source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Difference and usage between "I dare say" and "dare I say it" I dare say is defined on Dictionary.com as: to venture to say (something); assume (something) as probable. I've also heard of the expression dare I say it as well; however, I was unable to find a definition of it. Do they mean the same thing? Although I understand the definition of I dare say provided, I'm not quite sure how, and in what context do you use it, and what does it convey. <Q> They are closer to opposites. <S> "I dare say" is a statement, meaning you are confident enough in what you are about to say to <S> dare to say it. <S> "Dare I say it" is a question, because you believe what you are about to say will be regarded as controversial or may offend the sensibilities of the listen. <S> Example: <S> "They made the first-ever matchup between unbeatens in the national title game — dare I say it? — a little bit boring." <S> ( source ) <S> In this case, the author is making the controversial statement that an important basketball game is boring, so she softens the shock of her words and reassures the reader she is still using good judgement by interjecting the "dare I say it?" <A> Macmillan Dictionary provides definitions for both <S> I dare say and dare I say (it) . <S> I dare say <S> British spoken used for saying that something is probably true, although you do not know for certain dare <S> I say (it) mainly British spoken formal used when you are saying something that you think other people may not like <S> This famous novel is a little, dare I say it, dull. <S> I dare say that is enough to understand the usages of the two. <S> Typically, I personally don't say either I dare say (sometimes written I daresay ) or dare I say (it) . <S> Instead of "I dare say", <S> I usually say these: I would say ... (or I'd say ) <S> - I use this to express my opinion, without much assertive <S> I say ... <S> - This is a bit stronger version of <S> I would say or <S> I dare say , but still leave room for uncertainty <S> If I think I'm sure, chances are <S> I won't say I'd say , I dare say , <S> or I say , because it's unnecessary. <S> Swan also suggested this in his Practical English Usage , <S> Instead of "dare <S> I say (it) <S> ", I usually say these (note that their meanings are not quite identical, but in appropriate contexts, they're quite interchangeable): <S> let me say this , let me be blunt , <S> to put it bluntly , frankly , let's face it , <S> For example, Let me be blunt. <S> This famous novel is a little dull. <S> To put it bluntly, this famous novel is a little dull. <S> This famous novel is a little, let's face it, dull. <A> I'm just adding an example of "dare <S> I say it" not as a question (I don't have the commenting right yet). <S> I think it's an inversion form of emphasis. <S> There was something, <S> dare I say it, a little unusual about him. <S> (Oxford Learner's Dictionary) <A> I daresay <S> or I dare say is a phrase. <S> I daresay/ <S> I dare say - <S> it is like that <S> We are just adding a rhetorical question. <S> By putting such expression, one would acknowledge that what they tell might be considered as a controversial topic or the like.
| On the other hand, dare I say (it) is an expression where you want to say something and that something is likely to raise an objection. And I dare say (sometimes written I daresay ) is used to mean 'I think probably' , 'I suppose' . The main sense of dare is "not afraid" to do something.
|
"Insert your data" or "Enter your data"? What is the difference between Insert and Enter ? If I have a form to fill in, which legend is better? Insert your data or Enter your data <Q> You can insert a paragraph, text, a phrase or a clause but it doesn't imply the writing process but "Enter" conveys that sense. <S> So I would choose "Enter". <S> Also, the term data entry makes it further clear! <A> Insertion and Entry are clearly synonyms in my opinion. <S> Although for the data context, "insert" differs "enter" because insert is conventionally used when you add data with an specific location aspect, e.g. Insert punctuation between sentences or insert a space between paragraphs. <S> While enter can also be used for this, its more often used for a generic description. <S> In other words, without the location aspect, e.g. Enter your contact information. <S> Saying "enter quotes around your name" still sounds ok to me, but for some reason "insert quotes around your name" sounds better. <S> Mostly opinion based question <A> If you are filling in a form , the best choice is: enter your information , not data. <S> Your information then becomes data for the organization that is collecting it. <S> To insert a sentence or word in a text To insert a letter in a word insert means to place text or letters between two existing things.
| insert is used in existing text or words where you add something more.
|
What does this quote mean? There's ne'er a villain dwelling in all Denmark But he's an arrant knave. Hamlet, Act I Scene V My book says it means "No villain is worse than Claudius." But this but is the same as in "It never rains but it pours." So I thought it meant, "Every villain in Denmark is a complete villain." <Q> You're right. <S> There's never a villain dwelling in all Denmark <S> But he's an arrant knave. <S> This is colloquial Early Modern English, and employs idioms which are not in use any more. <S> There's ne'er <S> (=‘never’) <S> a villain means <S> There is no villain <S> but here is approximately equivalent to except, <S> unless . <S> When it introduces a clause headed by a pronoun, it makes that clause a negative modifier of the pronoun's referent. <S> but he is <S> is thus equivalent to who is not . <S> An arrant knave is an out-and-out rascal. <S> This sentence may be paraphrased: <S> There is no villain living in Denmark who is not an out-and-out rascal. <S> Hamlet is making a savage joke: <S> the great secret I have learned from the ghost is that all the bad guys in Denmark are bad guys. <S> As Horatio points out, you don't need a ghost to know that. <S> Of course Hamlet has Claudius’ villainy in mind—“Claudius is not merely the despicable human being I find him, he is also a regicide and usurper” <S> is approximately what is going through his mind here. <S> But as angry and appalled as Hamlet is, he is also a Prince, trained in statecraft, and he is being very very cautious. <S> The elder Hamlet’s revelation about Claudius is a dangerous secret which Hamlet is not going to discuss with ordinary soldiers. <S> So he disguises the facts and his feelings in “wild and whirling words.” <A> From the context in the play, it cannot be concluded that Hamlet's line means anything specific about Claudius, although it is safe to assume that Hamlet certainly does see Claudius as an arrant knave . <S> I like the way <S> catherine england puts it: <S> That is, as Horatio's response points out, it's Hamlet stating the bloody obvious. <S> Hamlet, if he's thinking clearly at all at this point, says it to avoid answering what Horatio and Marcellus are asking him, which is, what the ghost really told Hamlet. <S> But I think Hamlet really is also just be babbling 'wild and whirling <S> words', not coming up with clever witticisms. <S> He has just seen a ghost. <S> That is not some everyday occurrence, and he is trying to make sense of it for himself, while his friends are asking him questions. <S> So he seems to just mutter something that seems coherent. <S> But indeed, Horatio points out he needs no ghost to tell them such obvious things! <A> I believe none of these interpretations so far are completely correct, although they point in the right direction. <S> The key is "but." <S> It has TWO meanings here, both of which are relevant: but = <S> "if not" (conditional)" and also but = "without the circumstance that, without also". <S> If I am right, then There's ne'er a villain dwelling in all DenmarkBut <S> he's an arrant knave. <S> means both <S> There is not a villain in all of DenmarkIf <S> he (Claudius) is not a rascal. <S> and also There is not a villain in all of Denmarkthat <S> is not a rascal. <S> Those two interpretations parallel these two examples of 'but' in the dictionary.com link above: Nothing would do (=be satisfactory) but that I should come in. <S> = <S> Nothing would be satisfactory if I should not (~= cannot manage to) come in. <S> It never rains but it pours. <S> = <S> Whenever it rains, it always seems to pour (rain heavily) ! <S> Basically, the verses you quoted are a likely case of dramatic irony. <S> From wikipedia: "This type of irony is the device of giving the spectator an item of information that at least one of the characters in the narrative is unaware of (at least consciously), thus placing the spectator a step ahead of at least one of the characters." <S> (< Wikipedia.) <S> This is dramatic irony because Hamlet is starting to make indirect innuendo about the immorality of the King and his actions, without mentioning the King himself. <S> That innuendo will become more and more direct as the play progresses, culminating in the Murder of Gonzago spectacle, at which point Hamlet's accusations become obvious. <S> By contrast, at this early point in the play, even if Hamlet's friends appear to have no idea what Hamlet is really talking about, Hamlet is aiming at something deep, since he just swore his friends to secrecy. <S> That is something he would not do if he was merely making the observation that there's a lot of villainy in Denmark.
| As a translation: Any villain living in denmark is an outright villain.
|
Do the brave deserve the fair? The sentence is: None but the brave _________ the fair. Where the blank is to filled with deserve or deserves . My understanding is that it should be filled with deserve since the sentence here refers to more than one person i.e. many brave people and not just one, so it's it in the plural form, and hence, we should use deserve .But I am confused as more than half of the children in my class are using deserves . Also, I checked the internet and found this article using deserves but the free dictionary using deserve . Can someone please clarify my doubts on this one. Thanks a lot. <Q> As J.R. says, singular or plural deserve will work equally well. <S> The bare sentence may be parsed as either: Only brave men deserve fair women. <S> Only a brave man deserves a fair woman. <S> There is, however, an overriding consideration. <S> This line is a quotation from a poem by John Dryden, Alexander's Feast; or, the Power of Music . <S> 'Twas at the royal feast for Persia won By Philip's warlike son— <S> Aloft in awful state <S> The godlike hero sate On his imperial throne; His valiant peers were placed around, Their brows with roses and with myrtles bound (So should desert in arms be crown'd); <S> The lovely Thais by his side Sate like a blooming Eastern bride <S> In flower of youth and beauty's pride:— Happy, happy, happy pair! <S> None but the brave None but the brave <S> None but the brave deserves the fair! <S> Dryden wrote it singular, with ‘the brave’ referring specifically to Alexander and ‘the fair’ referring specifically to Thais. <S> ADDED: <S> In present-day English we no longer use the ADJECTIVE to refer to a single person except in epithets (e.g. Alexander the Great), only for classes of people. <S> The singular therefore sounds odd to anyone who does not know the source of the line—which is probably 99% of the people who use it. <A> The verb doesn't need to agree with the noun "the brave", it needs to agree with the noun phrase "none but the brave". <S> Consider: None including the brave ____ the fair <S> The construction is the same and the requirement for singular/plural is the same, but now it is more clear that the subject of the verb is not "the brave". <S> I think this reduces the question to the (well-known) issue whether "none" takes a singular or plural verb. <S> The answer is that in common usage it can take either, some people are more pedantic than others about cases where it "must" take one in particular, and monographs on the subject are readily available via your favourite search engine. <S> Furthermore, "the brave" could be used to mean the plurality of all brave people, or (more rarely) a single brave person. <S> Therefore "The brave deserve the fair" and <S> Mind you, the latter to me sounds like it's talking about a Native American warrior rather than an imagined brave person. <S> But as in the source of the quotation, if you introduce a particular brave person into consideration then you can (at risk of sounding very lofty) refer to that person as "the brave". <A> “None” is the subject of the sentence, and “none” is historically singular as it is the negation of “one,” which means that it requires the singular verb “deserves,” or <S> so I learn in my high school English class. <S> However, I've seen so many examples of a plural verb being used with “none” in contemporary writing that doing so seems likely to be deemed grammatically correct in all but the most formal settings. <S> Because using a plural verb does not introduce any ambiguity into the sentence, I don't regard the shift in usage as a degeneration of the English language; that's just how language evolves over time. <A> It should takes singular verb that is 'deserves' as the subject is 'None' as well as 'the brave' implies 'the brave one' and not ' <S> the brave people' therefore in any case the verb is singular.
| "The brave deserves the fair" could both be correct.
|
Meaning of "call it" in The Avengers I have been studying English by reading The Avengers script.Here are two passages. The Avengers look up, watching as more Leviathans and hundreds of warriors fly through the portal. — Natasha: G... Guys? — Stark: Call it, Captain. — Captain: All right, listen up. [blah blah] Seeing that Captain starts ordering each of them, does call it mean "order it"? In any case I don't see what "it" means here. Could you explain this to me? — Fury: Agent Coulson is down. — Other: A medical team is on its way to your location. — Fury: They're here. They called it. — All: ... When Fury says "they called it", I guess it maybe means "they said he is dead already". Call = "say", it = "death"? Did I understand right? Also, can down mean "dead"? When my father passed away, can I say "my father was down" instead? <Q> On of the meanings of making the call means deciding between various possibilities, usually after being presented with some incomplete data, and since he's the commander "making a decision" = "giving orders". <S> Another related instance where this meaning is used is when a patient dies and the doctor has to write the time of death - in this case the doctors calls it, meaning he is declaring the patient dead. <S> "Down" does not necessarily mean dead, it just means in a lower state. <S> Someone can be downed/ knocked down/brought down with a punch (he could be dead but that is irrelevant). <S> So no, you cannot say your father is down. <A> The first instance represents a shortened form of " call the play ". <S> This term derives from American Football where it refers to when a team is told what they're going to (attempt to) do after the next restart - <S> the person who decides this is usually either the coach or the quarterback. <S> Colloquially, it can refer to taking ownership of a decision and making it. <S> Your interpretation of the second instance is correct - <S> it derives from the formal requirement of medical professionals to make a note of the time of death for patients they've been treating - more fully: " they've called the time of death ". <S> As per msam's answer, " down " doesn't necessarily mean dead , it could just mean " out of operation ", <S> it's commonly applied to people who have been shot and are incapacitated. <A> There are a number of idiomatic phrases involving "calling" something, which means to make a declaration. <S> There is also the similar phrase " call time on [something] " which also means to declare that something specific should now end. <S> In your examples, asking someone to "call it" is a recommendation that something should finish.
