is a rare survival from Old English, representing fox with the feminizing suffix -in and associated alteration of the stem vowel. <S> Spinster is another such; it employs the feminizing suffix -ster . <S> Both of these suffixes were lost in ME. <S> There has been some tendency to use the suffix -ess , of French origin, in their place. <S> A few common words ( lioness , tigress ) came directly from French, and are common; but the suffix has never been entirely nativized. <S> Most agent noun derivatives ( authoress , doctoress ) have always felt slangy or affected, and the few which have entered common use— actress , for instance—are now distasteful to most of us. <A> It is not the female term for a fox. <S> A fox is a fox <S> is a fox. <S> A vixen is a female fox. <S> Just like a woman is a female human. <A> Nouns are only gendered if they refer to something gendered (and not necessarily then). <S> Some examples of when they are: Nouns themselves changing Animals <S> , e.g. fox/vixen, cow/bull, dog/bitch, sow/boar, etc. <S> Sometimes the word for one gender is the same as the word for the whole species: there's no special word for a "male dog" for example, even though "dog" doesn't necessarily mean that the animal is male. <S> Imported words like fiancé(e), blond(e), etc., which add an e for the female form Words referring to people - waiter/waitress, actor/actress, fireman/firewoman. <S> These are increasingly being replaced so that "actor" for example usually refers to both male actors and female actors, and "firefighter" has replaced the gendered terms above. <S> Gender of the pronoun <S> you'd use to replace it <S> Ships are female By convention, most people seem to use "he" for an pet of unknown gender (I say pet rather than animal because probably "it" would be used for wild animals), except for cats for some reason, where "she" seems to be preferred until/unless corrected. <S> I should add that this is my personal experience only <S> and it's entirely possible that other commenters will chime in and say something different! <S> I can't think of any examples of verbs being gendered. <A> There are English verbs that are humorously claimed to take different forms for men and women. <S> For example, men sweat but women perspire. <S> But thats a joke, not an actual grammatical rule.
| There are no genders for nouns and verbs in English like in other languages, unless you are specifically referring to a male or female species. A vixen is a specifically female fox.
|
Isn't 'charge a fee' redundant? Do they charge a fee for opening an account [or anything here]? Isn't it redundant to use both the words? See this - charge (v) - demand (an amount) as a price for a service rendered or goods supplied. And, fee is a payment asked by professionals for their services. This could have been expressed as: Do they charge for opening an account? <Q> There is some redundancy there <S> - one could say "Do they charge for opening an account?" <S> However, there are different types of things that can be charged, and "fee" <S> is but one of them. <S> There are also fines and penalties, among other things, so the apparent redundancy is more about specificity. <S> Of course, one could just say "Is there a fee...?" as well. <A> Yes, it is sort of redundant. <S> You could indeed say "Do they charge for opening an account?" <S> and it would be entirely correct. <S> However, there is an understanding that they charge something for the service, and in this case it would be understood that the something that they charge is a fee. <S> However, in a different context, someone might say "I'll charge you two hours' time for writing that letter." <S> (Presumably in that case, there would be an understanding of how much per hour the person was charging.) <S> The amount mentioned in the definition doesn't have to be money. <S> It usually is, but it can also be time, cans of beans, whatever sort of unit might have an agreed-upon value. <A> A " fee " is from latin " feodum " and olde english " feod " and is linked to latin " fundum " meaning " funds ", " bottom ", or " estate ". <S> Compare it with " legal status ", " grounds for a lawsuit ", and " legal standing ". <S> Funds are debts charged against the estate of a bank (including bank notes such as paper currency), particularly those that can be subdivided and transferred in parcels and annexed (joined) to form other funds. <S> A " charge " on a person is etymologically as if the person is in the harness pulling a chariot or rickshaw, from Latin " carrus " meaning wagon . <S> A charge of debt may be applied, posted, and offset with one account (of debt) or another pursuant to an account agreement. <S> The usage in a personal or business letter is usually poor writing style because of unnecessary specificity, but it isn't unreasonable at all in informal speaking or educational and technical documents. <A> Even though in the English Collins Dictionary the first synonym of fee is charge I wouldn’t go so far as to qualify it as a redundancy. <S> To be more specific you may need to include it as an item.
| Using " charge a fee " instead of simply " charge " would be appropriate in any context where one might have been charged with something other than payment of funds, such as hard labor , specific performance of a contract, or jailtime .
