source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Word to describe a person who spends extremely little money What do you call a person who spends extremely little money, and is careful in spending each and every dollar? Note, I'm not saying he has little money. He spends very, very little money, but he has lots more money than he spends. For example, he can easily afford to have a $25 dinner, but he never spends more than $8 for dinner. He can afford to buy a shirt for $30, but he has never bought a shirt for more than $10. What do you call this person? What are all the different words available? I'm looking for a word that's kind of insulting also. The word should also insult the person's behavior. <Q> There are quite a few words that can be insulting about someone who doesn't like to spend money. <S> A miser is a mean grasping person; especially : one who is extremely stingy with money <S> " stingy " is also kind of insulting, as it describes someone who is "not generous", not liking or wanting to give or spend money <S> A scrooge is someone who is a miser and stingy: <S> her father is a real scrooge and refuses to pay her way through college, even though he can easily afford it <S> This word comes from the Charles Dickens story <S> A Christmas Carol - Ebenezer Scrooge is a rich but very mean man who makes his employees work long hours for little pay. <S> Here's a picture of someone in the role of Mr Scrooge: <S> A " tightwad " and a " cheapskate " are also people who don't like to spend money. <S> These words are a bit less negative, though: the person may not like to share or help others, but they are not as mean as a miser or a scrooge. <S> " cheap " is another good word. <S> It is also used for things of poor quality, so it suggests a person of low morals or class who is also stingy. <A> If you mean this in a positive way, use Damkerng T's words: frugal, thrifty, economical. <S> There's also "niggardly", but this seems to be falling out of use due to its unfortunate coincidental resemblance to a well-known racial slur. <A> A Skinflint or a penny-pincher would do.
| If you mean it in a negative way, use nxx's words: miserly, cheap, cheapskate, tightwad.
|
"Is there a" vs "is there any"? Which one of these is right? Is there a way [...]? Is there any way [...]? May I use either? If yes, what's the difference? <Q> The expression a way alludes to one particular way. <S> Yes, you can use either one of them – in this context. <S> Consider: <S> Is there a way to roll babookamitzes uphill, without breaking into a sweat? <S> Is there any way to roll babookamitzes uphill, without breaking into a sweat? <S> I would say that these questions have no difference in meaning . <S> Why? <S> Let's assume <S> I know three ways to accomplish this task. <S> No matter which question you asked me, my answer would be the same: <S> Yes, I know at least three ways to do that. <S> I would not be more or less inclined to mention only one method if you used a way instead of any way , or vice-versa. <S> In other contexts, though, the words <S> a and <S> any are not interchangeable. <S> In fact, in some contexts, replacing one with the other would result in an ungrammatical statement: <S> I know a way we can get to Timbuktu from Constantinople. <S> okay <S> I know <S> any way we can get to Timbuktu from Constantinople. <S> incorrect <S> Any time we try to plan a picnic, it rains. <S> okay <S> A time we try to plan a picnic, it rains. <S> incorrect <S> But, in the context of asking a question about solving a problem , either one is just fine: <S> Do you know a way we can get to Timbuktu from Constantinople? <S> Do you know any way we can get to Timbuktu from Constantinople? <S> (answer to both questions: <S> Yes: we can fly, or take a train .) <A> I have to partially disagree with <S> extend <S> J.R.'s answer here. <S> They are correct that when asking the question Is there any/a way to... <S> it is often the case that the two words are interchangeable. <S> However, this is only the case when there's a neutral tone to the question. <S> For instance, the question Is there a way to draw a perfect circle? <S> works just as well as <S> Is there any way to draw a perfect circle? <S> But if the question has an implicit extra meaning, then this is no longer the case. <S> For instance, after spending several hours trying to draw a perfect circle, one might yell <S> Is there any way to draw a perfect circle? <S> In which case any cannot simply be replaced with a , as it would remove the speaker's implicit suggestion that no such method appears to exist. <S> Not to mention that emphasizing <S> a comes off as an awkward speech pattern here. <S> By shifting the emphasis, one could get the sentence <S> Is there a way to draw a perfect circle? <S> Which is very similar , but has, to my mind, a slightly different tone. <S> Similarly, if your neighbour is blasting music, one may ask <S> Is there any way you could turn down the music? <S> Which does not work as well with a , because any suggests an uncertainty. <S> In this case this is done to make the phrase more polite. <S> You are requesting that the volume be lowered, but allowing for the possibility that the volume has a good reason to be high. <S> In summary, I would say that using a usually expresses a lack of assumptions about the answer to the question, while using any can suggest that one doubts or is uncertain of the existence of a solution. <S> Edit: If in doubt, I would favour always using <S> any over <S> a in a question like this, as I am at a loss for any context in which a could not reasonably be replaced with any . <A> I think J.R. and Alexis are correct, although I would add that when asking a question in this manner "any" often adds a nuance that the speaker expects that the answer will be "no" or something negative. <S> For these examples: <S> A <S> : Is there a way to roll babookamitzes uphill, without breaking into a sweat?B: Is there any way to roll babookamitzes uphill, without breaking into a sweat? <S> "A" sounds neutral, however "B" has a more negative nuance implying that the speaker thinks that answer is no. <A> Both are correct! <S> Is there a way? <S> - You are a bit specific about that way (though you don't know). <S> Is there any way? <S> - You are talking about some way without any specification.
| As you mentioned in your astute comment, at the time of asking the question, there's really no difference. The expression any way alludes to one of any number of possible ways.
|
Usage of into vs in vs inside When should 'into', 'in' and 'inside' be used? What are the differences between the three? For example, what are the differences between the following statements? Are any of them incorrect? The frog jumped into the well. The frog jumped in the well. The frog jumped inside the well. <Q> In ordinary speech, in may mean either into (expressing a goal) or inside (expressing a location) with verbs expressing motion. <S> Context will usually make the meaning clear: <S> The frog hopped frantically away and jumped in the well. <S> The frog jumped in the well but could not escape. <S> But in formal discourse, especially if there is any possibility of ambiguity, you should use the narrower term, into or inside . <A> You could be saying that the frog was outside the well, and jumped in; or you could be saying that the frog was already in the well and was jumping around (unable to jump out and escape). <S> Therefore, "into" would be preferred (as unambiguous). <S> "Inside" suffers from the same ambiguity as "in". <S> More context in the surrounding sentences could resolve it, but as a standalone sentence, it's ambiguous. <A> 'In', 'inside', and 'into' all have similar meanings with subtle differences. <S> To start, 'in' and 'into' are both prepositions. <S> This means that they are used with a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase to show direction, location, or time, or to introduce an object 'Inside' on the other hand is itself a noun, in this case, a specific location. <S> Lets look at the three example statements and break down their possible meanings. <S> The frog jumped in the well. <S> This statement is somewhat ambiguous as to the intended meaning. <S> Context might supply necessary details to determine the meaning but without any, the reader would be unsure of the intended meaning. <S> The statement could mean that the frog was outside the well and then jumped into the well. <S> It could also mean that the frog was in the well, and jumped (remaining in the well). <S> The frog jumped into the well. <S> This statement's meaning is clear: the frog was outside the well, jumped, and landed within the well. <S> From the previous example, if this was the intended meaning and there is no other context available, the writer/speaker should have used this statement instead. <S> The frog jumped inside the well. <S> This statement is somewhat ambiguous. <S> Typically, one would read this statement to mean that the frog is inside the well, it jumped, but didn't leave the well. <S> That said, the statement is sometimes used to imply that the frog jumped into the well; however, this formulation is improper . <S> You may see it used, but you should avoid doing it yourself. <A> Broadly, in has a location or position whereas into has motion. <S> Nevertheless, exceptions do exist. <S> Note that into is also an idiom meaning interested in (9) . <S> In addition, it's a slang - if you are into somebody/thing , you owe somebody money or be owed money by somebody. <S> Here, in won't work. <S> With jump , I think it can be used when the place is a kind of closed premises (for example a room, an elevator or a car). <S> In this context, using that in frog's case won't be preferred. <S> I got an example wherein someone jumps inside something. <S> ... <S> all the children around south of Iraq, they are all hungry, and very happy <S> and they jumped inside the car <S> and they want to take all aid, the cartons, the food, they want to collect it as soon as possible.
| Edit after the question is edited: inside would generally refer to the inner part/interior or inner surface/side of something. "The frog jumped in the well" is ambiguous.
|
"Desolated"; past tense of an adjective? He looks around the desolated street. In this sentence, If I'm not wrong, 'desolated' is an adjective, right? Or is it a verb? In the dictionary 'desolate' is defined as an adjective. "Desolated" is defined as the past tense of "desolate". Only verb can be in past tense or even adjective can be in past tense? In the above sentence "desolated" is a verb or an adjective? My guess is it's an adjective here. Is "desolated" a past participle of the verb "desolate"? Is the above sentence wrong and should I have written the above as below? He looks around the desolate street. Mostly I'm sure my first sentence is correct, but I'm little confused. <Q> Only verb can be in past tense or even adjective can be in past tense? <S> Correct. <S> In the above sentence "desolated" is a verb or an adjective? <S> My guess is it's an adjective here. <S> Desolated is certainly an adjective in your sentence. <S> Is "desolated" a past participle of the verb "desolate"? <S> Yes it is. <S> And as so many past participles, it can be used as an adjective. <S> The street could also have been deserted, darkened, emptied, forgotten or populated. <S> All past participles that can be used in this sentence as adjectives. <S> Is the above sentence wrong and should I have written the above as below? <S> No, it is just fine as you wrote it. <S> However , desolate on its own, can also be used as an adjective. <S> And this is where the confusion starts. <S> There seems to be a nuance difference between desolate and desolated. <S> If you use desolate , it feels more as if you describe an overall attribute of the street, that might be comparable to it having been desolated, even if it has always been like that - a more apt synonym could be bleak in that case. <A> Only a verb. <S> Here is a nice explanation of using participles as adjectives: http://rwc.hunter.cuny.edu/reading-writing/on-line/particip.html <S> Your guess is correct. <S> :) <S> Yes, it is. <S> See the explanation on the link I provided. <S> Actually, neither sentence is wrong. <S> Using "desolated" carries an implication that something happened in the past to cause the desolation, using "desolate" <S> simply communicates the fact of desolation. <A> He looks around the desolate street. <S> Desolate is an adjective that means the street is empty. <S> " <S> He" is standing alone in the street. <S> He looks around the desolated street. <S> In this sentence desolated is the past participle of the verb desolate <S> and it is used as an adjective. <S> It means that the street is now desolate but there has been a change since he started considering that street. <S> At some time in the past there were people standing there with him but now they have abandoned the street and, consequently, "he" is now alone.
| If you use desolated , you indicate that the state of the street is the effect of it having been desolated - or you could say ruined .
|
Makes steps hesitantly with fear Is the word to describe when one walks hesitantly with fear? For example, in the below sentence I'm sure there will be a better way to write if there is a word to describe hesitantly with fear. He makes steps hesitantly with fear. <Q> Maybe you can express the idea of your sentence with the word creep . <S> According to Cambridge Dictionary, it is defined as: To move slowly, quietly, and carefully, usually in order to avoid being noticed Definition here . <S> You can combine this word with your sentence to make something that probably fits your needs, e.g: <S> He creeps with fear <A> It is the adverbial form of wary . <S> He walked warily into the dark, scary room. <S> Wary has more to do with caution and looking out and not necessarily fear, but it can include fear. <A> Warily is an excellent word, as Wally has said. <S> Gingerly also comes to mind. <S> Looking up warily in the thesaurus also reveals guardedly and cautiously, as well as numerous other words with less similar meanings.
| Here is a possible word: warily .
|
Regarding first name and last name When a professor is Michael Ernst (I suppose Michael is first name, and Ernst is last name), we call him Prof. Ernst or Prof. Michael? When his close friends call him, should they call him Michael, or Ernst? I see that he has called himself Mike, what is the reason? <Q> You are correct that Michael is his first name, and Ernst is his last name, also known as surname or family name. <S> In this case, it would be "Professor Ernst", or "Prof. Ernst". <S> Note the use of a period to indicate the abbreviation of "Professor" as "Prof.". <S> Close friends typically address each other by their first name, which in this case is "Michael". <S> However, the last name is sometimes used informally among friends, as a nickname. <S> As an aside, you mistakenly wrote "closed friends" in your question, instead of "close friends". <S> "Mike" is an informal alternative to "Michael". <S> This is technically referred to as a diminutive, but may also be called a nickname. <S> Similarly, someone named "Robert" may go by the less formal alternative, "Bob". <S> However, as a matter of politeness, you should typically start out with the more formal version of the name, unless you are fairly certain that they typically prefer the diminutive. <S> In this case, if Professor Ernst has referred to himself as Mike, it is safe to assume that you should, too. <A> Yes, in the name Michael Ernst, Michael is the first name, while Ernst is the last name, family name, or surname (all three mean the same). <S> Generally when referring to someone by title you will use their surname. <S> In this case, Professor Ernst. <S> However, some persons wishing to retain informality with their title may prefer to be called by their first name, as in Professor Michael. <S> More often than not, however, it is Title Surname. <S> Therefore, except in matters of personal preference by the person you are addressing, the formality is best: Professor Ernst. <S> Most people prefer go by their first names among their friends, but it is a matter of preference. <S> So usually Michael is what his friends would call him. <S> However, people that have been in a lot of sports, the military, or other professions that require specificity in naming may choose to use their surname as the name their friends call them. <S> Or they may choose another name entirely, sometimes based on their formal first name, and sometimes not. <S> This is called a nickname, which I'll explain more in #3. <S> "Mike" is a shortened form of "Michael" often used informally, called a nickname. <S> Many who have long formal names will be called by a shorter name. <S> For example, someone named "Joseph" might be called "Joe". <S> However, one cannot assume that just because people call a person Mike that their formal name, or given name, is Michael. <S> Some people were given the shorter version of the name at birth. <S> Complicating the matter, Americans often take nicknames which are sometimes easy to tell from the formal name, and sometimes not. <S> For instance, a person whosename is "Richard" may go by "Dick" as a nickname. <S> It's just howthese nicknames have evolved over time--they don't all make perfectsense. <S> There are also often many nicknames that can be derived froma given name. <S> You may have to look them up on an individual basis to see how they relate. <A> Well, I'll answer them as they are asked... <S> a) <S> Generally, it's Prof. Ernst i.e. Prof. [last name] . <S> b) <S> c)
| The most popular nickname for Michael is Mike. When addressing someone using a formal title, such as "Professor", you would typically use the last name. It depends on his close friends what they call him!
|
First English Book for Children with non-English Mother tongue - Age 2+ My nephew (Age 2) is about to visit and I was looking online for a book that is like an introduction to the English language. He already has several books in German that contain plenty of nouns and verbs and I thought I might sneak an English book into his life which is similar to the above mentioned. So the general question would be where should a child this age start and what books would you highly recommend for the purpose? <Q> You can't do better than Dr. Seuss in my opinion. <S> "Hop on Pop" is for very young children. <S> "Green Eggs and Ham" is more challenging, and there are numerous other books at this level. <S> I remember getting "McElligott's Pool" and "One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish" for my fourth birthday and being able to read them fairly well. <S> If the child reads at all at age two then it can't hurt to have a variety of these books on hand that he can pick up as he progresses. <S> Another great children's book (although beyond all but a few two-year-olds) is "Where the Wild Things Are" by Maurice Sendak. <A> I would start with something on his level. <S> I think if you got him a book he would look at it and then get bored with it quickly <S> (just my opinion with my own son but <S> every kid is different, take it or leave <S> it)www.pbskids.org is a wonderful website. <S> It is a public access station here locally that has educational only programming. <S> Even though it will all be in English, he will be able to play the games and associate the words he is hearing with the actions he sees on the screen. <S> I think he will pick some English up quickly this way <S> , it seems that his brain can create his own ways to learn much better than an adult can try to teach it. <S> (I hope that makes sense) <S> This site has interactive games, videos, <S> coloring sheets you can print out and much more. <S> I encourage you to give it a shot. <S> I don't know if PBS is only Iowa based or <S> not so I thought I would share. <S> My son is 2 1/2 and is bilingual, and he really enjoys this site, and best of all it is free. <S> We work though it <S> and I have him tell me what things are in both languages. <S> He speaks English and Serbo-Croatian. <A> As a moderator, I should probably close this question, but I'm going to mention Goodnight Moon instead. <S> It's a good starter book, and a great bedtime story. <S> Also, it's a good idea to have a few a-bit-too-advanced books handy – ones that are just outside the child's reading range. <S> Those make excellent read-aloud books.
| You can go to any children's bookstore or library and look through a large selection.
|
Can 'suggesting' (a gerund) be followed by a pronoun and an infinitive verb? I have read that suggest (the verb) is never followed by a pronoun and an infinitive verb. Can suggesting (the gerund) be followed by a pronoun and an infinitiveverb? I have read: Adriana flew down to India despite all the words of caution she got at home, suggesting he could be fake or a con man, etc. Thanks in advance. <Q> Nor is suggest followed by an infinitive verb. <S> The sentence you quoted is perfectly correct. <S> The key part: ... <S> suggesting he could be fake... <S> This phrasing does comply with the first of three proper uses of suggest , thanks again to <S> English Teacher Melanie : <S> subject + suggest + (that) <S> + subject + subjunctive <S> The word that is omitted in your phrase, but it is there in spirit. <S> As Melanie says it is optional. <S> ... <S> suggesting that he could be fake... <S> He is the subject pronoun of the that-clause. <S> The verb be is in the subjunctive mood, looking very similar to the infinitive form, but of course there is no to . <S> Could is an auxiliary verb expressing possibility. <A> (Presumably this sentence occurs in a context where we already know who "he" is.) <S> The comma is a problem in this sentence. <S> If the meaning is meant to be as follows... <S> She got words of caution at home. <S> These words of caution suggested that "he" could be a fake[etc]. <S> She flew to India despite getting these words of caution. <S> ... <S> then the sentence should be written WITHOUT the comma after "home" and should have a comma after "India". <S> This is because "words of caution" is a noun (nominal) phrase that is modified by the two adjectival phrases "[that] she got at home" and "suggesting he could be fake or a con man[etc]". <S> These two phrases modify the noun phrase "words of caution". <S> They are directly connected to it and should not be separated from it by a comma [despite the awkward length of the phrase]. <S> As the sentence stands now - with the comma - its strict grammatical meaning could be that while Adriana was flying down to India she spent her time on the plane suggesting (presumably to other passengers) that "he could be fake or a con man, etc. <S> "Alternatively <S> it could mean that (somehow in the story's context) <S> the fact that she flew down suggested that he was a con man. <S> The sentence might better be written:"Despite all the words of caution she got at home suggesting that he could be fake or a con man, Adriana flew down to India." <S> But it might be best to avoid syntactical ambiguity and just separate the thought into multiple sentences:"Adriana's family <S> cautioned her that he might be a con man or worse. <S> Despite their warnings, she flew down to India. <S> " <S> I hope things work out for Adriana. <S> I'm beginning to worry a bit. <A> I have not heard the rule that suggest- <S> pronoun-infinitive is not proper. <S> Is it possible <S> the rule is there is no "to" before the infinitive verb? <S> I suggest you take the cannoli. <S> I suggest you to take the cannoli. <S> The first is correct. <S> Even though take is functionally an infinitive verb the "to" is omitted. <S> (I apologize, I'm sure this rule has a name, but I couldn't cite it.) <S> To answer your question, the grammar of the example seems correct to me: ...suggesting he could be fake... <S> Here "could" is an auxiliary verb expressing possibility before the infinitive verb "be". <S> (And there is no "to" on the infinitive.)
| The rule is actually that suggest (or suggesting ) is never followed by an object pronoun .
|
Should "cooking" and "cleaning" be taken literally in "...two men at once. One cooking. One cleaning." Just read a tweet, My fantasy is having two men at once. One cooking. One cleaning. Is it a word play in which 'cleaning' refers to a sexual intercourse or, actually, 'cleaning' is there intended having its literal meaning? <Q> Here's how I interpret it: <S> My fantasy is having two men at once. <S> This has a very obvious sexual meaning. <S> One cooking. <S> One cleaning. <S> This makes you reinterpret the earlier sentence with a non-sexual meaning: <S> My fantasy is having [one man cooking for me while another man cleans for me]. <S> This subverts your expectations, which may be funny to you (depending on your sense of humor). <S> I think it retains some of the overtones of the original sentence, however. <A> Neither of the words "cooking" nor "cleaning" have any sexual connotation whatsoever. <S> That's the joke. <S> It's a PG-rated joke. <S> I'd like to add one small thing. <S> Even though it is becoming less so, cooking and cleaning are still considered tasks that fall to women. <S> So in this case, a woman fantasizing about two men performing those tasks is a play on gender-roles and her wish to escape them. <S> I'm a heterosexual woman, but I often joke that what I really need is a wife. <S> The joke in question has a similar play on traditional gender roles. <A> It's a joke. <S> When you read the first sentence -- "My fantasy is having two men" -- you immediately think that she's talking about sex. <S> Then when she says "one cooking, one cleaning", she is saying that it's not about sex at all, it's about housework. <S> That's why it's a joke. <S> She starts out making you think she's talking about sex, then pulls the rug out from under you when she makes it apparent that she's NOT talking about sex. <S> (I think this joke is originally from Rita Rudner. <S> Personally I thought it was pretty funny.) <A> Jay is 100% correct. <S> The humor lies in the overturning of expectations in the set-up line from the word “having,” which, in English, has a clearly sexual connotation. <S> This joke works well in English because the language is compact — in this case, all the punch-line words are Anglo-Saxon, rather than Latinate, and therefore more efficient from a timing and syllabic perspective. <S> Think how awkward this would be in French, in which language you can’t just say “having two men,” without violating the grammatical rules of L’Académie Francaise: J'ai deux hommes. <S> L’un qui fait <S> la cuisine <S> et l’autre <S> qui fait le ménage . <S> Somehow, this lacks the punch (by the way, French perfection is not guaranteed). <A> Despite how ruined I've become thanks to the internet, I don't think this one is a sexual joke, but a common joke that is not limited to English language only. <S> In my interpretation, the tweet describes a situation where a woman has two lovers who do some of her housework. <S> As a male, let me tell you that cooking a full course meal for even a small family and washing all the dishes afterwards takes a lot of time and is very exhausting. <S> You could swap the sexes and get a joke about how a man wishes he could have all his house work done by two women. <S> And in some countries this isn't a fantasy or even an uncommon scenario. <A> I don't think that it's meant to be sexual in this instance - it's a fairly straightforward joke. <S> Some alternatively-minded people might read it as sexual, though: 'cleaning' is one word used to refer to a person giving oral to a female (can be male, but more often female) after she has had sex without a condom. <A> While just about any word can be given a tone of sexual innuendo in the right sentence, e.g. I took the guy I met at the bar home with me <S> and he really cleaned my clock! <S> the whole point of this joke is that the meaning is not sexual after an opening that implies something sexual will follow. <S> It's a common enough interpretation of gender stereotypes that men fantasize about sex and women fantasize about having a man to take his share of the domestic burdens.
| By attaching such mundane activities to a fantasy , one that starts with such an obvious sexual tone, it becomes a turn of phrase meant to make you laugh.
|
Is it OK to say "I'm came back!"? Is it OK to just say "I'm came back!" or 'I came back!' as alternative to "I'm back!" when you were away for a while? Alice: I'll be back in a minute. Bob: Ok. Alice has just returned and says.. Alice: I'm back! <Q> I would argue that "I came back!" is not an appropriate alternative to "I'm back!" <S> They both mean that you returned, but there's more to it than that. <S> "I came back" puts emphasis on the act of returning, whereas "I'm back" puts emphasis on where you are now. <S> With the exclamation mark, "I came back! <S> " suggests an aspect of surprise in the act of returning. <S> Coming back was a choice, and you want to emphasize that you decided to do so. <S> It's like saying, "It wasn't clear whether I would come back, but I did." <S> Exclaiming <S> "I'm back!" <S> , on the other hand, makes it sound like you're excited to <S> be back, and that the act of coming back isn't the interesting part. <S> Depending on context, it could also suggest that you expect others to be excited you're back, too. <S> As mentioned in other answers, "I'm came back!" <S> is simply not correct. <S> It's non-grammatical, because you're using two competing verbs, "am" and "came", and must choose one or the other in order for the sentence to make sense. <A> No. <S> "I'm back" or "I came back" are both correct, but "I'm came back" is not correct. <S> "I'm" is a contraction for "I am. <S> " Both "am" and "came" serve as the verb in these sentences, so "I am came back" unnaturally combines the different words in the same function. <A> The word "I'm" is a short version of "I am" where the apostrophe ' is used to denote the missing "a" in "am".
| The right way to write it would be "I am back" or "I'm back" or "I came back" (for first person present tense).
|
proverb for about chance and love I searched for an English proverb for about this subject: you should want (love) a person who he wants (loves) you, too In Persian, the phrase is this: خواهی که جهان در کف اقبال تو باشد خواهان کسی باش که خواهان تو باشد and the words mean: if you want world be in your chance, want one person who wants you too <Q> In my first language (Thai), there is a saying, (we even have a song for that!) <S> "Love the one who loves you, not the one whom you love." <S> In English, there is a similar and well-known song lyric: <S> Sometimes it's shorten to just "Love the one you're with" . <A> This Biblical reference (the second Great Commandment) is widely known, and likely your best option: <S> Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. <S> Meaning "Treat others in a way you would like to be treated". <A> If you want world be in your chance, want one person who wants you too <S> I understand the second part of that – in order for love to be successful, it must be reciprocated. <S> The first part confuses me a little bit, but I assume the saying means something like: <S> If you want to get the most out of life, love a person who will love you back <S> (The phrase get the most out of is <S> an idiom meaning “to achieve the greatest output of work, effort, production, etc., out of something”) <S> I tried to find a suitable saying that roughly matches your request. <S> I couldn't find any well-known sayings, but I did manage to find some clever quotes. <S> In some way or another, they are about a life fulfilled by mutual love. <S> Love is just a word until someone comes along and gives it meaning! <S> — Paulo Coelho A successful marriage requires falling in love many times, always with the same person. <S> — Mignon McLaughlin Love doesn't make the world go round; love is what makes the ride worthwhile. <S> — Franklin P. Jones <S> That last one isn't a very good match with the Persian proverb, but I thought it was witty, so I decided to include it. <S> I also found this one: <S> You don't marry someone you can live with, you marry the person who you cannot live without . <S> — Anonymous <S> However, to match the Persian proverb, I'd have to reword that: You don't marry someone you want to live with, you marry the person who cannot live without you . <S> — J.R.