| The phrase that springs to my mind is " call it a day ", which means to declare that something is over or should finish. It also implies that the one being asked has the responsibility or the authority to make that call. In the context, " it " is " the play ", ie the strategy that the Avengers will use to deal with the situation.
|
Correct usage of "characterise" The appearance of the sample (object) was characterised by transparency, stiffness and smoothness. I know I can also simply say 'The sample (object) had a transparent, stiff and smooth appearance.' But is the first sentence really correct or wrong? Which one is better? <Q> Your sentence is not correct, but the problem has to do with "appearance," not with "characterize" (the more common spelling; your spelling is an acceptable variant in British English). <S> For example: "I just heard from Fred, and it appears we're all going to be late to dinner." <S> However, the noun "appearance," when used in this sense, almost always refers exclusively to visual appearance. <S> A substance may be transparent in appearance. <S> It may be smooth in appearance--meaning visually smooth, not smooth to the touch. <S> It may even be stiff in appearance--but I get the feeling that is not what you meant to write here, and in any case it is ambiguous, which is always undesirable in a lab report or other scientific writing. <S> You could use another form of the verb appear; for instance, this would be proper: <S> The sample appeared to be transparent, smooth, and stiff. <S> or The sample appeared transparent, smooth, and stiff. <S> You could also use "characterized" on its own, to describe the object itself, not its appearance. <S> The sample was characterized by transparency, stiffness, and smoothness. <S> Better yet would be to remove the ambiguity altogether by rephrasing. <S> For example: Upon examination, the sample was transparent in appearance and smooth and stiff to the touch. <S> This makes it clear both how you observed it (visually and by touch) and what you observed (transparency, stiffness, and smoothness). <S> "Upon examination" is optional but if your concern is that your language will be seen as too simple or "non-technical" it plays that role while keeping the actual sentence simpler. <A> The appearance of the sample was characterised by transparency, stiffness and smoothness. <S> The sample had a transparent, stiff and smooth appearance. <S> Other respondents have pointed out the impropriety of the word appearance when speaking of stiffness, and possibly smoothness, too. <S> But what's wrong with both these sentences is verbosity. <S> You use 9 or 12 words to say what can be expressed in just 7 words, with no loss of meaning. <S> The sample seemed transparent, stiff and smooth. <S> Why on earth would you want to make your reader do all the extra work? <A> I'd say "Transparency, stiffness and smoothness are the specific characteristics of the sample"
| It is appropriate to use the verb "to appear" to describe both visual and non-visual aspects of a person or an object.
|
Question about meaning of " Common Man's " & "mounting " is in the context here However, the anti-corruption Aam Aadmi ( Common Man's ) Party, with its stronghold in the capital, Delhi, is mounting a strong challenge. My perception after checking in dictionary is that The party that most of its members are men ( common man ), and has the supportive area in Delhi is facing a big chalange. I also would be greatful if you could help me saying what the use of 's is here? And why the capital letters are used here? Common Man's. <Q> The terms "mounting" and "stronghold" are military terms used thus, and they are being employed here to invoke a metaphor of warfare to make political maneuvering seem more exciting and important. <S> A "stronghold" in the literal sense is a fortification (e.g. a castle or fort) and in a colloquial sense a location secured by one belligerent in an armed conflict ("Fallujah, along with nearby provincial capital Ramadi, was a stronghold of Sunni insurgents"); and attacks and sieges are "mounted" (but not, idiomatically, a battle, war, or ambush). <A> The phrase is capitalized because it is the proper name of a political party, the same way the Republican Party and Democratic Party are usually capitalized in English. <S> The phrase "Common Man" in English refers to the average person, or to the people of a country or region as a whole; it is used to contrast the "common man" with an elite or minority group. <S> The 's was probably added because, in English, the phrase "Common Man Party" sounds awkward. <S> If the meaning of the party's name is "the party that represents the common man," or "the party that is concerned with the needs of the common man," then the most idiomatic way to express this in most English dialects is with a possessive; here, the "Common Man's Party." <A> You are right. <S> It should be Common Man Party . <S> But, it's the way Arvind Kejrival's party has been named by most of the English News Channels internationally. <S> I guess you are an Indian and know Hindi. <S> Though a literal translation of Aam Aadmi Party is actually Common Man Party, it has strongly created its image as a party of a common man in India. <S> The party, as said by its founder (Arvind Kejrival), chiefly belongs to a common man ( aam aadmi - Hindi ). <S> The adjective anti-corruption is applied because that's the chief manifesto of the party and based on that, the party won Delhi Elections in 2013. <S> It is certainly mounting the challenge for the two major parties - BJP and Congress in India for the Lok Sabha Election 2014 .
| Since it's a proper noun of the party, it takes capital letters - Common Man's Party. It has stronghold in the capital as the party was unexpected to form the government in Delhi but due to great public support (see the definition of 'stronghold').
|
Wondering what the expression " I am about to" Many times I have heard it while natives are speaking, specially Americans. I can not recall the contexts, perhaps they are very fast speaking. I wonder if any body here could give some hints in some contexts and provide some authentic examples they use in their speech evey day. Many thanks in advance. <Q> Be about [to VP] is a semi-modal expression, like be going [to VP] or <S> be able [to VP] . <S> It signifies that VP is expected to happen in the very near future, and that the discourse concerns that expectation. <S> How near will depend on context. <S> John was about to sit down to dinner when the phone rang. ... <S> This suggests that John was actually moving toward the dinner table and the action was interrupted by the phone ringing. <S> Rumours that Microsoft is about to announce Office for iPad were current on the internet, in exactly those words, for at least three weeks before the actual announcement. <S> I am about to start graduate school. ... <S> This might be said weeks or months before you actually plan to start graduate school. <S> It suggests that you have been accepted by a school and your discourse will involve preparing to start. <S> ADDED: As Bob Rodes points out, about here has the sense, “nearly, almost”. <S> In other contexts it acts as an adverb: <S> I am about ready = <S> “I am almost ready”; but in the idiom be about [to VERB] <S> it cannot be paraphrased this way: <S> * I am almost to go is not English. <S> And in the idiom it never has other main sense of about = <S> “approximately, around”. <A> For example, "I'm about to leave" has a similar meaning to "I'm on my way out the door". <S> You will often hear it in relation to an adjective as well: <S> "Are you about ready to go?" <S> Also, you will often see "just" as a way of adding emphasis. <S> "Relax, I'm just about ready." <S> If you look at the sentence "It is about two o'clock", that means that the time is close, or in the vicinity of, two o'clock. <S> This is closer to the standard meaning of the word about, and may give some insight into why we use the preposition to give the meaning about which you are asking. <A> ‘To be about to’ is used for actions that will begin very soon (in relation to the narrative ‘now’.) <S> Some examples in the present tense: <S> The train is about to leave. <S> Hurry up, it’s about to rain! <S> The students are yawning. <S> It looks like a few are about to fall asleep. <S> And in the past tense: I was about to call him when he walked in the door. <S> I was about to have dinner when the phone rang. <S> Contrast <S> the latter with ‘I was having dinner when the phone rang.’ <S> In this case dinner has already begun, but with ‘about to’ it has not. <S> A similar construction is ‘to be on the verge of’. <S> The contexts in which each is used are not identical though – <S> ‘verge’ may suggest that something is building up to an impending climax. <S> I find this job so frustrating that I’m on the verge of quitting. <S> The company is in bad shape. <S> In fact, it’s on the verge of going bankrupt. <S> ['of bankruptcy' also possible]
| It's similar to "I am going to", but it means that I am going to do something in the very near future, that it is probably the next thing that I am going to do.
|
Past Perfect or Past Simple? Which is more correct: Recently I was hungry or Recently I have been hungry I think that the second variant is more correct. Could you please explain to me what do you think about it. Thank you in advance. <Q> Which you should use is entirely dependent on context. <S> You would use the first if you are concerned to relate your recent hunger to events which occurred at that time: <S> Recently I was hungry and went to Burger King to get a Whopper. <S> While I was there ... <S> You would use the second if you are concerned to relate your recent hunger to a present consequence, or if your recent hunger is a repeated state which continues to occur in the present. <S> Recently I have been hungry every afternoon. <S> I must start eating lunch instead of working through my lunch hour. <S> There is a great deal more about this here . <A> It isn't that one or the other is more correct, it's that they have slightly different meanings. <S> "Recently I was hungry" simply means that at some unspecified point in time in the past, I was hungry. <S> This might clarify a bit: <S> Recently I was hungry in the afternoon. <S> This means that on one afternoon in the recent past I was hungry. <S> Recently I have been hungry in the afternoon. <S> This means that in the recent past I have been hungry in the afternoons. <S> The latter sentence is something you would be more likely to hear, simply because it is something that someone would be more likely to communicate. <S> It's talking about a recent change in condition, whereas the first sentence, if it were something to comment about, would probably include more specific information: <S> "I was hungry yesterday afternoon." <A> My upvote to StoneyB and the answer is quite clear. <S> However, I'll try to further simplify it in other words. <S> In general use of have been and was , the have been implies to a regular thing happening whereas was reflects the state that happened once. <S> Check out StoneyB's examples. <S> I was hungry and I went to Burger King - the story is finish! <S> On the other hand, I have been hungry <S> took every afternoon showing some sort of regularity . <S> The difference of I was doing something <S> and I have been doing something <S> may make it clearer.
| "Recently I have been hungry" means that the state of hunger has persisted (either intermittently or constantly) over a period of time up till now.
|
In AmE, which term is used for a student who studies a lot? Grind / Nerd / Bookworm / SwotWhich one of the following words describes a student who studies a lot in American English?I think the first two choices sound natural. <Q> Grind could work but sounds rather old-fashioned. <S> Nerd has acquired many subtle connotations beyond studiousness. <S> Currently I think of it as describing someone with a strong or perhaps excessive interest in understanding or analyzing something, but it doesn't have to be school: one can be a computer nerd, or a Harry Potter nerd, or a Stack Exchange nerd. <S> (Indeed, some of these things might actually be harmful to a person's studying.) <S> It also can imply a corresponding lack of social skills. <S> When used in reference to one's self, it can be a term of pride or mild self-deprecation; when used about other people it's often pejorative. <S> Swot is specific to British English and is not used in AmE. <A> Other than swot , all are used in both AmE and BrE. <S> swot (n - Usage Brit) - <S> An insignificant student who is ridiculed as being affected or boringly studious. <S> If you see there, on the same page, grind, nerd, and wonk are used in North America. <S> However, please note that not all terms mean a studious person. <S> Ah, I just said it! <S> If you want to be neutral and stay clear for the term and only concerned with a lot of studies , studious looks preferred choice to me though it's plain and simple. <A> Nerd and bookworm are certainly more common words for me, but I speak proper, er, I mean, British English. <A> "Bookworm" is a quaint and extremely mild, old-fashioned epithet for someone who is always reading. " <S> Nerd" is a little meaner, and also a little more childish (for example, it wouldn't be insulting, when talking to another parent, to remark that their child is more of a bookworm than yours, but it would be insulting to remark that their child is more of a nerd). <S> I have never heard the other two, but I haven't been in school for a while.
| Bookworm certainly refers to someone who spends a lot of time reading books, but that's not the same as studying; they might read books unrelated to school. Swot is in BrE as stated on WordWeb.