|
What is so 'ridiculous' about it? I came across an article on BusinessInsider which reads - The 21 Most Ridiculous Photos From The Homes Of Ukrainian Government Officials I don't understand what's so ridiculous about it? Is this word being used in a different context here? In fact, looking at the photographs, I'd have appreciated words like stunning, wonderful, jaw-dropping, stupendous . <Q> The dictionary you link to gives this definition: worthy of or exciting ridicule; absurd, preposterous, laughable, or contemptible <S> It is preposterous (contrary to reason or common sense) and contemptible (worthy of contempt, despicable) that public servants should exploit their public offices to accumulate the extraordinary wealth which permits them to indulge in such preposterous and contemptible exhibitions of tastelessness. <A> The article that you link to says, "And he's not the only powerful Ukrainian enjoying a ridiculously luxurious residence." <S> So what the writer meant is that the level of luxury of these officials is ridiculous. <A> These photographs come from the private properties of people that were supposedly elected in a democratic way to run a country that belongs to the poorest in Europe. <S> I certainly would not call it wonderful that these people managed to enrich themselves to the extent of seemingly recreating Versailles during the short period that they were in power. <S> It shows how these people have abused their power to shamefully enrich themselves beyond imagination. <S> I realise there are people who would admire such effective behaviour, and even call it wonderful. <S> But for most people (and especially the ones that got to pay for it!) <S> this is horrendous. <S> It makes absolutely no sense that these guys were able to build these things while the country remained poor. <A> In this context the meaning of ridiculous should be read as outrageous, which is a synonym.
| The pictures are deemed ridiculous, not so much because they inspire you to laugh, but because they are absurd and preposterous.
|
Can "happy" be a verb? Can we say "happy" in sentences like " Happy reading! " is a verb and means "enjoy" ? If not, what is that? <Q> The sentence, " Happy reading! " is the same as " I wish that you have happy reading! " <S> The I wish that you have <S> is understood. <S> In English we say, "Happy Holidays" which means we want you to have a happy holiday season. <S> We're just lazy like that! <A> In: happy reading "happy" is an adjective that qualifies the noun "reading". <S> I wish you have a happy reading, meaning : "I wish you enjoy your reading." <A> No happy isn't a verb . <S> It is an adjective . <S> The fact is that the statement happy reading actually means I wish you will/did enjoy your reading... <S> P.S. Remember that happy isn't a verb. <S> It's an adjective.
| "Happy" cannot be a verb, there's no verb in that sentence but the verb "have" is implied:
|
Universal word part for ~ in 'you can ~ by it' We have words like 'visible' and 'audible'. You can see it or hear it, respectively. But is there a word part for 'you can ~ with it'? Like: "You can see with this chip. It's visifying.' <Q> English does not have any suffix <S> I know of which expresses the sense providing the ability to do something. <S> Ordinarily we would construct such a sense with the verb enable , followed by the ordinary English noun which expresses the ability: <S> This device enables hearing. <S> This chip enables sight. <S> This method enables speech. <S> If you require an adjectival form this would be constructed with NOUN <S> + - + present participle <S> OR past participle of enable <S> : Wolfpack has just introduced a new sight-enabling chip. <S> Wolfpack has just introduced a new speech-enabled robot. <S> But that doesn’t work very well with gerunds, due to the horror aequi principle which avoids juxtaposing similar forms: ? <S> Wolfpack has just introduced a new hearing-enabling device. <S> If you really really desperately require a one-word, Latinate form you might try -potentiate, -potentiating, <S> -potentiated : <S> Wolfpack's visipotentiating chip will launch a revolution in intelligence gathering. <S> Wolfpack's device audipotentiates sufferers from conductive hearing loss. <S> Wolfpack's new loquipotentiated robot can carry on actual conversations! <S> But that's really really far-fetched. <A> The question is unclear but let me try. <S> You can see with this chip. <S> It's visible. <S> -what's the problem in this? <S> Or you want... <S> Here, visualize means <S> make something visible to the eye. <S> Or... <S> Audible and Visible in this context are adjectives <S> and you looking for another adjective for the word <S> see ? <S> If yes, then it's seeable or viewable <S> -though the former one is not too frequently used. <S> seeable (adj) <S> - Capable of being seen; or open to easy view. <A> If you're looking for a word that encompasses either "visible" or "audible", consider " perceivable ": <S> Adj....capable of being perceived especially by sight or hearing; "perceivable through the mist" or " perceptible ": adj. <S> Capable of being perceived by the senses or the mind: <S> perceptible sounds in the night . <S> In the context of your phrase, this would read, "You can perceive with it. <S> " If you wanted to form a compound modifier , you could then add, "It's perception-enabling," but it's a little more awkward. <S> I can't think of a non-compound alternative to "visifying", which itself is not commonly accepted as a word. <S> You could also use "sense" instead of "perceive" here, but I would recommend against using " sensible " for your purposes. <S> Its first definition fits the meaning, but it's somewhat more ambiguous because people often use "sensible" to mean logical or reasonable, more or less. <S> BTW, the technical distinction between sensation and perception (in psychological literature, at least) is between the actions of the sensory organs (e.g., the eyes receiving light) vs. mental processes in conscious experiences (e.g., a person becoming aware of light).