| "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with"
|
why do two wrong not make a right? I've seen on the Internet: why do two wrong not make a right? It doesn't seem right . I would ask the same question differently: why don't two wrong make a right? Which way is correct? <Q> The issue of plural/singular aside, the phrase, "Two wrongs can't make a right" means that it is wrong to make a second error (usually an error in judgement) to try to cover up or "fix" the consequences of a first error. <S> An example: Against the rules, a child eats all of the Oreo cookies while his parents are out. <S> The cookies are gone, the first "wrong" has occurred. <S> The kid can avoid a second "wrong" by admitting what he has done and accepting the fact that his parents are going to be upset with him. <S> That would be the smart thing to do, the first mistake has already been made, it's too late to make it better. <S> But, our kid isn't too bright. <S> He tries to cover his tracks. <S> There is a grocery store next door and the parents have a jar of change in the bedroom. <S> The kid steals a few quarters, goes to the grocery store and buys a new pack of cookies. <S> He replaces the cookies he has eaten and thinks all is now well. <S> Maybe he'll get lucky and get away with it. <S> But two wrongs can't make a right. <S> Even if his parents never catch it, the kid has stolen from his parents. <S> He has now committed a worse crime to try to cover up his first, more minor, transgression. <S> That's usually the case, a second mistake made to cover up a first mistake is usually the worst of the two mistakes. <S> Too bad he left the empty packages of Oreos in the trash. :) <A> The question seems to be about the placement of "not" when it is not contracted with "do". <S> Plurals aside, both phrases are correct with regard to word order, but the one with a separate "not" sounds more formal, and slightly archaic. <S> The "not" contractions often shift the position of "not" in order to form the contraction. <S> For example: Is it not raining?Isn't it raining? <S> You would never say "Is not it raining?", as you might expect from the contraction. <S> The first version, again, sounds more formal, and a little archaic, but modern writers and speakers might use it for emphasis. <S> Here's a phrase that sounds a little more natural to me: <S> Do you or do you <S> *not* want to go? <S> because I want to emphasize "not". <S> Back to "Two wrongs": The wrinkle is that the writer is asking why a common expression is true. <S> By taking the "not" out of the contraction and putting it later, the common expression stays closer to its original form. <A> The first phrase preserves the position of negation, as you can see in the following sentence transformations: <S> Two wrongs <S> don't make a right. <S> Why is it that, "two wrongs don't make a right"? <S> Why is it that, "two wrongs do not make a right"? <S> Why do , "two wrongs not make a right"? <S> Why do two wrongs not make a right? <S> < <S> - "Informal" and preserves original negation at the sacrifice of an more complicated ("odd sounding") construction. <S> Why don't two wrongs make a right? <S> <- Typically better English, but does not preserve original negation. <S> Your second form "sounds better" because it's more economical and natural. <S> "Why don't two wrong s make a right?" <S> So which is "correct" or "more proper"? <S> You could flip a coin because each has its pros/cons. <S> I'd bet on "Why don't two wrongs make a right?" <S> only because it's better English and it flows. <S> But it's important to understand why #1 is "OK" as well. <S> Of course, one should use the plural "wrongs" instead of "wrong". <A> Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do. <S> ;-) <S> It's a oral admonition for people that justify poor behavior by pointing to other poor behavior. <S> "Sally murdered many people. <S> I'm just doing the same thing as Sally, nothing more terrible she's been doing." <S> Or a child stealing from another child & justifying their bad behavior by saying someone stole from them.
| Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
In the morning VS on the morning Which one is correct? (Maybe both are correct.) He passed away on the morning of March 5. Or He passed away in the morning of March 5. <Q> In your sentences, on is the correct preposition and in is the incorrect one. <S> This is a bit tricky. <S> "He passed away on March 5" is correct. " <S> He passed away in the morning" is also correct. <S> However, in your sentence, "the morning of" functions as an adjectival phrase modifying March 5, so "He passed away on the morning of March 5" is also correct. <S> If we turn things around a bit it may help to make things a bit more clear: since "he passed away on March 5 in the morning" is correct, it follows that "he passed away in the morning on March 5" is also correct. <A> You say "in the morning/in the afternoon/in the evening". <S> These indications of time stand alone and the concept is in + period of time. <S> It is another thing for "on the morning of the first of May". <S> Here the concept of date/on this day prevails and has become the accepted expression. <A> We use in for mornings, months and years, and on for dates. <S> We use on for the days (Monday, Tuesday...etc). <S> We use at for time (At 7 o'clock in the morning on Sunday in March...for example). <S> Further reading here . <A> Well, it seems none of the answers explain why is it like that <S> , what are the rules, what's the usage, and no-one provided references. <S> I will elaborate and will post my investigation, as I did here at ELU . <S> Just to cut the long story short, for this specific case: " on " is the correct preposition and " in " is the incorrect one. <S> " The morning of " functions as an adjectival phrase clarifying the specific time and date " on March 5 ". <S> "On" is used because it belongs to the date here, specific part of the day. <S> The normal language constructions would be: on + date (with the year or without it) or day of the week in + morning, afternoon, evening ( in the morning, in the evening) <S> But, when we talk about a specific morning, afternoon, or when we describe the part of the day it should be used with on : on the morning of [date] , You can't say " I will see you on the morning " - it's incorrect. <S> here's the reference for more examples: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/at-on-and-in-time <S> In or on? <A> On + "noun which is a time label stands for a long time( usually one day / one month )" on Saturday : Are you free on Saturday to come for a dinner? <S> on Monday <S> In + <S> "the" +"noun which is a time label stands for a short time( usually some point of the day)" in the morning: he is the type who would wake up in the morning. <S> Why do you see " <S> On the morning"? <S> this is mostly comes from " on Monday morning ". <S> but "On the morning" is incorrect. <A> In the second, minute, hour, morning, afternoon, evening, night, day, week, month, year, decade, century and millenium using "in" means within or during. <S> On the second, minute, hour, morning, afternoon, evening, night, day and week using "on" means a specific moment in time. <S> For a specific month, year, decade, century or millennium, on is dropped and only the definite article is needed. <S> THE month, year, decade, century or millennium is indicated as a specific time period and on becomes redundant.
| We use in with morning, afternoon, evening and night, but we use on when we talk about a specific morning, afternoon, etc., or when we describe the part of the day. He passed away in the morning on March 5 - is correct.
|
What does this "about" mean? Jonny was about to sit down when his father came into the house. What does this "about" mean? What usage is this? <Q> In this context “about” means at that very instant, at the precise moment when his father came into the house. <A> edit: <S> My answer doesn't apply to the above after Tyler edited it, so to avoid confusion, here is what the quote said originally: <S> Johnny was about sitting down when his father came into the house <S> This is my answer: /edit <S> It's an informal, and fairly colloquial to the American South, way of saying "Johnny was about to sit down" or "Johnny was just about <S> (i. e. nearly) sitting down" when his father came into the house. <S> On the other hand, if a British or Australian person were to say it, it would mean that he was sitting down around the house when his father came in. <S> (Punctuating this "Johnny was about, sitting down, when his father came in" makes this meaning more clear.) <S> Americans would say "sitting around" with the same meaning. <S> Americans walk around, sit around, drive around, and so on. <S> Brits walk about, sit about, and drive about. <S> Two Brits having a "kickabout" <S> are kicking a soccer ball back and forth to one another; a rough (well, very rough) <S> American equivalent is "playing catch." <S> Perhaps with the growing popularity of soccer in our country kids will start having "kickarounds", and maybe already do. <A> It means that Johnny intended to sit down, and his father came home the moment before he would have begun sitting.
| More typically in this case they would say "Johnny was sitting about when his father came into the house."
|
Is "You are so beautiful girl" incorrect? You are so beautiful girl. I have read/used this sentence and it looks okay to me. Nevertheless, the grammar rule of 'placement of adjective' says that After how/so/too, the adjectives go before a/an as in "She's too polite a girl to refuse." Having this said, You are so beautiful a girl -is correct! What do you think? <Q> Source is missing, but no worries. <S> Here are the situations that could be relevant here. <S> You are so beautiful, girl <S> "Girl" is used as a term of endearment, or in support, most likely from one woman to another. <S> You are so beautiful a girl <S> It sounds quite forced. <S> This would be better: <S> You are such a beautiful girl And therefore wins as my preferred option. <S> I think there is likely an error with the original sentence, as it seems a tad ungrammatical to me. <A> The fundamental issue is that 'girl' is a singular countable noun. <S> In English a singular countable noun must be preceded by a determiner (in 99.99% of cases - there are two or three exceptions). ' <S> You are so beautiful girl' does not have a determiner and does not fall into any of the exceptions, so it is wrong. ' <S> You are so beautiful a girl' has a determiner, so is not (immediately) 'wrong' <S> (on that account, at least - it may be for other reasons). <A> From my point of view, I agree that ”You are such a beautiful girl" sounds Ok. <S> I think that it would also be fine to say: ”You are very beautiful, girl" When I hear " <S> so", I expect a second statement which should begin with "that"... something like: <S> "You are so beautiful that I can't stop staring at you."
| Is correct, but sounds horrible to me!
|
A pair of blue jeans VS a blue jeans Please check the sentences and let me know, which one is correct? I read somewhere: Clad in a bluejeans and a grey jacket. As per my opinion: Clad in a pair of bluejeans and a grey jacket. Thanks in advance. <Q> No fluent American English speaker says "a bluejeans" or "a pants". <S> You can say, "I wore a pair of bluejeans. <S> " Or you can say, "I wore bluejeans." But you can't say -- WRONG -- "I wore a bluejeans." <S> This is true for any clothing worn over the legs that has separate tubes of cloth for each leg, even though they are connected together. <S> " <S> A pair of pants ..." "A pair of shorts ..." "A pair of panty hose ..." <S> Perhaps weirdly, it is also used for clothes that don't have separate legs, like "a pair of underwear" and "a pair of panties". <S> But it is not used for skirts or dresses: We say "a skirt". <S> "A pair of skirts" would mean two separate articles of clothing. <S> Which is kind of funny when you think about it, but whatever. <S> If, as @oerkelens says, the usage is different in India -- I wouldn't know. <A> The correct usage is "a pair of bluejeans". <S> The reason: The form pair of pants was standard right from its earliest use. <S> Indeed, words for nether garments all seem to have been commonly plural throughout their history, often prefixed by pair of ...: <S> breeches, shorts, drawers, panties, tights, knickers (short for knickerbockers), and trousers. <S> Before the days of modern tailoring, such garments, whether underwear or outerwear, were indeed made in two parts, one for each leg. <S> The pieces were put on each leg separately and then wrapped and tied or belted at the waist (just like cowboys’ chaps). <S> The plural usage persisted out of habit even after the garments had become physically one piece. <S> However, a shirt was a single piece of cloth, so it was always singular. <S> Source: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pai1.htm <A> That's okay. <S> Bluejeans is a word often used to mean jeans. <S> Wikipedia redirects bluejeans to jeans . <S> However the article a should be removed. <S> Pants, trousers, spectacles etc are always plural. <S> You are right. <S> A pair of bluejeans represents one piece of it. <S> Okay, <S> here <S> I got it. <S> It's an alternate spelling for blue jeans.
| When referring to any sort of jeans or pants in English, one of them is always "a pair".
|
Difference between words 'stench' and 'stink' What is the difference between 'stench' and 'stink', both used as nouns and smells? I want the olfactory distinction of these words. I am very much aware of the other meanings of stink but that is not what I want. For example: There was a stench in the bathroom. There was a stink in the bathroom. What's the distinction here? <Q> The Oxford dictionary describes stench as: <S> A strong and very unpleasant smell <S> It describes stink as: <S> A strong unpleasant smell; a stench <S> So according to this, both words mean the same. <S> I found also that both have the same etymology. <S> They arise from the Old English stenc . <S> I was wondering if there were a shred of difference in their meanings <S> but I am not able to find any. <S> An English professor, very long ago, had told me that no two words in the English language have the same meaning. <S> They may have similar meanings, but not same. <S> But here we seem to have refuted his ideology. <A> "Kick up a stink" means to make a fuss about something. <A> " <S> Stench" is probably the stronger word, to be used for more extremely bad smells. <A> After doing some research on this, I suspect the following. <S> Please tell me if this is right or wrong... <S> A stink is a foul smell of an organic origin - rotting corpse, fart, skunk, rotten eggs, etc. <S> A stench can be any kind of bad smell, not necessarily organic - chemicals, pollutants, etc. <S> What does everyone think of this?
| "Stench" is always a bad smell, but "stink" can have other meanings too - for example, They mean essentially the same thing.
|
What *one too many* means in "you've read one too many stories" I think you've read one too many Billy Mumphrey stories. The way I see it making sense is if one means alone , single-handedly . <Q> The expression is a mildly critical way of saying you have read Billy Mumphrey stories to excess. <S> Suppose the perfect number of Billy Mumphrey stories to read is seven. <S> If you read only six, you have read too few— one too few. <S> If you read eight, however, you have read too many— one too many. <S> It's probably used most often with respect to alcohol consumption. <S> Bob, you're getting just a little loud. <S> I think you've had one too many. <A> "One too many" is an idiom meaning that a tipping point has been reached. <S> I don't know the complete context from Seinfeld, but what is being said that Elaine's familiarity with Billy Mumphrey is affecting her perspective. <A> If one person says to another, "You've watched one too many horror movies", that would imply that the second person displays some kind of paranoia or something else that may (or may not) stem from too many horror movies. <S> It may be nothing more than the second person is a bit "weirded out" because her phone is dead. <S> In that case, the dialog really has nothing to do with horror movies except that dead phone lines play a part in a lot of horror movies. <S> It's not always literal. <S> One too many drinks? <S> Yeah, that's actually referring to alcohol. <S> One person is telling another that he's drunk. <S> It's also common to hear, "You've been hit in the head one too many times". <S> No one is actually going to use that line with a head injury patient. <S> "I won't loan you money, I have been stiffed one too many times. <S> " Eh, he's recognizing a pattern, ONE has nothing to do with it. <S> Guy stands up to leave a great party. <S> Host says, "Ha ha! <S> You've been divorced one too many times, my friend!" <S> Maybe he's agreeing that his friend should leave, maybe he's chastising him for being under the thumb of his wife. <S> This is a hard one to articulate, "one too many" can mean a lot of things. <S> For this one I can only recommend that you look for context and make no assumptions. <S> EDIT: <S> Todd mentions "tipping point". <S> That works if the speaker isn't trying to crack a joke. <S> Further EDIT: So your favorite jeans are a bit too snug? <S> " <S> Ha! <S> One too many Margaritas!" <S> Again, not literal although not terribly far off the mark either.
| We use the one too many to take the sting out of the criticism: it suggests you have only overindulged to a slight extent.
|
What's the meaning of "and then only"? I'm struggling to understand the following sentence: You may not collect user or device data without prior user consent, and then only to provide a service or function that is directly relevant to the use of the Application. What exactly does it mean?Does it mean: You may not collect data without user consent. If the user agrees to allow you to collect data, you can only collect data to provide a service or function that is directly relevant to the use of the Application. Why can the phrase “and then only” be used in such a way? <Q> Yes, your rephrasing is correct. <S> This is an example of when parts of the sentence are omitted because they are understood from the earlier half. <S> The full sentence would be: <S> You may not collect user or device data without prior user consent, and then [you may collect user or device data] only to provide a service or function that is directly relevant to the use of the Application. <S> There's still extra meaning to be explained, though: <S> and then indicates that you have obtained consent and you then collected the user or device data <S> It could be rephrased as: <A> Your explanation is exactly correct. <S> I couldn't have said it better myself. <S> " <S> And then only" says, "Is the first condition met? <S> " In this case, the first condition is that the user consents to releasing information. <S> Yes? <S> We have that consent? <S> Then and only then we have to ask ourselves another question. <S> "Will the information help to fix a problem that the user is having?" Only if the answer to BOTH questions is yes, may we extract the information. <S> If the user denies consent ("No, I will NOT tell you what operating system I use") <S> -or- <S> If no answer the user gives will help us solve the problem, then WE CAN'T ASK! <S> That language very typical of the language you will see in employee manuals and <S> such originally written in English. <A> Assuming we were going to stick with the original phrasing, I might say something like "and even then, only". <S> Symbolically, we're saying: You may not do A unless B, and even then (even if B is true), only under condition C. <S> This is not the best phrasing. <S> I think your wording is more clear, and I'd prefer that over the original.
| You may not collect user or device data without prior user consent - and if you do obtain consent, you may only collect the data to provide a service or function that is directly relevant to the use of the Application.
|
Difference in usage between "to" and "for" Is there a difference between 2 following phrases: What running can do for your heart. What running can do to your heart. <Q> The word to suggests a direct relationship between the nouns themselves, when two or more nouns are involved. <S> For example: I did something to you. <S> We can also say: She did something to them. <S> They did something to him. <S> The above first example suggests that the relationship between these two people is that something was done towards the second noun , by the first noun. <S> This is why, like JMB previously mentioned, to is very neutral: whether the 'something' was a good thing or bad thing, it would have been done to the actual person. <S> Therefore the connotation of to depends on the nature of the act itself - it <S> can be positive or negative. <S> On the other hand, for suggests a relationship between one noun and and the other noun's state of being. <S> For example: I did something for you. <S> Again, we can also say: She did something for them. <S> They did something for him. <S> The first example suggests that the relationship between these two people is that something was done towards the second noun's state of being , by the first noun. <S> Whether the 'something' was a good thing or bad thing, it would have been done for the sake of the person. <S> And since doing something for someone else's sake generally carries the implication of affection - which is a positive thing, it has a more positive connotation than to . <S> If you apply this thinking to the two sentences in the question, then it can be observed that: What running can do to you heart... <S> is simply suggesting a connection (you as the reader are left to ponder if the author meant it in a positive way, a negative way or simply didn't mean anything at all), while: What running can do for your heart... <S> is suggesting a connection, and also suggesting that the connection is a beneficial one for the second noun (the heart). <A> Yes. <S> "For your heart" will talk about positive things that running can bring while "to your heart" is more neutral, and could lead to explaining the good things and bad things. <S> Hence, for general comments on the effects, use "to", and for positive benefits, use "for". <S> You might also see "for" used in advertising by companies to entice customers: <S> Click here to find out what we can do for you! <S> A news article about an economic crisis might read: <S> The damage it did to <S> the economy was devastating. <S> And in a period of boom, the headline might read: Small businesses good for economic growth <A> This is how I see the difference. <S> To expresses a negative action, an aggression (here) to your heart. <S> Running can be harmful to your heart if you run too fast, too far and too often. <A> There are some cases where they both differ in meaning, For example, consider the sentence <S> I'm doing this 'for' you <S> Here, I'm doing 'the thing which is to be done by you' for you. <S> I'm substituting you in doing the work. <S> The same sentence if said I'm doing this 'to' you <S> Here, i'm doing the thing to you, <S> It maybe a good/ bad, etc. <S> Eg: I'm doing good to you. <S> So here the result of the work is directed towards you.
| Running regularly at a moderate speed can be very good for your heart. For expresses a positive action, it's like a gift.
|
That which doesn't kill you This is a "Hot Network Question" from another site that I thought would make a great question here. The Joker: "I believe whatever doesn't kill you, simply makes you stranger." ( Clip from The Dark Knight for context ) I think it's a great line, but what does it mean? And how is it twisted ? <Q> This is my opinion. <S> How do I see the dialogue from the legendary actor. <S> ‘Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you . <S> . . <S> stranger,’ the old proverb is actually derived from Nietzsche <S> -‘Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger ’. <S> I think Ledger takes it as a kind of pun. <S> The Joker likes to tell stories about how he got the scars and how did he suffer in his childhood. <S> As a kid, he was asked to laugh by his drunken father whilst his mother was being assaulted. <S> The Joker tries to make everybody understand that we all live in the world of fiction. <S> The Joker builds up stories that manifest not only his indifference to the truths but also his weird thoughts. <S> The worst things never killed him but made him stronger. <S> BUT, he's a joker, always masked and thus stranger. <S> Having this said, the things that don't kill you (the worst circumstances and events in his life) makes (him) you the stranger (the Joker). <S> In simple words, this deadly strange face is due to the worst things happened in his life those were fatal but did not kill him leaving him strong, inhuman and cruel. <A> The original phrase ("...makes you stronger.") implies that people get better from being injured. <S> This means the opposite, people change for the worse from injury. <S> They don't die outright, but suffer a kind of "death from a thousand cuts": each suffering moves them slightly from their original self (possibly going back to what they were at birth, the "tabula rasa") until they are effectively dead compared to their original self. <S> Maybe lacking any compassion because they have been victimized too many times, or trust because they have been cheated on and defrauded when trying to love and help. <S> Eventually the original self would, if still alive, be so alienated from what it became it would disown itself as being "dead to me". <S> Did this answer your question, or did I just ramble nonsense? <S> Let me know <S> and I will revise it. <A> Huh, I think other answers may be over-analyzing this. <S> Yes, it's an obvious play on the classic "... makes you stronger". <S> So the Joker is a strange person who exults in his own strangeness, so he deliberately mangles the quote. <S> Any deeper analysis than that seems to me to be in the "well, maybe, <S> but I doubt the scriptwriter was really thinking that deeply" category.
| I would say that, as a "twisted" person himself, his view of the world is that anything that harms, but does not kill, warps and corrupts your mind or body until you might as well be dead.
|
What is another way to put "mistaken about what one saw"? Is there any more slangy/easy way of saying "mistakenly about what one saw"?Like in the below example what else can be replaced Maybe I was mistaken . ? A: I think I heard something in the dark. B: I didn't hear anything. A: Maybe I was mistaken. <Q> There are a lot of ways you can say that, and if you include ways that employ artistic license, the list becomes almost infinite. <S> It was an illusion. <S> It must have been my imagination. <S> I'm seeing things. <S> I'm hearing things. <S> Maybe I'm just confused. <S> My mind is playing tricks. <S> If you're trying to find a phrase or word <S> just right for your needs, I recommend a thesaurus . <A> mistaken is easy and unambiguous <S> so better use this word only. <S> Still, if you want other ways to say that, here are they... <S> A <S> : I think I heard something in the dark. <S> B <S> : I didn't hear anything. <S> A: <S> OR Maybe, it could be something else ! <S> OR Maybe, I misunderstood it as some sound. <S> To avoid ambiguity, I'd prefer the second one - <S> Maybe, it could be something else (not sound). <A> There is nothing wrong with "Maybe I was mistaken. <S> "It does seem odd because Mistaken is more formal than maybe .I think it would be more congruent to say "Perhaps I was mistaken." <S> Something less formal with the same meaning:"I could be wrong."
| Maybe, I was mislead about that sound .
|
what does the "would" mean here? It's from a entry of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Clark_(9/11_attacks_survivor) It says: As Clark and DiFrancesco entered the floor, Clark turned around to look at his coworkers still in the stairwell and watched as they had decided to go up the stairs to the roof instead of down. The group would all go on to lose their lives that day as access to the roof was locked . There were also no plans for helicopter rescues from the roof as the NYPD deemed it to unsafe to attempt. I am wondering what does would mean here. Is that a past form of will or a subjunctives indicating that those people didn't do that. Thanks <Q> Would is the past form of will. <S> In this context, even if “would + bare infinitive” seems to be the pattern of conditional, at a thorough look, as the action happens in the past “that day”, it should be regarded as a “future in the past”. <A> It's probably used as a modal verb. <S> would (m.v.) - used as the past form of will when reporting what somebody has said or thought. <S> This sentence structure is common while describing a story. <S> If you read the entire paragraph, would is used that way. <S> Additional reading here . <A> Would is the past tense of will . <S> If this were being read as a past conditional, it would still need the verb have . <S> For example: The group would have all gone on to lose their lives that day as access to the roof was locked. <S> This example sounds a little strange out of context, since I don't know what stopped them from losing their lives. <S> Typically, when you see past conditional, it will be embedded in a a sentence like: <S> Molly and Tom would have gone to the movies, but Tom lost his wallet. <S> When you come across constructions like this in the future, I would look to see if you can find a reason why the event didn't happen. <S> If not, it's probably indicating future in the past.
| In this case, will is taking on the tense of the sentence (since the rest of the passage is in past tense, it is safe to make that assumption).
|
“I’m waiting for you...” or “I’m waiting you...” I’m waiting for you to answer me on StackExchange. Should I use waiting for you or waiting you ? Why? <Q> You should use 'waiting for you'. <S> It is a transitive phrase. <S> This means that the verb (waiting) needs one or more words. <A> Use a Preposition <S> Waiting is an intransitive verb. <S> That means it does not 1 <S> take a direct object. <S> There is no thing directly affected by the verb, as it is implied that the doer (subject) of the waiting is the one who is affected. <S> If you wish to indicate why the subject is waiting, you do so with a preposition - usually for but <S> occasionally on (see below). <S> So: <S> A: <S> She is waiting. <S> [note: <S> We already know what party is affected by there <S> verb - <S> SHE is] B: <S> Why? <S> A: <S> She is waiting for a friend to arrive. <S> [The arrival of the friend tells us the circumstances under which the action was performed] <S> 1 <S> I can think of two exceptions: <S> Wait tables, in which wait has a totally different meaning, and wait your turn which is a packaged phrase. <S> Which Preposition? <S> Waiting on is sometimes used in American English. <S> It is more a regionalism than a socio-economic indicator. <S> You don't hear it much in the Pacific Northwest, where I live, but in Texas and the Deep South it is more common. <S> Waiting on sounded good enough to the Grammy award voters who named John Mayer's Waiting on the World to Change the "Best Male Pop Vocal. <S> " <S> There is extended discussion of the regional nature of this over on English.se <S> My recommendation is that you use wait for. <S> While waiting on is common in some regions, it sounds very weird to people who are not from those regions, whereas everyone is comfortable with wait for. <A> "I am waiting for you" is grammatically correct. <S> You may use <S> "I'm waiting" but without using "you" afterwards.
| You could also say, 'waiting on you'.
|
Need of verb to complete the sentence I am looking for some word, verb actually, to complete this sentence - My stomach, still heavy from late afternoon lunch was _ _ In the blank I need some verb that will idiomatically say that my stomach is unwilling to take any food to the point of being thrown up. <Q> here's a few options of some actual verbs and some extra phrases with verbs: heaving / churning / turning somersaults / rebelling / twisting (itself) in knots but my personal recommendation would be very similar to Vic: protesting vigorously <S> I agree with Bob <S> that 'heavy' is not quite appropriate, but for a different reason - it can be correctly applied to describe the state of your stomach, but it actually has the connotation of it being settled rather than unsettled, I would advise replacing it with one of Bob's suggestions, or the word 'engorged' <A> Heavy isn't the most typical word we would use. <S> It isn't most usual to refer to one's stomach directly, either. <S> So, one approach would be to reword the whole thing: <S> I was still so full from the late afternoon lunch that I couldn't eat another bite. <S> That's a more idiomatic representation of your idea. <S> However, yours isn't wrong, just a bit formal, or perhaps clinical might be a better word. <S> We have a tendency to avoid talking about our internal organs when it isn't necessary to describe the situation. <S> Nevertheless, I would still abandon my quest for another another adjective <S> (you will notice I didn't say verb) if I were you. <S> You have already said what you want to say with just one. <S> So you could also do this: <S> My stomach was still heavy (full, overloaded, overfull) from the late afternoon lunch. <A> If what you really want is a verb, here's another suggestion <S> My stomach, still full from the late afternoon lunch, was about to burst. <A> I would use replete. <S> This implies full to capacity. <A> If you want something very English in nature you could try 'full to bursting' as your idiomatic phrase. <S> There are probably better, but that'll do the job. <A> How about this simple way: My stomach, still heavy from late afternoon lunch was protesting against the idea of accepting/ or receiving any more food. <S> Not bad, isn't it! <A> Today I was revisiting this question and I came up with another suggestion. <S> Since I don't want to remove my first answer, here's my new suggestion: <S> My stomach, still full after a late afternoon lunch, was bloated . <S> Admittedly, "a bloated stomach does not mean a stomach unwilling to take any food, but it could be argued that in this context it implies so.
| My stomach, still heavy from late afternoon lunch was replete.
|
Is "spying is what I do" grammatical? Spying is what I do. Is this sentence correct? If someone asks me "What do you do?", can I reply with the above sentence? <Q> Jolenealaska's answer is spot on, but just to add, there is a case where this phrase could be used without directly answering a question about what you do. <S> You could think of it as answering an implicit question, but also 'what I do' can be used figuratively, e.g. if you are really good (or confident) at spying, but not a spy. <S> If the subject of spying has been raised in a way that may involve you, you could mention your spying skills - whether or not your job is to be a spy - with this response. <S> E.g., your spying skills are being doubted, and you defend them: <S> A <S> : Are you sure you'll be OK with spying on C? <S> It's not easy, you know! <S> B: <S> Relax! <S> Spying is what I do ! <S> E.g., a spy is being sought, but nobody knows that you are a spy, so you volunteer: <S> A: We need to find out what C is up to... <S> We need someone good at spying. <S> Who could do that? <S> B: I'll do it. <S> Spying is what I do! <S> A: I always wondered what your job was... <S> P.S.: Psst! <S> If you are a spy, you should probably keep it quiet ;) <A> Yes, that line is correct. <S> "Spying" becomes a kind of noun, a gerund. <S> "Plumbing is what I do." <S> To use "spying" or "plumbing" in that way implies that you take the job seriously <S> , that it's really a part of you. <S> Here's a great explanation of gerunds from Cliff Notes <A> A more precise term is "espionage", which like so many of our "more precise" terms, is simply the French word for spying. <S> :) <S> A few more ways of responding to "What do you do?" <S> Espionage. <S> I'm a spy/intelligence agent. <S> I'm involved in espionage/the intelligence field. <S> I work for the CIA. <S> (Really answering the implied question "Who do you work for?")