|
Is sometimes 'be' to be used instead of 'is' or 'are'? As far as the use of be is concerned, is the following sentence correct? "When all past societies had separately prospered in peace within the local borders of their own solutions, now that they are melting in one big pot an impartial vision is due, whereby common grounds and differences be suitably understood." Or is are instead of be the proper form? My problem here is how to express the uncertainty of something that is not available here and now, albeit auspicable in the immediate future. <Q> No, the sentence is not correct in modern idiomatic English. <S> When in doubt, simplify the sentence. <S> This type of error only ever occurs in complex, overconstructed sentences, where less fluent speakers (including native speakers) can be tricked into forgetting simple things like agreement and conjugation. <S> In this case, we simplify: <S> When all past societies had separately prospered in peace within the local borders of their own solutions, now that they are melting in one big pot an impartial vision is due, whereby common grounds and differences be suitably understood. <S> Now that they are melting, an impartial vision is due, whereby common grounds and differences be suitably understood. <S> Now a vision is due, whereby grounds and differences be understood. <S> Now a vision is due, whereby things be understood. <S> Things be understood. <S> Is "Things be understood" idiomatic in modern English? <S> No--although it would have been in some archaic dialects, and on Talk Like A Pirate Day ("Aye, it be so"). <S> The sentence could be corrected in many ways, while maintaining what was presumably the intended meaning: ... <S> whereby grounds and differences can be understood. <S> ... <S> whereby grounds and differences are understood. <S> ... <S> whereby grounds and differences may be understood. <A> I think it is better to say: <S> "When all past societies had separately prospered in peace within the local borders of their own solutions, now that they are melting in one big pot an impartial vision is due, whereby common grounds and differences become suitably understood." <S> Since we are talking about a progression in time, become is a better word that be or are , which only describe the current state of things. <S> However, if this is a quotation, it might be a matter of writing style or locale dependent. <A> I see this "be" as present tense subjunctive . <A> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive <S> Though there are other ways to express this uncertainty, one way has been noted with 'become' which implies change. <S> It also could be done with be and a modal, but doing this might imply other contexts that we wish to avoid; ... <S> whereby common grounds and differences should/may/ought to/need to/have to be suitably understood."
| I would argue that you could use 'be' as this text is referring to something not concrete and not set in either the present or the past, it implies doubt and uncertainty of a situation, 'an impartial vision is due' will that vision happen, if so when will it happen' we don't know, therefore this text could be seen as being in the subjunctive and not the indicative.
|
Is there both -the infinitive and the basic form of a verb? I have exploring several books on English language and some of them mix two notions: an infinitive and "basic form of a verb". I would like to ask, if there are any difference between them or there is only an infinitive, which is a verb without face, time and number? <Q> Your options are to treat this as wide-scale syncretism (all three forms exist but are identical for all verbs) or claim that there is only one form used in all three types of construction. <S> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) does the latter. <S> They call this single form the plain form rather than infinitive-subjunctive-imperative form because the latter is unwieldy and because the plain form is generally unadorned by inflection to agree with tense, number, etc. <S> It's up to you whether you want to treat these as separate forms or not, but treating them as one plain form is theoretically simpler. <A> I think the infinitive form of a verb is the verb in its basic form only! <S> To make it even simple to understand, this is the verb's version we find in a dictionary! <S> The infinite form of verb generally follows to (for instance, to work, to study, to eat...and so on ). <S> However, it's not always (I must learn English) <S> the case. <S> On the other hand, finite verb is something that functions as the main verb - I eat everyday. <S> Based on this, an infinite verb is the verb that is not finite and cannot serve as the main verb. <S> Useful note: <S> An infinitive can also serve as an adverb, a noun or an adjective. <S> Good read here. <A> The link above (# 18705) does not mention the term base form. <S> There are various grammar terms in use for the verb form you find in dictionaries: 1 infinitive - the standard Latin term 2 plain form 3 base form - not very precise because we normally have three base forms, some verbs have more, e.g. to be and to do. <S> 4 <S> And as this is not enough, CGEL must introduce a fourth term: infinitival. <S> English uses one and the same form as infinitive, as present subjunctive and as imperative. <S> Other languages often have three different forms.
| The same form of the verb is used in infinitive, subjunctive, and imperative constructions.
|
What is the plural of "who"? I can use "Who are you?" when talking to one person. But what can I use if I'm talking to a group of people? <Q> “Who” can be made plural the usual way, but that is not what is needed here <S> The <S> “Whos” <S> And “Wheres” <S> Of iOS Device Usage Explained Source: TechCrunch headline <S> This is a plural in the sense that it refers to multiple mentions of (or answers to) <S> the question “who?”. <S> Generally speaking, the word “who” is a pronoun. <S> It stands in for the mention of a person or people, but has no power to determine in and of itself how many people the speaker is talking about. <S> “You” does not have a plural form either, but can refer to multiple people <S> The word “you” in your sentence does not have to change in order to refer to multiple people. <S> To make the reference more clear, you can add “two” or “all” as in “you two” or “you all” (or, regionally, “y'all”). <S> If you want to ask about the identity of multiple people, convey this with other words “all” after “who” Person A: We will need four more chairs set at the dinner table tonight. <S> Person B: <S> Who all will be joining us? <S> This construction is informal and mainly AmE . <S> “all” after “you” Group A: Trick or treat! <S> Person B: <S> Who are you all supposed to be? <S> As indicated above, the contraction “y'all” is employed this way in some regions. <S> “people” Group A: Surprise! <S> You win this prize for being the 100th person to cross this new bridge! <S> Person B: <S> Who are you people ? <S> This construction may be considered brusque . <S> “they” Person A: You've never heard of the Kardashians? <S> Person B: <S> No, who are they? <S> “They” is usually third person plural <S> but can also be third person singular . <A> It is the same in the plural: <S> Who is your best friend? <S> Who are your best friends? <S> Who are you? <S> (to one person) <S> Who are you? <S> (to more than one person) or Who are you all? <A> "who" has only one form, but it can refer to plural nouns: Who were the Etruscans? <S> Who are all those people waiting outside? <A> There is at least one other common possibility that I do not see listed: <S> Who are all of you? <S> with "all of you" being synonymous with "you all." <S> Another example: <S> Where are all of you going to eat? <A> In short: There is no plural form for "Wh" questions. <S> They are the same thing whether is singular or plural. <S> Examples: <S> Singular : "who are you?" <S> Plural : " <S> Who are you"? <S> In this case, people should understand you according to your lookout and body language.
| “Who” does not have a plural form like the way that “is” changes to “are”
|
……………we have traveled 500 miles - Fill in the blank Could someone please tell me which choice fits the best in the following example: ……………we have traveled 500 miles. a) so far b) up to here c) until here d) by here I think only “a” and “b” work in this context. <Q> In your example, I think only a) is normally used. <S> So far, we have travelled 500 miles. <S> It's not really a fixed distance because it's implied <S> you are still travelling further. <S> b) up to here - may be OK in some contexts <S> but it usually refers to fixed distances/locations, as in: Please fill the bottle up to here . <S> c) until here - this is not correct, because until is usually used for time <S> , not distance/locations: <S> I will work until 5:30 . <S> d) <S> by here - by can be used for a lot of things, but not distance measurements or location points, as far as I am aware. <S> Can't think of a example using by here offhand. <S> b) up to here might be OK if you are referring to points on a map. <S> You could say something similar: <S> Up to this point, we have traveled 500 miles. <A> Yes, there is an implication that there is more distance to go. <S> b) "up to here" and d) <S> "by here" can be use but they imply an indirect reference the distance. <S> For example, if you are pointing to a location on a map, you could say "Up to here, we've have traveled 500 miles." <S> "here" refering to the spot on the map, not where you are physically even thought they might be the same place. <S> c) "until" is related to time so would not be appropriate. <A> Option d) doesn't work at all. <S> Option b), and at a strain c), could fit, but would convey a slightly different meaning from the most natural sounding of them all a), in that the 'here' part and the '500 miles' both refer to distance, whereas in a) 'so far' can be taken be taken as an implicit reference to some amount of time, and therefore carry connotations of distance over time, i.e. speed of progress. <S> So, perhaps: up to here (Shrewsbury) we have traveled 500 miles towards Land's End versus: so far (day 6) we have traveled 500 miles towards Land's End
| a) "so far" would be the best choice if you are in the act of travleing and have not reached your destination.
|
What single word can replace 'nearly never' in 'It nearly never occurs'? I am talking about an event that is nearly never observed, but I don't want to say "it does not happen" but this would not be correct. Is it possible to write It nearly never occurs. with a single word for "nearly never". I've found "almost never" could be a good choice, but I would like a single word if this exists. context : Fires "nearly never" occur more than once in the same year. EDIT : I consider that fires are already a "rare event". A second fire in a place that has already burnt (therefore with usually no more inflammable substances) should therefore not occur. However, it does sometime occur (with a very small probability) when the first fire did not burn everything and there is a new start of fire and the external conditions are favourable to fire etc. Hence my quest for a "nearly never" word, which I didn't like. I had several answer and I thank all who answered. However, most answers provide more than one solution so I cannot make the difference between good "answers" and good "solutions" based on the vote. I personnally see three options : option 1 : forget about using a single word and use "almost never" option 2 : use "rarely" (voted up in the comment, voted down in one answer (or maybe the answer was voted down because it was too short) because almost never is too strong. But as I said I am looking for something strong, maybe something between "almost never" which seems to be used for probability of "0" and rarely (probability of 0.0001). In my case it is like a probability of 0.000000001. option 3 : use scarcely, which is the closest match to "almost never". @helix mentioned it and the definition seemed appropriate in my case. <Q> Exactly what StoneyB and helix suggests. <S> A single word for that could be... <S> Seldom , Rarely , Scarcely or Barely (#2) . <S> Just to add the preference of writers. <S> An interesting nGram suggests the use of 'rarely', 'barely', 'seldom' and 'scarcely' in that order. <S> Other synonyms (check out the color/shading) here on thesaurus. <A> Not one word , but this phrase is more natural than saying nearly never . <S> : <S> Almost never One word: <S> Hardly <S> Also used as hardly ever . <S> Scarcely or Barely Only just; almost not: <S> Usage graph specific to your context: <A> Use "rarely ever. <S> "The <S> extra "ever" makes the "rarely" much stronger, but not as far as "almost never". <A> Interestingly, in mathematics "almost surely" and "almost never" are very formally defined terms - Wikipedia - though they imply something far more rare than what you're getting at. <S> "Fires rarely occur more than once in the same year" is more correct than "Fires almost never occur once in the same year <S> " - I can find a handful of cases searching Google, "almost never," when used formally, is more appropriate for things like "The second law of thermodynamics is almost never violated in a macroscopic scale", since it can be violated, just with 0 probability. <A> As you've already gathered, nearly never should immediately be discounted in favour of almost never , as a two word solution. <S> Of the single word options suggested so far, particularly in the context of the sample usage ( "fires almost never occur more than once in the same year" ) <S> you give in your latest edit, seldom and rarely stand head and shoulders above scarcely and barely as drop in replacements for almost never , indeed the latter pair are very awkward and arguably invalid in your sentence without themselves being converted to two word expressions - scarcely ever and barely ever . <S> Seldom and rarely could both be given increased emphasis by appending ever (though defeating your object), but work well enough on their own. <S> So stick with seldom or rarely if you really want a single word replacement, but I wouldn't say that either conveys quite the sense of infrequency as almost never , and I wouldn't see any need of my own to replace that with a single word at all. <A> The word seldom can be used instead of the words nearly never in a sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence. <S> It seldom occurs. <S> The word ever can be added after seldom in this sentence. <S> Although this would not be a single word replacement for nearly never , it would be grammatically correct and it also sounds much better in my opinion. <S> It seldom ever occurs. <A> infrequently or occasionally are about as strong a wording as I can get.
| Scarcely (used to qualify a statement by saying that it is true to an insignificant degree).
|
What do you think about the grammar of this quote ...? "It took me 17 years and 114 days to become an overnight success" ..'According to me it should be " it took me 17 years and 114 days to become an overnight successful person " or it should be " it took me 17 years and 114 days to get an overnight success "'for instance we cannot say "to become painting ".., we should rather use "to become a painter".. <Q> There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. <S> Here's why: Success can be a noun that refers to a person. <S> From Google "define: word" a person or thing that achieves desired aims or attains prosperity. <S> Overnight can mean "very quickly" From Google "define: word" very quickly; suddenly. <S> See more examples from Google Books <S> This phrase refers to a person that became successful very quickly. <S> Bonus <S> - What the quote means: The person who said this disagrees that he is an "overnight success" by saying that he took a very long time to be successful. <A> Per www.m-w.com , success can be defined as: someone or something that is successful : a person or thing that succeeds <S> Therefore, referring to someone as "a success" is acceptable and grammatical. <S> Further, "an overnight success" is an idiomatic phrase, referring to someone who has suddenly arrived in the public spotlight and is receiving a lot of positive attention. <S> It seems that one day you've never heard of them, and the next day you cannot avoid seeing them in the news <S> , the talk shows, the gossip magazines, etc. <S> The quote is pointing out that from the "overnight success's" standpoint, it actually took a very long time, working hard and remaining relatively obscure, before their fame and fortune finally arrived. <A> ,,, but you can say, "It is a beautiful painting. <S> " You're falling for the trap of thinking that because you know one definition of the word "success", that that is the only definition, and if that doesn't make sense in context, the sentence must be invalid. <S> If a word looks out of place in a sentence, consider the possibility of alternative definitions of the word before you conclude the sentence is flawed.