| You can visualize with it.
|
Is there any term to define a 'fake smile' in font of media/camera? This is quite common with celebrities or page-3 personalities. They often smile falsely when in front of media (so as to come happy and photogenic!). Is there any particular term for the 'smile for media'? Note: I know the phrase 'reluctant smile' but then it refers to unwillingness and this smile is immediately caught by the opposite person. On the other hand 'media smile' is difficult to catch as it comes so natural (maybe, they are, after all, actors!). I can say, No matter what has happened in her personal life, in her last photo, she had a media smile (not a reluctant smile, it does not fit or convey the message) on her face with no difficulty. <Q> painted : 2. <S> lacking substance or vitality as if produced by painting; "in public he wore a painted smile" <A> Sometimes the term cheesy smile or cheesy grin is used to describe such a smile, especially if it seems forced. <S> The term cheesy comes from the word often invoked by photographers to get a subject to smile, as in Say "Cheese"! <A> Eccedentesiast — one who fakes a smile, as on television. <S> This word is from a list I had called Unusual Words . <S> To add to this: Eccedentesiast is derived from Latin ecce, ‘I present to you,’ dentes, ‘teeth,’ and –iast, ‘performer.’ <S> An eccedentesiast is therefore someone who “performs by showing teeth,” or smiling. <S> It was coined by American novelist Florence King who referred to this term in her column ‘The Misanthrope’s Corner’ when talking about politicians and TV personalities. <S> You can also use eccedentesiast to describe someone who tends to be reluctant when it comes to displaying genuine emotion. <S> ( Source ) <A> The most popular term for this ( based on Google N-grams ) is plastic smile : <S> the never changing 'cheshire cat' grin found on those wishing to: "win friends and influence people", this group would primarily include politicians and business 'people'. <S> - urbandictionary.com <S> Similar to Jim's answer of <S> painted smile and trending in popularity , is plastered smile . <S> Grin can be substituted for smile. <S> Another term which has an even more negative connotation is rictus .
| The term painted-on or just painted smile is sometimes used for this.
|
Which goes in parentheses? An abbreviation or a full form? When we provide the full name of a term, and define its abbreviation, which one goes in parentheses? The full form or the abbreviation? I have observed both! If both are OK, which one is more formal? Example: There are many factors that can improve your webpage's rank in SERPs (Search Engine Result Pages). OR There are many factors that can improve your webpage's rank in Search Engine Result Pages (SERPs). This is just an example. I want to know this in every possible manner. <Q> The main reason for which this method was created is to avoid repetition of the full name. <S> Later on, whenever want to use the term in text, write only the abbreviation. <S> Recently, I have found an useful link to the American Society for Microbiology’s <S> site where are discussed abbreviations and conventions: <S> Define each abbreviation and introduce it in parentheses the first time it is used <S> ; e.g., “cultures were grown in Eagle minimal essential medium (MEM).” <S> Generally, eliminate abbreviations that are not used at least three times in the text (including tables and figure legends). <A> As far as I have observed, In formal contexts, it is common to write the full title or term and then provide the abbreviation whether in parentheses or along the main sentence using "henceforth" or "hereinafter". <S> Take a look at this example from an UNESCO convention (1): <S> "The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization hereinafter referred to as UNESCO, meeting in Paris, from 29 September to 17 October 2003, at its 32nd session," (1) http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/convention <S> Furthermore, I found 'HART PUBLISHING STYLE GUIDELINES' helpful: <S> 2.10.4 Abbreviations and AcronymsIt is best to give the full name of an Institution or Official Body in the first instance and indicate in parentheses the abbreviation or acronym by which it will be referred to in the following text: <S> The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)NB it is not necessary to use quotation marks within the parentheses in such instances. <S> If the majority of your readers or general usage commonly uses the abbreviation or acronym eg, NATO, you should consider whether, on first use, the abbreviation should be expanded, ie, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). <A> In newspapers the journalists throw abbreviations at your head and you don't know what the author is talking about. <S> And often you find the explanation of the abbreviation far below in the text or not at all. <S> I don't know if there are rules about using abbreviations, but it should be a good habit to write the word in full and to give the abbreviation in brackets when you want to use an abbreviation. <S> This way it is clear what the abbreviation stands for. <S> It is a nuisance to use abbreviations that are not introduced properly. <S> But a lot of journalists seem to have never thought about this problem.