| Yes, it is correct, and generally it is the more usual word order than "What I do is spying."
|
What does "Speak if you must" mean? I'm want to ask about something I heard in the last part of the movie staring Russell Crowe (Robin Hood) and Oscar Isaac (king John). When the king John is trying to convince people to join forces against the French attack and Robin is approaching there is this dialog: Robin: I want to speak. People screaming: Let him speak, let him speak. King John: Speak if you must. So what's the meaning of the "Must" in this sentence "Speak if you must"? Looks awkward say this instead if "Speak if you want", "Speak if you need"? <Q> It simply means speak if you have to . <A> King John evidently does <S> not want Robin Hood to speak. <S> Figuring the crowd wants to hear what Robin has to say, and since Robin is eager to speak, the King figures he may as well let him speak. <S> This person thinks there are better things to do than what you want to do, but he'll let you do your thing--again, only if you must. <S> Notice, however, that in the case of Robin, the "must-ness" is on Robin's part, not the King's. <S> If the King were to say, "You must not speak," then Robin would not have spoken. <S> The King's words, in that case, are an order. <S> Must-ness, as answerer Jasper Loy, above, suggests, indicates something that has to be done, in the opinion of the one who wants to do it. <S> Now if the person who wants to do or to say something thinks it can wait, he might say, " <S> Well, it's not really that important. <S> I can wait until a later time," in which case, whatever needed to be said or done wasn't that important. <S> The word must denotes something urgent, but what you consider urgent and what another person (such as the King) thinks is urgent are not necessarily the same. <S> In conclusion, perhaps an example might help. <S> Keep in mind, the person who says "If you must" is a little impatient, and the person to whom it is said thinks what he has to say or do is urgent. <S> A husband and wife are having a serious discussion. <S> All of a sudden, their 18-year-old daughter bursts into the room and says, "Mom. <S> Dad. <S> I have some really good news," to which the mother says to the daughter, "Can't you see your father <S> and I are having a serious discussion?" to which the daughter says, " <S> But Mom, it just can't wait!" <S> The mother, a little annoyed, and with a sigh, says "Well, if you must tell us your good news, and it just can't wait, go ahead and tell us. <S> " <S> The daughter then says excitedly, "Mom. <S> Dad. <S> I've just been accepted at Harvard!" <A> Semantics: <S> Robin: <S> I want to speak. <S> I have something important to say. <S> People screaming: Let him speak, let him speak. <S> Yes - yes - yes <S> King John: Speak if you must. <S> I'm still King, whatever you say. <S> I won't be so stupid to say no when the people say yes. <S> But I'm not gonna endorse you. <S> I'll just won't prevent you from speaking. <S> So this means kind of I don't really care about your opinion <S> but if I cannot stop you from sharing it with me anyway, go ahead and leave me in peace afterwards.;) <A> Here "speak if you must" clearly shows that king is not approving the idea of robin <S> talking.but since robin wants to talk and people wants to hear him speak , the king unwillingly tells him to do so;but <S> he still doesn't agree.here "must " is used in an assertive manner.it is used as a signal of intent to make the other person understand that "I don't like it" or "it's not a good idea"Eg : <S> tony wants to go for a movieBut his father doesn't want him to.so <S> if tony insists, his father would unwillingly say "go if you must"this is usually used in situations when you are in a fix or <S> if you have no other option and the other person happens to be someone you respect or love. <A> King John is saying... <S> Speak if you have to do that..if you have no other choice than telling me what you have to say and people want you to do it. <S> The use of MUST is correct.
| If the person in charge thinks it's not urgent, he may still give his subordinate permission to speak, but only because he has the authority to grant permission. The expression "if you must" indicates a bit of impatience on the part of the one who says it.
|
Perplexing words - Edible and Eatable If something is fit/okay for consumption, we use these words. While I find edible most commonly on the labels of anything eatable/edible, this raises the doubt whether eatable is understood by all. My homework: I went through some forums . I liked an example of a fish. Fish is edible but I don't like fish so it's not eatable for me. This means anything that is fit to consume is edible but anything not eatable is a personal choice. The doubt further perplexes me as I find this (note my examples in the brackets) - eatable - fit to be consumed as food (a smartphone is not eatable). eatable - good enough to be eaten (stale food is not eatable but if I ignore the health hazards, it's edible right because it's not a smartphone?) <Q> Eatable is hardly ever used. <S> As a matter of fact, I can't think of a single time that I have <S> ever used that word except to tell the reader that edible is a word that will always work better. <A> The suffix "-able" connotes a hard limit of possibility in either case, and will not be understood to delimit preferences. <A> I found one whole website on eatable flowers so "eatable" isn't dead yet. <S> Its perhaps more of an emphasis be able to be eaten by itself using your mouth as against "edible" being usable for food. <S> Cinnamon is edible but try eating a tablespoon- its not eatable due to its extreme dryness. <S> Its not a hard and fast definitional distinction. <S> eatable-flowers.com
| As Jolenealaska has said, "eatable" is no longer in use, so you will only ever need knowledge of it to understand that someone writing in previous centuries is indicating that something can be eaten. There is no semantic difference between the two words.
|
What's the neutral term for a woman who is not a mother? For married women, this scheme is very helpful. For unmarried women, this scheme is not useful. These sentences are clear because we have a term unmarried . I face difficulty describing the same thing whilst talking about the herb that increases the breast milk (of course, in mothers) but then it does not mean that women who are not mothers cannot use it for the breast enlargement. [Herb] increases the quantity of breast milk in mothers but non-mothers can also take the herb as it helps multiplying the breast tissues resulting in a natural breast enlargement. I'm not talking about a woman with infertility. I just want to refer a woman who has no issue/child. To make you all understand, I have referred her to as a non-mother. I don't want to use unmarried as it does not serve the purpose. I can write ... "breast milk in mothers but women in general can also take the herb..." but then it's paraphrasing. I need the term, if available. <Q> As Jolenealaska says, we have no such word. <S> Non-mothers is perfectly acceptable and understandable; but as you discern, it’s sort of clunky. <S> But since you have already identified the category with which this category is contrasted, you need not give it an explicit name. <S> Just write: [Herb] increases the quantity of breast milk in lactating mothers, but other women can also take the herb ... <S> I’ve added lactating , since you presumably want to include mothers of older children in your second category. <A> The English language lacks the word you are looking for. <S> It just doesn't exist. <S> In other languages, it's right there, front and center. <S> Not in English though. <S> Others might be able to come up with a word, but they're jumping through hoops. <S> The best option available within the common language is probably "girl" vs "woman". <A> Actually, English does have such a word. <S> The similar word nulligravida refers to a woman who has never been pregnant. <S> However, both of these words are rather uncommon outside a medical setting. <A> Doctors use the term "nullipar", from the Latin "nulliparous". <S> It means "a woman who has never carried a child to term", as opposed to "a woman who has never been pregnant". <S> Usually encountered in the context of cancer patients, as in "The subject is a 54 year-old nullipar with no previous history of cancer or abnormal pap smear." <A> As others have noted, there is no single word that means "woman who is not a mother". <S> This is very commonly and routinely used. <S> Theoretically, all men are "non-mothers", but the term is normally understood to refer only to women. <S> A potential catch here is that in context, it looks like you are talking about women who have babies. <S> That is, a woman with a 20 year old child is still called a "mother". <S> If your intent is to say women who are breast feeding, then you would have to say "breast-feeding women" or "lactating women". <S> The opposite would be "non-breast-feeding women" or "non-lactating women", which is getting rather awkward. <S> At this point "other women" might be a good choice.
| "Mothers" means a woman who has one or more children, regardless of their age. The conventional term to use to describe such a person is "non-mother". The clinical term to describe a woman who has never given birth is nullipara .
|
You "may" also send a resume - why not "can"? You may also send a resume to this email address. What does this "may" mean? Why isnt it can? <Q> Two generations ago teachers insisted that only may should be used in asking or granting permission to do something, and that can signifies only ability to do something. <S> Jolenealaska indicates that this was still common in the late 70s. <S> This in fact represented literary practice in the 19th century, and a primary object of schoolteachers has always been to encourage use of prestige forms—what used to be called ‘proper English’—and to stamp out non-standard forms. <S> Since the middle of the 19th century, however, may has been giving way to can in permissions, and it is my impression that schoolteachers have pretty much given up that particular fight. <S> Nonetheless, the 'rule' still prevails in formal, written English † ; and there are lots of people out there (many in very senior positions) who I adhere to the rule. <S> I consequently recommend that you observe this distinction in any formal writing you undertake if you have any hope of becoming a Recognized Authority <S> (at which point, of course, you may write anything you please). <S> Failure to do so may result in bad marks while you are still a student, and afterwards may annoy any superiors of my age or Jolenealaska's—at least until we are all retired or dead. <S> † <S> The written dialect is always quite conservative, for a couple of reasons: Very few people grow up in households where the written dialect is spoken, so it is essentially a foreign language which can only be mastered through reading. <S> Consequently, during the years you are learning the dialect you are working entirely with texts older than you are yourself, or written by authors who are older; and by the time you master the language, and start publishing your own texts <S> you are yourself older than many or most of your readers. <S> It is not only a much richer language lexically, it is a much more complex one syntactically, because it must express more complex ideas with more precision and writers have no opportunity to interrupt their discourses to explain what readers have not understood. <S> It has many more 'rules' to ensure that what you say is what you mean and cannot be understood to mean something else. <S> It is consequently averse to innovation, because innovation means changing the rules, and changing the rules means changing the meaning of the existing texts which are the language. <A> "Can" works just as well. " <S> May" is perhaps a bit more polite. <S> No matter, consider the words interchangeable. <S> As a small child, I remember raising my hand in class. <S> "Can I go to the bathroom?" <S> "MAY you go to the bathroom?" <S> Oh, whatever you friggin troll. <S> I would just rather not pee my pants. <A> "May" implies having permission to do something: "I may not walk into a shop..." <S> So you might ask "Can I email in my resume?" and receive the answer "You can, but no-one will look at it.". <S> However, the words are often used interchangeably.
| 'Can' implies having the ability to do something: "I can walk into a shop, put something in my pocket and walk out without paying."
|
Difference between (might, might have and could have) Consider: He might go to Beijing last month. He might have gone to Beijing last month. He could have gone to Beijing last month. Any difference in meaning? <Q> 1. <S> He might go to Beijing. <S> Expresses a possible future action . <S> Therefore the use of last month is impossible. <S> You must use a time expression that goes with the future, for example: He might go to Beijing next month. <S> 2. <S> He might have gone to Beijing last month. <S> He could have gone to Beijing last month. <S> Both express a possible situation in the past . <S> → He might have gone to Beijing last month. <S> According to context could mean: <S> There's a possibility he went to Beijing last month, I'm not sure perhaps he did something else. <S> I know he went some place last month <S> , I don't exactly remember where, it could be Beijing. <S> (sentence stress on "to Beijing" when spoken) <S> I know he went to Beijing sometime or other, it could be last month <S> but I'm not sure. <S> (sentence stress on "last month" when spoken) <S> → He could have gone to Beijing last month. <S> There was a possibility for him to go to Beijing last month <S> but he didn't go. <A> He might go to Beijing last month. <S> This employs <S> might as the past form of may . <S> The expression last month (or week or year or Thursday ) can only have present reference, so this sentence would normally occur only in reported speech (“indirect discourse”) where you are paraphrasing a statement ‘he’ made last month about his intentions then: He said "I may go to Beijing" last month. = <S> He said last month he might go to Beijing. <S> He might have gone to Beijing last month. <S> He could have gone to Beijing last month. <S> Both of these employ the “pseudo-perfect” construction used to express the past tense of modal verbs when the ordinary past form signifies unreality rather than past tense. <S> This construction is employed both in reported speech and in hypothetical statements about events which did not in fact occur. <S> He says that he might have gone to Beijing last month, but he wasn’t sure; he is going to check his appointment book. <S> He could have gone to Beijing last month, but a colleague got sick and he had to stay at his desk to cover the extra work. <S> The difference between can/could and may/might in present-day English † is the difference between ability and possibility. <S> I can go to Beijing any time I want to, and I may go next week. <S> Or I may not; it depends on whether my wife can get time off from her job. <S> † <S> As recently as fifty years ago may/might was also contrasted with can <S> /could in formal usage as denoting permission rather than ability. <S> But this distinction has been steadily declining for two hundred years, and today can/could is used freely to express permission. <A> Not correct grammar because it mixes future (might) and past (last month) and 3. <S> "might" versus "could"... <S> Might, on the other hand, implies simply whether something can happen or not, regardless of whether a person makes it happen, or it happens to them outside their control, or whatever <S> So #2 means perhaps he went to Beijing last month, but we don't know. <S> Maybe he went. <S> Maybe he didn't. <S> And #3 means he was capable of making a trip to Beijing last month. <S> It says and implies nothing about whether he did or not.
| "Could" implies "capability" - the ability to do something.
|
Teaching English as a 2nd language to a dyslexic adult I have a student who has Dyslexia, the reading & writing disorder. He is over 30, he has difficulties differentiating "p" and "q", "o" and "a" and vocabulary learning is a very challenging task for him. He now would like to learn English as a secondary language, which could help him in his career. I can teach general students grammar and vocabulary without a problem, but in his case it is quite different. He is very eager to learn, but he just can't differentiate the vocabulary, e.g. "contact" and "contract". What is the best strategy to teach him English? His mother tongue is Cantonese, but I don't think it's related. <Q> My brother is dyslexic and I've read and thought about the issue a lot. <S> I also have experience learning 4 different languages to varying degrees of fluency. <S> Also my dyslexic brother has learned a language with good success. <S> So don't despair. <S> Is there any fundamental reason you need to push through the mud of dyslexia right away. <S> I use that term not derisively but to emphasize that it can really feel like pushing through mud rather than walking on the sidewalk. <S> Learning a language involves four skills: talking, listening, reading and writing. <S> If you want him to experience success you need to focus on talking and listening; not reading and writing. <S> I have used the Pimsleur method to learn 4 languages with great success. <S> They take the student far using audio only. <S> I love the method and highly recommend you use that approach for learning English. <S> English for Cantonese Chinese Speakers <S> If purchasing the lessons is not an option you could try adapting the method and see how it works. <S> Once he has success with speaking and understanding then you can evaluate whether reading and writing are important. <S> Then he will have more courage to tackle the difficulties of written English. <S> If you think that this approach is bad, think about how much worse it is for your student to simply give up because it's too hard. <S> Better to try what already works. <S> I do think that English is much worse than many other languages for a dyslexic person. <S> For help see Davis Dyslexia Association International <S> Also there are varying degrees of dyslexia; not all have the same degree of problems. <A> The best bit of advice is this: don't go anywhere near English . <S> I'm 16, and I don't know anything about it, and it's the only language I know. <S> But, that would never do, I'm positive <S> it's not all too difficult a task. <S> Problem one: the alphabet. <S> Becoming familiar with the good ol' Roman alphabet is best achieved by just knowing it, saying it, writing it> <S> This'll ease issues surrounding similar looking letters. <S> When and only when he has the alphabet in his head, start working on words. <S> The ability to read quickly is a skill learnt long before the ability to read properly. <S> Younger students I've worked with can read at astonishing speeds but they'll mix up words with as much ease. <S> Listing words with a single syllable will boost confidence, but before looking at longer words, try listing shorter words with similar spellings: Root <S> Boot <S> Loot <S> Look <S> Book Rook <S> Rake <S> Bake <S> Lake <S> Sake <S> Soak <S> Seek <S> Reek Leak <S> Late Rate Beak <S> Geek <S> Meek. <S> The beauty of words such as this is that there are so many of them. <S> This list was an ad lib by someone with no real skill in teaching. <S> Looking at similar spellings with build up the skill of looking at a word and understanding it before reading it and starting another. <S> Expanding the list to two syllables and further on will keep progress steady, but slow down if the 'first time' recognition stops happening as often. <S> Once the recognition is there, learning the connections of the words can begin more easily. <A> I have little experience but fully support many of the points made by D_Bester - most of what I am saying is reiterating his points. <S> As a teacher, we should strive to learn more about teaching students are different - be that dyslexia, or autism, etc. <S> if you have a pupil in your care with such traits. <S> Understanding how to deal with such persons goes a long way towards helping you get through to the person. <S> If you try a method several times, and it doesn't work, it's probably a good idea to change the method, even if that is how you were taught to teach. <S> Even with normal folks, there really isn't one right way to teach as everyone receives information differently. <S> I do think learning English for native Cantonese speakers to be especially hard. <S> I don't profess to understand why, but if you look at superstars of the Cantonese speaking world - Chow Yun Fatt, Jackie Chan, etc. - after 30 or more years they still speak with difficulty. <S> Cantonese has more intonations than Mandarin, and perhaps somehow that makes differentiating similar sounding words in English difficult. <S> So long as there's a willing student, as a teacher we should give it our best shot. <S> One thing you haven't mentioned is if the student is in an immersive environment for English. <S> It's great that they are eager, but language is all about immersion and without it, picking up any language is hugely challenging. <S> @D_Bester <S> - I would like to be able to ask you some questions, if you are ok with it? <S> My contact information is available on my profile.
| I'm of the idealistic belief that anyone can learn anything at any age so long as the will is there. If reading and writing are like pushing through mud for a dyslexic person then why do it if you don't have to.
|
Position of myself in a sentence Can we use myself at the beginning of a number of nouns, as in the following sentence: My family consists of myself, my wife and our three children. <Q> Of course you can include yourself in a list along with other pronouns, proper nouns, etc. <S> And there's no reason why you shouldn't put yourself first, last (or any other position you fancy). <S> Prescriptive grammarians will tell you you can't substitute me in such a list if that list is the subject of a sentence, so they won't like... <S> "Me and my wife have three children" ... <S> but that's just pedantic tosh. <S> People say things like that all the time, despite the fact that they would never dream of saying <S> "Me have/has three children" (the usual argument trotted out to explain why me is "wrong" in my example). <S> Idiomatically, people probably use me or myself more often than <S> I there - but if they do use I , it's nearly always in the final position (whereas me tends to come first , and myself works fine in either position). <A> It is considered polite when giving a list of people that includes yourself, to put yourself last. <S> Thus: My family consists of my wife, our three children, and myself. <S> [or, ... "and me."] <S> Similarly, "My wife and I have three children" is preferred to " <S> I and my wife have three children. <S> " <S> I think either "me" or "myself" works in this context. <S> You have introduced the sentence with "my family", so I think using the reflexive "myself" is appropriate. <S> Without the "my" at the beginning, I think "myself" would be wrong. <S> Like: <S> The house fell on my wife, our three children, and me. <A> I don't think so! <S> Not for myself <S> going at the first place but the usage of myself itself! <S> me is an objective pronoun that takes its place after a preposition or a verb. <S> On the other hand, myself is used with reflexive verb whose action falls on the subject. <S> Consider these - There are only two - you and me . <S> I looked at myself and realized how fat I have become. <S> So, when you are counting yourself, you say me . <S> My family consists of me, my wife and... <A> Just because you do it doesn't make it correct. <S> I completely agree with Maulik V... <S> this advice is based on the proper rules; the formal, grammatically correct English language. <S> Not what society has turned the English language into; not how society now happens to use the English language. <S> Most people have no idea anymore what the proper rules of the language are. <S> With the media making such an enormous impact in our world, all the cringing improper grammar used in tv, movies & even commercials, only reinforces our grammatically incorrect habits to where most every language rule flies right out the window. <S> Ok, that's a little extreme. <S> But I am talking about real, everyday life & real, everyday people. <S> So in essence, even if someone learned the correct rules of the formal English language in their schooling, after so many years living in this 'no rules' society, everyone conforms somewhat. <S> Just like I'm quite positive I've most likely misused a word or two (or five or ten) in this paragraph, as well as many of my sentence structures and punctuations could be incorrect. <S> Precisely why... I choose to take the solid, proper grammar guidance above.
| Barring a larger context using the words "I" or "me", I think "myself" would be wrong there.
|
Are these uses of "cut (hair)" right? What are the differences in their meanings? I told the stylist I wanted my hair cut short. I told the stylist I wanted my hair to be cut short. I told the stylist I wanted that my hair be cut short. <Q> The first one is idiomatic and most in use. <S> The second one is less often seen; since the first gets across the same meaning the other two words aren't necessary. <S> It might be used as emphasis, though. <S> If you didn't think that the hair was cut short enough, then perhaps you would use "to be" to lengthen the sentence and in so doing add a little force to it. <S> The third one uses the subjunctive, which of course can be used to express desire or preference. <S> However, we don't use this construction with "want". <S> I suspect that "I want that he be happy <S> " will sound as funny to other native speakers as it does to me. <S> Probably even more common is <S> "I told the hair stylist that I preferred that she cut my hair short" (note "cut" instead of "cuts"); since the hair stylist is actively involved in the sentence (she's the one cutting the hair) we probably would include her directly by using the active voice instead of the passive. <S> Now, let's talk about "hair cut" vs. "haircut". <S> "I like my hair cut short" and "I like a short haircut" mean the same thing. <S> The "to be" is understood in the first sentence. <S> There is no ambiguity to a native speaker as to whether short refers to how long the hair is or how long the haircut takes. <S> It means short hair. <S> If you are talking about a short period of time to cut hair, you would say "I like a quick haircut" or <S> "I like my hair cut quickly." <A> Want does license marked infinitive clauses as complements. <S> Since in this case the infinitive is the copula <S> BE , it may be omitted: I told the stylist I wanted my hair to be cut short. <S> I told the stylist I wanted my hair cut short. <S> These are equivalent. <S> Want <S> does <S> not license <S> that ... <S> VERB finite form clauses as complements. <S> You may not say: <S> I told the stylist I wanted that my hair be cut short. <S> It does, however, license active infinitive clauses with a subject: I told the stylist I wanted her to cut my hair short. <S> It also licenses NP complements, with no verb: <S> I told the stylist I wanted a short haircut. <S> This complement can also be expressed as a predication, a clause with an (optional) infinitive copula: I told the stylist I wanted my haircut short. <S> I told the stylist I wanted my haircut to be short. <A> As StoneyB said above,The verb 'want' doesn't agree with finite verbs. <S> (Verbs without 'to' in front of them)However 'want' agrees with infinitives (verbs with 'to' before them <S> : as in 'to cut')So using, I told the stylist I wanted my hair to be cut short. <S> is the best bet. <S> I told the stylist I wanted my hair cut short. <S> describes how your hair should be, not what should be done with them.
| "I told the hair stylist that I preferred that my hair be cut short" would be a more common use of subjunctive mood. There is no ambiguity in its meaning to a Native speaker.
|
The passive construction with 'It' is ONLY possible with 'permit' - I don't understand this The exact phrase from the book of Swan (the context is choosing the words permit or allow ) - The passive structure with it is only possible with permit Having said that... It is not allowed to smoke in the kitchen - incorrect It is not permitted to smoke in the kitchen - correct I feel absolutely fine for the incorrect sentence. Your inputs please. Make me understand this. <Q> The pattern for "allow" is: (subject) <S> allows (object) to (indirect object) <S> e.g. <S> The owner allows me to use his boat. <S> In the passive this becomes: <S> I am allowed to use the boat (by the owner). <S> Unless I refer to myself as it , I cannot state the above as: <S> It is allowed to use the boat. <S> Now, permit is used differently. <S> If someone gives permission to do something (which means someone allows something!), that "thing" is then permitted. <S> So in the above example, use of the boat is permitted. <A> A person can allow something. <S> Don't refer to a person as it. <S> Referring to a thing or action as "it" is correct. <S> An American might say it either way and would not think it strange if you said it that way too. <S> Many people won't notice your mistake. <S> But in written work you should use correct English otherwise you might get criticized. <A> Weird. <S> They are both sentences, but they mean different things. <S> "It is not allowed to smoke in the kitchen"= there is something, it, which does not have permission to smoke in the kitchen. <S> (Hard to make context <S> but you can imagine it being said about a smoking monkey or robot in a movie.) <S> "It is not permitted to smoke in the kitchen"= <S> nobody has permission to smoke in the kitchen. <S> (It could also mean the above) <S> I have no explanation for this. <S> And as Damkerng says, "it is not allowed" on its own is fine (and takes the standard meaning 2).
| A thing or action can be permitted.
|
Which of these is correct - "Running on circle" or "Running in circle"? Which of these is correct - "Running on circle" or "Running in circle"? All I want to express is that we are doing same work again and again. <Q> run around in circles go around/round in circles <S> also run around/round in circles to use a lot of time and effort trying to do something, without making any progress. <S> If you want to be specific about doing things again and again with no good outcome, choose go around/round in circles [on the same page of that link]. <S> go around/round in circles - if you go round in circles when you are discussing something or trying to achieve something, you do not make any progress because you keep going back to the same subjects or the same problems. <A> Running in circles is a phrase that means you are doing an activity several times without making any progress. <S> The plural circle s is essential. <A> I think that neither phrase would be used by a native English speaker. <S> You may want to consider "Reinventing the wheel" which implies that the work is re-doing something that has already been done.
| "Running around in circles" , "Going around in circles" , "Running in a circle" or "Retreading the same ground" would be valid versions.
|
Is there an idiom for "getting popular"? I wonder how else I can put that "something is getting popular". Can anyone help? <Q> You could say something is “becoming a household name. ” <S> household name house·hold <S> name (also house·hold word ) <S> • <S> n. a person or thing that is well known by the public <S> I'd like to sell gazillions of books and become a household name. <S> Source: “household name.” <S> The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. <S> 2009. <S> Retrieved March 18, 2014 from <S> Encyclopedia.com <A> (that's a new one, and I like it a lot); it's leading the way; it's becoming very in-demand; people are loving it. <S> This a great place to use a Thesaurus . <S> You can probably find exactly what you are trying to say. <A> There are many ways. <S> A few of them are.. <S> something is all the rage these days. <S> something is trending these days. <S> something is skyrocketing (but use this with caution). <A> For a more street-slangy idiom, try "[Blank] <S> is blowing up " <S> This option is listed in the Urban Dictionary <A> "Catching on" is an old favorite. <S> catch on <S> (BECOME POPULAR) <S> to become fashionable or popular: <S> Why did the electronic gadget catch on so fast? <S> (Cambridge Dictionary)
| It's getting noticed; becoming fashionable; climbing the charts; it's crowd pleasing; people are favoring it; it has caught on; it has gone viral
|
Wonder what the word "off" means here Bill Gates made billions off his ideas, but those who worked for him early made millions, too. My try: simply because of his ideas. <Q> In this case off serves as a preposition indicating the source or cause of something. <S> Bill Gates made billions, and the source was his ideas. <A> Off is a preposition (it can also be an adverb or adjective, but in this case it's a preposition) that has to do with separating one thing from another (and fairly consistently so): <S> I picked myself up off the floor. <S> I led the horse off the track. <S> In this case, "to make money off an idea" is fairly idiomatic, having the meaning, as relaxing has said, of the idea being the source of the money. <S> However, even though it's pretty abstract, the idea of separating one thing (money) from another (an idea) is still there. <A> I have seen this kind of use of the word off . <S> off <S> - From a particular thing , place or position. <S> I'm a healthcare provider <S> and I commonly use the phrase an artery off the heart which means the artery coming from/out (of) the heart. <S> Having this said, Bill Gates made billions from his ideas, ....
| I guess off (something) in this context means from something .