| The use of overnight success is very common
|
All of your doubt will suddenly go away / goes away? "All of your doubt will suddenly go away when..." "All of your doubt will suddenly goes away when..." Go away or goes away?Which sentence is grammatically right? <Q> You could use the present tense goes , but without the will , i.e. "All of your doubt suddenly goes away when... your question is answered on StackExchange." <A> I'd use "All of your doubt will suddenly go away when...". <S> Go is a verb used with a plural subject (which 'all of your doubt' is), while goes is only used when you have a singular subject <S> (like The dog goes to the store ) <A> After modal verbs you have infinitive present or infinitive perfect. <S> can/could + <S> do/have done <S> may/might + do/have done must/--- + do/have done - must has no past form, only in sub-clauses a past tense of must can occur in literature <S> shall/should + <S> do/have done <S> will/would + <S> do/ have done
| "All of your doubt will suddenly go away" is correct because will go is the future tense of the verb to go .
|
"making noise" or "make a noise"? I was beginning to get confused on this sentence structure. I wager a noise is not singular or is it? Stop making a noise Stop making noise Which of these is a good way to present this situation? <Q> While you could say "Stop making a noise" for a single occurrance, its more natural to say what the noise is, also stop is not good here, because it implies an ongoing condition (that would be "noise" not "a noise"). <S> Better would be: <S> Don't make a sound. <S> Don't make a noise is also OK, but I think (in AmE anyway) <S> Don't make any noise. <S> is better. <A> "Stop making a noise" is strange because the speaker must be referring back to a specific sound, part of the context shared by the speaker and listener. <S> "Stop making that noise" would be more appropriate in reference to a specific sound. <S> In this sentence, noise is countable. <S> "Stop making noise" is also possible. <S> Here, noise is treated as a mass noun meaning "noise in general". <S> The focus is not on the specific sound the listener is or was making. <A> "noise" is both countable and uncountable. <S> It's countable when it means one specific sound. <S> "I heard a strange noise. <S> " It's uncountable when it's noise in general. <S> "I heard some noise coming from the shop." <A> The word noise is countable and uncountable both. <S> So, it depends on the context. <S> OLD in its similar example prefers putting the indefinite article a . <S> noise (n) - don't make a noise <S> You may further read on this on the same page to learn where is it countable and where is it not. <A> Since you want the person to stop, it means that the noise is ongoing, so it will have various different sounds. ' <S> Making a noise' is appropriate, but 'making noise' just sounds more normal.
| Usually, when someone is making noise, it is more common in speech to say 'making noise,' not 'making a noise,' because the person is usually making more than one noise.
|
How to understand the preposition “for” in “She is Miss Asia for 2006” How should I understand the preposition “for” in “She is Miss Asia for 2006”? Why not say “She is Miss Asia in 2006”? What’s the usage of “for” here? <Q> So the first emphasizes the duration during which she holds the title, namely from election up to the end of the year. <S> The latter emphasizes the event of the election itself. <A> This sentence <S> "she is/was Miss Asia for 2006" is actually slightly ambiguous, although not in a way that makes a difference in this example. <S> First meaning: <S> I don't know the name of the grammar rule, but it's because 2006 has a Miss Asia ( <S> exactly one Miss Asia <S> I assume), and <S> the sentence is asserting that she's it. <S> It would be correct to say either "she was Miss Asia in 2006" or "she was Miss Asia for 2006" or even "she was Miss Asia of 2006". <S> The second and third emphasise that there was a role <S> and she was the person filling it, "Miss Asia for 2006" is a noun phrase. <S> The first just tells you at what time the event "she was Miss Asia" occurred. <S> With this first meaning, you can even say in 2014, "she is Miss Asia for 2006". <S> She's not Miss Asia any more, of course, but she's always "Miss Asia for 2006", so you can just about support it. <S> Second meaning <S> "For 2006" indicates that the event occurred for the full duration of the year. <S> So "I was employee of the month in 2006 <S> " means I won it at least once in that year, but I don't specify which month(s). <S> "I was employee of the month for 2006", if it means anything, suggests that I won it 12 times in a row. <S> Since Miss Asia is a yearly contest, there's no such difference in your example. <S> I don't know when in the year the Miss Asia competition is held, or when the office officially changes hands. <S> It's possible that Miss Asia 2006 does not in truth hold the office for the calendar year 2006, but would be natural to permit that inaccuracy anyway. " <S> For 2006" might be understood to mean "for the competition year 2006-7 running from when she won it to when the next one was held". <S> Or it might be that Miss Asia 2006 is chosen in 2005 and takes office on 1st January. <S> I really don't care ;-) <S> With this second meaning, you would only say "she is Miss Asia for 2006" during 2006, or before 2006 if she's the Miss-Asia-elect who hasn't yet taken office, or when using the historical present . <S> In 2014 you'd normally say "was". <A> This is an example of "for" used to mean " on behalf of ." <S> Miss Asia is a yearly contest (actually there are several different Miss Asia contests with slightly different names, run by different organizations; presumably this is just referring to whichever one is the most influential). <S> There is one winner — a titleholder — selected each year. <S> Pageant winners in particular are thought of as representing that particular year, since they're often called on to show up at civic and promotional events during their "reign." <S> Here's a similar example that demonstrates this usage more clearly, by using a place rather than a time: <S> "She is the company's supply chain manager for the southwestern US." <S> The choice of "for" creates a strong association between the geographical region and the job title. <S> It's another way of saying "She is the supply chain manager responsible for the southwestern US." <S> (Calling her " the manager" also helps.) <S> Contrast with this sentence: <S> "She is a supply chain manager in the southwestern US." <S> Here we are stating that she lives or works in the area, but her job title isn't strongly associated with "the southwestern US" in any way. <A> This might be an utter wild guess but my horse-sense says it has some logic. <S> In such sentences, the preposition for is generally used when we refer to the contest of the present year . <S> Having said, if someone is elected Miss today, it'll be for year 2014 . <S> If it is the past event, a girl is crowned Miss in that year. <S> So, if someone was crowned in 1998, it'll be <S> She was Miss [anything] in 1998. <S> In your example too, it reads is , the present tense and hence the sentence is spoken/written in that current year i.e. 2006. <S> Thus, it might have taken for . <S> Surprisingly, Google supported my wild guess! <S> When I searched for the correct phrase Miss...for (year) , it returned the results of particular years in present tense. <S> And, when I searched in , it returned the results of those particular years in past tense! <S> This is wonderful: Check the results Miss World 'for', it shows only three results and all are of this current year! <S> Miss World 'in': <S> Results of the past years Miss World 'for': <S> Results of the current year Isn't it quite similar to: <S> What are your plans for this year. <S> AND What were your plans in that year.
| To me, “for 2006” has the meaning of “for the duration of the year 2006”, whereas “in 2006” would mean “at some point during the year 2006”. I guess it's derived from "for" meaning "on behalf of".
|
What are other ways to describe second-last? Actually, I'm not even sure if the "second-last" is the correct term. Here is how I would use it: Go down the hallway, it's the second-last door on your right. which I want to describe the door that is immediately next to the last door. What are other ways to describe it? Can I say, e.g., next-last ? Also, how about the one that next to second-last? Can I say third-last? EDIT: broadening the usage, can I say "this is the next-best choice"? Are there any other ways to express it? Thanks <Q> The last room is the ultimate room. <S> The next-to-last room is the pen ultimate room. <S> The <S> next-to-next-to-last room is ante penultimate room. <S> The <S> next-to-next-to-next-to-last room is the pre antepenultimate room. <S> You do have to be careful with context though, as ultimate could also be taken as the "best" choice. <S> The ultimate vacation would be the best vacation, not the worst. <A> I agree with @MaulikV's answer that "second-to-last" is a natural way to describe it; "next-to-last" would also be perfectly normal and possibly even more common. <S> Other ways to describe it would be to say "last-but-one" or something like "6th out of 7." <S> To answer your "broadened usage" question, yes, you can go from best to next-best or second-best ; in these cases, the preposition to is not required (indeed, it must be omitted). <A> Note, the to is added there. <S> The single word for that is: penultimate (but I agree with relaxing! ) <S> penultimate - occurring immediately before the last one Just a concern, if you are describing the rooms in a series, aren't they numbered? <S> The edit after OP's comment: Since you described the scenario where the rooms are not numbered and even if they are, how to say it? <S> I think it's all about lessening the efforts to find the exact room, isn't it?. <S> Now, suppose if you 20 rooms in a row, I'd prefer telling him the 6th room on your right over X-to-last . <S> The finder does not have to go to the last room and come backward. <S> Instead, he'll start counting and stop right in front of the 5th room! <S> This way, we save his efforts of finding <S> non numbered or numbered room. <S> Note that as the order of the room number gets closer to 20, our term penultimate , third-to-last <S> comes into the picture.
| You may go for second-to-last .
|
He mustn't / couldn't have been hungry, part 2 having read the thread "He mustn't / couldn't have been hungry" He mustn't / couldn't have been hungry , I am still unsure whether or not there is such a wording as "mustn't have past participle". Situation: I saw Peter and Jane holding hands. Speculation (my choice): They must have been lovers. The opposite of this would be: They can't/couldn't have been lovers. Incorrect: They mustn't have been lovers. What is the situation with "mustn't have past participle"? Is there such usage, and if yes, in what context? Many thanks for explaining this once again. Melinda <Q> When we say mustn't be, we mean cannot be. <S> If we want to say that they either could or could not be, we will say don't have to be or needn't be or don't need to be. <S> You don't need to wear formal dress. <S> You musn't wear formal dress. <S> The first one means that formal dress is optional; the second means that formal dress is forbidden. <S> So, to your examples. <S> Can't/ <S> couldn't/mustn't have been lovers are basically equivalent. <S> I saw Peter and Jane holding hands. <S> Since they were both married, they couldn't/can't <S> /mustn't have been lovers. <S> These all mean roughly the same thing. <S> Mustn't usually conveys a bit less forcefulness than can't or couldn't, but it is saying the same thing. <S> For example: He can't have been wearing a red tie. <S> He hates red ties. <S> He must not have gone downtown this afternoon, since I saw him sitting on his porch. <S> The first is drawing a little bit stronger conclusion than the second, but they are both saying that the condition described is sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion. <S> Now, consider this: Peter and Jane don't have to be lovers just because I saw them holding hands. <S> This is saying that the fact of holding hands isn't enough evidence to draw the conclusion that they are lovers. <S> However, they might be. <S> Now, the simple past mustn't have a past participle. <S> That means that you can not use a past participle with the simple past. <S> This, by the way, is the opposite of German. <S> "Es muss nicht sein, aber es kann sein" translates " <S> It doesn't have to be, but it can be. <S> " <S> "It must not be" translates "es darf nicht sein." <A> If you say: Why were they holding hands? <S> She can't have fallen for him! <S> there are two possibilities. <S> You might know, for some reason, that she did not have feelings for him: <S> She can't have fallen for him; she is a robot, and not programmed to love! <S> Or you might simply be expressing disbelief in the possibility: She can't have fallen for him; he's a disgusting slob! <S> The meaning changed if you use "must not" in this sentence (and "must not" is more idiomatic than "mustn't" in many dialects of American English; "mustn't" often comes across as archaic or fussy). <S> "Must not" implies that you originally thought otherwise, but that you're accepting that your were wrong: I saw them holding hands, so they must not have been enemies after all. <S> So in your example, it wouldn't make sense to say that since you saw them holding hands, they "mustn't have been lovers. <S> " That would imply that you thought they were lovers, but changed your mind after seeing them holding hands. <S> It would make more sense to say, "I always suspected Jonathan and Lois were having an affair. <S> But I just found out that Jonathan is gay. <S> So Jonathan and Lois must not have been lovers after all." <A> You mustn't have understood when you were studying modals! <S> I think you're looking at this the wrong way. <S> Let's start with a simple present perfect example. <S> He has arrived. <S> That sounds like a certainty and it implies the speaker knows for sure. <S> But if there is no certainty, if it's a guess, then we insert a modal such as <S> must or should into our sentence. <S> He must have arrived. <S> Now we have a supposition because the speaker doesn't know for sure. <S> The tense remains the same, it is indicated by "has arrived", a present perfect construction. <S> The modal does not affect the tense, it does not conjugate like other verbs, it just switches the attitude from certain to likely.
| "Mustn't" or "must not" has a very different meaning from "can't" or "couldn't" in this construction.