| You will write first the full name followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.
|
Has not to or does not have to? Are there any differences between "has not to be" and "does not have to be"? For example: if you check the list, the list has not to be empty. if you check the list, the list does not have to be empty. <Q> SUPPLEMENTARY: <S> Although the answers by snailplane and Bob Rodes are correct, as far as they go, I have to add that what is involved here is neither the auxiliary verb have, <S> has,had,having ... nor the lexical verb have,has,had,having ... but a new ‘semi-modal verb’ which has evolved over the last hundred and fifty years or so. <S> Auxiliary HAVE : <S> I have finished. <S> Lexical HAVE : <S> That is all I have to say. <S> Semi-modal HAVE to : I have to stop now. <S> For historical reasons this verb is still spelled have to,has to,had to ; but it is in fact a single word, pronounced “ hafta/hasta/hadta ” (/hæftə/,/hæstə/,/hædtə/,/hævɪŋtə/). <S> The have piece and the to piece are inseparable. <S> The expression appears to have arisen in spoken English, and it has not yet been totally integrated into the formal dialect—consider Bob Rodes’ characterization of has to not be as a “split infinitive” according to traditional canons. <S> Older texts could still treat the emerging expression as a ‘construction’ built on have rather than the ‘word’ which it has become; and because such texts are still part of our living culture they act as models for many present-day writers working in high-formal modes. <S> This gives rise to constructions such as your own first example or Bob Rodes’ <S> “I see you haven't to go to detention today”. <S> These are accepted in formal registers—it is possible that they may actually be required in some circles, though I think we have by now gotten beyond that. <S> But they are impossible in colloquial registers. <S> Obviously you have to be able to understand the old-fashioned constructions, because you will encounter them in your reading. <S> But I advise you to avoid them in your own writing and speech. <S> Use the forms recommended by snailplane (spelled the established way), or use must/need not/must not where hafta/don’t hafta/hafta not feel too colloquial. <A> Here, have is used to expressing obligation . <S> In this usage have is not an auxiliary verb, so you can't negate it directly. <S> Instead, you need to insert the meaningless auxiliary verb do and negate that: <S> The list has to be empty. <S> The list does have to be empty. <S> The list doesn't have to be empty. <S> Writing " <S> The list has not to be empty" is like writing "The child walks not to the store". <S> People don't talk that way anymore, so it sounds archaic. <A> However, we will still sometimes say "The list has to not be empty". <S> (Technically, this is a "split infinitive" and is not considered "good" speech, but nevertheless you will hear it from time to time.) <S> In this case, the meaning is different: it means the list can't be (or mustn't be) empty. <S> We would typically use one of those verbs (can't or mustn't) in this case. <S> Edit: as I mull over my comment to the next answer, I recall one of my British schoolmasters (circa 1971) saying "I see you haven't to go to detention today, Rodes; now there's a surprise." <S> In this case, it had the meaning of non-requirement rather than non-permission, so it would seem that the difference in meaning can vary regionally. <S> "You have to not go to detention" is something that an American might say (again, not typically) and mean that you must not go. <S> "You haven't to go to detention" is something a Brit might say (Americans would say "you don't have to go to detention") and would mean that it is not required that you go.