|
Single word or brief phrase for "people started using this product due to my presentation" I want to write about the following achievement in my resume: I made presentations on a certain software X, which led to 10 people deciding to start using it. This is the first draft of my sentence. Presented effective use of software X on Y-type projects, leading to 10 people starting to use it. (X and Y are placeholders, by the way.) The phrase in bold doesn't seem good. I would like a word or phrase to make it sound more "catchy". The only word I could think of was adopting as in: "... leading to 10 people adopting it." However, adopting still doesn't sound good enough. While it does get thrown around a lot at my current workplace, I do not know if it would be interpreted in the same way everywhere. Is there a somewhat more generally understood word or phrase that expresses the above idea? <Q> I think the phrasing sounds awkward because of the two -ing words in such close proximity. <S> You could overcome this by simply using a semi-colon: <S> Presented effective use of software X on Y-type projects; 10 people started using it. <S> Presented effective use of software X on Y-type projects; 10 people adopted it. <S> By the way, I have no problem with <S> adopt as your verb. <S> From NOAD: <S> adopt ( v. ) take up or start to use or follow (an idea, method, or course of action): <S> this approach has been adopted by many big banks . <S> One other thought: is 10 people a lot, or a few? <S> If there were 20 people in the office, that's half the office! <S> If you made your presentation to 200 people, though, that's a smaller percentage of converts. <S> Assuming 10 represents a significant number, you could try something like: <S> Use of software <S> X became prevalent after I presented its effective use on Y-type projects. <A> I suggest the use of strong and descriptive words here, while removing the unnecessary. <S> What did your presentation do to the 10 people? <S> Define <S> their end state. <S> Here is my take: <S> Presented effective use of software X on Y-type projects, convincing 10 people to use it. <A> There could be many...let me list down here a few of them. <S> Presented on the use of software X on Y-type projects so effectively that 10 people started using it then. <S> My presentation on the use of software X on Y-type projects made 10 people using it. <S> My presentation simply turned 10 attendees into customers! <S> *(-I'll use this to impress others if software is commercial or else simply replace customers with users ) <S> *. <S> And there could be many...
| My presentation convinced 10 people to use software X on Y-type projects.
|
How to judge a phrase is a phrasal verb? The families of the MH370 passengers in Kuala Lumpur huddled in conference rooms at a hotel. Selamat Omar, a 60-year-old Malaysian whose son was on the missing aircraft, prepared himself for bad news. "I am sad, but as a Muslim I accept what has happened," he said as he waited for news of his 29-year-old son, Mohamad Khirul Amri, a passenger employed by a private jet company as an engineer . He was traveling to Beijing to work on an aircraft in need of repair. How to judge "work on " as a phrasal verb or a verb plus a preposition? <Q> In contemporary grammar the term phrasal verb has two somewhat different meanings. <S> In one meaning the term names any idiomatic combination of a verb and a preposition or locative/directive adverb whose meaning cannot be understood from the ordinary senses of the words involved. <S> Under this meaning, work on would be called a ‘phrasal verb’ here, because on an aircraft does not have its ordinary sense of telling you where Mohamad Khirul Amri was to work. <S> It tells you what object is affected by his work, just as if work on were an ordinary transitive verb: He repaired the aircraft. <S> He flew the aircraft. <S> He worked on the aircraft. <S> This meaning is current mostly among teachers of English as a foreign/second language (and is not used by all of them). <S> The other meaning restricts the term to combinations of a verb and a ‘particle’—again, a preposition or locative/directive adverb—with specific syntactic characteristics: The particle can be moved after a very ‘light’ (short) direct object, and must be moved after a pronoun: <S> ok She worked up a detailed presentation. <S> ok <S> She worked up the presentation. <S> OR <S> ok <S> She worked the presentation up. <S> ok <S> She worked it up. <S> BUT NOT ∗ <S> She worked up it. <S> The particle cannot be ‘pied-piped’ with wh- <S> relatives to the front of a clause: ok <S> This is the presentation which she worked up. <S> BUT NOT ∗ <S> This is the presentation up which she worked. <S> Under this meaning, work on would not be called a ‘phrasal verb’ here, because on does not have this movement pattern: <S> ∗ He was traveling to Beijing to work it on. <S> ok <S> This is the aircraft on which he was to work. <S> This meaning is the one used by most general linguists. <S> An equivalent term is particle verb . <S> So the answer really depends on how your teacher uses the term phrasal verb . <A> Section "I. Definition of the Phrasal Verb and Similar Concepts" answers your question, but do read the entire page . <S> All bolds are mine: <S> A common example is the verb “to fix up”: “He fixed up the car.” <S> The word “up” here is a particle, not a preposition, because “up” can move: “He fixed the car up.” <S> This movement of the particle “up” quickly distinguishes it from the preposition “up”. <S> Because the forms of the particle and the preposition are themselves identical, it is easy to confuse phrasal verbs with a very similar-looking type of verb: the prepositional verb. <S> A prepositional verb takes a complementary prepositional phrase. <S> Movement verbs are readily identifiable examples. <S> For example, the verb “to go” is intransitive, and without the benefit of context, it cannot operate in a complete sentence only accompanied by a subject. <S> One cannot say, “I went,” and expect to satisfy a listener without including a prepositional phrase of place, such as “I went to the store.” <S> Prepositional verbs are immediately distinguishable from phrasal verbs in terms of movement , as prepositions cannot move after their objects. <S> It is not possible to say, “I went the store to,” and so “went” is a prepositional verb. <S> There are, in fact, several syntactic tests to distinguish phrasal from prepositional verbs, and these will be discussed in detail in the final section. <S> It is also necessary to understand that the term “verb phrase” refers not to phrasal verbs, but more generally to a sentence verb, its complements, and matters of tense, aspect, mood, voice and so on. <A> 'To work on' is different in meaning to 'to work'. <S> So, in this case, I would say that is a phrasal verb.
| A phrasal verb in Present-Day English is a verb that takes a complementary particle, in other words, an adverb resembling a preposition, necessary to complete a sentence.
|
Can I say: "native to the time period?" I am writing a piece on Propaganda, and I am quoting George Orwell. What I try to say is that the quote gives a an insider's perspective in terms of the era, not of the geographical location. I want to say something like this: A perspective native to the time period (the 40s) is provided by Orwell in his BBC Broadcast: ". . . . <Q> I love this question. <S> When I read your sentence, I couldn't find anything wrong with it. <S> It sounded natural to me. <S> Yet when I looked up the word native in the dictionary, I couldn't find a definition that would support such usage. <S> I checked Collins , I checked Macmillan , I checked Wordnik , I even checked the OED. <S> Over and over again, I found definitions referring to place and region , but definitions referring to time proved elusive. <S> The more I searched, the more I became skeptical. <S> Then I tried searching for the phrase "native to the era" in Google books, and on the web. <S> Google initially reports 12,000,000 results found, but it doesn't take long to see that's a false number (the actual result is closer to 25 or 30). <S> There are only three hits returned on Google books, and none of them show that phrase. <S> You wouldn't be the first to use the word to refer to time instead of place ; <S> one blogger wrote: Generation Z is the first generation that can truly be considered native to the era of social networking and high speed Internet. <S> I would call this a trap word , one that sounds fine when you first hear it, but one that might prompt the careful reader (or the pedant) to say that you are uninformed. <S> If you are writing, I'd avoid this usage and opt for a rephrase. <S> If you really wanted to stick with it, and were challenged, I did find this vague definition on the Wordnik page: <S> native (adj.) <S> Naturally related; cognate; connected (with). <S> That might give you some rationale, but it doesn't seem to be a common sense of the word. <A> It's perfectly fine to say this, but it would be more natural to say, 'A perspective common to the time period (the 40s)...' <A> @J.R. dispelled the notion that native has any time-based denotation or connotation. <S> But the interesting thing is that it still works! <S> Why? <S> English has deeply embedded relationships between words describing space and time. <S> (This has been studied extensively. <S> See Google Search: spatio-temporal relations in language .) <S> In this case, native to the time period (the 40s) is a metaphor that is almost precise. <S> While this phrasing may not be ideal for formal writing, it does work: it's clearly understandable. <S> And there is some evidence that the phrase "native to the culture" may have gained a level of usage. <S> (See Google Ngram and Google Ngram via corpus.byu.edu ). <S> While "native to the time/era" seems rare, "native to the culture" <S> has some non-trivial usage. <S> A minimal change that would make the metaphor more subtle would be the following: A perspective native to the culture of the 40s is provided by Orwell in his BBC Broadcast: <S> In other words, the usage "native to the culture" has risen to the level of some usage, but maybe not to the level of accepted idiom. <S> I'm not recommending this usage, but it is linguistically interesting. :) <A> Another way to think about an insider's perspective into a time period is that it represents something essential about the period, so you could say: A perspective representative of the time period is provided... <S> Combining that with the suggestion from @Chenmunka, you would get the nice-sounding: <S> A comtemporary perspective from <S> the time period... <S> "Native" is actually incorrect usage here, not as much from a semantic viewpoint (people will understand it), but more from a pragmatic viewpoint (people wouldn't use it that way). <S> The example quote JR gives about Generation Z being "native" to the digital era has to deal with the recently coined term "digital natives", i.e. people who have lived their entire lives since birth in the era of internet, social media and websites, etc. <S> It creates a "digital world" metaphor, and some people are natives, while other people (older people) are strangers and foreigners. <S> So I wouldn't generalize that use of "native" to the kind of example you provided in your question.
| But if you only want to say that the perspective came from someone who lived during the period, without worrying whether it captures anything important about the period, you could simply say: A perspective from the time period...
|
what does "jump in" mean here? In the following sentence what does the jump in mean? (Does it mean hurry or sth like that?) "The best way to appreciate a software development framework is to jump right in and use it " Obviously I know the meaning of either jump and in but I have no idea about the former sentence. <Q> "jump in" in the context of that sentence means to learn by doing. <S> In this case, it sounds like the advice is to pick a software development framework and try to use it without spending a lot of time reading about how to use it, the theory behind it, and so on. <A> The phrase jump in is used as a phrasal verb here. <S> It means... <S> jump in (ph.v.) - to start to do something very quickly without spending a long time thinking first <S> This means, if you want to know how great a software development framework works and performs, have no second thought, start using it right now. <A> Imagine that some piece software were a car, and driving that car meant using the software. <S> So you just jump in and drive (use) it. <S> To jump in a car means, of course, to get into it.
| The addition of "right" ("jump right in") also suggests doing so immediately, similar to language immersion or other situations where common advice is to learn by doing the activity in question.
|
Another interpretation of this second conditional sentence Consider: If I met John, I would call my mom. I know this sentence is a second conditional example, which relates to a hypothetical situation. But I don't know whether I can also understand it in such a way if the covert context is: I may have met him, but I am not quite sure about that. My memory can't last that long. The only thing I am sure about is that whenever I meet him, I will call my mom immediately . Thus, if one day I find out I indeed met John before, I will be sure that I called my mom immediately on that occasion. <Q> This is exactly why the notion of '1st, 2nd, 3rd conditional' is so useless for anything except getting an initial familiarity with the forms. <S> This sentence, as you conjecture, bears two entirely different meanings in different contexts: <S> It may be a non-past <S> , unreal conditional: <S> I don't follow football, but in the unlikely event that I ever met John Elway <S> I would call my mother immediately: she's a huge fan of his. <S> It may be a past <S> , real conditional: <S> That summer, Mom didn't mind who I played with as long as she knew where I was; so <S> whenever I met John <S> I <S> would always call my mother. <S> Your scenario—“I am not sure whether I met him sometime last summer. <S> But if I did meet him at that time, I would call my mom and tell her about him.” <S> requires a different construction in the consequence clause, and would probably employ a construction with do in the condition clause: <S> I don’t remember if I met John last summer; <S> but if I did meet him, I would have called my mother. <S> The n -conditional model won’t help you with that: it waves the situation off as a ’mixed conditional’. <A> I believe you are referring to past tense with your question. <S> "If I had met John, I would have called my mom," is what you would say if you are talking about meeting John last Summer. <A> Let's see: You may, or may not, have met John last summer. <S> After meeting John, the thing you would surely do is call your mother. <S> Then you can say: If I met John last summer, I would have called my mother. <S> Now, to find out whether you met John, you can ask your mother if you called her. <S> :) <S> Your original sentence, however, cannot be interpreted that way. <S> The only possibility would be to read it as <S> If I met John last summer (and I somehow remembered that now ), I would call my mother (now, immediately - or in the very near future, right after remembering whether I met him). <S> That is, however, such a far-fetched interpretation, that is is highly unlikely that anyone would ever read the sentence like that.
| "If I met John, I would call my mom," is a possible situation in the future or hypothetical.
|
It is things VS it is a thing Please check both sentences and let me know, which one is correct. As per my opinion it is(is) for singular thing so it should be it is the worst thing not it is the worst things . I read it somewhere : It is the worst things that can bring out the best in you. As per my opinion: It is the worst thing that can bring out the best in you. Thanks in advance. <Q> Your original sentence is an example of a cleft sentence. <S> We use cleft sentence structure to emphasize a particular part of the sentence by introducing that part first. <S> Cleft sentences are very useful in writing because we couldn't raise our voice to stress particular words in our writing. <S> What we can do is to rearrange the words to achieve a similar effect. <S> Consider: <S> The worst things can bring out the best in you. <S> In speech, you can emphasize the word "worst", like this: <S> The WORST things can bring out the best in you. <S> (Also note that we normally don't write in all caps because it will have the effect of raising your voice or shouting.) <S> However, in writing, you can do this: It is the worst things that can bring out the best in you. <S> With <S> it -cleft sentence structure, it's now clear that you want to emphasize "the worst things". <S> And the reason that you mentioned it is because it "can bring out the best in you." <S> There are several types of cleft sentences (see the linked Wikipedia page) <S> , Your original sentence is an it -cleft . <S> Using it <S> -clefts, you don't need to change <S> "It is ..." to "They are ..." even when the emphasized part is a plural noun. <S> (For example, see " it is they who are ") One way to make sense of it <S> is to think of this <S> it in <S> "It is ..." as preparatory it . <S> Also note that the main verb of the that -clause must agree with the emphasized noun. <S> For example, "It is you who are in the wrong." <S> As a side note on "the worst things" versus "the worst thing", I would say that "the worst thing" is possible (in some context). <S> However, "the worst things" is the better choice, generally speaking. <A> Read it this way: It is the worst things that can bring out the best in you. <S> I think the phrase "the worst things" is used here as a single entity. <S> Because if they say that "it is the worst thing that brings out the best in you" , it'll create a restriction and would mean that only one particular worst thing can bring the best out of you. <S> The author wants to say that the worst things make you stronger, but since it's used as a single entity, it has taken "It is" . <S> "They are the worst things that can bring out the best in you " <S> probably did not look as easy as <S> "It is" to the author. <S> However, many may argue that that's informal way of telling the sentence. <A> Okay, let's take these one at a time, because they're both correct to say (killed the big spoiler at the beginning, but that's no problem) <S> It is the worst things that can bring out the best in you. <S> ' <S> It doesn't point at anything in particular. <S> It is simply a general term. <S> An example of its usage would be describing, say, Pandora's Box: 'it contains all the worst things in the world'. <S> Because it is a phrase in itself, it's referred to as one object, hence the 'is' instead of 'are', which is used for multiple things normally. <S> The second sentence: <S> It is the worst thing that can bring out the best in you. <S> This is correct but has a different meaning. <S> When you talk about one 'thing' you are specifically talking about something. <S> When you say 'the worst thing in the world' it implies that you can name that thing . <S> What you read is likely to be making a general reference to bad things, which is when you would use the first sentence, because it talks in a general way. <S> The second sentence is for when you were talking about one thing specifically. <S> Might I also add, that this the question about English that has thrown me the most so far on this site, and I thank you for asking it.
| The worst things' is a general term meaning, well, all the worst things.
|
A parentless child is an orphan, but the parents who lost their child are? A parentless child is referred to as orphan but is there any term for the opposite case? The parents who have lost their child. Childless is NOT I'm looking for -that's without offspring and may mean that the couple is infertile. <Q> The closest that you are likely to find is bereaved . <S> Although this does not exclusively apply to the loss of a child, it can be used for the loss of any close relative. <A> Although I agree that there is not a pre-existing word in English for this condition, I came across a term while researching the US gun violence situation. <S> It was coined by Professor of English & Law Karla FC Holloway in 2009. <S> It has been picked up by a number of people in the mass and social media, and was recently re-posted at the Duke University website. <S> Vilomah <S> “Vilomah is a name for the grief we represent. <S> It might sound odd at first. <S> But we have grown used to the word "widow. <S> " It's not much different, and it shares the same etymology. <S> And unfortunately, these days can give us ways and means abundantly to grow accustomed to a vilomah. <S> A parent whose child has died is a vilomah.” <S> Many words in English are derived from foreign sources, and at some point must enter the lexis before they are accepted. <S> I am not sure if it will stick. <S> Hopefully there won’t have to be a reason to use it: as has been noted, it describes a situation which goes completely against the order of life, and violates every sense of what is right. <A> I agree with FumbleFingers, that there is no such word in English. <S> In addition to the reasoning FumbleFingers gave, there is also the connotation in English that the orphan is a (legal) minor child. <S> Someone who grows up, and has children, and then their parents die would generally not be considered an orphan. <S> Losing ones parents happens to (almost) everyone, so is (eventually) a default condition.
| I believe the reason for the connotation, as well as lack of the corresponding word for a parent who has lost their child, is that in many cultures (possibly universally), a minor child who is orphaned has been a special legal state for millennia, necessitating a special term for them.
|
"Physician's writing" - "to scribble like a chicken with claw" Is there any phrase for describing when someone writes extremally illegibly? In Poland it's called "physician's script", or there's an idiom "pisać jak kura pazurem", which literally means "to scribble like a chicken with claw". It's very popular in Poland. Well, at least I've heard it on every occasion. <Q> The English equivalent is similar: chicken scratch . <S> This would be a noun phrase to describe the writing, not the person, though, so an example would be: <S> "I can't read a word of John's chicken scratch. <S> Can you translate it for me?" <A> I'll try for the term and not phrase. <S> It is cacography cacography - Poor handwriting. <S> Cacography is from Greek κακός (kakos "bad") and γραφή (graphe "writing"). <S> And, if you are looking for a person with poor handwriting (the question before your edit), it can be derived from the same word - cacographer . <S> Though I'm not sure whether it's accepted worldwide. <S> Edit: Okay, Wiktionary has it - cacographer <A> <A> In Scotland we say "like a hen pissing in snow", but I wouldn't recommend using it in polite company!
| In the US at least there is also the stereotype that doctors have horrible handwriting as well, and you can tell someone they could be a Doctor with that handwriting, or something to that effect.
|
Meaning of 'The Devil was sick, and a saint he would be; the Devil was well, and the devil a saint was he!' I am not able to understand the meaning of this idiomatic phrase: The Devil was sick, and a saint he would be; the Devil was well, and the devil a saint was he!' I think it means "the devil is not all that bad" because the phrase refers to him as being a saint both when he was sick and ill.Also how am I supposed to use this in a sentence? <Q> Here's what I found with a search: Promises made in adversity may not be kept in prosperity. <S> Cf. <S> medieval L. aegrotavit daemon, monachus tunc esse volebat; daemon convaluit, daemon ut ante fuit: when the Devil was ill, he wished to be a monk; when the Devil recovered, he was the Devil just as before. <S> Source: " <S> The devil was sick, the Devil a saint would be; the Devil was well, the devil a saint was he!." <S> The Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs. <S> Oxford University Press, 1982, 1992, 1998, 2003, 2004. <S> On answers.com . <S> As a sentence, this proverb was initially confusing to me. <S> I think the key lies with the idiomatic use of “ d evil” to indicate a diminished possibility. <S> A similar but more common, modern phrase would be: <S> You want me to apologize? <S> Like hell <S> I will! <S> Source: Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms. <S> Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003. <S> On thefreedictionary.com <S> Which means that the speaker will not apologize. <S> So when the Devil is sick he is faithful, but <S> when he's well again... <S> like hell he still would be! <S> I think the closest idioms in wide use these days are: “Easy for you to say.” <S> / “Easier said than done” , or “Promises, promises.” <S> ,but there's an element of <S> “There are no atheists in foxholes.” <S> as well. <A> @TylerJamesYoung's answer is 100% correct. <S> Here's a little more about how to parse the sentence's grammar: <S> The Devil was sick, and a saint he would be; the Devil was well, and the devil a saint was he! <S> The semicolon separates two ideas in this sentence. <S> Since we're using the past tense, we should probably understand the sentence as talking about two different times in the past --- once when the Devil (Lucifer) was sick, and once when he was well. <S> One time Lucifer was sick, and a saint he would be. <S> Another time Lucifer was well, and the devil a saint was he! <S> In this context, "would be" idiomatically means "would like to be" or "promised to be". <S> (Compare "The Man Who Would Be King" , or how we might say that someone was "a would-be actor" .) <S> One time Lucifer was sick, and a saint he wished to be. <S> Another time Lucifer was well, and the devil a saint was he! <S> The object and verb in the second halves of those sentences were reversed, just for the sake of making them rhyme. <S> Let's undo that. <S> Also, "well" in this context means "healthy", of course: <S> One time Lucifer was sick, and then he wished to be a saint. <S> Another time Lucifer was well, and the devil he was a saint! <S> Lastly, as @TylerJamesYoung says, there's an idiomatic phrase "the devil X !"; its meaning is basically "certainly the opposite of X !" <S> The phrase is mostly obsolete (at least in the U.S.); it's been replaced by "like hell X !" <S> One time Lucifer was sick, and then he promised to be a saint. <S> Another time Lucifer was well, and do you think he was a saint then? <S> Like hell he was! <S> The meaning is indeed basically equivalent to "There are no atheists in foxholes ", but phrased as a little poem (one might say "a bit of doggerel ") instead of a prose proverb. <A> Just to "parse" two brilliant answers, "When the devil was sick, [he promised] a saint he would be." <S> "When the devil was well, a saint was he, not !" <A> The devil is no saint! <S> is in the same spirit. <S> I see the parallels with Promises made in adversity… and others, but they miss the meaning in the ironic contrast of the Devil's condition with his nature: <A> Gosh, all these comments ... <S> Nevertheless, the original is: "When the Devil was ill, the Devil a monk would be; but when the Devil was well, a devil the Devil was he!" <S> Plainly speaking, many people, on their sick-bed, will claim they are going to abandon their evil ways. <S> Yet when they once again become healthy, they take up their old ways with vigor.
| When the Devil was ill, he wished to be better; but when he was better, he was much worse!
|
The meaning of the phrase “to stage a pot bust” The bellow quotation is from Peter Benchley’s Jaws: “…; when, very rarely, a couple of predators from Queens would lurk in the dark side streets and mug passersby; and when, about twice a month in a summer, enough evidence having accumulated, the police would feel obliged to stage a pot bust at one of the huge waterfront homes”. I would like to know the meaning of the phrase “to stage a pot bust”. All that I could find about the verb “to stage” in Merriam-Webster Dictionary, please see # 2. Regarding “pot bust”, anything on the internet is related to marijuana. Would you please explain the meaning of the phrase: “to stage a pot bust”? <Q> In this case, the meaning is "to set up a situation in which it's possible to make an arrest for possession and/or sale of marijuana". <S> There are three different non-standard terms packed into a five-word phrase: "stage" - in this case, it's used in a manner related to staging a play: setting up a situation to appear to be one thing but be another. <S> In this case, it's probably a meeting that looks to be secret but which is actually closely watched (and possibly even recorded). <S> "pot" is marijuana in this context. <A> To stage in this sense means to arrange and carry out an action. <S> Because of this origin there is an overtone here of the pot busts being a “show” which has been contrived to demonstrate police diligence. <S> A bust is an arrest. <S> This is a slang term, which arose in the 1960s drug culture, and was originally used of arrests for possession or distribution of illicit drugs. <S> Bust is also used as a verb, “to arrest”. <A> You're on the right track. <S> 2 stage 2 , as you note, "to cause to happen for public effect" 3 bust <S> 4a - a police raid pot, as you note, is slang for marijuana. <S> "stage a pot bust" = <S> a police raid for marijuana
| "bust" is a slang term for "arrest" It is a theatrical metaphor: we have said since Shakespeare's day that a company or producer stages a play, puts it on stage for an audience.
|
“They have to yet scooped it out.” They have to yet scooped it out. The source is actually me. Could you correct any grammatical errors you spot? My perception: There are still some quantity of the good available, even though many people rushed to Bazaars and markets to purchase it. I noticed Longman has an example for using scoop this way: if a lot of people scoop something up, they buy it quickly so that soon there is none left. <Q> I think you might be going for something involving “cleaned out” . <S> clean out (phrasal verb) 2. <S> INFORMAL <S> empty a place of objects or goods, especially by stealing or buying them in large quantities <S> Government soldiers moved in and cleaned the village out. <S> The supermarkets were cleaned out by panicking shoppers. <S> Source: <S> Definition of “clean out” from the online English dictionary from Macmillan Publishers Limited <S> So I'd phrase it more like: <S> They haven't been cleaned out yet. <S> As the definition notes, this is an informal usage. <S> To express this concept more formally, I'd say: Customers have yet to deplete the supply. <S> There's also the concept of “scoop up ” scoop up (phrasal verb) 2. <S> INFORMAL <S> to get something, usually something good or valuable, before someone else gets it <S> People arriving early scooped up fantastic bargains. <S> Source: <S> Definition of “scoop up” from the online English dictionary from Macmillan Publishers Limited <S> This does connote an urgency in the action. <S> Or: You can still scoop one up. <S> You could even combine these two: <S> Scoop one up before stores are cleaned out! <A> The verb scoop means to buy something quickly. <S> It might be used around Christmastime, in conjunction with a item that is selling fast: <S> People are scooping up these Xboxes like crazy! <S> Now, let's take a look at your sentence <S> : They have to yet scooped it out. <S> That's not quite right. <S> I think what you're trying to express is: <S> A lot of people are scooping these up, but the store hasn't sold out yet. <S> People scoop up items, but stores sell out of items. <S> And the scooping can start well before the sellout happens. <S> Think about tickets to a championship football match: once the final matchup has been determined, fans of both teams begin scooping up the tickets. <S> But the term scoop out is not used to describe when no more tickets are available; no one would say: The tickets are all scooped out. <S> [ incorrect ] <S> or: The tickets haven't been scooped out yet. <S> [ incorrect ] <S> Instead, we would say: The tickets are all gone. <S> Fans scooped them up fast! <S> or: The game has been sold out. <S> They've all been scooped up. <S> Now, you could say it in a way similar to how you were trying to say it – if we omitted the word "out", and included the word "all" : <S> You can still get tickets! <S> The tickets haven't all been scooped up yet. <S> or: Not all the tickets have been scooped up. <S> A few are still available. <A> I'm not sure this has actually been answered properly yet. <S> "They have to yet scooped it out. <S> " <S> can most simply be rewritten as "They have yet to scoop it (all) out." <S> The addition of "all" suggests completion. <S> Without it, it suggests that they might not yet have started.
| Such a phrase might be: They haven't all been scooped up yet.
|
How to describe this sitting position Seat on your hip and pair your feet with no space with no space between edges of your feet. Seat on your hip and connect your feet with no space between edges of your feet. Like this picture. http://www.flickr.com/photos/1zonie/4464732309/ <Q> <A> For starters, you repeat (almost) <S> your whole sentence twice, and the first time around you repeat with no space . <S> That seems confusing. <S> Then, as far as the positioning of the feet is concerned, that is pretty clear. <S> Both pair and connect are conveying the right meaning, although you could also simply use place . <S> The simplest option would be Place your feet together <S> so there is no space between them. <S> Now, for the confusing part: I was really wondering what you meant with sit on your hip. <S> After looking at the picture, I can assure you that the part of her body that she is sitting on is not her hip. <S> There are many words for that part, but among the politer ones are behind or buttocks . <S> However, you do not need to name that, as she is sitting on what anyone would sit at if no further directions are given. <S> So this would describe the whole pose: <S> Sit down with your feet together <S> (so there is no space between them). <A> I'd like to suggest, (She is) sitting, hugging (her) knees. <S> With a small risk of being a little ambiguous (some might cross their legs, which in that case you might need to add "feet together"), I'd say that it is clear and concise enough.
| This pose is frequently described as "hugging your knees to your chest."