|
We're out of time. We're running out of time What is the difference between "We're out of time." and "We're running out of time."? Are they both correct phrases? And they have same meaning?Could you please tell me what is the difference. <Q> Imagine a clock counting down from one hour to zero. <S> When the clock hits zero, a bomb goes off. <S> You have been sent in to defuse it. <S> At the beginning, you tell your boss, "Don't worry. <S> An hour is plenty of time to defuse a bomb. <S> When the countdown hits five minutes and it still isn't defused, your boss tells you to hurry, because you're running out of time. <S> When the countdown hits zero and the bomb explodes, only then are you out of time. <S> In other words: "running out of time" implies that there is still a little bit of time left. <S> Out of time means that there isn't. <A> It is finished. <S> We're running out of time <S> means that we are coming to the end of your allotted time <S> but there is still time if you hurry. <A> True and agreed to all answers here, but just to make it a bit technical. <S> We can also say we ran out of time . <S> running in running out shows continuous tense there that means the thing is still going on . <S> But then, if you use run/ran out , the continuity is gone which means the thing is over! <S> We were running out of time - <S> This describes the continuous process i.e. you are still somewhere 'within the time specified'. <S> We ran out of time - the continuity is gone. <S> You are not in that specific time limit anymore.
| We're out of time means that the allotted time has been used.
|
Use of "so many" without specifying: so many WHAT? I read a certain script of some film. An old man : But so many have been killed. We've lost so many. He said, "so many" instead of "so many people".Is this fine? Natural? I know the word "many" alone can refer to "many people" as noun.But there is "so" added before the word, "many" : "so many" I think "so many people" or "the many" makes sense. But how about "so many"? <Q> I can't believe you bought so many! <S> It's crazy how many came tonight. <S> However, such usages are perfectly acceptable when context provides sufficient detail, and the clarifying information would merely be redundant: <S> Shampoo was on sale, so I bought 20 bottles . <S> Twenty? <S> I can't believe you bought so many! <S> This is probably the busiest day we've had since we opened our restaurant . <S> Yeah, it's crazy how many came tonight. <S> In such conversations, clarifying words might follow "too many" if the dialog was rearranged, and <S> "so many" was used before <S> the context had been set: I can't believe you bought so many bottles of shampoo! <S> Well, it was on sale, so I bought twenty . <S> It's crazy how many customers came tonight! <S> Yeah, this is probably the busiest day we've had since we opened our restaurant . <S> You've taken one line out of a script, and put it here all by itself. <S> Still, we can guess what happened (it sounds like the old man is talking about a battle or a war). <S> However, additional context could prove me wrong: <S> Old man's wife: <S> It been a terribly cold winter; but at least we still have half our cattle. <S> Old man: <S> But so many have been killed. <S> We've lost so many. <S> Old man 1: <S> This has been a terrible smallpox epidemic. <S> I'm glad it seems to be over. <S> Old man 2: <S> But so many have been killed. <S> We've lost so many. <A> It is fine. <S> It is poetic. <S> It uses elipsis. <S> Never was so much owed by so many to so few. <S> Churchill <A> When it's obvious what "many" refers to, you don't have to say the word with it, for example you can say "many" instead of "many people". <S> With this kind of use "so" means "a large extent" and it can be used to modify adjectives, so you can use it to modify "many" and you don't need to use "people". <S> In this sentence "so many" by itself is correct.
| It is true that "so many", by itself, can sound a little awkward:
|
The polite ways of disagreement I wonder if someone could tell me which one of the following choices work in AmE nowadays as a polite way of bringing up a disagreement: -A- I take the liberty to disagree. -B- I humbly disagree. -C- I dare to disagree. -D- I venture to disagree. I guess excepting "D" all of them work, but "C" sounds a bit old-fashioned and the most appropriate is "B". Anyway I think "A" and "B" cannot be used in separated contexts and they mean the same. <Q> -A- <S> I take the liberty to disagree. <S> I've never heard this. <S> It sounds very constructed to me. <S> -B- <S> I humbly disagree. <S> This works, but is very formal. <S> -C- <S> I dare to disagree. <S> I've never heard this. <S> It sounds very odd to me. <S> -D- <S> I venture to disagree. <S> This sounds grammatically incorrect. <S> I would say "I WOULD venture to disagree." <S> personally. <S> Again, very formal. <S> In conclusion, B and D work for very formally disagreeing with somebody. <S> Or you could even use "I respectfully disagree. <S> " But there are a host of less formal ways to disagree with people as well. <S> Personally, I would probably say something diplomatic like... <S> "Are you sure about that?" <S> "Maybe, but I think..." <S> "I'm not sure that's the best idea." <S> etc. <A> I would say: I beg to disagree. <S> As for your options: <S> -A- <S> I will/would take the liberty to disagree. <S> when you take the liberty to disagree, you have the freedom to do so, but no disagreement occurs at that moment. <S> Either you will disagree, or you already disagreed. <S> So it would be the above or: <S> I took the liberty to disagree. <S> next... <S> -B- <S> I humbly disagree. <S> is very formal. <S> -C- <S> I dare to disagree. <S> when you disagree but don't think you have the right or basis to disagree. <S> You are taking a chance. <S> -D- <S> I venture to disagree. <S> considering the option to disagree (or not), and taking a chance in the process. <S> Venture is a risk in this case. <S> For example, I would venture to disagree with your review of that movie. <S> This means I would consider disagreeing with your review of the movie, taking a chance that I may be wrong. <A> All of the sentences you said are grammatically correct, but they are very formal or old-fashioned <S> and they would be used in writing if used at all. <S> In what situation are you using these sentences? <S> If you want to disagree in a more normal situation you can use the word "actually" in the beginning of your sentence. <S> The word "actually" is used to more politely tell someone that you don't agree, and then you won't need to say "I don't agree". <S> For example: Person A: "I think the Earth is flat." <S> Person B: <S> " Actually , the Earth is round." <S> "Actually" can also be used with "I don't agree", so you could say: "Actually, I don't agree with that." <S> In English, the less firmly you state something, the more polite it is, so <S> any words or phrases you add to the sentence that make it less specific, less direct, or more of an isolated opinion will make it more polite. <S> Using these phrases (or combining them) can make your sentence more polite when you are introducing what you are disagreeing about or stating your opposing opinion: <S> I think (that) .... <S> It seems (that) .... <S> Generally, .... <S> Occasionally, ....... tend to .... <S> It's possible (that) .... <S> (replace regular adjective form with a comparative form)(replace "is" with "can be" or "could be") <S> A <S> direct (and less polite) disagreement: <S> Sports players are rude. <S> The polite way: <S> Occasionally, sports players can be a little rude. <S> OR <S> Occasionally, sports players tend to be a little rude. <S> Other examples: <S> The end of the world is near. <S> -> <S> I think it's possible that the end of the world is nearer. <S> This movie is terrible. <S> -> Some people think this movie isn't very good. <S> There are many combinations of these phrases you can use, and this way of disagreeing politely can be used in conversational English or written English.
| If you want to disagree with somebody and really emphasize disagreement, you can simply use"I disagree."
|
I can’t wait for you (until / up to) (8 p.m. / one week) In the following sentences as both 'up to' and 'until' refer to a period of time, why they don't make sense (according to the this link: Do these sentences in each set mean the same or not? ) I can’t wait for you until one week. I can’t wait for you up to one week. I can’t wait for you up to 8 p.m. While the following sentence works properly: I can’t wait for you until 8 p.m.” is idiomatic? <Q> First, don't use the negative for these sentences. <S> You want to indicate that waiting is ok before this time and not after, correct? <S> In that case, you should use: I can wait until 8pm. <S> I can wait (for) up to one week. <S> You can place "for you" after "wait" or at the end of the sentence. <S> "Up to" is used for a period of time and you can use it with or without "for". <S> For example: one weekthree daysa year "Until" is used with a point in time . <S> Other examples: tomorrow10:30Friday <S> If you wanted to indicate that you were very excited for something to happen and that you didn't want to wait for it to happen, then you could use the negative form "I can't wait", but I'm guessing that this isn't the meaning you want here. <A> until 8PM the time between now <S> and 8PM <S> up to one week any length of time less than or equal to one week. <S> However, can't wait <S> usage is a bit illogical in these examples, but I am not saying its wrong. <S> You could say: I will wait for you until 8PM. <S> or I will wait for you (for) up to one week. <S> Not sure of the reason offhand but using "for" sounds better here. <S> The word "for" is commonly used to indicate periods of time. <S> You can use this phrase with or without "for". <A> I can't wait for you until one week. <S> This does not work because "one week" is a duration and "until" references a specific time . <S> You can make it work by specifying a starting time: I can't wait for you until one week from now. <S> This one: <S> I can't wait for you up to one week. <S> is not actually wrong, just a bit clumsy and not something I would expect to hear. <S> An alternative is: I can't wait for you for a whole week. <S> This one: <S> I can't wait for you up to 8pm. <S> just doesn't sound right. <S> A native speaker would normally use the last: I can't wait for you until 8pm. <S> Since this can have two interpretations, it's up to the listener to determine the correct one.
| Basically you use up to with a period of time, and until leading up to a point in time.
|
"I like to read by/with the light of the candle." Which is right? I like to read by/with the light of the candle. Which one do you say or write? <Q> The more idiomatic answer is "by. <S> " This is a special case used to describe a light source. <S> It would also be more idiomatic to say "by candlelight" rather than "by the light of a candle," unless you wanted to emphasize that there was only a single candle. <S> Any light source should be used with "by," and any activity, not just reading. <S> For example, Shakespeare: <S> Ill-met by moonlight, proud Titania. <S> and Victor Hugo (in translation, of course): <S> So be it: I will die by starlight. <S> "With" would not be idiomatic in most English dialects. <S> However, this is only the case if the light source is the object of the preposition "by. <S> " You can add an adjective to the light source, or add additional prepositional phrases to the end, and still use "by": <S> He read it by the flickering light of the candelabra, held high over his head. <S> I prefer to read the Necronomicon by the light of a single black tallow candle. <S> But a noun phrase with an independent verb is generally preceded by "with," not "by": <S> He read it with the candelabra held high over his head. <S> I prefer to read the Necronomicon with only a single candle lit. <A> I like to read by the light of the candle. <S> Is fine technically if you're trying to be overly poetic or dramatic. <S> It wouldn't be used in everyday speech though. <S> I like to read with the light of the candle. <S> Is also fine but puts a slight emphasis on the candle's light. <A> by the candle light , means near the light of a candle. <S> with the light of a candle means using the light of a candle. <S> Personally I'd use by a candle light <A> I use by in this case. <S> It sounds strange to my ear to say "I read with candle light", but sounds correct to say "I read with a candle". <S> The probably has to do with the candle being a tool that I'm using (and thus similar to, say, "I read with glasses"), whereas the light is distinct from the candle (similarly, I would say "I read by moonlight"). <A> "By the light of a candle." <S> That is much preferred to with . <S> (But note to <S> the before candle <S> when discussing preferences in general.)
| The are both correct but sound a bit old in usage since we no longer use a candle light to read.
|
present perfect or past simple Is it possible to write I have woken up very early today because I don't want to miss my favourite Tv show or I woke up very early today because I don't want to miss my favourite tv show In both cases I mean that the tv show is in the future, it has not happened yet. <Q> Their usage( present perfect/past tense) depends on the time you are talking <S> For example if it <S> it still morning , when you are saying it, then, the present perfect tense is correct. <S> to miss my favourite tv show. <S> I have woken up very early today because I don't want to miss my favourite tv show. <S> ** . <S> (The use of the present perfect tense here, tells us it's still morning,a , ), and it implies that the TV show will be shown at some time in the morning. <S> (Why else, would you wake up early?). <S> or I woke up very early today because I don't want to miss my favourite tv show. <S> ( The past tense here shows us that it isn't morning any longer; it might be noon, afternoon,etc). <S> Although the second sentence seems correct, waking up very early to watch a TV show at noon, in the afternoon ,etc, doesn't make much sense, does it? <A> If the TV show is a future event: <S> Your first sentence can work, if by the time you say it the show has not been seen yet. <S> The past tense suggests an event happened in the past, so it would not work in this case. <A> I would say "I woke up early in the morning". <S> Your waking up is situated in the past and has no relation to the moment when you say or write this sentence. <A> You should use present perfect in a case if now is still a morning <S> and you are just explaining to someone (e.g. your friend) why you have woken up so early today. <S> So, the occasion you are talking about influences the situation you're in right now.
| The first one is correct.