| As snailplane says, "has not to be" is archaic. The difference in meaning between "the list does not have to be empty" and "the list must not be empty" is that in the first case, the list is not required to be empty (it may either be empty or not), and in the second case, it is not permitted to be empty.
|
The English equivalent of a saying A saying in my language would literally translate like this: ‘As long as one lives one is learning!’ I would like to know whether there is an equivalent in English for this saying. <Q> There is a common expression in the US that goes <S> You learn something new every day. <S> The usage goes back to at least the mid 1800s and has risen in popularity since the later 20th century. <A> I've found a saying that seems to be related to the meaning described by you: Live and learn (Wiktionary): An exhortation to gain knowledge from living experiences. <S> Commonly used after an accident or misfortune to indicate a moral lesson. <S> It is also mentioned as You live and learn (The Free Dictionary): <S> something that you say when you have just discovered something that you did not know. <S> There's a sample sentence: <S> I had no idea <S> they were related. <S> Oh well, you live and learn . <S> P.S. <S> In Russian, we have a saying "Live for a century and learn century through" (Век живи, век учись - Vek zhivi, vek uchis'). <S> Or, "one lives through one's life and learns all through one's life", since the word век has an antique sense of 'human lifespan'. <S> It is used to be said exactly in the manner of "live and learn", after one has discovered something previously unknown. <S> Sometimes the contemplative ending ".. and still one dies a fool" is added. <A> Similar to @PeterBagnall's answer, a related expression in English is: <S> Even old dogs can learn new tricks. <S> Interestingly, there is a related, opposite expression in English: <S> You can't teach an old dog new tricks. <S> This negative expression apparently dates back to 1534 - and started as a literal rather than figurative assertion, also one that underscored difficulty rather than impossibility . <S> Both expressions have many modern variants, but all with which I am familiar include "old dog(s)" and "new trick(s)". <S> Using the positive or negative (variants of these) <S> expression(s) reflects a speaker's general optimism or pessimism about learning as people (figuratively) or dogs (literally) age. <A> You're never too old to learn Which also has a connotation that you're never too old to start something new. <A> An oft-heard sentiment at commencement ceremonies is: Graduation is not an end, but a beginning. <S> Then there's: <S> The more I learn, the less I know. <S> That ageless paradox goes back a long time. <S> I've found these quotes online, attibuted to Socrates: <S> Einstein is said to have said: “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.” <S> while the music group Kansas famously sang: <S> “And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know.” <S> My dad was fond of quoting this Dutch proverb: <S> We grow too soon old and too late smart. <S> These three are not necessarily well-known sayings, but they are related quotes worth mentioning: <S> “You'll never know everything about anything, especially something you love.” <S> (Julia Child) <S> “I am learning all the time. <S> The tombstone will be my diploma.” <S> (Eartha Kitt) <S> Anyone who keeps learning stays young.” <S> (Henry Ford)
| “The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know.” “Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at 20 or 80. “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
|
passing vs having passed After _ __ _ __ MA Economics he joined the London School of Economics. I am confused about using "passing" or "having passed"? *Edit - I did some research and from what I gathered, the answer is "passing" because using "having passed" with "after" will bring a sense of redundancy. The "having passed" form of the verb has the "after" inherent in it. <Q> That's what <S> Murphy's English Grammar says: <S> When one action happens before another action, we use having(done) for the first action: <S> Having finished her work, she went home. <S> You can also say after -ing : <S> After finishing her work, she went home. <S> So, when there is the word after , it is more "right" to use [verb]-ing . <S> But note that after having (done) occurs in practical usage. <S> These sentences I've found on Google News : <S> After having done this, he returned to the scene <S> A bus driver almost choked to death after having found a coil in his two chicken breasts Khan thought he had the fight with Mayweather wrapped up after having won a poll on the website. <A> Passing is the correct answer. <S> Having past is the present perfect form meaning that the event is still going on; whereas here, he first passed MA Economics and then joined that particular school. <A> To me, the meaning of after finishing and after having finished is very close. <S> I would say the latter adds the connotation that finishing MA Economics is a long process. <S> I would also say that the latter is less common in colloquial conversations. <S> After comparing some of the occurrences linked by Google's n-gram viewer , I see both cases used in similar contexts: <S> "he left the country after having completed his education" "after completing his education he settled in his native town" <S> There is, though, a clear trend to use the shorter and simpler version after finishing .
| In your test the correct answer is, probably, passing .
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.