|
'Programs hacking programs' & 'The code is hidden in tumblers' In The Matrix Reloaded, Neo said, "programs hacking programs". I don't think it is a complete sentence. What is omitted here? What does it mean? A program can hack another program or what? Besides, Seraph said, "The code is hidden in tumblers . One position opens a lock. Another position opens one of these doors." What's meant by tumbler here? A position can open a lock? Sounds really weird to me. <Q> programs hacking programs <S> It's simply stating what he observes. <S> I could be looking at a pond and say Ducks eating bread. <S> What's missing is simply something like "it's", as in : <S> You could imagine a lot more around that sentence: <S> Gosh, so what I am looking at here, is programs hacking programs ! <S> As for the tumblers, this might give a clue. <S> 4 <S> A pivoted piece in a lock that holds the bolt until lifted by a key. <S> 5 <S> An electrical switch worked by pushing a small sprung lever. <S> Both could apply - but seen as the Matrix deals with electronics, I'd say that maybe 5 is more likely? <S> If you google on tumbler switch <S> you may get an idea of what is meant with the positions it can be in. <S> A position opens a lock You would have to interpret as When the switch is in a certain position, a lock is opened. <A> “Programs hacking programs” I guess are programs created to hack another programs. <S> Tumbler is a moving part of a locking device. <S> One position of the tumbler unlocks, the other position locks the device. <A> about the programs hacking programs:maybe theyre sentient programs that can act as a code generator for themselves and hack other programs or create viruses from their code to hack other programs thats what i imagined when he said that,this is just my opinion...
| "It's programs hacking programs."
|
Does "could not [verb]" imply that attempts were made? He had a clear idea – he needed seven years of peace and quiet in order to work. (1) In America he could not have it. (2) In America he could not have had it. So he went back to Russia. Does could not have it (the first form) imply that he actually tried to attain peace and quiet? In the second form it is clear that he did not, because the full thought would sound "if he had tried to have it, he could not have had it." But does the first form say that some attempts were made, or it states that if they had been made, they would have been futile? <Q> I could not buy a ticket yesterday because I had forgotten my wallet. <S> I could not help him with his homework as I know nothing about maths. <S> I could not enjoy the weather yesterday as I was closed up in my cellar the whole day. <S> In none of these cases would anyone assume I actually tried to do the things I couldn't do. <A> SHORT ANSWER FumbleFingers's comment and oerkelens' answer prove by giving counter-examples that neither "could not have it" nor "could not have had it <S> " implies an attempt. <S> LONGER <S> NON-ANSWER <S> Here, what I'm trying to describe is in which way "could not have it" and <S> "could not have had it" are different. <S> I'm doing so because I find interesting the use of "could not have had it" when two references of time are not explicitly given in the context . <S> Let's consider both options: <S> (1) He had a clear idea – he needed seven years of peace and quiet in order to work. <S> In America he could not have it . <S> So he went back to Russia. <S> (2) He had a clear idea – he needed seven years of peace and quiet in order to work. <S> In America he could not have had it . <S> So he went back to Russia. <S> I think the key to answer this question is not in the modal verb could , but in the use of the perfect aspect: have it vs have had it . <S> Whenever the perfect aspect is used in a sentence, it makes us think of two instants in time. <S> For example, in: I have been reading for two hours ( present perfect ) the two instants in time are now and the moment I started reading . <S> However, in He could not have had it ( past perfect ) <S> what are these two instants? <S> In the quoted text, there is only one reference of time. <S> When a second reference of time is missing, my mind defaults to the present. <S> So when I read "he could not have had it" , I understand that something could not be had in the past, but in the present it could be possible. <A> It means that conditions were not in place to have a state of peace, whether or not attempts had been made.
| I don't think the attempts are implied - at least not by the sheer use of "could not ".
|
Question about articles: Why is "before the train came" correct? Example sentence: I had a little time before the train came. Would you please explain to me why it is correct to use "the" before "train"? My teacher told me that "the" is used before objects well-known to both speakers and that if a noun is used for the first time we shoud use "a". But in this example the speaker uses "train" for the first time. Moreover we don't know about this train, so we must use "a train", not "the train". But it was a native speaker who said it; what exactly did he mean to say? <Q> A better statement of the definite article "rule" would be that you should use the X only when there is a reasonable expectation that your readers or hearers will understand what particular X is meant. <S> This includes situations when you have previously mentioned X ; but it is not necessary to have mentioned a specific train, because few people hang around a railroad station with the plan of taking "a" train, any train that shows up. <S> They're there to catch (or meet) a particular train. <S> Even on a subway system where trains run on any given line every fifteen or twenty minutes, people are waiting for the next train. <S> Consequently, the hearer or reader may be expected to infer from context that what is meant is <S> “the” train the speaker/writer is waiting for: the train to or from a specific place scheduled to arrive here at this specific time. <A> Up-votes to @stoneyb and @oerkelens. <S> Let me just add: <S> "My teacher told me that "the" is used before well-known to both speakers objects and if a noun is used for the first time we shoud use "a"." <S> The first part of that -- use "the" <S> when the noun is "well-known" -- is basically correct. <S> Most people would say to use "the" when we are referring to a specific instance. <S> Like in this case, the speaker is waiting for a specific train, not just any train. <S> But the second part -- when used for the first time always use "a" -- is just wrong. <S> There is no such rule. <S> "The Earth has a population of about 7 billion. <S> " Everyone knows which Earth I'm talking about, as there's only one. <S> "The president of the country gave a speech. <S> " It's likely clear from context which country I'm talking about, and any given country probably has only one president. <S> So it's "the", not "a president gave a speech". <S> In context, if I was talking about not just the current president but also about past presidents, I might say, "a president once gave a speech in which he said ...", etc. <S> But if I'm talking about many presidents, then it is not necessarily clear which one I'm talking about at any given moment. <S> "The wife of the murdered man identified the body. <S> " If we said, "A wife of the murdered man ...", that would imply that he has more than one wife, which he probably doesn't. <S> Etc. <A> Damned be those "rules" that only lead to confusion! <S> The definite article the is used to specify a specific instance of the referenced object. <S> Whether it is the first, second or hundredth time that the speaker mentions it. <S> In this case, if you would use a train, it means that any arriving train would end the period of time that is mentioned. <S> However, the speaker wants to take a specific train, presumably the one that takes him to his destination. <S> So by using the train, he tells us that he's not there to await the arrival of a random train, he is actually awaiting the arrival of a specific train.
| There are many cases where the first time that a person or object is mentioned, we would use "the", because we are referring to one specific instance and not one of many.
|
Why do you "get in a car" but "get on a train" I was trying to work out why get in car but on most other transportation systems. Get in a car, helicopter Get on a train, plane, boat (although in feels like it works ok here) Is it the size of vehicle? The function (private/public transport), or something else? How would you know whether to use in or on for an unknown vehicle? <Q> It depends on whether you can stand up or are seated outside when being carried by a typical example of the transport in question, on its size, and if it is enclosed. <S> On the other hand, early open-cockpit aircraft and later passenger aircraft, buses, bicycles, motorbikes and ships all allow their users/occupants to stand (or the occupants are seated outside), hence one is "on" such transport. <S> Small boats are a mixed case; One can be "in" or "on" a small, boat. <S> On the one hand it is small and may be enclosed, on the other hand, one can stand when aboard one (however foolish it may or may not be to do so), and one is seated outside when sitting. <S> If we have an imaginary vehicle, eg a "snarfblagger", if it is small, enclosed, and doesn't really allow a person to stand within it, a person using it is probably "in" it. <S> On the other hand, if the "snarfblagger" is ridden like a bicycle or a horse, or is large enough to stand and walk around inside, then a person using it is "on" it. <A> Here's a jumble of thoughts, because I'm not sure if there is a definitive answer here: <S> I believe you would use "on" in any situation where you could ever describe yourself as "boarding the [vehicle]". <S> You can use the verb "to board" with train, plane, or boat. <S> Once you have boarded the plane, you are on board the plane - or just "on the plane" for short. <S> You would not board a car, though. <S> Also, to be "on the car" would mean to be sitting on the roof of the car - so perhaps we do not use "on" with "car" because it would have a different meaning than the one we intend. <S> You <S> can board a helicopter, and I think you could therefore say "on the helicopter", though I think more people would say "in the helicopter". <S> [Maybe this is because being "on" the helicopter, as with the car in the above point, would be extremely painful if the rotor were moving :P] <A> You get on a train because you can move around from car to car and walk around from place to place, you get in a car because you must remain seated in a single position inside the car and do not have the option of moving around. <A> I have no history to back me up here, but I believe it goes like this: You cannot physically get on top of a train in any normal environment. <S> You stand on a platform and then you get onto a train. <S> It may have originated from the days before platforms, where you would climb up to reach the train, thus getting 'on' it. <S> This is similar with both buses and boats. <S> You tend not to get on the roof of one. <S> You also tend to stand on buses and trains, and may consider the floor of the vehicle as what you stand 'on'. <S> A car is different. <S> They're not all that big, so standing on one is different to being in one. <S> You don't stand up in cars. <S> You always consider being in a seat instead of on a platform. <S> A car is smaller, so you feel more claustrophobic, and definitely inside . <A> It's because of the location of the thing that moves the vehicle, the size of the vehicle, and its height. <S> On a train, the tracks are below you, and you typically must use a small set of steps to climb up to the height where the people and cargo are. <S> "In" also works for a train, but it isn't as common because a train is very large. <S> In a helicopter, the rotor blades are above you, and the vehicle is typically quite small with a very small payload capability, comparable to a car. <S> On a jet or in a jet both work. <S> On bus, in a bus both work. <S> For most road vehicles, only the biggest ones work with "on", like buses. <S> In a boat and on a boat both work, but "in" is more commonly used for very small boats, and "on" is more commonly used for big boats. <A> I don't think it's particularly strange or illogical if you think about it. <S> Like others have mentioned it implies nuances regarding the subject vehicle. <S> With a car being a small motor vehicle <S> the in implies the movement of lowering your arse to the seat immediately as you enter. <S> A train or bus being larger vehicles require the patron to step on to a platform or step through the doors first before taking a seat. <S> The same applies to ships, planes and trams. <S> This is the same with board as in to board a train <S> I presume <S> you know it's not usual to board a car .
| Cars and the typical small helicopter typically don't really allow a person to stand up and are enclosed, therefore one is "in" them. I think you're right in saying it is involved with the size and the nature of the vehicle.
|
What do you call a subcategory of a subcategory What do you call a subcategory of a subcategory? Is there any particular term that can be used or should I use any other words such as group, set, collection etc.? Edit: For Example if A is a category, B is a subcategory of A and C is a subcategory of B , what do you call C with respect to A ? <Q> I would advise against using it in formal writing (for formal writing use further subcategory as @Chenmunka suggested) but the meaning is completely clear and would not sound unnatural as it is used by many native speakers. <A> TL;DR: " <S> Sub-subcategory" is not a thing. <S> In both language and taxonomy, there is no special word for the subcategory of another subcategory. <S> There are several reasons for this. <S> For one, subcategory is a class of things, not a thing, itself. <S> The prefix "sub-" indicates that all of the things in this class also belong to another, broader class of things. <S> It does not infer how broad or narrow the parent class is. <S> So, grammatically, a subcategory of a subcategory is called... a subcategory. <S> If you have 15 levels of taxonomy, the 15th child category is still a subcategory. <S> The 14th subcategory is both the child of the 13th subcategory and the parent of the 15th subcategory, and so on all the way up to the primary (or "main") category. <S> "Sub-sub-sub-(... <S> )subcategory" is <S> not only ugly, it literally makes no sense. <S> Which is perfect, because the more subcategories you make, the more confusing and bloated your taxonomy will be. <S> This is called diffuseness , and it defeats the point of categorising: to make sense of things . <S> So, if you can avoid more than two or three layers of category (primary/main category > parent subcategory > child subcategory), then you should . <S> It just makes sense. <A> The phrase further subcategory is often used. <S> This suggests that the process of categorisation is being taken further, to a subcategory within the outer subcategory. <A> I suggest a diagram. <S> Language can only take you so far before it becomes unclear. <S> If you have to describe it in words, use "set" rather than "category". <A> What about: Subordinate Category , Secondary Category , Complementary Category <S> , I think these words could be more meaningful than using sub-category of subcategory.
| Informally, a lot of people will use the word/phrase subsubcategory (or sub-sub-category ).
|
"could not [verb]" might strictly imply that attempts were made This question was influenced by this one . I think there is a situation when 'could not [verb]' implies that some attempts were made. I could not find him. I could not come up with a context that would be free of the implication that the subject actually tried to find him. Can you comment on this? Approve or disprove it. <Q> The usage of "could" implies but does not require an actual attempt to be made. <S> I could not find him (because I never looked). <S> I could not climb the ladder (because I am missing all four of my limbs). <S> I could not dance to the music (because I am deaf). <S> Not trying is (almost) guaranteed to make you fail your task. <S> (I say 'almost' because it is very possible to not go looking for something but end up stumbling over it anyway! <S> Sometimes even literally.) <A> It depends on context. <S> I could not find him. <S> probably means there was an attempt. <S> However I could not look for him. <S> does not. <S> Here the speaker was probably unable to look for him, busy doing someing else or such. <A> The confusion might be something to do with the verb. <S> "Could" is the imperfect tense. <S> Synonymous with "I was not able to", this does imply an attempt was made. <S> If one says, "I was not able to do this", you give the impression (not strictly, but an impression nonetheless) that you have evidence to back up your point, as a 'failed attempt'. <S> "Could" is the conditional tense. <S> "I could do something" could also mean 'I would be able to', but as this is only condition it doesn't imply any attempts were made. <S> The same word used for two different tenses makes the meaning ambiguous.
| If you "could not" do something, it simply means that something caused you to fail in the task.
|
Collocations of the word "near" with temporal and spatial nouns a. The near future b. The near house Would you tell me which one is right? As far as I know, instead of b, we must say: the close by/nearby house Am I right? <Q> Using "near house" here is wrong and the other sentence is correct. <S> In both cases "near" is used as an adjective. <S> In near future Here "near" = only a short time ahead <S> Example - The shop near the house is a small one. <S> But you can't say "the near house". <S> You are correct to replace "near" with "nearby". <S> If we say "the near house", we haven't provided any reference point to explain from what the house is "near". <A> Both possibilities are correct. <S> Here are some examples of use for "the near house" : <S> "In the picture, the far house on the corner was built by Henry Miner, and the near house, which has retained its original porch, was built by Horace Miner" ( Early houses in Berlin, Wisconsin, and the people who lived in them - Lulubelle C. Gillett, 1976) <S> "The superstructure of the near house was completely demolished" ( Pit and Quarry - Volume 45 - Page 165) <S> "A 16 by 16-foot office built of prefabricated panels has been added at one end of the near house" ( Farm Business News - Volumes 39-40 - Page 51) <S> And here some examples for "the near future" : <S> "We care more about the near future even in the special cases in which we cannot affect it" "Russia simply does not have the economic means to redominate the entire Central Asia, at least in the near future" (Hooman Peimani - 1998) "In the near future, billions of entities will be connected to each other through the Internet" <S> Although both, "the near future" and "the near house" , are possible, not all of them are used with the same frequency . <S> A sequence of words that occur more often than expected by chance is called a collocation . <S> You can find the collocations for the word "near" in a collocation dictionary. <S> By comparing how frequently these collocations are used, it is possible to understand why the other answers recommend the use of "the nearby house" over the "the near house". <A> One definition of nearby is close by , so when referring to relative locations (in this case you and the house) <S> nearby is the best choice. <S> Also, near can be used for future points in time, but <S> nearby cannot.
| Near - Located a short distance away.
|
Which of the sentences is grammatically correct? Which of the sentences is grammatically correct? The using of the opportunities offered by ... became an important element. A significant element became the using of the opportunities offered by ... Thank you in advance for your help. <Q> Both are grammatical, but neither is very satisfactory. <S> In the first place, the ponderous construction the VERBing of is almost always a bad choice. <S> If you want the -ing form in situations like this, employ it as a frank verb: write using X . <S> If for some reason you want to bleach out any hint of ‘verbiness’, employ the ordinary noun form, use of . <S> ( Usage is something else again: it designates habitual or customary use, and today usually refers to use of some linguistic form.) <S> Other things being equal, I recommend the verbal use; too many nouns makes your diction sound pompous and self-important. <S> In the second place, you should not speak of using an opportunity . <S> Use is employed with a tool or means by which you do something. <S> Using the resources offered by ... Using the software provided by ... <S> Use of equipment obtained from ... <S> But an opportunity is not a tool or means for doing something; it is an occasion for doing something. <S> You would do better to use take advantage of or seize or exploit : Taking advantage of the opportunity offered by ... <S> Seizing the opportunity afforded by ... Exploiting the opportunity arising from ... <A> You should use use or usage instead of using , because using is a verb form, not a noun. <S> The use/usage of the opportunities offered by ... became an important element. <S> A significant element became the use/usage of the opportunities offered by ... <S> Otherwise I think the meanings are similar (without further context). <A> What follows complements @StoneyB 's little nugget of writer's wisdom by answering which choice of sentence is more natural. <S> subject-verb-object : <S> Taking advantage of the opportunity offered by ... <S> became an important factor <S> However, the order object-verb-subject can also be found specially in certain literary styles such as poetry: <S> An important factor became taking advantage of the opportunity offered by ...
| Although both sentences are grammatical, English favours the order Opportunity signifies a time or a situation or a state of affairs particularly suited to doing whatever it is you want to do.
|
Strange words people say when leaving I've been at parties or other gatherings, and, when it was time to leave, native speakers would come up with odd ways of saying "It's time to go." One way would be: Let's make like a bakery truck and haul buns. Another was: Let's blow this clambake. I'm wondering if someone could explain why these phrases get used, and if there are any underlying puns or jokes that I may not be catching. In short, why do these mean, "It's time to leave?" Disclaimer: I already understand these expressions, but thought they would be interesting for the English language learner. (In fact, this question is based on an “actual problem I have faced”: in the past, some non-native friends have asked me to explain these phrases; I found them easy for me to understand, but hard to explain in a way that a non-native speaker could fully appreciate their whimsicality. Non-natives, feel free to give this one a try – it might be a fun “practice question.” <Q> “Let’s make like a bakery truck and haul buns” is jokingly said when one wants to leave a party. <S> Our buns (buttocks) are compared to a bakery truck, that is, they are as heavy and big as a bakery truck which hauls (drags) heavily. <S> On the other hand a bakery truck also sells buns (small, sometimes sweet breads) having a shape that resembles to a curvy contour of a girls gluteus maximus muscles as seen from behind : "Margie's buns look nice and tight now that she's working out.” <S> In other words buns sold by the bakery truck are compared to the slang word of ass, cheeks, buttocks. <S> There is a pun which mixes our buns with the buns sold by a bakery truck. <S> As a result we can understand the pun this way: “let’s move our asses out of here” or “let’s get out of here”. <A> I'm watching a movie from 1939 called <S> They Made Me a Criminal , where one of the characters says, " <S> Let's blow! <S> " It's possible that this usage predated versions that specified from whence to blow, viz " <S> Let's blow this [whatever]." <S> So "blow" might have been slang that pre-dated such terms as "book," "jet," "boogie," or possibly even "scram." <S> "Twenty-three skidoo", however, is almost certainly older. <S> The import is not so much that it's time to leave but rather that those who are "blowing" are too cool for school. <A> The way I have come to understand these phrases: <S> Let's make like a bakery truck and haul buns. <S> Much in the way a bakery truck would "haul buns" <S> (haul> <S> pull <S> >move) <S> (buns>bread) from one location to another. <S> A person would (haul> <S> pull <S> >move) <S> their own (buns>butt(slang)) from one location to another. <S> Let's blow this clambake. <S> To blow when talking in the context of leaving is talking about how the wind will "Blow" and/or move. <S> While the term clambake can be replaced with any descriptive word meaning the current location: <S> Let's blow this clambake. <S> Let's blow this party. <S> Let's blow this pop stand (soda shop). <S> Let's blow this Popsicle stand. <S> Let's blow this joint (an establishment). <S> <~~ this one can also be used as a drug reference <S> Let's blow this place. <S> Let's blow this bitch. <S> Let's blow this town. <S> in all instances it means to move (like the wind can blow) from your current location defined by the descriptive word you use. <S> the term clambake itself <S> when used can mean different types of places also: an outdoor social gathering at which clams and other seafood (and often chicken, potatoes, and sweet corn) are baked or steamed, traditionally in a pit, over heated stones and under a bed of seaweed. <S> or (informally) a place where the crowd is mostly female (where a clam is referencing the female genitalia) <S> and lastly (again informally and mostly used in the north east america) a small area where drugs are emitting a large amount of smoke causing the air to be mostly polluted with said smoke. <S> Such as a group of people smoking in a car or a larger group of people smoking at a festival. <S> (this term comes from the resemblance <S> marijuana smoke has to the smoke emitted during the cooking process at the outdoor social gathering at which clams and other seafood steamed)
| “Let’s blow this clambake” it’s a very silly way to say “Let’s get a move on”, where blow is the slang word for “ to go, leave, exit” or “leave this less than an interesting place”.
|
"I had not noticed." but "I did not know." Did you hear that the engine produced some sounds? No, I had not noticed. And also other verbs: I did not know. I did not see. I had not heard. With some verbs it is common to use the perfect aspect ( had not ), with some not. For instance, had not known is not popular at all. What's the reason? <Q> The key lies in understanding the past perfect and the form is had + past participle. <S> The past perfect is considered as an early past. <S> We go back for a moment whilst we are already talking about the past to clarify that something had already happened at that time we are talking about. <S> When I arrived at the party, Jane had gone. <S> Now think about that sentence - NOW <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > PAST <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> EARLY PAST <S> (You arrive)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Jane leaves) <S> Now your case - You found out that had not known <S> is not popular at all. <S> Now considering this all, I think that when we talk about our perception such as knowing , the usage will be not that frequent as it'll mean that <S> at that time (early past), that was not known to you. <S> Anything hadn't makes it a special case. <S> Let's get back to the same example to simplify it. <S> The things turns upside down if you use hadn't here. <S> When I arrived at the party, Jane hadn't wasn't gone (because, if she was there, it cannot be the early past! ). <S> NOW <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > PAST <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> > <S> EARLY PAST <S> (You arrive, Jane wasn't gone) <S> ---- <S> (Jane did not go) <S> -------------------------------------- <S> ( Jane hadn't gone ) <S> If you see, it more depends on the context than the verbs <S> you think that affect the use of <S> hadn't + past participle . <S> We can take some more examples and fit into this graph. <S> I checked Ngram and found that if you compare any did not (any verb) to had not (any verb) , the use of did not is more frequent. <S> The reason could be this only. <S> What I tried to convey through the illustration. <S> The Ngram clarifies that most of the times, we talk about the past and not early past (though it's not obsolete). <S> Swan's book describes another interesting thing... <S> The past perfect is common after past verbs of thinking and saying , to talk about things that had happened before the saying or thinking took place. <S> Examples - <S> I told her that I had finished <S> (NOT... that I (have) finished) <S> I wondered who had left the door open <A> You can 'know' something at any time. <S> You can realise something long after becoming aware of it, as 'knowing' requires a conscious thought to realise it. <S> You can only 'notice' something when you're present, there and then, to be able to notice it. <S> Some people do say 'I didn't notice' however. <S> The trend you're noticing might well just be the result of choosing a phrase that slips more elegantly from the tongue. <S> This is possible but not likely. <A> e.g. <S> "I had not noticed/heard" -- the engine produced sounds at a specific time, but I wasn't paying attention, so I cannot answer affirmatively. <S> "I did not know" -- I lacked knowledge beforehand and nothing changed that (although the change could have occurred at any moment if someone had told me or I had researched it). <S> "I did not see" -- I was not looking at the thing in question, or I looked at it but didn't pay enough attention, though I could have looked at it at any other time.
| It seems to be that the "did not" constructions refer to events that didn't necessarily take place at a specific time, and the "had not" constructions refer to events that either did or didn't take place at a specific time.
|
Take or catch particular number of bus? I have this sentence: Take the number seven bus to London. Can we say Catch the number seven bus to London. Which should be used in BrE and which in AmE? I think we can't 'catch the number seven bus to London' because of it is like 'to take route' and we can't catch 'route'. but I'm not sure about it. <Q> Catch instead of <S> Take would be less likely here because there is no time factor involved; if you're trying to get to London by some particular deadline, you might want to "catch the 3:00 bus" in order to get there by 4:00. <S> (In other words, in order to use catch , there should be some possibility to miss as well.) <S> You could also speak of "catching the first (or the next) bus" since you are referring to one particular bus, as opposed to any bus traveling the given route. <S> However, this is a minor distinction, and if you do use catch <S> it will be perfectly understandable. <A> Both are fine. <S> And I don't know if there is any BrE and AmE difference based on this. <S> Most likely they are equally possible in both English. <S> I am leaving this conclusion to native speakers. <S> Native speakers, please help here. <A> I have a slightly different take on this. <S> (I have caught and taken quite a few buses both in the US and in the UK). <S> On the other hand, there is a different "flavor" to the two words, as the other answerers are saying. <S> Hellion puts the difference very well: if there's some chance of missing your bus, then catch is the verb used; if not, then take. <S> The reason that take and catch are interchangeable is because, as I'm sure Hellion will agree, there is always a chance to miss the bus. <S> You can be standing there 15 minutes early, have the bus show up, have one person get off, and have the driver let the person in front of you on and then say "sorry, all full, catch the next one." <S> Catch conveys the meaning of buses always attempting to leave one behind (which as everyone knows they are) and therefore having be caught to be used. <S> Take is more matter-of-fact; it simply means using the bus as the means of travel. <S> So, as I see it, the question of whether you use catch or take is simply a question of whether or not you want to convey a sense of identification with the stress shared by bus travellers the world over who are depending on a bus as their means of transportation.
| Catch and take are interchangeable, both in AmE and BrE
|
The difference between "can be" and "may be"? What is the difference between "can be" and "may be"? Analysing reports of investigations may be observed... Analysing reports of investigations can be observed... <Q> "Can" simply means that the observation is possible. <S> There is no reason for it to happen, but it is a possibility. <S> In this context, it doesn't give any indication that the observation is likely to happen. <S> "May" is more direct. <S> It defines a possibility that is more likely to happen, as the observation could be actively made to happen. <S> It can also define something being given permission to happen: that statement is giving 'permission' for the observation to happen, regardless of whether its possible. <A> The first thing to say is that the use of modal verbs is a complicated subject, since a given modal verb can have different uses, and different modal verbs <S> may have a similar use. <S> The following is based on the advise given in "Science Research Writing for Non-Native Speakers of English" . <S> This book lists the following uses for <S> can and may : <S> CAPABILITY <S> This software <S> can distinguish between different languages Until 18 months a child cannot use symbols to represent objects POSSIBILITY/OPTIONS <S> A rubber seal can be useful for this purpose <S> A rubber seal cannot be useful for this purpose <S> A rubber seal may be useful for this purpose <S> A rubber seal may not be useful for this purpose VIRTUAL CERTAINTY <S> It is clear that contamination cannot be due to the presence of seawater in the pipe <A> MMJZ gave you a good answer. <S> I suggest you taking that one. <S> I'll make a complement here. <S> Let's say, when you discuss the local weather with your friends, If your friend says that it can be quite cold there in winter , what he says is just a general view of what the weather is usually like in winter. <S> He is not predicting whether it's cold or warm in winter that year . <S> However, if he says that it may be quite cold there in winter , He is predicting from past experience that it's likely to be cold in winter that year .
| By and large, "Can" represents a theoretical possiblity while "May" represents a factual possiblity.