|
"fully stuffed with cash" or "stuffed full of cash." While I was checking the meaning of stuff I found this two examples below. An old teapot stuffed full of cash. and The wallet was stuffed full of pictures, letters, keepsakes and prayer cards. But I've learned that they should be "stuffed with" . Could someone please analyze the two mentioned examples? <Q> Their meanings are practically the same but they have different structures. <S> Let's compare: <S> The wallet was stuffed full of pictures, letters, keepsakes and prayer cards. <S> The verb stuffed is modified by the adverbial phrase "full of pictures... <S> prayer cards" . <S> The wallet was stuffed with pictures, letters, keepsakes and prayer cards. <S> Here, the "with pictures... prayer cards" part is a prepositional phrase . <A> It takes a direct object, but it also takes a PP complement ( stuffed with ... ) or an AdjP predicative complement ( stuffed full of ... ) with a resultative interpretation. <S> Compare paint , which can take a resultative AdjP: <S> The house was painted blue . <S> Usually verbs that take complements of this kind take a fairly narrow range of AdjPs specific to that verb. <S> Some can take NPs as well. <S> In "the house was painted blue", blue is an adjective which describes the state of the house resulting from the act of painting: <S> The house was painted blue . <S> (As a result, the house is blue .) <S> Here are some more examples: <S> She jerked the door open . <S> (As a result, the door is open .) <S> He drained that sucker dry . <S> (As a result, that sucker is dry .) <S> She shot the bird dead . <S> (As a result, the bird is dead .) <S> Kim knocked him senseless . <S> (As a result, he is senseless .) <S> Each of these complex-transitive verbs takes an object ( door, that sucker, the bird, him ) as well as an AdjP predicative complement with a resultative interpretation. <S> Note that in each case, the AdjP isn't describing the way the action takes place. <S> Dead isn't the way she shot the bird; it's the state the bird is in after she shot it. <S> Senseless isn't the way Kim knocked him; it's the state he was in after she knocked him (senseless). <S> Now let's passivize the examples above and remove the actor from each: <S> The door was jerked open . <S> That sucker was drained dry . <S> The bird was shot dead . <S> He was knocked senseless . <S> When you do this, the AdjP appears directly after the verb. <S> Your example is like this: an old teapot (that was) stuffed full of cash <S> By the way, this example taken as a whole is a noun phrase, not a complete sentence, so I didn't capitalize the first letter or put a period at the end. <S> The wallet was stuffed full of pictures, letters, keepsakes and prayer cards . <S> This example is pretty much the same. <S> In either case, you could instead use a with PP, but it's not required. <A> As Jim said, it's not always the case. <S> If you have seen stuffed with it <S> generally refers to some dish where stuffing/filling happens. <S> Note that it's stuffed with and your sentences read [stuffed] <S> [full of] which means the thing has many bills (cash), letters, pictures or things the like. <S> If it uses with , probably it goes like stuff an old teapot with all the bills and coins you have.
| Stuff is a complex-transitive verb.
|
What does "weighted pass" mean in soccer sense? With roughly 15 minutes remaining in the first half, Christian Volesky was in clean on goal after a well- weighted pass in the right channel from Matt Polster, but didn't get the contact he wanted and allowed the Louisville goalkeeper to save. Does it just mean its a good pass? or actually this is a type of technique in soccer? <Q> A weighted pass means you are passing the ball – not to the place where the player is , but to the place where your moving teammate will be : <S> Source <S> The term isn't necessarily only used in football; I found this in a rugby book: <S> If the first receiver is to be the springboard of the attack, it is his responsibility to control the movements of the defence and to give a perfectly-weighted pass to a runner in the gap created. <S> Source: <S> Bert Holcroft, Book 2: Futuristic Rugby League: <S> Academy of Excellence For Coaching Rugby Skills and Fitness Drills <S> and this one is from a recap of an ice hockey game: <S> Andres split the Notre Dame defense with a brilliantly weighted pass that found the stick of Reynolds, who was gliding toward the goal. <S> Source <S> The blue line in this diagram shows the trajectory of a weighted pass: <S> You can watch the execution of the pass at this YouTube video . <A> The "weight" of a pass is how hard you hit the ball. <S> As far as English language is concerned, the meaning is because of the association between weight and force. <S> Weight of pass is key: <S> The speed of the ball is crucial to a successful pass <S> http://performance.fourfourtwo.com/technique/xavi-master-the-pass <S> It's usually used when the pass must be neither too fast nor too slow in order to work. <S> Of course, with Xavi's standard and style of play this is all passes ;-) <S> A pass hit forward as hard as possible is not usually referred to as "well-weighted" even when it's correct to hit it that hard. <S> Note that a "well-weighted pass" is a pass that is "well-weighted", not a "weighted pass" that is well :-) <S> It is most important to weight the pass correctly when passing into space, hence the meaning given by J.R, that a "weighted pass" is a pass where the ball meets a team-mate running onto it. <S> That is to say, a pass where the weight is just as important as the direction and flight. <S> Too hard and your team-mate won't reach it. <S> Too slow and there may be a defender in position to cut it off, or even the best outcome <S> your team-mate must break stride to collect it. <A> Well-weighted pass , means a well thought and professionally carried out action. <S> In other words the player was able to see the opportunity for this action and played it successfully.
| A "well-weighted pass" is one that has the correct weight for the situation. A good weighted ball is played into space in front of your teammate making it quite easy for them to run on to it in stride.
|
The nuance of 'young' and 'younger' in this context While reading Swan's Practical English Usage, I came across this sentence I don't do much sport now, but I did play football when I was younger . Why comparative younger? Simply young could have worked there, couldn't it? Or, does it mean that 'younger' means the speaker just left playing sport last year? As it reflects younger as the phase of life earlier than the present year (of his age). For instance, if the speaker is 45... I don't do much sport now, but I did play football when I was younger (than this age) -> Up till 44 he played OVER I don't do much sport now, but I did play football when I was young -> When he was young, say in 20s-30s or whatever. <Q> In this sort of discourse, both young and younger refer to “life stages” rather than mathematical measurements. <S> So younger would not mean “at all earlier ages” but “in an earlier stage of life”. <S> But where you draw the lines between stages is certainly going to depend on your age and your personal history: <S> when did you stop being young? <S> Thus, if I as a man of 66 said “I did theatre when I was young” I would probably mean starting at around fifteen or sixteen and up until I was twenty-five or thirty; but when I say “I did theatre when I was young er ”, I mean up until I was in my late forties, with the starting point left very vague. <S> When I say “I played football when I was young” I mean from about age ten until about age eighteen. <S> And when I say “I have been fond of Gilbert and Sullivan since I was young” I mean since about age five. <S> But that’s only what I mean ; there’s no way you can derive those epochs from what I actually say. <S> If you need more precision than “in the past/in the remote past” you have to ask me. <A> Young is the time of life before adulthood, synonymous with youth. <S> When I was young . <S> = <S> When I was a youth. <S> Before my adulthood. <S> This wouldn't make much sense for a 10 year old to say, but they may. <S> Also, someone that is 100 may use young to refer to their twenties, even though that is adulthood. <S> Younger is comparative with the current age. <S> When I was younger . = <S> Ages prior to my current age. <S> If you are 100 then younger could be 90, however in the context of playing football that is not as likely. <A> "Younger" would be the more common way for a middle aged person to say it. <S> Usually we would say "when I was younger", or "when I was a kid" if it's something that stopped when the speaker was very young, like Little League Baseball. <S> If the speaker is talking about, say, basketball, he might have played in college and beyond. <S> Also, "when I was young" implies that the speaker is old (not young at all anymore). <S> We older folks don't necessarily like to say that. <A> In this case, a lot will depend on context; I don't think you can draw conclusions as firm as the ones you suggest. <S> It is not the case that "younger" necessarily means very recently. <S> If the person is very old; for example, in their eighties, they would be more likely to describe something that happened in their sixties as "when I was younger" than "when I was young." <S> But that's not certain. <S> And either phrase could be used to describe something that happened when they were in their twenties.
| The main difference between young and younger is that young refers to the earliest stage of life which would be appropriate to the specific activity under discussion, while younger refers to some earlier stage of life which is not so remote that it would be qualified as young . This obviously depends on context.
|
What is the difference "Cut" and "Cut off" "Cut out" Here is a quote from a certain movie : "He cut out his own arm." And now I really want to understand what is the difference between them below. I mean what kind of nuances has each of them? They all sound fine and natural to you who is English-native speaker? A) He cut his own arm. B) He cut out his own arm. C) He cut off his own arm. <Q> He cut his own arm. <S> Pretty simple. <S> Ian took a knife and made a cut on his arm. <S> He cut out his own arm. <S> This really don't make sense as your arm is not in anything to begin with. <S> There are some very specific and uncommon circumstances where this could make sense though. <S> He cut off his own arm. <S> Ian was trapped by a boulder so he cut off his own arm to escape. <A> To cut , as you already know, is generally 'to slice with a sharp object'; if you "cut your own arm", you take a knife and make an incision somewhere on your arm. <S> To cut out is probably, in this case, 'to free from entrapment by cutting the trapping material'. <S> If you "cut out your own arm", then somehow one arm is trapped, perhaps under a fallen log, and you use your other arm to cut the log until you can get your first arm free. <S> (This usage seems very unlikely.) <S> The most common use of cut out is 'to shape an item by cutting a larger element'; for instance, if I have a piece of paper, I could 'cut out a paper doll'. <S> To cut off is to sever or detach; if you "cut off your own arm", then either you no longer have an arm, or you need major surgery to get it re-attached. <A> " <S> Cut is an interesting word. <S> Cut is an auto-antonym . <S> In short, the word has multiple meanings, with one of them meaning the opposite definition of the other. <S> Cut can mean "cut in", like we cut him in the deal. <S> Or it can mean the opposite, as in cut him out of the deal. <A> Out of context, this sentence does not sound grammatical. <S> Taken in context, that the man cut his arm to feed the baby, this phrasing does make sense because it adds emphasis to the arm itself rather than the man who is cutting off his arm. <S> Cut out draws attention to the object being removed; cut off draws attention to the object that is being cut. <S> For instance: She cut his hair off. <S> He cut out the star pattern. <S> In the first, whatever happened to the hair doesn't matter; all we care about is that it's now gone. <S> In the second, what was cut out has meaning. <S> It isn't just thrown away. <S> Hope this helps! <A> It seems to me that the autor wanted to say that the man cut a piece OUT of his own arm, and not cut the entire arm OFF. <S> It makes sense, given the context provided.
| "Cut off" makes a lot more sense in this example, as does "cut out a piece of. In my opinion, the phrase is incorrect, as it doesnt make sense.
|
Meaning of "it is telling to note that" It is telling to note that the language of exclusive territoriality in disputes such as this one originates with local authorities. What's the meaning of "it is telling to note that"? <Q> It is telling to note that ... is often used to draw more attention to a point, often with negative connotations. <S> In your example it would be factual to say <S> "The language of exclusive territoriality in disputes such as this one originates with local authorities." <S> But the addition of It is telling to note that ... <S> implies that the local authorities may not be acting in line with a higher authority. <S> A different example might be <S> The doctor did not perform a full examination prior to the patients demise. <S> This simply states that the doctor did not perform a full examination. <S> However, adding in the phrase ... It is telling to note that the doctor did not perform a full examination prior to the patients demise. <S> implies that the doctor should have performed a full examination and had he done so <S> the outcome may have been different. <A> "It is telling" means that a thing is significant. <A> It is telling to note that , means: <S> It is calling our attention to the fact that .... <A> The other answers here are close to correct but are not quite explaining why people use this phrase. <S> "It is telling" is usually used to draw a connection between two points: <S> Are local authorities really interested in resolving this conflict fairly? <S> It is telling to note that the language of exclusive territoriality in disputes such as this one originates with local authorities. <S> In this extended example, using "it is telling" implies that the second sentence answers the question from the first sentence. <S> You could reword everything as such: <S> The language of exclusive territoriality in disputes such as this one originates with local authorities which causes us to question whether the local authorities are even interested in resolving this conflict fairly. <S> A simpler example: Which flavor is John's favorite? <S> It is telling that he always eats the grape flavored candies first. <S> This correlation can happen without the question: It is difficult to know which flavor is John's favorite, but it is telling that he always eats the grape flavored candies first. <S> And the "it is telling" can stand alone if there is an easily accessible implicit correlation with some other claim. <S> This is what occurs in your posted example: It is telling to note that the language of exclusive territoriality in disputes such as this one originates with local authorities. <S> This sentence is telling us something outside of the simple claim about where the language originates. <S> What that something is would need to be inferred from the greater context <S> but, most likely, it is trying to say something about the goals and attitudes of the local authorities.
| "It is telling to note" means that I am making note of, or pointing out, something that is significant.
|
Difficulty understanding the last sentence of this short piece of news News piece: Hundreds of thousands of people have attended the Boston marathon, cheering on the nearly 36,000 competitors one year after tragedy struck.Many spectators chose to cheer on runners from the spot where the two bombs exploded on 15 April 2013, claiming three lives and injuring more than 260 people.Amid tight security on Monday, marathon attendees reported mixed emotions.They said there was a sense of defiance and solidarity, but the memories sparked by that stretch of pavement were difficult to grapple with. Defiance? Does it have anything to do with solidarity? Is it good choice of word? Defiance? As far as I am concerned, the word "defiance" has to do with perversity. Doing something to show that you do not respect something or someone else. But defiance towards who? The writer did not mention. Sparked by ? Memories caused by? Stretch of pavement? ( I did not find it in dictionaries ) At last, What was difficult to grapple with? Memories sparked by that stretch of pavement? What does the writer mean by saying " memories sparked by that stretch of pavement" ? Many thanks in advance. <Q> They said there was a sense of defiance and solidarity, but the memories sparked by that stretch of pavement were difficult to grapple with. <S> I think the defiance they felt had to do with defying the intent of the bomber. <S> The bomber wanted to scare people away with his bomb. <S> The bomber wanted these people to feel terror and to be traumatized and to never attend the event again. <S> The defiance here is these people defying the bomber. <S> By returning to the scene of the bombing and not being afraid, they are defying the bomber and his evil intent. <S> "Sparked by" here means "caused by". <S> The definition from the dictionary is "provide the stimulus for (a dramatic event or process)" "Stretch" here means "length" or "long area". <S> The definition from the dictionary (this is the noun form) is "2. <S> a continuous area or expanse of land or water" "Stretch of pavement" here is synonymous with "road" or "street". <S> The author is trying to be descriptive and vary his word choice. <S> "Memories sparked by that stretch of pavement" means memories that returned when the runners returned to the road where the finish line was. <S> The bombs went off there so a lot of memories are associated with that road. <A> Here is the explanation, in parts:Defiance: It that the runners were not afraid to run the marathon again, since the risk of another terrorist attack is always possible. <S> Stretch of pavement: means a length, fraction, or part of the total route. <S> To be exact, it is the part of the route, where the attack took place. <S> Spark: a spark is a bolt of electricity for example, something sudden and intense, like the memories that might come up to any athlete's mind when running through the exact "stretch of pavement" where many people died. <S> In English, native speakers use many expressions like these that you will get to understand as you progress. <S> Good Luck! <A> I think the sense of defiance and solidarity is within the article: “Many spectators chose to cheer on runners from the spot where the two bombs exploded on 15 April 2013” <S> Stretch of pavement is very clearly explained by both Admiraladama and Josh Carnivore. <S> As for the “the memories sparked by that stretch of pavement were difficult to grapple with” <S> , I think it is a figure of speech, a metaphor which refers to people’s mind penetrated by the flames (figuratevly) of the two bombs exploded. <S> Even if there was a sense of defiance and solidarity <S> the situation created would be difficult to cope with.
| By defying this danger, the runners were showing their solidarity to the victims and their families, by not showing fear.
|
Wondering what the phrase "transformational moment" means in this context Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, two of the world's top drugmakers, have struck a multi-billion-dollar deal to join forces and reshape their businesses. The deal involves swapping assets and combining their consumer health units. Novartis will acquire GSK's cancer drugs business for 16bn dollars (£9.5bn) and sell its vaccines division, excluding the flu unit, to GSK for 7.1bn dollars. In a separate deal, Novartis has agreed to sell its animal health division to Lilly for nearly $5.4bn. Novartis said the moves would help the firm focus on its key businesses. "The transactions mark a transformational moment for Novartis," Joseph Jimenez, chief executive of Novartis, said in a statement. "They also improve our financial strength, and are expected to add to our growth rates and margins immediately." Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27107416 What does Joseph Jimenez mean by saying, "It marks (the transactions would be a sign of) transformational moment (of change) for Novartis" ? And when he says, "They also improve our financial strength," what does the word "they" refer to? Does it refer to the transactions between GSK and Novartis? Or does it just refer to people and managers of GSK? Could you also simplify the terms "rate" and "margins"? A million thanks in advance. <Q> A "transformation" is when something changes, usually dramatically. <S> Like you could say that boiling transforms water into steam, or that a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly. <S> You might say, "The Russian Revolution was a transformational moment in history", meaning it was an event that caused great and important changes. <S> It's fairly common for people to say that some event was a transformational moment in their lives, like "It was a transformational moment for me when I started my own business", etc. <S> "Growth rate" is simply the speed at which something grows. <S> You might say that a certain plant has a growth rate of 5 inches per year. <S> It's common to talk about the growth rate of a business in terms of the percentage increase in sales year to year. <S> Like, "Our goal is to maintain a 10% annual growth rate", meaning, we expect that each year we will have 10% more sales than we had the previous year. <S> In this context, "margin" is the difference between two prices or costs, usually the selling price and the purchase price, or the selling price and the cost to manufacture. <S> Like if you own a retail store that sells toasters, and you buy them for $10 and sell them for $15, you would say that your margin is $5 per unit, or 50%. <S> The word "margin" can be used in many other ways, you have to watch the context. <A> Don't think too much into it. <S> This is a significant agreement and will substantially change how their business operates. <S> That's the 'transformation'. <S> "They" refers to the transactions, but if he meant or you understood GSK, it wouldn't be completely wrong. <A> Let's add and rebold a few more words to understand the context: <S> Deal #1 -Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, two of the world's top drugmakers, have struck a multi-billion-dollar deal to join forces and reshape their businesses. <S> The deal involves swapping assets and combining their consumer health units. <S> Novartis will acquire GSK's cancer drugs business for 16bn dollars (£9.5bn) and sell its vaccines division, excluding the flu unit, to GSK for 7.1bn dollars. <S> Deal #2 -In a separate deal, Novartis has agreed to sell its animal health division to Lilly for nearly $5.4bn. <S> Novartis said the moves would help the firm focus on its key businesses. <S> (The keybusiness of Novartis is to deal with human health ) <S> "The transactions [Deal #1 and #2] mark a transformational moment for Novartis," Joseph Jimenez, chief executive of Novartis, said in a statement. <S> "They <S> (referring to the transactions of two deals) also improve our financial strength, and are expected to add to our growth rates (company shall grow faster) and margins (overall profit from the sales) immediately."
| So a "transformational moment" is an instant in which things change dramatically.
|
Is there a word for “that’s not my fault”? Is there a word for “that’s not my fault”? Sometimes it’s easy to be associated with something negative, but it is not your fault but the wrongly association. Would the word innocent describe it correctly? Let me give a more vivid example for better understanding. Suppose you were walking down the sidewalk, and all of the sudden, the car besides you started to sound the alarm sound. Out rushed a big fellow, and since you are the only one around the car, he shouted at you “what have you done to my car?”. This is a fake example (what’s the better word for fake here?), but illustrates my point very well. I’m thinking “I’m innocent” does not quite describe the situation, does it? And not even “that’s not my fault” ; “It has nothing to do with me” would be more appropriate. Is there any words or phrases that is suitable for such situation? <Q> CDO defines it as: <S> culpable <S> ( adjective ) <S> formal deserving to be blamed or considered responsible for something bad <S> A synonym would be blameworthy . <S> I'll admit, though: I like how the dictionary labels that word as formal . <S> Even though the word means exactly what you want it to mean, it's probably not a word I'd use in your contrived scenario. <S> As others have said, I would probably say something more along the lines of: I didn't do anything! <S> It wasn't my fault! <S> or even: <S> I swear, it was just a coincidence. <S> The word culpable is usually reserved for more formal contexts like this one: <S> Just because she was physically absent when the murders took place <S> did not mean that she was not culpable. <S> (Ken Englade, Beyond Reason , 2011) <A> "I'm innocent" seems to imply that you are involved, but it works well. <S> As for "culpable", which was given in a different answer, it is a bit unused in normal conversation, and may not be understood by some people. <A> How about: "blameless"? <S> It is a slightly stronger statement. <S> (I originally submitted the first sentence along, but the answer was rejected for not being at least 30 characters - what is the bias against brevity here?) <A> I'd answer, "Not me!" <S> It's technically incorrect grammar, as WendiKidd noted, but it's absolutely idiomatic and will be understood unambiguously. <S> This is a fake example (what’s the better word for fake here?) <S> Constructed. <S> Invented. <S> Hypothetical. <S> You could also replace "example" with "scenario", <S> e.g. "This is an invented scenario."
| Since you asked for a word, I'll give you a word: culpable . Personally, I would either say "I didn't do it" or "I'm innocent".
|
How can I translate this phrase? " To break with the past" In 1791 the French nation, in the midst of a revolution, wished to break with the past, especially with those aspects of it which they considered illogical and useless. This phrase is the topic of my text and also use in the text. Please help me. Thanks <Q> Perhaps this would be easier to explain if we talked about romantic breakups, rather than French history. <S> Let's say Joe and Jane dated for about 2 or 3 years, and have recently ended their relationship. <S> While dating, one of their favorite places was McArthur Park, where they would frequently take long walks in the evening. <S> About two weeks after the break up, one of Joe's friends asks if he wants to go throw a frisbee down at McArthur Park. <S> Joe replies: Throwing a frisbee sounds fun, but can we do it somewhere else? <S> Maybe out by the creek? <S> Why not McArthur Park? <S> It's nice down there. <S> I know it is. <S> But Jane and I used to go down there all the time, and I'm trying to break with the past . <S> Essentially, Joe is saying that he's trying to forget about his life with Jane, and going to the park would make that hard to do. <S> In addition to break with the past, other ways we can express this concept include: get <S> a new (or fresh ) <S> start <S> put the past behind me One opposite of breaking with the past <S> would be cherishing the memories . <S> Parts of our past are parts of our personal history (or, in the case of France, part of its national history). <S> For example: A criminal who is released from prison may want to break from his past by living an upright life. <S> A person who made a lot of mistakes might want to break from their past by moving somewhere else. <S> At the end of a civil war, and country might want to break from its past by building coalitions and reconstructing itself. <A> Definition of break from ODO Suggested French translation from wordreference.com rompre avec la tradition rompre avec la coutume <A> The French nation wished "to break with the past" means that the French nation wished "to start doing things in a completely new way". <S> break with phrasal verb [transitive] 2 break with something <S> if someone breaks with the past or with tradition, they start doing things in a completely new way <S> Some women broke with tradition by going to study abroad. <A> To break with the past means to end a connection with it . <S> So in your text it means that the French nation wished to end any connection with the past.
| When someone tries to break from the past , they try to disassociate themselves with parts of their prior history.
|
How to understand the sentence? What is the function and usage of "too" here? That said, so long as China's unusually high savings rate persists-about 40% of GDP compared with less than 10% in the U.S.-so too will large surpluses recur in its current account. How to understand the sentence? What is the function and usage of "too" here? <Q> You need to make your sentence short to understand the structure clearly. <S> That said, so long as [A] persists, so will [B] -> as long as A persists, B will persist That said, so long as [A] persists, so too will [B] -> "too" here <S> adds emphasis, and nothing else. <S> [A] -> <S> China's unusually high savings rate persists <S> [B] -> large surpluses recur in its current account <S> Consider this conversation - Person 1: I will buy this new pen. <S> Person 2 <S> : So will I (This implies "I will buy too") <S> I hope I have answered your question. <S> Please let me know if you need any more clarification. <A> "So too will" If the first event happens it is predicted that the second event will happen as well. <S> In this case providing the production rate remains the same and the high saving rate continue with the same margin then an equal amount of surplus will be generated. <A> so long as China's unusually high savings rate persists [...] <S> so *also* will large surpluses recur in its current account. <S> Note that "so also" is not idiomatic English usage, though technically correct. <S> "Too" used in this way had the added implication of "to that extent also". <S> Thus: [...] <S> so long as China's unusually high savings rate persists [...] <S> so <S> *to that extent also* will large surpluses recur in its current account. <S> As a side note, "too" could be left out, and the second "so" could have done the same job without it: [...] <S> so long as China's unusually high savings rate persists [...] so will large surpluses recur in its current account. <S> It's a little archaic sounding, but perfectly correct. <S> However, when "too" is added, the meaning of "so" shifts, to mean something more like "thus" ("in this way"). <S> Thus: [...] <S> so long as China's unusually high savings rate persists [...] <S> thus to that extent also will large surpluses recur in its current account. <S> The purpose is thus to intensify the linkage between the identified cause and its proposed consequence.
| In this sentence, "too" is basically a synonym for "also": [...]