|
What does 'the way a thing turns out' mean? outcome is defined as "the way a thing turns out" by "Google: define outcome". What does "the way" mean here? What does "turn out" mean here? <Q> The word "how" could be substituted for "the way"; and the phrase "ends up" could be used in place of "turns out." <S> So, an alternate definition would be: outcome ( n. ) – how something ends up <S> It might be easier to explain by using the word <S> outcome in context. <S> The election had a very questionable outcome . <S> Remember, outcome means "the way a thing turns out," or "how something ends up". <S> In that sentence: The "thing" (or "something") is the election . <S> "The way it turned out" (or "how it ended up") is with a questionable result . <S> (In this context, questionable could mean two things: It could mean that the election was so close, a winner has not yet been determined; or, it could mean that foul play is suspected, and that observers don't believe it was a fair election. <S> Now, a more complex example: A more recent study found that the most predictive factor for a favorable outcome for adolescents was length of treatment, even when patient problem severity was statistically controlled. <S> (Gallanter and Allen, 2003) <S> The "thing" (or "something") is the treatment for a disorder. <S> "The way it turned out" (or "how it ended up") is favorable – meaning the patients either no longer had the disorder, or else it was less severe. <S> The sentence is reporting the results of the study: the longer an adolescent patient is treated, the more likely that patient will be cured . <A> Turn out - Prove to be the case Example - <S> The job turned out to be beyond his rather limited abilities <S> Way - A method, style, or manner of doing something; an optional or alternative form of action Example - I hated their way of cooking potatoes <S> There are two ways of approaching this problem <S> And "the" in "the way" refers to that particular "way". <S> Does it help? <A> For example, Police launched an investigation. <S> The outcome was that they decided Mr X was the murderer. <S> The outcome of my pay review was that I got a 5% salary increase. <S> Let's break it down. <S> Starting with the way a thing turns out the way - the way something happens means how something happens. <S> So now we have how a thing turns out how [something] turns out - the end result of [something]. <S> So now we have the final result of a thing a thing <S> - you have to be talking about a particular event, circumstance or situation in order to talk about its outcome. <S> It has to be an outcome of something. <S> In my examples above, the first example talks about the outcome ofthe investigation . <S> The second example is speaking about the outcome of the pay review . <S> Note that in the first example you don't need to say "outcome of the investigation" because it's clear from contextwhich outcome <S> you are talking about. <S> So we can finally rephrase to: the final result of a situation <S> And that's what outcome means.
| Outcome means, simply, what happens with regard to a particular event.
|
Any possible adj of encourage? I would like to know an proper equivalent adjective of the verb called ' encourage ' For example: I am talking with my friend about a topic as follows: Me : This topic makes me encourage for investigating a novel technique. Let's delve into! Him : Indeed, the topis is very [ encourageable | encouraging ]. Which adjective is correct to express about what the topic is?Or Do you know any other words to express the meaning? <Q> First, I think, as @akkatracker said, your "Me" sentence doesn't make sense. <S> I think the answer's @JoeMcMahon might be the right sentence like: <S> Me: This topic encourages me to investigate a novel technique. <S> Let's delve into it! <S> Then, (because it's really the topic of your issue) the first answer could to be "encouraging" . <S> However, to use other adjectives and be as near as possible to the verb "encourage" (vb transitive) , you need to know exactly what does it means: to inspire (someone) with the courage or confidence (to do something). <S> to stimulate (something or someone to do something) by approval or help; support. <S> In your case, you want to investigate a novel technique because this topic inspires you or it <S> stimulates you to learn something . <S> With the help of this topic, learning a novel technique doesn't seem difficult, so you say "Let's go! <S> We will have fun to learn this". <S> And if "Him" has the same enthusiast than yours, he might say: Him: <S> Indeed, the topic is very inspiring. <S> or Him: Indeed, the topic is very stimulating. <S> Also, you can say (roughly and in a good way:) <S> "This topic pushes me to do this" , so you can use adjectives as: "exciting" , "inviting" , "inciting" , and "attractive" . <A> (= you think it will work) <S> an encouraging topic sounds a bit awkward, but might be ok in a particular situation, eg. <S> if you're looking for topics for your thesis, and you think that this specific topic will be a good one to work on in such cases, "encouraging" could be used to mean "promising" <S> Other words you might want to use instead are: "intriguing" , "compelling" , "fascinating" (though note that you shouldn't say * "very fascinating" , just "fascinating" ), or even plain old "interesting" . <S> That being said, the Me: part of your example dialog is written in very awkward/incorrect English. <S> Might I suggest: Me: This topic makes me interested in investigating a novel technique. <S> Let's delve into it!Him: Indeed, the topic is very compelling. <A> I think what you're communicating is that the topic has made you feel that a novel approach may lead to a solution if one uses it. <S> Have I got that right? <S> If so, I might say it this way: <S> This topic encourages me to try a novel technique. <S> Let's try it!
| "encouragable" is definitely wrong "encouraging" could be used, but it's not the best choice here, if I understand correctly what you're trying to say: a solution can seem encouraging
|
Wondering if anybody here could define "the week ended" in this text Does it mean " this time at the end of the week"?? Claims for the week ended March 15 were revised to show 1,000 more applications received than previously reported. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast first-time applications for jobless benefits rising to 325,000 in the week ended March 22. <Q> The author is discussing financial statistics, which very often are directly relevant to the passage of time. <S> The use of "ended" as opposed to "ending" alerts the listener or reader that the date they are about to cogitate is in the past. <S> As it is not uncommon in the financial world to constantly consider the effects of amortization as well as budgeting (for two examples), I think this use of style is intended to alert the listener to the fact that the events occurred in a previous period. <A> so March 9-15. <S> That being said, in some contexts where you're only considering weekdays, the actual dates involved might be March 11-15 (if March 15 is a Friday). <S> So, the economists had forecast that there would be 325,000 applications between March 16th and March 22nd. <A> If I understand "this time" in your question to mean the times March 15 and March 22 in your quote, the answer is yes. <S> The grammar is incorrect, however; correct is "the week ending March 15/March 22". <S> You can also say "the week which ended on March 15" if you like, but that's rather wordy. <S> (Wordiness has its place, but usually conciseness is preferable.)
| It means for the week that ends on March 15th (note that the phrase implies that March 15th falls on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday),
|
Would you help me with adjectives, alive and live? Although she forgot to water it for a week, the plant was still alive/live. Which one is right? My professor has just told me that you must use ALIVE. But I don't know why yet. <Q> The main difference is that, as OED points out, alive occurs chiefly in predicative use (after a verb)... <S> This animal is alive ... <S> as opposed to adjectival live , used <S> attributively (before a noun) in the semantically equivalent... <S> This is a live animal Note that this distinction only applies in contexts where the living sense is both literal and specifically focusses on gross physical attributes, such as the ability to act/move autonomously. <S> Thus, for example,... <S> This yoghurt is live <S> / <S> It is live yoghurt ... <S> are both relatively "standard" usages. <S> Attributive use of alive is uncommon, so no-one is likely to say <S> "This is alive yoghurt" in any context. <S> But if we consider these two alternatives... <S> 1: <S> This cheese is live 2: <S> This cheese is alive ... <S> most people would interpret #1 the same as the yoghurt examples (i.e. - the micro-organisms which made the cheese in the first place are still living within it). <S> But #2 would probably be interpreted as a facetious allusion to a very mature, runny Camembert , slithering around the plate like a living thing. <S> Or perhaps a truly disgusting cheese as per the more "figurative" usage... <S> I'm not eating that ! <S> It's alive with maggots! <S> ... <S> where alive implies visibly moving in and on it (also crawling with maggots ), again with the "whole living organism" sense. <S> Where the sense is even more figurative ( live = real-time, not recorded , for example), live is normally used in both contexts... <S> This news report is live (being broadcast as events happen ) <S> It's a live news report <S> (has exactly the same meaning). <S> TL;DR: <S> OP's teacher is <S> quite correct - native speakers would normally say is alive when they literally mean has not [yet] died , because it's an "attributive" usage. <A> So your sentence is Although she forgot to water it for a week, the plant was still _ _ <S> In the blanks you have to place an adjective, that is apparent. <S> And to fill in the blank you have two alternatives - alive and live <S> Now consider the two words and how it's used in that meaning. <S> It will help you choose the correct one to fill in the blank. <S> Live - (adj - Used only before a noun) <S> Not dead or inanimate; living Example - A live animal A live match <S> ( N.B - There are other meaning and usage for "live" that you can find in dictionary. <S> But I just mentioned this one as it's relevant to your original sentence. ) <S> Alive - (adj) <S> Living and not dead. <S> (Here in dictionary entry nothing was mentioned about its position in reference to noun or whatever it will qualify. <S> But you will learn that it's used not before noun, instead after that.) <S> Example - Hopes of finding anyone still alive were fading <S> He was kept alive by a feeding tube <S> Now it's very clear which one to use to fill in the blank in your sentence. <S> As "live" in this sense is only used before noun or whatever/ <S> whoever it describe, so we can't use in this case "live". <S> So we can go for "alive". <S> And this is the correct usage. <S> Correct sentence - Although she forgot to water it for a week, the plant was still alive . <A> Ditto @man_from_india. <S> Let me add that this is an unusual case. <S> Usually we use the same adjective before a noun as we use in a predicate. <S> For example, "The flag is red. <S> The red flag waved." <S> "The man is hungry. <S> The hungry man ate dinner." <S> But with live/alive, there are two different forms. <S> " <S> The dog is alive. <S> The live dog ran away." <S> "Live" can be used as a predicate adjective when we are not talking about a creature but about a machine. <S> " <S> The telephone line is live now." "Be careful -- that wire is live." <S> At the moment I can't think of another adjective that has different forms for these two cases. <S> Can anyone think of other examples?
| For OP's specific context, alive and live are effectively synonyms (meaning living, not dead ).
|
What is the difference between "object" and "objective"? Who knows exactly the difference between objective and object ? For instance: The government whose object/objective is the good of people... <Q> In a broader sense, an object is a visible entity. <S> But both those words, object and objective have a common meaning referring to: The goal intended to be attained (and which is believed to be attainable) Various other words which can be used are aim and target . <S> Therefore, all the following have the same meaning: <S> The government whose objective is the good of people. <S> The government whose object is the good of people. <S> The government whose aim is the good of people. <S> The government whose target is the good of people. <A> The electorate elected him president. <A> There are other words as well like " select" which is different from "selective"- select means of special class / carefully chosen as being the best or most suitable. <S> Similarly removal of suffix "-ive" makes something special like Object stands for not purpose but ultimate purpose <A> I would say it's very slight in the usage, One of Purpose vs a goal. <S> The object of the government - the Purpose of governmentThe objective of the government - the goal of the government <S> In the one since it is their reason for being, in the other it is potentially one of many desired end states, or temporary goals along a path to a particular end state. <S> Also I would suggest that form or use of "The object of the government.." is becoming antiquated or archaic.
| Grammatically, object would refer to the recipient of an action and an objective may be a complement of the object.
|
Difference in sentence meaning between present continuous and simple present constructions What is the difference between the following sentences? He is always shooting his mouth off about how good he is. (present continuous) He always shoots his mouth off about how good he is. (simple present) In texts they usually use number 1, but I do not see a difference in meaning. <Q> There is no practical difference in meaning, and both "sound correct" and would be understood. <S> A similar phrase, "He is always running his mouth about..." / <S> "He always runs his mouth about... <S> " is probably more commonly used. <S> Just remember to conjugate your verbs -- " He always shoots off his mouth." <A> There is a difference between the two. <S> On the other hand, the continuous form, particularly in combination here with the adjunct <S> always implies a negative opinion about the fact. <S> Aarts in <S> Oxford Modern English Grammar <S> (p269) calls this the " progressive of irritation ". <S> He gives the following example: She's always poking her damn nose in, isn't she? <S> and explains: <S> The sense of irritation comes about through a combination of discourse context, the verbal meaning, [...], and the presence of adjuncts like always, forever, continually . <S> As a further example, consider the two sentences: <S> I always lose my keys. <S> I'm always losing my keys. <S> The first is a statement of fact and would typically be followed by some kind of contextualization: <S> I always lose my keys when I forget to hang them up as soon as I get in. <S> The second can stand by itself, and implies a mild irritation about the repeated event. <A> I would add to the other answer, and say that "He always shoots his mouth off..." Might be more appropriate if you are discussing the act, while "He is always shooting his mouth off..." might be more at home in a conversation about 'him' Generally speaking though, they should be interchangeable in almost all circumstances
| The simple present is a statement of fact, devoid of any implicit opinion about that fact.
|
The tendency to replace may I with can I I have noticed the tendency of replacing “may I” with “can I” in the spoken English and in some movies. However, in formal spoken or writing or on serious TV channels the usage is correct. Is there any particular reason, or some nuances which I possibly cannot get, that make people to use “can I” instead of “may I”? On the other hand, sometimes, the usage of “can I” instead of “may I” leaves room for jokes such as: “Can I get you a drink”? “I don’t know, can you”? <Q> The exception is that typically some teacher will harp on this for a few months. <S> Every American student has had the following exchange with a teacher. <S> Student: Can I go to the bathroom? <S> Teacher <S> : I don't know, can you? <S> So everyone learns this made up "rule" in school, that you're supposed to use " <S> may I." But unlike other made up rules, I don't think this rubs off on the spoken language of anyone. <S> Some will find "may I" a little pretentious. <S> I would save " <S> may I" for formal writing or very formal speech with strangers (e.g. job interviews-- you should still use "can I" when you, say, ask an employee in a store for something). <A> May I and Can I have very different meanings, as brought home by your joke reference. <S> In British English, it is uncommon to use <S> can I in place of may I <S> but it does happen in spoken conversation. <S> There is no particular reason for it, the spoken word is not always grammatically or semantically perfect. <A> This has happened with me many times. <S> It's really fun that way. <S> What I learned as a non native is prefer <S> may when it is a request or politely asking something or even telling. <S> Use <S> can if it's <S> more about the capability of someone or something. <S> Also however how natives look it, it's completely their take.
| (Speaking only for America): there is no nuance; in the spoken language, "may I" is not used much at all.
|
"it is *the* exception" means one and only exception? – You can't cast aspersions on someone just because they're wearing a cape. Superman wore a cape! – OK, Superman is the exception. Does the here convey the meaning that it is the only exception, and there are no other exceptions? <Q> Technically, yes. <S> That said, I'd caution anyone against reading too much into the definite article, or interpreting it too literally. <S> Fact is, in conversation at least, the article <S> the is sometimes used to mean a notable or a prominent . <S> For example: Milan is the place to be if you want to be in the fashion world. <S> Oh, really? <S> What about Paris? <S> Here's another example: <S> All politicians are self-centered and corrupt! <S> What about Mahatma Gandhi? <S> Oh, well, Gandhi was the exception. <S> If pressed, the speaker in this dialog would probably admit there are some other notable exceptions, too: Gladstone, Carter, Havel, Mandela, to name a few. <S> Just like the word "all" was an exaggeration – a sweeping (and perhaps unfair) generalization – the word "the" isn't necessarily the most accurate article to use. <S> But people still use it that way. <S> When I look up <S> the in the dictionary <S> , I see this definition – which is often how it's explained on ELL: denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge [emphasis added] <S> However, I find several other meanings listed as well, such as: used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique used to point forward to a following qualifying or defining clause or phrase used with an adjective to refer to those people who are of the type described used to indicate that someone or something is the best known or most important of that name used to make a generalized reference to something rather than identifying a particular instance <S> That last one is the meaning that aligns with: <S> "When I look it up in the dictionary..." . <S> So, while I would agree that: Okay, Superman is the exception. <S> suggests that Superman is the sole exception <S> , I would not say that the word "the" proves that Superman is the sole exception. <A> Otherwise you should say: "Superman is an exception", suggesting that he is probably not the only one. <A> Yes. <S> If we expected to see more exceptions, we'd say "an exception". <S> " <S> The exception" implies it's either the only exception we know about (or that exists), or (less likely) that it's the most significant exception worth mentioning here.
| Yes, the use the of definite article" the" suggests that Superman is the only exception, within that context.
|
Is "You can't wear that dress until you lose X lbs" an idiom? Women are friends, I once would have said, when they totally love and support and trust one another, and bare to each other the secrets of their souls, and run — no questions asked — to help each other, and tell harsh truths to each other (no, you can’t wear that dress unless you lose ten pounds first) when harsh truths must be told. Is it an idiom? And also what does this sentence mean? "and bare to each other the secrets of their souls" <Q> Like if you said, "Help arrived at the eleventh hour", you probably don't mean that help literally arrived 11 hours after the problem began or at eleven o'clock. <S> Rather, "the eleventh hour" is an idiom that means "at the last moment" or "just before it would have been too late". <S> So "You can't wear that dress until you lose 10 pounds" ... <S> What the speaker means is that you will not look good in that dress. <S> It's probably not that her friend literally could not manage to put the dress on or that some law or custom would prohibit her from wearing the dress. <S> As the stated issue is that she weighs too much, it's possible that she literally could not fit in the dress, but that's not really the point. <S> To "bare one's soul" is to tell someone else your most personal thoughts and secrets. <S> The soul is the real, inner you, the thoughts and feelings that make you who you are. <S> To "bare" something is to expose it. <S> "Bare metal" means metal that you can actually see, as opposed to it being covered by paint or some such. <S> If you say that someone has "bare legs", that means that he or she is not wearing pants or other clothes that cover their legs -- they're wearing shorts or a skirt. <S> So to "bare one's soul" is to make one's innermost thoughts and feelings visible, that is, to tell someone else what you're thinking. <S> Normally this is said in the context of revealing very personal information, like telling someone about problems in your marriage or that sort of thing. <S> We don't normally say that "he bared his soul and told all about how to repair diesel engines", not unless he's in a culture where repairing diesel engines is a deep dark secret known only to a privileged few. <A> you can’t wear that dress unless you lose ten pounds first <S> That's not exactly an established idiom – at least, not in the word-for-word sense. <S> However, at least in the US, it's not at all uncommon for women to specifically dress sizes when they are really talking about women's bodies . <S> For example, a recent health book is entitled Drop Two Sizes . <S> In another book entitled Women <S> Who Think Too Much, author Susan Nolen-Hoeksema encouraged women realistic personal goals: <S> Ease up on your goals <S> so they become more reasonable. <S> Try for a size 10 dress. <S> bare to each other the secrets of their souls <S> This simply means that the two people shared their innermost secrets. <S> Bare something to someone else means expose into the open so someone else can see (or know about) something. <S> When talking about secrets, it's a phrasing you might see in a romantic setting. <S> If I were writing a novel, I might say: That night, in the moonlight, Jill bared her innermost secrets to Jack. <S> However, I probably wouldn't say: <S> The next day, at the construction site, Jack bared his innermost secret to Ernie. <S> Instead, assuming these two fellows carry metal lunchboxes to work, and drink their coffee black, I might say: <S> The next day, at the construction site, Jack let Ernie in on a secret. <A> no, you can’t wear that dress unless you lose ten pounds first <S> This sentence means that the speaker is telling someone she is too fat to fit into a specific dress. <S> (Or she might fit into the dress, but it may look ridiculous.) <S> As for bare the secrets of their souls <S> To bare something is to uncover it, to show it. <S> Secrets of their souls are their deep personal secrets, that are normally hidden from other people (that is why we call them secrets...). <S> Baring <S> those secrets mean that you reveal them.
| An "idiom" is a phrase that means something more specific than the combination of the literal meanings of the individual words that make it up, or sometimes something totally different. "You can't wear it" here is an idiom for "you would not look good in it".
|
"Proposed her" vs. "proposed to her" I get confused sometimes because I read both phrases( proposed her or proposed to her ). So, please let me know, which one is correct? I proposed to her . vs. I proposed her . <Q> The verb propose means "suggesting something (generally a plan). <S> And, the most popular thing to propose to someone is marriage. <S> You can also say I proposed her <S> but then it can also introduce a case of 'offering her some designation'. <S> The President proposed her as head of the Civil Rights Commission <A> To propose to someone is idiomatic shorthand for proposing marriage to someone . <S> So if you say I proposed to her. <S> You have asked her to marry you. <S> Normally, you propose something to someone, or you propose something or someone for a function. <S> So it is also possibly to say I proposed her. <S> Let's say that the company you work for is looking for a person to lead a new team, and you think a specific woman would be a very good candidate for that. <S> You can propose her for the position. <S> If someone asks you later if you made any proposals, you can say "I proposed her". <A> I upvoted Maulik V's excellent answer. <S> Let me just add a technicality: In English, if a noun follows a verb, this usually means that it is the direct object of that verb, that is, the thing being acted on. <S> So if you "propose Mrs Smith", Mrs Smith is the object of the proposal, she is the thing being proposed. <S> For example, you may be suggesting that she is a good candidate for some job or task. <S> If something is not the thing being acted on, but is in some other way affected by the verb, it is an indirect object. <S> We normally put the word "to" or some other preposition in front of it. <S> So if you "propose to Mrs Smith", Mrs Smith is not the thing being proposed, she is the person that you are proposing to. <S> Not sure if that helps or just helps confuse you, but for what it's worth ...
| If you propose to a girl, you are actually asking to get married.
|
"compare with" or "compare to" Please check both sentences and let me know, which one is correct and why? She compares me with her boyfriend. She compares me to her boyfriend. <Q> Here are relevant quotes from three books, written in different times, from different points of view. <S> (All authors are American. <S> The term SAWE is used in one of the books.) <S> I present them here so that the OP and other readers can hear different opinions and decide for themselves what to believe. <S> Compare. <S> To compare to is to point out or imply resemblances, between objects regarded as essentially of different order; to compare with is mainly to point out differences, between objects regarded as essentially of the same order. <S> Thus life has been compared to a pilgrimage, to a drama, to a battle; Congress may be compared with the British Parliament. <S> Paris has been compared to ancient Athens; it may be compared with modern London. <S> – <S> The Elements of Style compare with; compare to. <S> The usual phrase is compare with , which means “to place side by side, noting differences and similarities between” <let us compare his goals with his actual accomplishments <S> >. <S> Compare to = <S> to observe or point only to likenesses between <the psychologist compared this action to Hinckley's assassination attempt <S> >. <S> – <S> The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style , Bryan A. Garner <S> compare to, compare with Use of either is SAWE 1 to mean either (a) "liken (something) to (something else) <S> " ( You can't compare a Volkswagen to a [or with ] Rolls-Royce ) or <S> (b) "observe similarities and differences between (something) and (something else)" ( Comparing a Volkswagen to [or with ] a Rolls-Royce, you notice a big difference in price). <S> Caution: <S> Many readers object to use of compare to to mean (b) and of compare with to mean (a). <S> – <S> Good Grammar Made Easy , Martin Steinmann and Michael Reller, p.79 1 Standard American Written English <A> Generally, this will go unnoticed by most. <S> However, if we see this microscopically, we can find the difference. <S> To compare with is generally to remark the differences between things/people regarded as same order. <S> It's up to her, how she's taking you and her boyfriend! <S> Imagine a case wherein she's comparing you with <S> her boyfriend that you equally run fast as him; <S> but if she's comparing to her boyfriend, you probably ran faster (positively comparing) or slower (negatively compared)! <A> I've upvoted @MaulikV's answer here, because although it's quite true that most people in most contexts wouldn't distinguish between compared to and compared with , I think these charts strongly suggest that historically there was indeed a tendency to use to in contexts emphasizing similarity , and with in contexts emphasizing difference . <S> I think we can be pretty sure <S> most contexts involving has been compared to/with will be calling attention to similarities , whereas contexts involving but compared to/with are almost certainly calling attention to differences . <S> But that's obviously a historical difference. <S> Clearly the modern trend is to use compare to in all contexts. <S> It may also be relevant that similarities to is more common than similarities with , but differences with beats out differences to.
| To compare to is to remark or entail similarity between things/people regarded as different order .
|
Do these various words for "writing something online" have any significant differences in meaning? On websites and webforums I often see sentences like: "I wrote a post/entry/passage/message for [website]" In the context, it means that they submitted a section of text to the website for publication. But what is the difference between them? Are they interchangeable? <Q> A post is something you put up for others to see. <S> The meaning does not imply that it is part of a larger context or a reply to anything. <S> As such, a "post" typically is the start of a conversation or a stand-alone article. <S> Often this is a blog post or something similar. <S> You can add an entry to an ongoing journal, for example. <S> The implication here is that what you've added is a single part of a larger collection. <S> A passage is a bit of prose, usually no more than a few paragraphs. <S> It is often the bit of text covering a single idea excerpted from a larger essay. <S> This word is most commonly used to describe text read or copied elsewhere rather than some original writing, as in "The teacher then read a passage from Don Quixote to illustrate his point. <S> " You rarely see this word used to describe something you'd post online. <S> A message is something sent to someone. <S> The word implies that it has an intended recipient. <S> In an online context, this is usually direct communication between two people, such as you'd see with SMS texting. <A> Ordered by how frequently these collocations are used: write a message <S> This is the most common use, probably because it also has the broadest application, since it doesn't specify the means by which or the purpose for which the message is communicated. <S> write an entry <S> Next in frequency of use is <S> "write an entry" . <S> In this case, we are saying something about the purpose of what we write. <S> An entry is meant to be part of a list, be it a diary, a dictionary, a weblog (blog)... <S> write a post <S> I believe the collocation "write a post" is a recent addition to the language <S> and it's only used for entries of a web site (often a blog) or a mailing list (I'm sure I'll be corrected in the comments if this is not the case). <S> write a passage <S> In this case "passage" is an extract from a larger text (a book, a poem, a song...). <S> We can "quote or recite a passage" , you can discuss the literary figures that a writer used to "write a passage" , or you can be asked to "write a passage on something" . <S> All these uses have in common that the text being written is considered to be incomplete or part of a larger text. <A> Being an SEO content writer for websites and blogs, I think I can answer this! <S> There's some difference between them <S> I write <S> a post - a post is a general term used for anything today. <S> A blog, article, webpage, review or the like. <S> Though, typically, a post is a blog. <S> In fact, many times, it's refer to as a 'blog post' <S> If you write a post on the website, it generally refers to as an article. <S> If you have a wordpress setup for a website, (we have this) 'post' can also mean a webpage! <S> I'll write an entry - it has several meanings right from something written for a record to manuscript and the like. <S> I'll write a passage - you'll write some section especially of a medium length (around 250-350 words?) <S> I'll write a message - <S> a message is a message and it could be a reply/respond (to a comment?), a promotional offer through a catchy message/tagline or things the like.
| If you have a wordpress set up for a blog, you'll write a 'post' which means it's a blog. An entry is something you add to some larger context.
|
What does a little walking around money mean? The following dialog is selected from The Italian Job: Where'd you say you got these? I didn't. A little walking around money . I guess I'm not walking as far as I thought. I was wondering what the bolded phrase means. I might think it doesn't imply street money or pocket money here. Sort of black money or what, in this context. <Q> Here is what happened in the scene. <S> To keep things simple, I will describe the scene in present tenses. <S> In the story, Steve is selling his gold to Yevhen (the first guy), who is a gangster. <S> (If I recall correctly, his gold is in the form of gold bars stolen from another gang which in turn stole the gold from the original owner.) <S> Yevhen gets the gold and puts it in a safe place. <S> Before giving money to Steve, Yevhen gets curious about the gold and asks Steve, <S> Yevhen: <S> Where'd you say you got these? <S> Steve: <S> I didn't. <S> (Yevhen brings out a box. <S> There is lots of money inside the box.) <S> Yevhen: <S> A little walking around money. <S> (Yevhen hands the box over to Steve. <S> Steve gets the box, opens it, and looks inside the box.) <S> Steve (looking upset): <S> I guess I'm not walking as far as I thought. <S> So in this movie script, walking around money simply means pocket money . <S> It's a deliberate play on words (which is something usual in movie scripts). <S> Yevhen could say, "Here is your money," but that isn't what a gangster would say. <S> Also (in my opinion), "walking around money" was used deliberately, so that Steve could say the punchline <S> "I guess I'm not walking as far as I thought," which is a pun on the idiom "walking around money". <S> He was complaining that the amount of money in the box was less than what he wanted. <A> I am expanding on TylerJamesYoung's comment, I myself did not know what " walking around money" meant. <S> But once I visited the link provided by Tyler I think I get the perspective of the conversation in question. <S> Lets assume this conversation happening in a hypothetical situation where someone gets caught up with by a policeman. <S> policeman : <S> Where did you say you got these? <S> (referring to the cash the person has on him) <S> person <S> : I didn't person : A little walking around money (he says that the cash is supposed to be a little pocket money) <S> person : I guess I am not walking as far as I thought (He acknowledges the fact that he might have to hand over the money to the officer, and jokes/plays with the meaning of the word " walking" and says that he thought he would be taking the money with him further than the current distance) <S> In this scenario, the money could be black / illegal money or the policeman could be corrupt trying to get the money by force or misuse of authority and the money could actually be pocket money and legit. <S> But I guess you get the drift, the meaning of the phrase is just as Tyler pointed out to be - " pocket money " but <S> the context of usage depends on the preceding conversation details. <A> walk·ing-a·round mon·ey noun 1. <S> money that is carried on the person for routine expenses and minor emergencies; pocket money. <S> Source: <S> Dictionary.com – definition of “walking around money” <S> (If you get thirsty, you at least have enough money buy a drink, for example.) <S> Another phrase with a similar meaning is pin money . <S> From NOAD: pin money noun 1. <S> a small sum of money for spending on inessentials.
| The idea is that it's enough money to take care of minor needs during a routine footwalk.
|
Point it or Point it out We need to rectify the errors before anybody point it . We need to rectify the errors before anybody point it out . In the above sentence, which is the better phrase to use: 'point it' or 'point it out'? <Q> 'We need to rectify the errors before anybody points them out.' <A> To point something means to aim, like to point a weapon. <A> It should be... <S> We need to rectify the errors before anybody pointS them out (I guess it takes s and the errors are plural so them ) . <S> That's because point (something) out is a phrasal verb meaning drawing someone's attention toward. <S> Here, it's errors . <S> Swan's book on English says that avoid adverbial particles if they are not needed <S> (You'll have to fill this form <S> OVER <S> You'll have to fill this form out) . <S> But then, here if we leave out the out from point out , it does not make any sense. <S> We need to rectify the errors before anybody points (it). <A> <A> In American English, referring to a website, I would say one of the following. <S> I roughly ordered them in terms of the real issue that we would have to deal with rather than the fact that people will "point them out". <S> We need to fix the errors before it causes problems. <S> We need to fix the errors before people start complaining. <S> We need to fix the errors before people start submitting problem tickets. <S> We need to fix the errors before someone notices them. <S> We need to fix the errors before [someone | somebody | anyone | anybody] points them out. <S> Note <S> : Points them out / Points it out are idiomatic phrases.
| To point out means to put in evidence. The best way to say this would be: "We need to rectify the errors before anybody notices them."
|
What's the meaning of "call out"? This is a comment made by an internet poster: He did take the blame for losing his job, yet you feel the need to call him out for blaming others and not taking personal responsibility. What does call out mean in his comment? I have looked it up in several dictionaries, but couldn't find this phrase listed in them. Edit: This is actually a comment made by the poster johnnymorales_ in response to the remark made by the poster tinwoman on this article. The comment section is all the way at the bottom. I excluded the article because I thought it would be too long to read. <Q> OP's context is an example of OED's definition #3 for the phrasal verb to call out (first recorded 1823)... <S> To challenge to fight (esp. <S> a duel). <S> It's effectively a figurative extension of usages such as... <S> "Come outside and say that!" <S> (repeat your insult, and we will fight where it is more convenient) ... <S> but the modern usage doesn't directly refer to fighting with duelling swords or fists. <S> The metaphoric "weapons" which will be used in the "contest" are justifications <S> ( facts and logical arguments ). <S> By implication, the person issuing the challenge expects to win, because he doesn't think the other person actually has valid justification for whatever he said, implied, or did. <S> It's important to note that you can just as easily be "called out" over disapproved-of action (or inaction ) as a disputed statement ... <S> "If your husband never helps with the housework, you should call him out about it." <S> That's to say, to call [someone] out over/ <S> about X means to demand that they justify X . <A> More often than not, TO CALL SOMEONE OUT <S> ON SOMETHING is used in the context of: A-pointing out someone’s dishonesty and lies; B-telling someone what you’ve been meaning to tell them for a long time (in which case there’s a certain degree of challenge involved); C-bringing some unspoken truth to the attention of a wider audience (and CALLING OUT those who’ve been guilty of concealing the truth). <S> I think the explanation "B" is relevant to this context. <A> Along with all the other answers, the term can be used in a little less confrontational manner, too. <S> It's a little stronger than "point out", however, because there's a sense in the term of pointing out a mistake that needs to be corrected. <S> For example, you might call someone out for wearing green socks with a tuxedo, or for saying that the default value for the CursorLocation property in an ADO Recordset is adUseClient (which it isn't). <S> There isn't necessarily a demand that they justify their position; they can simply say that they stand corrected and move on. <S> On the other hand, there is the understanding <S> if you call someone out that you are quite capable of justifying your position, should the callee require it of you. <S> In the particular sentence, the speaker is actually "calling out" the person he is talking to. <S> He's saying that someone took responsibility for losing his job, and that the listener is accusing him of not having done so. <S> So, he's confronting the listener with an error on the listener's part.
| It can simply mean that you are making a person aware of some sort of error that he's not aware of.
|
Why "original painting" and not "genuine painting"? "This is a copy; the original painting is in the Louvre museum". Why can't we use the word "genuine" ( not a copy or a fake) , instead of "original?" <Q> Instead, it was probably a copy by hand or photographic reproduction intended to illustrate the work for audiences who could not travel to the Louvre. <S> So we refer to the "original" work of art. <A> This is a copy; the original Mona Lisa hangs in the Louvre. <S> The word genuine could work if we are talking about something that is not a forgery or a reproduction: <S> This is a genuine Manet painting. <S> means that Manet painted it <S> ; it's not some facsimile of a Manet work. <S> In some contexts, either word could be used: <S> His whole life, he saved money, hoping one day to buy a genuine Picasso. <S> His whole life, he saved money, hoping one day to buy an original Picasso. <S> Both of those refer to a work created by Picasso's hand, although the first carries a slight connotation of "as opposed to a replica." <A> In this case, "original" and "copy" are part of the jargon used. <S> The original is that which the copy is made from. <S> Compare with using a copying machine. <S> If you copy a document, the document being duplicated is referred to as "the original" and the duplicate is "the copy". <S> Even if "the original" may itself be a copy of the real, genuine document!
| 'Genuine' in this case (the world of fine art) would imply that the copy is a fake, a forgery, intended to deceive or defraud a buyer. The word original works better when there is only one work in question:
|
Meaning of "least reluctant" in this context Likewise, watching a group of people, one will quickly notice which individuals act with the greatest confidence, attract the most glances and nods of agreement, are least reluctant to break into the discussion, speak in a softer voice yet expect everybody to listen (and laugh at their jokes!), voice unilateral opinions, and so on. Source: Our Inner Ape by Frans B. M. Waal Does this sentence mean some people are unwilling to get into discussions or they are eager to break into them? <Q> Which do you want to say? <S> For the former, I would word it like this: Some people are a little reluctant to break into the discussion. <S> or, in a more extreme case: Some people are very reluctant to break into the discussion. <S> If the latter, I'd say: <S> Some people are not at all reluctant to break into the discussion. <S> The phrase "some are least reluctant " <S> sounds problematic to me. <S> Those seem to be two words that don't go together very well; I'd avoid that phrasing. <A> least adj- <S> the superlative of little' that can be used with mass nouns and is usually preceded by the'; a quantifier meaning smallest in amount or extent or degree; "didn't care the least bit"; "he has the least talent of anyone"Source: <S> Collins dictionary <S> Though the meaning is clear, I agree that "least" is not appropriate in the sentence. <S> It should be replaced by " at all" or " very little". <A> Taken literally and without trying to second guess intended meaning, which is difficult without more context, then ... are least reluctant to break into the discussion ... <S> is synonymous with <S> ... are most comfortable with breaking into the discussion ... <A> SUPPLEMENTAL: <S> All of the answers are good. <S> This is just by way of a heads-up, to emphasize the need for context. <S> What gave everyone difficulties is the <S> some which you introduced into the sentence. <S> Some are least ADJECTIVE <S> does not work well in English. <S> Some is an in definite adjective or adverb: it does not identify specific individuals. <S> But least and, usually, most are ordinarily only applied to definite entities, the specific individuals of a group who lie at one or the other extreme of the scale. <S> (This is why in most cases least and the least are interchangeable.) <S> Your source did not employ <S> some but which —a definite pronoun or determiner. <S> There are exceptions. <S> If ADJECTIVE and its complements in effect ‘partition’ the group modified by ADJECTIVE , it may be appropriate to use <S> some to designate one or another part. <S> For instance, this would work: <S> Some individuals are least reluctant to break into the discussion, while others are least reluctant to initiate a new discussion. <S> And most , unlike least, can also be employed as a non-superlative adverb meaning essentially very ; when this is the case there is no obstacle to using some : <S> Some were present only to hear the panelists' views and were most reluctant to break into the discussion. <S> This use is mostly literary; you are unlikely to hear it in conversation. <A> Consider the situation where everyone in the room is a reluctant participant in the corporate ice-breaker role play... but some are more reluctant than others, and some are less reluctant than others. <S> Amongst the group is an individual who is the least reluctant of them all, or perhaps there are several who are equally 'least reluctant'. <S> They would rather not do it, as connoted by 'reluctant', but if everyone has to do it then these least reluctant few will go first. <S> The sentence does not mean they are reluctant or eager, and is a poor use of language because it omits the situation and inclination of the many between the extremes of 'I'm never gonna do that,' and "I love these things."
| It means that some individuals are very little reluctant to break into the discussion.
|
If 'get ready' is not proper here, what should it be? In Indian dialect, the commonest phrase you find among us is get ready when we have plan to go out. It does not matter whether we are going to party, movie, outside eating or whatever... if we are going out of the home, we use this phrase to tell a person that they should get ready by... putting up good attire wear some accessories do some makeup to look good whatever it takes to go out comfortably get ready , in Indian English will include everything that I mentioned and if you tell this phrase to any Indian while going out , he or she will understand that. Since I'm keen to learn neutral English I found that get ready is not exactly what we understand. Also, natives tell this way - get ready for the [reason -say party] which makes better sense but then that's not the case. It's just outing and get ready for outing will mean something else and not putting up dress and ..till 4th point. Is there any term/phrase that will convey this message. I don't want to use get ready for this after learning the meaning of get ready from here , here , and here . What natives practice makes utter sense get ready for ... but then in my case as I described, it won't make much sense (get ready for restaurant! get ready for the beach!..and so on...) Again, to clarify, we use get ready in this way... "Okay, I'm bored; and we are going out. I don't know where but somewhere to unwind. (After 30 minutes; to my wife) "Ah, what are you doing? get ready...fast." - And, she would understand all those 4 points up there! <Q> Even though we sometimes qualify the phrase by saying: Get ready for [ some event ], that "for" clause can be omitted when the listener already knows where we are going. <S> In other words, although get ready can mean different things in different contexts, I can still usually say: C'mon! <S> We're leaving! <S> You need to get ready! <S> and that will be understood to mean: put your shoes on, brush your teeth, comb your hair and look presentable, etc . <S> The precise meaning get ready will vary, depending on where we are going. <S> So long as the hearer knows where we are going, I don't need to add the, say, for your piano practice. <S> For example, I have teenagers at home, so, for me, it works very much like this: 10 or 15 years ago, though, whenever I said, "Let's get ready" to my wife, that always included "Make sure we have the diaper bag!" <S> You needn't worry about <S> get ready being misconstrued to mean "brace yourself for some bad news" or "get into your starting blocks. <S> " Those are very specialized meanings that people wouldn't even think about, unless they were in a situation where that would be the meaning that makes the most sense. <S> For example, if you wanted your picture taken, and I was holding your camera, I might say, "Get ready..." – which doesn't mean, "go put on your shoes," or, "brace yourself for some bad news. <S> " It simply means, "Get ready, I'm going to snap the picture now" – so you should probably just give me your best smile. <A> I would understand get ready exactly how you describe it originally, and so would my wife. <S> Neither of us are native speakers but we consider ourselves near-native. <S> I'm not really sure what you see as another meaning of get ready being expressed. <S> In the situation that we are about to go out (just go down-town, with no specific plans), the following conversation would be just fine: <S> We said we were going out. <S> Will you get ready? <S> Ok, I'll put on my dress. <S> after 30 minutes Are you ready yet? <S> I can't find my earrings! <S> They are next to your bed! <S> another 30 minutes later Are you ready? <S> I'm putting on my make-up! <S> Get ready! <S> another 30 minutes later <S> Are we ready then? <S> Wait, I'm looking for my bag and my glasses! <S> sigh <A> I would simply say it means "prepare yourself as needed." <S> In addition to what else has been posted, you may here "Get ready to party!" <S> So, in that case the only preparation you need is to get excited for whatever is about to happen. <S> This is different from "getting ready for a/the party," during which time you do what you listed in the question. <S> If someone says they are "getting ready for Christmas," it can mean anything from simply being in the mood for it to actually doing the decorating, cooking, shopping, and all the rest. <S> As long as the preparer knows for what they preparing, then they ought to know how to prepare. <S> If you don't know how to "get ready" <S> you can check what other people are doing to prepare.
| I'm a native speaker, and we use "get ready" in exactly the way you describe.
|
The confusion about the word 'accommodation' First, the word accommodation is a mass noun: accommodation (mass noun) - A room, group of rooms, or building in which someone may live or stay This is chiefly in BrE. I got it. Next to this on that page we find is... accommodations (chiefly North American) -Lodgings, sometimes also including board. Now, how do British refer to more than one accommodation? The reverse, how do Americans refer to a single accommodation? In India, Do they provide an accommodation? is spoken thousands of times a day. Please confirm that it is utterly incorrect. Here is a piece from Swan's Practical English. PS: This confuses me further! "They sat there for a week, waiting for an accommodation which turned out to be..." - CNN What is it finally? A countable noun, non countable noun, mass noun? <Q> The opposite of a discommodation, which is a much more rarely used word. <S> So when used in the sense of a place to stay, accommodation is provided to someone to make them comfortable when away from home. <S> A hotel or a friend will accommodate the traveller. <S> A hotel can be referred to as providing accommodation in general terms or an accommodation of an individual or group. <S> The word is not normally used to refer to a person's own house. <S> Although it is used when someone lives in a house for a finite time. <S> For example, if someone spends a period of months working away from home then they may live for a while in accommodation. <S> Without a bit more context, I assume your CNN reference relates to a political accommodation of some event or state of affairs. <S> It implies that there is accession to the demands of another - by accommodating demands, he is made comfortable or happy. <A> In BrE accomodation is used as an uncountable noun. <S> You can say - A hotel offers food and accomodation. <S> You can't say *an accomodation or *accomodations. <S> It is really not easy to explain such particularities of nouns. <S> And in English uncountable nouns have no clear markers that would allow to see that a noun is uncountable. <S> It is a thing of convention. <S> Actually the noun accomodation is seen as a kind of act: the offering of lodging. <S> It is not something understood as something concrete like a house or a flat or a room. <S> And as "accomodation" is seen as a kind of act offered to someone there is no use with the indefinite article or a plural. <S> The noun is handled as nouns for substances like water, sugar etc. <S> The funny thing is that other variants of English, NAmE or IndianE understand accomodation not as an act of offering something,but as something concrete like a flat or simply a room. <S> And in these variants of English accomodation is treated as a countable noun. <S> So one can say countability or uncountability of a noun depends sometimes on the concept the users have of this noun. <A> In India, Do they provide an accommodation? <S> is spoken thousands of times a day. <S> Please confirm that it is utterly incorrect. <S> Why would it have to be incorrect? <S> If Americans use accommodations for the British uncountable accommodation , why would Indian an accommodation have to be considered wrong ? <S> Yes, indeed, an accommodation in AmE might be construed as meaning something else, but so might "do you have a rubber" when spoken by a Brit be misunderstood by an American. <S> That doesn't make it wrong . <S> I would think that when speaking to an Indian who say they will provide an accommodation, context should be clear enough to ensure they mean a place to stay, and not a political entendre. <S> It is, I think, a misconception that since Indian English originated from British English, it still follows, or should follow, British English. <S> American English originated from British English as well. <S> Just be aware of the audience you speak to or write for, but that is always the case. <S> There are plenty of potential misunderstandings when you speak to a speaker of AmE, BrE or InE, but that doesn't make the wording you chose wrong English, although it may be a poor choice of English in the situation.
| In British English, an accommodation is a state of affairs wherein someone is made comfortable.
|
"Translation to" or "Translation into"? Translation from Mongolian ... English In official translation, should I use "To" or "Into" <Q> ... translated from Mongolian to English ... <S> translated from mongolian into English <S> I think each sounds fine. <A> Both are correct. <S> On Usage and Style Disclaimer: OPINION <S> The document was translated from Mongolian ??? <S> English. <S> Removing from Mongolian leaving only: The document was translated ??? <S> English. <S> " <S> Into" sounds more appropriate. Removing everything else except for the languages: <S> Mongolian ??? <S> English <S> "To" retains the simplicity. <S> It's also used by a lot of online translators and dictionary titles. <S> Also, a simple hyphen "-" would suffice. <A> Translation from Mongolian into English <S> It uses the format of... translation from something into something <S> It gives an example - He specializes in translation from Danish into English.
| "To" fits well here because of the from...to construction.
|
Word or phrase to describe the process to arrange some disorganized information so as to get a more thorough understanding? Think about these cases: 1) A detective have found out a bunch of clues in the last three months. Now, he needs to spend two or three days to arrange/ summarize / absorb these clues to draw a conclusion. 2) A student spent a whole day in the school. That night at home he decided to arrange / summarize / absorb / digest what he learned that day. What's the best word (or phrase) to describe the process to arrange some disorganized information to get a more thorough and deeper understanding? <Q> Your "arrange" and "summarize" have different meanings from "absorb" and "digest". <S> As Damkerng has said, "organize" is a good word for "arrange some messed [up] information". <S> (In fact, "disorganized" is a better word for "messed up".) <S> To "get a more thorough knowledge" of something, you can "absorb", "digest", or "assimilate" it. <S> That said, here's what I would write: <S> A detective has discovered a bunch of clues over the past three months. <S> Now, he needs to spend two or three days organizing and absorbing (or "take two or three days to organize and absorb") them. <S> (Why we use the present participle with "spend" and the infinitive with "take" isn't clear to me. <S> It's one of those things that you just have to learn, as far as I can see. <S> Perhaps someone else can shed light on that.) <S> A student spent a whole day in the school. <S> That night at home he decided to organize and absorb what he learned that day. <A> 1 Devote time and attention to gaining knowledge of (an academic subject), especially by means of books" "1.1 Investigate and analyse (a subject or situation) in detail" <S> The sentences in your question could be phrased using the verb study as: <S> A detective have found out a bunch of clues in the last three months. <S> Now, he needs to spend two or three days studying these clues to draw a conclusion. <S> A student spent a whole day in the school. <S> That night at home he decided to study what he learned that day. <A> In your first example all words are appropriate to be used. <S> I’d add to reason/deduce. <S> In your second example also all words are fine. <A> I think the close word to this is gist . <S> Though it is not a process <S> but it'll fulfill the purpose. <S> gist - the main or general meaning of a piece of writing, a speech or a conversation. <S> So, in your sentences... <S> A detective found out a bunch of clues in the last three months, now he needs to spend two/three days to get the gist of it. <S> A student took a whole day in the school, that night at home, he decided to get gist of what all he learned that day. <S> However, others may come up with other words.
| Here's a simple suggestion that I think combines the meanings of all your options (arrange, summarise and absorb): study (verb) "
|
Can an adverb follow "to be"? Consider these examples: They are everywhere. There is food everywhere. I used sentences like these a lot but lately I realize that everywhere is an adverb. What about those grammar rules that say "using adjective with linking verb" ? <Q> Some “adverbials” can act as adjectives. <S> Locatives in particular—expressions which designate a location in time or space—can modify a nominal as well as an “action”, and thus may be properly employed as the complement of a linking verb: <S> Elizabeth is on the left . <S> We are ahead of schedule . <S> The keys could be anywhere . <S> Traditional grammarians sometimes try to get around this awkward fact by claiming that these “adverbials” modify the linking verb; but this is clearly wrong, since a) <S> this leaves the verb without a complement, and b) <S> the same constituents can be employed in contexts where they clearly modify nominals: <S> The ball on the left is bigger than the ball on the right . <S> We’d be grateful if anybody ahead of schedule on their own project could lend a hand getting ours out the door. <S> Anybody anywhere can do this. <A> An adverb modifies a verb or an adjective. <S> You are correct that in sentences with a linking verb, the predicate modifier is usually an adjective. <S> That is because the modifier is refering to the subject, which is a noun or pronoun. <S> However, in a few senteces using verb that may be considered linking , the predicate modifier is actually modifying the verb. <S> In the exaples you give, everywhere modifies is and are . <S> They are [they exist]. <S> Where are they [where do they exist]? <S> Everywhere. <A> The rule "After to be follows an adjective" is simply formulated wrong. <S> What is he? <S> -- He is a doctor. <S> - to be + a noun <S> Where is he? -- <S> He is in London/in hospital/at home/at work/ here - to be + where-indications (adverbials or adverbs) <S> He is new/old - to be +adjective <S> You have to reformulate your rule: one of the sentence types with to be is to be + adjective. <S> But there are also sentence types such as to be + noun or + adverbials/adverbs. <S> When you ask when was it <S> the answers can be <S> - That was after the war/ in1963/ <S> on last Monday/recently/yesterday. <S> Here you have when-indications after to be, and no adjectives. <A> If you clarify the question, it'll be better. <S> What you want to know? <S> If you firmly believe that an adverb should not be used after a linking verb, I'm afraid, this is incorrect. <S> I'm not aware of the rule that denies a linking verb not taking an adverb after it. <S> The simplest example is... <S> She is here! <S> Here, is is a linking verb and here <S> is an adjective. <S> It's simple and clear. <S> Yes, we have rules for adverbial positioning <S> and I think it'll be helpful. <S> The adverbs of manner (how), place (where -this is your case), and time (when) generally go in end position. <S> There is food everywhere (-place). <S> ; She brushed her hair slowly (-manner) . <S> Another thing, Swan's book describes that in such cases, here <S> and there <S> begins the sentences. <S> So again, Everywhere there's food <S> There's food everywhere. <A> It rocks! <S> When we generally go by rules, we have to accept some exceptions to them. <S> Using adverbial complements for linking verbs is yet another example for this exception. <S> Normally it goes by written rules. <S> But, when we ask question like 'where?', we have no other option than giving an adverb as answer. <S> For example, if anyone asks, 'Where is she?', you cannot answer, 'She is pretty ' or 'She is a student '. <S> Here, you have to tell where she is. <S> To express her location, you have to use an adverb or adverbials (as we all know, adverbs only can be the answer for such questions). <S> Hence, the answer could be 'She is in New Delhi ' or 'She is on the upstairs ' or <S> ' She is in the next room ' and so on. <S> I hope it's clear.
| If you read texts carefully you will see that the rule "After to be follows an adjectve" is simply wrong.
|
Difference between "supple" and "flexible" What is the difference of the words "supple" and "flexible" and specially where are they preferred to the other? <Q> When I looked up supple in NOAD, it said, "See note at flexible ." <S> Here is that note: THE RIGHT WORD If you can bend over and touch your toes, you are flexible . <S> But a dancer or gymnast is limber , an adjective that specifically applies to a body that has been brought into condition through training (: to stay limber, she did yoga every day). <S> Flexible applies to whatever can be bent without breaking, whether or not it returns to its original shape (: a flexible plastic hose; a flexible electrical conduit); it does not necessarily refer, as limber does, to the human body. <S> Unlike flexible , resilient implies the ability to spring back into shape after being bent or compressed, or to recover one's health or spirits quickly (: so young and resilient that she was back at work in a week). <S> Elastic is usually applied to substances or materials that are easy to stretch or expand and that quickly recover their shape or size (: pants with an elastic waist), while supple is applied to whatever is easily bent, twisted, or folded without breaking or cracking (: a soft, supple leather). <S> When applied to the human body, supple suggests the ability to move effortlessly. <S> Pliant and pliable may be used to describe either people or things that are easily bent or manipulated. <S> Pliant suggests a tendency to bend without force or pressure from the outside, <S> while pliable suggests the use of force or submission to another's will. <S> A pliant person is merely adaptable, but a pliable person is easy to influence and eager to please. <S> There may be some exceptions, but, as a general rule, supple applies more to skin, fabrics, and materials. <S> In other words, a flexible hose would be easy to bend or coil , while a supple hose would be easy to pinch or crimp . <A> my mind is becoming more supple. <S> See note at flexible . <S> • not stiff or hard <S> ; easily manipulated : this body oil leaves your skin feeling deliciously supple. <S> flexible |ˈfleksəbəl| adjective capable of bending easily without breaking : flexible rubber seals. <S> • able to be easily modified to respond to altered circumstances or conditions : flexible forms of retirement. <S> • (of a person) ready and able to change so as to adapt to different circumstances : you can save money if you're flexible about where your room is located. <S> Basically, when referring to movement, if something is 'supple' it means it moves easily, and is thus flexible. <A> Using the example of a branch and a arm. <S> A branch would be flexible because you can bend it before it breaks, but it is not supple because when you touch it the surface is rough and coarse. <S> An arm would be flexible because you can bend it before it breaks and it is supple, because when you touch the skin, it's soft and smooth and flexible.
| supple |ˈsəpəl| adjective ( -pler, -plest) bending and moving easily and gracefully; flexible : her supple fingers | figurative
|
How do we respectfully address kids whose names we don't know? When it's about adults, we have plenty of choices... Mr., Ms., Mrs., or even Sir and Madam. But then what about kids? Kids aging 7 to 12 (approx). What about in our practice, a day-to-day practice? Hey kid,... does not sound 'respected.' Excuse me works but that's a witty escape. I want a prefix for kids which addresses them respectfully. I want answer for both - a girl and a boy. I remember little boys being called 'Master' but then what about little girls? Miss only? So, a kid to an adolescent to a woman (unmarried) she's Miss but a boy is Master to Mister.? <Q> You are correct. <S> Back in the day, "Master" was a common title for a young boy to whom one was showing respect. <S> The corresponding title for young girls was / is "Miss". <S> Now days, "Young Man" and "Young Lady" are usually terms that I use whenever I want to address kids with any amount of respect. <S> While these terms generally do a lot for the kids in terms of feeling like fancy adults, there really isn't a way to show a great deal of respect to children. <S> However, if you are interested in doing your best, I believe the above options are the way to go. <A> (e.g.) <S> Mr. Potter, or Mrs. Potter. <S> You will never call someone: Hello, Mister!, without his last name. <S> If you don’t know his name or don’t want to use it, then you can use “Sir” <S> In case of a lady you will say: “young lady!” <S> or “madam” or shorter “ma’am”. <S> In case of a boy you will use “young man”. <A> Mr. Is the answer is suppose as that is what you call men. . <S> In certificates for competition i have won, they used Mr. To my namemail <S> so I think that is the same for men and male kids
| When using Mr., Ms., and Mrs., these should be accompanied by his/her name.
|
"As far as I can say", "as far as I know", "as far as I can tell" As far as I am concerned. As far as the economic problems here are concerned. AndAs far as I know. My perception: All these are incorrect. Because we just use " As far as I am concerned" to mean " In my opinion" . Therefore it does not actually make sense saying: " in the economic problems's opinion." " I can say my opinion" " I know my opinion" and so forth. <Q> I think you are mistakenly generalizing on a single instance. <S> Examine the actual construction of the expression as far as X is concerned <S> : as far as means to the extent or degree that X is concerned means X is involved or relevant Consequently, <S> as far as I am concerned only has the effect of saying in my opinion when it is used to introduce an opinion . <S> As far as I am concerned, Bob’s a jerk. <S> — This means <S> “My concern in this matter does not go beyond recognizing that Bob’s a jerk; I am not interested in any subtler analysis of his behavior.” <S> But in other contexts as far as X is concerned takes on quite different meanings: <S> As far as the economic problems here are concerned ... <S> — This means <S> “To the extent that our discourse involves the economic problems here <S> [I have this to say] ...” <S> Similarly, as far as I know means to the extent that my knowledge reaches —that is, “I do not claim to know everything about this topic, but what I do know is this ...” <A> Depending on the context there are different words to replace the phrase “as far as”. <S> In your first example you can replace it with “regarding” or “concerning” or with another phrase “with regard to” or “with reference to”. <S> In your second example you can replace it with: “to my knowledge” or “to the best of my knowledge”. <A> As far as shows up to the extent here in all. <S> They all are possible. <S> It's not necessary that you can always replace with my opinion <S> and if you do, the context may change. <S> Let me try one of the examples here... <S> " <S> He has an affair with her. <S> Do you know that?" <S> "As far as I know, he hasn't" - this binds your limitations of knowledge or information. <S> Now read this - <S> "He has an affair with her. <S> Do you know that?" <S> "In my opinion, he hasn't - that's much of your opinion not necessarily dependent on news or information <S> you get from your friends. <S> When we say as far as , we generally bind ourselves with some limitations. <S> Further examples will make it clear - <S> My remembrance says that you never kept the keys in the drawer - you are quite sure about it <S> As far as my remembrance goes, you never kept the keys in the drawer - means almost same but here, you are limiting your remembrance a bit .
| As far as I am concerned may be used in contexts where it has approximately the same effect as saying in my opinion ; but it does not mean in my opinion .
|
What does "it makes too much sense" mean? There's two possible and opposite ways to complete the popular expression "it makes too much sense" and thus give meaning to it: It makes too much sense to be true, it must be false It makes too much sense to be false, it must be true Which one is it? <Q> I usually think of this as meaning "It must be false", in an extremely sarcastic way. <S> For example, if a political policy that seems sensible gets enacted into law, someone with a low opinion of their officials might say "There's no way our government made that policy. <S> It makes too much sense." <S> Some people might say "It makes too much sense, it must be true", but I don't really think of that as an idiom; it means just what it says. <A> It's irony or sarcasm. <S> It takes the idea that the world/public/etc doesn't do things that are logical/right/good. <S> So, a logical decision based on facts is met with this sarcastic phrase. <S> "That makes too much sense..." <A> Whenever 'too' is used in the sense of 'too much', it normally means 'too good to be true'. <S> So, when you say, 'this makes too much sense', I assume you mean, 'it must be false'. <A> too much means more than required. <S> You don't need that much of the thing. <S> too much - more than necessary. <S> So, Do you call this whole-milk tea? <S> It's too much of water in this, (and) there must be little milk. <S> Now, it makes it clearer. <S> I doubt, it's false. <S> And vice versa...
| It makes too much sense to be true , it must be false - It gives sense that this as the truth is more than necessary, I smell a rat here...
|
When would you rather use one over the other? Thank you so much all for supporting and wrote back to my previous question? They are 15-year-old girls They are 15-year-olds <Q> Use They are 15-year-olds if it is a group of mixed gender, or if the gender is not relevant to what you are trying to communicate. <S> Use <S> They are 15-year-old girls if it is important that you communicate that the gender of the group is entirely female. <A> They are synonymous in meaning. <S> 15-year-old girls brings emphasis to the fact that they are girls , while 15-year-olds is more ambiguous. <S> Apart from where the emphasis lies, you could pick and choose which you employ. <A> On the other hand, it'll be <S> They are 15-year-old girls if you take it as a separate qualifier. <S> A common rule applies that when it is a counted thing serving as an adjective, the count's object is singular. <S> A 10-hour game , " <S> A 6-foot tall" and so on. <S> Similarly, when it is not that case, the pluralization happens this way -"those 22-year-old" and so on.
| If you are using the group of girls as a compound adjective or noun it takes "They are 15-year-olds".
|
Would you please explain SEEM+HAVE+P.P.? ...But since she went to university we seem to have drifted apart. Would anybody please kindly explain the following? Seem "to have drifted" apart. <Q> The construction SUBJECT SEEM to VERB <S> may be paraphrased <S> “It seems that SUBJECT VERB (s).” <S> Seem is employed to acknowledge that the way in which the action is described may not be completely accurate. <S> ( Appear may be used in exactly the same way as seem , with the same meaning.) <S> And using the infinitive perfect construction marks the present 'seeming' <S> as the outcome of a past event. <S> So in your example, we seem to have drifted apart <S> may be paraphrased “It seems (now) that we drifted apart (then).” <S> Drift , as Josh61 says, means to be carried along by natural currents, so that we drifted apart means that we separated without making any effort either to do so or to prevent it from happening. <S> That’s what the speaker thinks happened; <S> but she admits that she may be wrong. <A> I think to have drifted apart simply means the person who's speaking that <S> and she who went to university got separated . <S> The closeness was gone. <S> It's a phrasal verb drifted apart - to become less friendly or close to someone <S> However, the sentence could be bettered in grammar. <A> It is an intresting expression which refers to the verb to drift: . <S> To be carried along by currents of air or water: apart reinforces the meaning.
| It conveys the idea of involuntary and undesired separation, in your case, due to different roads that have been taken because of university.
|
A negative idea following "unless" Is it acceptable to use a negation after "unless"? I know it's far from standard. You don't love people. But you will succeed unless you don't like people. <Q> There isn't any reason not to use a negative after unless . <S> I can give examples unless you'd rather not hear them. <S> :) <S> "We could go out for pizza, unless you don't want pizza?" <S> "You might try using cilantro, unless you don't have any. <S> Then you might try parsley." <S> As a matter of fact, I don't see anything wrong with the example in the OP. <A> I'm afraid it won't be a preferred version. <S> It's not that natural as compared to... <S> You'll not succeed unless you love people <S> Note <S> : I've not factually examined this sentence! <S> Most grammar books says avoiding two negatives to make things positive. <S> Prefer <S> It's common over <S> It's not uncommon. <A> I think Unless you play badly, you will win the game <S> Is the same as If you play well, you will win the game. <A> Unless - except under the circumstances that Ex: <S> Exceptional talent does not always win its reward unless favored by exceptional circumstances. <S> From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language <S> Unless implies a negative impression. <S> It means "if not the case that..." <S> It's the case of two negatives makes positive in a sentence. <S> And in standard English we generally avoid these kind of construction. <S> Though they are not uncommon, especially in some circumstances it does make more sense.
| If the clause after " unless " is negative, the negative of the clause and the implied negative of " unless " makes the total positive.
|
Why do my "How to" questions often get renamed to "How do I"? On the other hand the edit that fix mistype in "How to" got though community approval. What is the rule about "How to" and "How do I"? Why are some tutorials called "How to"s? <Q> When you are asking a question about how to do something, the preferred way to ask would be to use " <S> How do I..." <S> (or "How can I...", or "Where would I...") <S> : <S> How do I plant flowers in my garden? <S> How do I transpose flute music for clarinet? <S> How can I get my two-year-old to stop misbehaving? <S> Where can I get more information about asking questions in English? <S> If I am answering such questions in written form (say, on a blog, or in a book), a good way to summarize this information in a concise title is to use "How to..." (or "Where to..."): How to plant flowers in your garden <S> How to transpose flute music for clarinet <S> How to stop your two-year-old from misbehaving <S> Where to get more information about asking questions in English <S> Essentially, <S> How do's are questions, and <S> How to's are declarations. <S> In the title of a Stack Exchange question, either one can work. <S> How do I get a mailchimp list name and list i <S> d using php? <S> That works fine; you are essentially asking your question in the title of your question . <S> How to get a mailchimp list name and list i <S> d using php <S> That works fine, too. <S> You are essentially giving a title to what you hope will be a set of answers to your question. <A> How to do <S> X is not a question but an NP, a clause which behaves like a noun † . <S> It has no subject-auxiliary inversion I am asking you [how to do X]. <S> Notice the absence of a question mark. <S> How to do X works just fine as a title, however. <S> Tutorials are often called How-tos because they don't ask questions but answer them. <S> This module teaches you [how to do X]. <S> How do I do X? <S> is the corresponding question. <S> It is marked as a question by subject-auxiliary inversion, made possible with do-support <S> (the use of do to supply an auxiliary where one is needed). <S> This works just fine as a title, too. <S> (Practically anything works as a title.) <S> This matter has been often been treated here; <S> here is a very early question on the subject. <S> † <S> Technically, a free relative clause or fused-relative clause . <S> Some linguists go even farther and distinguish this as an embedded question or open interrogative when it plays the semantic role of a question. <A> In English, questions are indicated in various ways, including word order. <S> In these cases, the question would be formed by switching the order of the subject and the verb but since they lack an auxiliary verb, they require do -support . <S> " <S> How to..." is not a question, so if a question is written this way the easiest change (if there is no auxiliary verb) is to insert the necessary "do" and form the question in reference to the asker (referred to as "I"). <S> That said, it's not absolutely necessary that the title of a "question" post actually take the form of a question , so sometimes a description of the problem (or even its expected solution) is used. <S> Similarly, a tutorial can be referred to as a "how-to" because it is not asking a question but instead providing instructions on how to do something. <A> I notice that you have a number of questions on your network profile that are "How to" with a question mark. <S> e.g. <S> How it's better to invoke gdb from program to print its stacktrace? <S> How to use git diff --color-words outside a Git repository? <S> How to get parent PID of a given process in GNU/Linux from command line? <S> This is ungrammatical, because "How to" is not a question . <S> There are two ways of correcting this: either remove the question mark, or change it to " <S> How do I...?" <S> In other words, both How to use git diff --color-words outside a Git repository and How do I use git diff --color-words outside a Git repository? <S> are fine. <S> Your editors could have chosen either option but they happened to choose the latter. <S> Personally, I think "How do I...? <S> " sounds more appropriate for the title of a question . <S> So "How to" sounds more appropriate for the title of an answer to me. <S> (This is also why tutorials are called "How tos" - they are telling you how to do something.) <S> However, that's a personal preference, and as J.R. points out , you can use either - both would be grammatically correct. <A> People often use "How to" rather than " <S> How do I" in Stack Overflow or Stack Exchange questions, because the word "I" gets a scary warning about the question being subjective and may be closed. <S> https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/69769/38765 <S> (Note: I deliberately used bad English in the last paragraph of the question) As a side note, in general, please don't rely on Stack Overflow content as examples of high quality English! <A> A better title for this question would be: <S> When do I write "How to" instead of "How do I"? :D
| "How to" is a declaration and suggests that you are going to tell people how to do whatever it is.
|
A set-up which is intended to make fun of someone Please suggest a verb that depicts the following situations. For example your friend calls you and says he had an accident but when you run to his house you find out that he has lied and it was a set-up. What do we call my friend's act? <Q> As Homayoon has alluded to, the word can vary with the reason behind the act. <S> A prank or practical joke is for amusement <A> If it's for amusement purposes, it's a "prank" which is usually used as a noun but is occasionally used as a verb. <S> I've seen it used here and there, but a few online dictionaries I've checked do not mention prank as a verb meaning to perform a prank (a practical joke), except for Wiktionary which is less trustworthy but does provide an example from a New York Times article : <S> "If someone's pranking me," Rowlands remembered thinking, "they're going to great lengths to make it work." <A> You could also say: <S> Your friend deceived you. <S> if there was a non-humorous motive. <S> Or you could say: Your friend was pulling your leg . <S> if it was for fun. <A> There is shenanigan , which Wiktionary defines as: "A deceitful confidence trick, or mischief causing discomfort or annoyance" "Mischievous play, especially by children"
| A ruse is to disguise an ulterior motive.
|
No matter how - with a verb or without? Is it OK not to use a verb after "no matter" like in sentences 2 and 3? 1) No matter how hard your life is you need to go on. 2) No matter how hard your life you need to go on. 3) You need to go on no matter how hard your life 4) You need to go on no matter how hard your life is. I know that using "no matter" without a verb is possible, for example, No matter the outcome I will do it. No matter the weather we will go there. But it's not clear for me whether it's possible only in some set-phrases like "no matter weather" or it is possible also in sentences like sentences 2 and 3. <Q> There is nothing wrong with omitting the verb, generally speaking. <S> Here are some more examples. <S> The game takes place every year, no matter how bad the weather. <S> She would stay true to her convictions no matter how high the price. <S> (‘The Woman from Brazil’) <S> No matter how bad your situation, keep praising the Lord. <S> (Facebook) <S> No matter how bad your day, you'll feel better after this. <S> (caption for funny video) <S> Having the verb seems to make this structure easier to parse. <S> The last example occurs with a wide variety of verbs: <S> “No matter how bad your day is/was/gets/seems/is going...” <S> But if the writer feels the need for brevity, no verb is also an option. <S> An alternative construction that works in a similar way is “Whatever...” <S> Whatever the weather, we’ll be together. <S> (no verb) <S> Whatever it costs, we will send a man to Mars. <S> (verb) <S> Edit: <S> If “no matter how X” is followed by a pronoun instead of a noun, the verb cannot be omitted. <S> No matter how easy the task, he always gets it wrong. <S> He always gets the task wrong, no matter how easy it is. <S> * <S> No matter how easy it, he always gets the task wrong. <A> As everybody already said "no matter" is followed by a clause, and a clause should have a verb. <S> For example - No matter how deep it's buried , the past, back it comes, like ghosts, really. <S> No matter how sorry we may feel for ourselves at times , there are always people worse off than us. <S> A cat has no concept of its own death and so it cannot anticipate it, no matter how ill it feels. <S> Well, that is not the end. <S> There are other usage of "no matter how... <S> " that doesn't take a clause the way I have just shown. <S> For example - A society which does not use toothbrushes, for instance, will be an unlikely target market for the introduction of toothpaste, no matter how cheap . <S> There seems nothing at all strange about the Church, which paid the salaries of these men and expected them to serve it, considering the question of whether or not they should be able to engage in an activity which, no matter how acceptable , would have diverted them from their main task. <S> In these examples I read it this way "no matter", and then "how cheap" separately. <S> "No Matter" = <S> Regardless of, or irrespective of. <S> In cases of clause follows "no matter", I read "no matter" and the following clause separately. <A> Plus one should guess what verb you would have used to complete the sentence.
| You have to use the verb, the sentence is not complete without it.
|
Salary 'in hand' or 'on hand'? Quite confusing for me as I have read/heard both. Your salary in/on hand will be X amount. What it takes and why? To me, both seem correct. <Q> This expression seems to be an Indian English holdover of what is now a somewhat archaic British English expression. <S> To have something in hand means that it is in your immediate possession. <S> This is now somewhat archaic in American English and survives mostly in a few specific contexts: <S> He stood, gun in hand, and listened for the screams he knew would come. <S> The two of them walked down the pier hand in hand. <S> Three goals up with four minutes remaining, the red team had the game well in hand. <S> This seems to be the sense you say it's used in in India-- <S> at the end of the day, this is how much money you'll actually be given, once everything has been deducted. <S> I don't think this is the sense a native UK or American English speaker who was not familiar with the Indian expression would give it, but it is pretty close. <S> Hearing the phrase with no context, I would expect it to refer to money given up front, excluding some specific money to be paid at a later date: "I'll pay you five hundred in hand, and five hundred when the job is done." <S> But it's not a common idiom here for any meaning. <S> It would seem odd to me to use "on hand" to describe a transaction. <S> Usually it gives more of a sense of an existing supply: We have fifty barrels of oil on hand, but if you want to add churros to the menu, we'll need to increase our stockpile. <S> Our cash on hand isn't enough to meet payroll. <S> Get the gasoline can and meet me in the warehouse. <S> Whenever I'm craving peanut butter, I never seem to have any on hand. <S> That being the case, it would make sense from an American and UK English perspective to say: Now that I've been paid <S> , I have five hundred rupiya on hand . <S> or After taxes, my salary ended up being only five hundred rupiya cash in hand. <A> You should think more about the difference between on and in as prepositions: On is used to express activity on a surface of something, while In indicate a location or place. <S> In conclusion in hand seems more appropriate to me because it indicates that the money are put in your hand. <A> Your salary in hand will be $1000. <S> means you will get $1000 after paying taxes etc. <S> Your salary on hand will be $1000. <S> would mean that out of your salary, you will have $1000 readily available to you <S> : perhaps you will get another $500 in stock options, cheaper housing, etc - or perhaps you will only be allowed to access the rest of your salary when you become an adult (and until then it will accumulate in your bank account). <S> Note that the first one is significantly more used than the second one (which I haven't actually seen used in the meaning I explained above at all, but to me it's what the sentence actually means when you consider grammar etc). <S> Bottom line <S> : chances are if you've seen someone write "salary on hand", it was probably a mistake, though it could technically also be used correctly (it just probably wasn't)...
| To be on hand means that you have something in your possession, but it is usually used in a more continuous context.
|
One shower doesn't work and the fridge either One shower doesn't work and the fridge either. Is it well said? One shower and the fridge doesn't work. <Q> Using the expression one shower to refer to one of the showers is not actually a good idea. <S> The expression one of the showers would be more natural as it contains an article , the , which creates a sense of specification and therefore makes the sentence sound a lot more idiomatic. <S> I'd prefer to use neither in this case. <S> One of the showers doesn't work and neither does the fridge. <S> or Neither one of the showers nor the fridge works. <S> If I am to use either , I would use a comma to separate it from the rest of the sentence. <S> One of the showers doesn't work, and the fridge doesn't, either. <A> I'd swap it round, seems better that way <S> The fridge doesn't work and neither does one of the showers. <S> then I'd go on to say <S> Frankly, this isn't good enough <A> Put in another <S> "doesn't" to make it clear what you mean: <S> One shower doesn't work and the fridge doesn't either. <S> So then it's "... <S> the fridge doesn't (work) either." <A> You actually only need to add a single letter to make it correct. <S> Add an 'n' in front of 'either' to make it 'neither', so that it reads: 'One shower doesn't work and the fridge neither .' <A> Or: <S> The fridge is broken, and so is one of the showers. <A> Both the fridge and the shower are broken.
| Another option is to use a more positive form, which feels less awkward in my opinion: One of the showers is broken, and so is the fridge. The meaning is a small bit ambiguous in your sentence.
|
Chance’s senses, negative and positive In my language chance means “şansă” (from French, chance) and always has a positive sense. If we need to use the negative sense the word changes, taking the prefix “ne” and becomes “neşansă”, kind of “not chance”. According to this quotation of Peter Benchley’s Jaws “bad luck, like a flash of lightning that hits a house.(…) It was pure chance.”, (page 65), it seems that in English “chance” can be understood in both senses positive and negative, which for me as a non-native is quite odd. Is there another word in English that can express the negative meaning? Note: Taking into account helix’ helpful answer, the word “mischance”, I’m wondering what if the author had used it? <Q> There's a word with a similar construction: mischance . <S> Bad luck <S> An unlucky occurrence Etymology: (Old French) <S> mescheance <S> Other candidates: mishap , misfortune , etc. <A> I don't speak French <S> so I make no claim to understanding the meaning and connotations of the French words you use. <S> But in English, "chance" is neither negative nor positive, but is understood to mean that the results could go either way. <S> That is, if you say, for example, "I took a chance when I hired Bob", the word "chance" here indicates that hiring Bob may turn out well for you or it may turn out badly. <S> If you were quite confidant that it would turn out well, you wouldn't describe it as "taking a chance", by definition. <S> If you just took it for granted that Bob would be a good employee, you wouldn't say you were taking a chance when you hired him. <S> You might say, "I made a good decision when I hired Bob" or something of that sort. <A> We have the same in Swedish. <S> A chance in something positive, although many people use it wrong, I guess the English has made an impact on the usage. <S> There is a risk that you get cancer.... <S> For example..
| The negative version of chance, is at least in Sweden a "risk".
|
Meaning Diffrence "Would be" and "were" I wanted to tell my friend he had not picked up my phone because he was passing through some tunnel. May I say... "I had called you but you didn't picked my phone. I thought you would be passing through tunnel" OR "I had called you but you didn't picked my phone. I thought you were passing through tunnel" <Q> The two sentences are a bit different and I will try to explain as I understand it. <S> Would <S> (auxiliary verb, past of WILL ) is used to unreal, possible or hypothetical situations , this verb is more polite , more imaginative , also it cannot be the main verb alone: <S> I would love to visit London. <S> ( a hypothetic situation ) <S> Would you take my hand, please? <S> ( a polite request ) <S> I'd suggest you to write it. <S> ( a polite request/an advice ) <S> [ I'd = <S> I would ] Were -ing (past continuous of BE ) is used to situations which were happening at a special time in the past and none hypothetical , it is more direct, not imaginative . <S> It's used to say " it happened while... <S> ", " it was happening ". <S> These sentences below are directs, they aren't polites (because more direct): <S> You were loving to visit London. <S> ( an emotion while you visited London, not anymore ) <S> Were <S> you taking my hand? <S> ( an action while something, yes or no question ) <S> I was suggesting you to write it. <S> ( a request at a defined time ) <S> In your sentence, you begin with the verb " thought " (past of THINK ) which means you did not sure about what happened <S> but you were elaborating a theory while he did not get your call <S> : He was passing through... <S> // <S> situation while he did not get your call <S> Otherwise, you said: maybe you did not have your cellphone in your hand <S> , you had not enough battery, you lost your phone... - imaginative , polite : <S> He would be passing through... // perhaps; this situation possible among others <S> Therefore, you should use <S> were -ing <S> because while he didn't answer you thought that and it's a friend, then maybe you can avoid the polite form. <S> Also, I think the correct sentence might be: I called you but you didn't take my call. <S> I thought you were passing through a tunnel. <S> I hope that I didn't forget something <S> and this helps you to better understand the little difference between these two forms. <A> The correct use is decided by when you had that thought: if the thought occurred to you when (or before) <S> you were making the call, then would be <S> is an appropriate choice <S> ( were is still possible). <S> If, on the other hand, the thought occurred to you after that event then were is correct, but would be <S> is not right - a possible variant would be must have been . <S> There are some other problems with your grammar, rather than deal with those individually, perhaps you can see them from the differences with this: <S> When I called and you didn't pick up, I thought you were passing through a tunnel. <A> You can't use 'had', which is the pluperfect tense, i.e. 'had done something') in the same context as 'did'/'didn't', which is the perfect tense. <S> It sounds very perculiar in English. <S> Here is one good way to say your sentence: <S> "I called, but you didn't pick up my phone. <S> I thought you would be passing through a tunnel. " <S> As I mentioned before, the perfect tense 'called' must be paired with the perfect tense, and vice-versa. <S> So you should say 'didn't pick' rather than 'hadn't picked'. <S> Also, you cannot say 'didn't pick ed '. <S> It doesn't make sense: you must say 'didn't pick '. <S> That's very important. <S> The correct expression is 'picked up my phone'. <S> This is crucial, and will make your English sound far better. <S> You could get away with 'would be' OR 'were', but 'would be' is slightly better. <S> E.g. this would apply <S> if they had already told you that they were going to drive through a tunnel at some point in the journey. <S> However, if you didn't have a reason to believe that your friend had been in a tunnel, and you had been ASSUMING it, then you should say 'would be'. <S> In this case, it sounds like you are just guessing that it is likely that they are in a tunnel, so you should use 'would be'. <S> Before a noun, you HAVE to say 'a'. ' <S> Tunnel' is a noun, so you should say 'through a tunnel'. <S> (If the tunnel had already been mentioned/ you were familiar with that particular tunnel <S> , you would have said 'thorugh the tunnel'.) <S> However, you should never just say 'through tunnel'.
| The basic rule is this: if you had had a REASON to believe that they were passing through a tunnel, then say 'were'. Neither of your examples are correct. In English, you should never say 'picked my phone'.
|
Articles: definite, indefinite, or none? Which of these is better to say? An English exam will be on Monday. English exam will be on Monday. The English exam will be on Monday. <Q> Not the middle option, but the rest of it really depends on context. <S> Question : <S> Dolores, do you have any tests next week? <S> Yes, I have two; I have an English exam on Monday, and I have a geometry exam on Wednesday. <S> Dolores uses the indefinite article because she's referring to each exam as one generic test. <S> She could also say: <S> Yes, I have two; I have one English exam on Monday, and <S> I have another exam (a geometry exam) on Wednesday. <S> Those both mean the same thing. <S> Question <S> : Will there be any language proficiency exams next month? <S> The English exam will be on Monday, and the German exam will be on Thursday. <S> Because the person mentioned the exams in the previous sentence, the definite article is used, thus pointing back to the preceding sentence: <S> Yes, there are two, and both are held on the first week of the month. <S> The English exam [I alluded to] will be on Monday [of the first week of the month], and the German exam [I alluded to] will be on Thursday [of the first week of the month]. <S> I'm having trouble thinking of a context where I would use no article, unless the word exam was pluralized: <S> Question : How will the exams be scheduled this year? <S> English exams will be on Monday, science exams will be on Tuesday, history exams will be on Wednesday, and all other exams will be held on Thursday. <A> The version with <S> the is fine, assuming it's contextually appropriate—most likely, a test has already been mentioned and "the test" refers back to it. <S> Here, "the test" is probably old information , something the speaker expects the listener to know about already. <S> The English exam will be on Monday. <S> The version with a is strange because "a test" represents new information , and in English there's a broad preference for subjects that represent old information. <S> To avoid this, we can use an existential construction with the dummy subject there : <S> There will be an English exam on Monday. <S> This sentence is better. <S> It's not a grammatical requirement, though—the non-existential version is also grammatical. <S> There are other ways to avoid placing new information in subject position; as in J.R's answer, you can instead write: I have an English exam on Monday. <S> Here, the subject <S> I represents old information <S> (in most cases the listener already knows that the speaker exists). <S> The version without an article is ungrammatical, though in informal speech it might be elided. <A> You must use an article. <S> If you are talking about any English exam, use “a”. <S> Usually, I think, you would have one particular exam in mind, so you would use “the”. <S> For example: <S> Q: <S> Teacher, what tests do we have coming up? <S> A: <S> The English exam will be on Monday and the Math exam will be on Thursday. <S> But you could also say: <S> Oh no, I forgot that I have an English exam on Monday. <S> Here you're not worried about the particular test, just that there is one.
| Yes, there are two, and both are held on the first week of the month. If you are talking about a particular English exam, use “the”.
|
Is there a negative counterpart of the phrase "thanks to"? The thing to which the phrase "thanks to" is attributed usually produces positive consequence. I wonder if there is a negative counterpart. EDIT: Many thanks. I have now learned that thanks to can gain a negative meaning via irony. But what if I do not want to sound ironic? <Q> "Thanks to" works for both positive and negative consequences. <S> You can correctly say "Thanks to X, the project succeeded" and "Thanks to X, the project failed. <S> " <S> Or another dimension is you can say "No thanks to X <S> " if X did not help in any way (or hindered the project), versus saying "thanks to X" because X did help in some way. <A> I can't think of a specific way to do what you're looking for, so instead I'd suggest a set like the following: <S> Positive outcome, positive contribution: " <S> Thanks to X, Y" Positive outcome, negative contribution: "In spite of X, Y" Negative outcome, positive contribution: "In spite of <S> X['s hard work/good effort/etc], Y" Negative outcome, aligned contribution/causal link: "[In part] due to X, Y" <S> For example: <S> "Thanks to Paul, we got all our TPS reports done on time." <S> "In spite of Dave's colossal screw ups, we did manage to get all the gold we needed for the pyramid." <S> "In spite of Imhotep's amazing invisibility, the heist was foiled by police." <S> "Due to Grontar's enormous left foot, the ritual circle was ruined." <A> Yes there is. <S> Look at this... <S> Damn! <S> The cricket match is cancelled and it was the final match. <S> All thanks to rain! <S> We are just being ironic there. <S> Here, thanks to would mean due to/or because. <S> Similar thread here . <A> Since you don't want to sound ironic try " <S> In spite of" or "despite" <A> In the UK, "no thanks to" is a common opposite. <S> As in: I made it to work on time, no thanks to the weather! <S> or Andy Murray got through to the final, no thanks to the doubters, and went on to win. <A> <A> <A> I'm a spanish speaker and we say "por culpa de" which would be literally "by fault of" which makes sense to me <S> but I have seen it just a few times really.
| "Because of ...", "as a result of ..." or "due to ..." They assign responsibility but without a positive or negative connotation, whereas "thanks to ..." implies a certain amount of happiness about the situation (unless it's used ironically). A suitable counterpart of "thanks to" would be "because of":"Thanks to X, the project succeeded""Because of X, the project failed."
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.