|
What comes after "can"? I had a test and there was a question I'm arguing about its answer with my brother. Question is what comes after "can" (or fill in the blank:D) Question: I'm sure she'll do whatever she can ... Possible choices: to help help Which one is the answer? 1st or 2nd? <Q> I'm sure she'll do whatever she can to help. <S> This is correct. <S> I'm sure she'll do whatever she can help. <S> This is incorrect - grammatically, it is saying she'll help the things she's doing, which doesn't make much sense. <A> The "to help" after "can" is an infinitive of purpose meaning "in order to help". <A> In that sentence, she can is a relative clause inserted to modify whatever . <S> The essence of the sentence is really saying: She'll do whatever to help. <S> she can further clarifies the whatever , limiting the scope of the whatever to those things which she has the ability to do. <S> Another more substantial relative clause can be used to better illustrate the modularity of them: <S> She'll do whatever that's contained in the list given to her by the doctor to help. <S> The test question is trying to trick you by making you think of the also-correct sentence "she can help," but it's the wrong answer.
| She'll do "whatever she can", but only those things that will help (or with the purpose of helping).
|
Meaning of "15-strong armed gang" On Saturday, Ukraine's security service said it had detained a 15-strong armed gang planning to seize power in Luhansk province. Does that number 15 mean that there were 15 men strong physically in the armed group? <Q> No, 15-strong means there were 15 men in number. <S> Strength here means the number of people in a group. <A> This is what it means: 15-strong: There were 15 people armed gang: the gang members had weapons <S> Here, strong does not imply physical strength, and arm does not imply hands <A> The position of the hyphen and plural is important. " <S> 15-strong armed gang" is what others have said: one group of 15 people, with guns (number of guns is unknown). <S> Large knives are possible, but it usually refers to guns. <S> You would expect the 15 people to be hostile toward someone, not necessarily you. <S> "15 strong-armed (gang members / men / people )" means 15 individuals with large muscles. <S> Think Popeye or Arnold Schwarzenegger. <S> Weapons and/or hostility are not implied here, you could use this phrase at a body-building contest or a gym. <S> If they appear angry, you should leave. <S> Quickly.
| "15 strong-armed gangs" means 15 separate groups of muscular people. This could be a very large number of individuals.
|
"Your either for or against him" - what kinda structure is it? I have read this on the Internet at many places including Bible and RailForums UK (used by an established author there) in the context of the news of Nelson Mandela's Death. In most of the cases, it talks about you being either in favor of someone or against. There's no any middle-way i.e. third choice. "Your either for or against him" Isn't it should be "You are either in favor or against him. Why does it use your ? Why omit in favor as well? How can you be for someone in this context? A girl telling I'm for you may express her love but it does not necessarily mean in favor (opposite to against) I guess. We generally paraphrase either...or this way You go to the railway station OR You go to the airport = You either go to the railway station or airport. So, in above case... Your(?) for him OR Your(?) against him Your either for or against him After Helix's comment Even if I consider that as a typo, what about the second question? Does You are for him mean You are in favor of him? <Q> Being for someone or something means indeed the exact opposite of being against them. <S> And yes, it is synonymous with "in favour of", but that is 1) longer and 2) a bit weaker. <S> As for the girl saying "I am for you", I agree it may express love, but it may also simply express that she accepts she will be yours. <S> It is essentially not much different from "this gift is for you". <S> I think it is more commonly expressed as <S> I am (all) yours , or <S> I am yours (forever) . <S> That basically means the same, but it avoids the connotation of property somehow a bit more - maybe because of the implied hyperbole. <S> As for the many cases of <S> your being written instead of <S> you're : <S> you have just uncovered one of the most common misspellings in English (at least on-line) :) <A> It's a coordination of prepositions: <S> You're [ for him ]. <S> Here, the PP for him indicates that you support him. <S> You're [ against him ]. <S> Here, the PP against him indicates the opposite. <S> When we put these together with either , we indicate that there are only two possible states: you may support him, or you may support his opponents. <S> But there's no middle ground <S> —you can't be neutral. <S> You can express this with or without repetition of him : <S> You're [ either [ for him ] or [ against him ] ]. <S> In fact, this is a really common figure of speech, used to emphasize the lack of a middle ground. <S> It's always put together in this order—never "you're either against or for him", which sounds very unnatural. <S> This expression is often used to give someone an ultimatum, to make them pick a side. <S> As a result, it's very common to hear "You're either with us or against us ." <S> Expressions like these which always occur in the same order are sometimes called frozen . <A> I believe it is indeed a typo. <S> The sentence should be <S> You’re either for him or against him. <S> To answer your second question, you are correct. <S> The phrase “You are for him” means that you support him or you are in favor of him. <S> In other words, you would like to see him succeed. <S> As a side note, it would be a very strange usage for a girl to say “I’m for you” and mean to express her love. <A> Being "for" or "against" a person could mean a variety of things; the phrase is often context dependent, and used as a shortened form of something more specific. <S> Ned: That was a tough design decision today; I finally decided we should go with Bob's idea. <S> Ted: <S> I don't know why you're always for him and against me! <S> In this scenario, Ted's usage of "for him" and "against me" may be restricted in meaning to "in favor of his design ideas" and "against my design ideas." <S> (Also, "always" is likely more figurative than literal.) <S> The phrases are often used in emotional contexts, where someone is trying to garner support for (or opposition against) some specific cause. <S> Bill: Did you see Obama's speech last night? <S> Will: <S> Oh, yes, it was terrible! <S> Bill: Why are you always against the president? <S> Bill's question could mean a number of things, like any of these: <S> Why are you always saying bad things about Democrats? <S> Why do you have some axe to grind with the president? <S> Why are you always knocking the president's speeches? <S> C'mon, admit it: <S> there's something about Obama you respect... <S> In the context you've asked about, the words for and against often refer to abstract ideas and vague generalities – perhaps that's why you had a hard time figuring out a precise meaning.
| You're [ either [ for him ] or [ against him ] ].
|
The verb that means "to gain popularity" What is the verb to use when I want to say a festival becomes popular? For example: Christmas (verb) in the Middle Ages? (The time might be wrong, I'm just made it up) <Q> The most idiomatic way to say this in formal or academic writing would be just the way you did in your question, using the verbs "become" for something that was not at all popular to start with or "grow" for something that was less popular to start with. <S> So any of the following would work: <S> Christmas first became popular in the Middle Ages <S> Christmas grew more popular in the Middle Ages <S> Christmas grew in popularity during the Middle Ages <S> You could also replace "become" or "grow" with a more colorful verb, as: "burst into popularity" or "burst onto the scene" to describe a sudden access in popularity. <S> There are informal ways of describing what you're asking for, like to blow up , but they are extremely informal and would sound forced in the context of a historical analysis. <S> You are more likely to hear: <S> That DJ really blew up after his Albequerque gig. <A> The only 'one word' that comes to my mind that may fit your sentence is spread To spread: To increase in range of occurrence; become known or prevalent over a wide area: The word spread fast. <A> Another simple way to write it would be to use a passive construction such as: <S> Christmas was popularized in the Middle Ages. <S> The active form of this verb requires an agent that does the popularizing. <S> I realize passive voice typically isn't ideal, but if you really want to use the sense of the word popular, this might be the best way to do it. <S> Something else to consider: examples using "grew" and "spread" are using metaphoric expressions, so depending on your audience, you might want to be wary of these constructions.
| Christmas became more popular during the Middle Ages
|
"I'm done" or "I've done", which is correct? I want to know if "I'm almost done" is correct, or whether it should be "I've almost done" as a present perfect tense. I often read this on Facebook news feed. Is it correct? <Q> Do is a transitive verb. <S> —it requires a direct object. <S> Consequently, have + the past participle done is a present perfect construction, a verb, and this is not a complete sentence: <S> I have done... <S> What have you done? <S> —you have to tell us: <S> I have done the report. <S> I have done the dishes. <S> I have done what you told me. <S> But when you use the past participle done with a form of <S> be there are two interpretations. <S> One is that the result is a passive construction. <S> This report was done by me = <S> I did this report. <S> Ordinarily, however, a passive I am done = <S> Somebody did me <S> doesn’t make any sense. <S> Consequently, we interpret done as a predicate adjective: <S> I am done (with this task) = <S> I am finished (with this task), I have nothing more to do (with this task). <S> This use of the past participles done and finish is called a deverbal , a verbform which has lost its ‘verbiness’. <S> This cannot be done with every verb, but some other verbs this has happened to are interest , (“I am interested in science”), drink (“John is drunk”) and lose <S> (“I think we’re lost”). <A> "To be done" is idiomatic and means "to have finished". <S> For example, "Have you written that email yet?" <S> "Yes, I'm done." <S> "To be done with something" (or "to be finished with something") to get rid of something or stop using it for good. <S> "I'm done with email! <S> It takes up so much of my time." <S> But "To have finished with something" means to have finished using it for now. <S> "Can I use the computer now, please?" "Sure, I've finished with it." <S> "To have done" is the present perfect of "to do". <S> "Have you ever sent an email by mistake when you meant to cancel it?" <S> "Yes, I've done it hundreds of times." <A> With "almost," as you specify in your question, you would normally say either: I am almost done. <S> or I have almost finished. <A> Both can be correct: <S> I'm done with this assignment. <S> I've done this type of assignment in the past. <A> They mean different things. <S> ""I've done" means "I have done." <A> Both are correct depending upon ,what matter or subject are talking about. <S> If someone is doing some work and <S> he/she has completed that . <S> so can be said that i have done. <S> And if someone has done some work earlier & and now that particualr work is being discussed as a task to perform at that time that person who has already done it can say that i am done.or someone is eating and other person is offering more then can say i am <S> done.means dont want more at this time <S> can not say i have done.
| "I'm done" means "I am done. It depends on the context.
|
"Live life to the fullest" what does it mean? I have read in some articles "live life to the fullest" and I was so confused as to what this really means. Does it mean to live happily? I'm not so sure. <Q> Live life to its fullest is a clichè often said to encourage people who are feeling down, a bit depressed, lonely or self-pitying. <S> Supposedly, it is meant to inspire the listener to get off their backside, be grateful for what they do have and LIVE! . <S> Failing that, we should be "pro-active" and not wait for life to knock on our doors (another clichè) and instead actively seek these experiences. <S> In other words, use the time that is available wisely, to its maximum capacity, i.e., to its fullest. <A> It simply means making full use of what life offers you. <A> to the fullest is a shortened superlative formula, meaning to the fullest degree or level. <S> There are a lot of such shortened superlative formulas, e.g. I tried my hardest, to be at one's worst . <A> Its meaning is we should live our life happily, that we should never have any regrets, that life should not have any bounds.
| The noble concept being as we have only one life, we should therefore make the most of every opportunity and life enhancing experience that might cross our paths.
|
"police are" or "police is" In instructional videos I see on the internet, the teacher says "in the U.S and Canada, they automatically use police as plural noun", if it is already plural, then what's the singular of police? <Q> Police is a plurale tantum , a word with no singular form. <S> The police are here. <S> ← <S> This is okay. <S> * <S> A police is here. <S> ← <S> This is not. <S> Most of the time, if you'd like to talk about a single officer of the law, you say a police officer , or just an officer : A police officer is here. <S> ← <S> This is okay. <S> Several officers arrived. <S> ← <S> This is also okay. <S> The latter sentence is fine if it's clear from context that you mean a police officer . <S> But in any case, you can't say <S> *a police . <S> In this answer, the * symbol indicates that a phrase or sentence is ungrammatical. <A> The police are coming through the door! <S> versus <S> The Police Department is hiring. <S> The actual term for a given police department is determined by the official name. <S> For example, the Dallas Police Department or the University of Maryland Police Force. <A> Snailplane's answer is fine. <S> But since you are asking about the singular term for the word police , it's... <S> Policeman - A male police officer Policewoman <S> - A female police officer. <S> So, as your title asks... <S> police are - correct a police <S> policeman/woman is - correct
| When speaking of a particular police deparment/agency/service as a group, the singular form for the group will be something like "Police Department".
|
who worth you most / who worths you most "Do not overlook the worth of the personwho worth you most." Or, "Do not overlook the worth of the personwho worths you most." I wanted to say, the person for whom you are worthy and important most. I'm not sure of if the use of the word and sentence and grammatically is it ok? and says what I want to say? <Q> I think you mean: <S> Don't overlook the worth of the person who values you the most. <S> "Worth" isn't a verb. <A> @Chenmunka's close, but actually, I think you mean: <S> Don't overlook the esteem of the person who values <S> you the most. <S> Both @Chenmunka's sentence (with "worth of the person") and @helix's correction ("the value of the person") refer to the esteem in which "you" hold them , not the esteem in which they hold you. <S> That is, if you mean "Consider the source. <S> If you think highly of someone, then don't discount it if they think highly of you." <S> then, yes: Don't overlook the worth of the person who values you the most <S> is close to what you want (but "overlook" is problematic). <S> If, however, you mean, "Don't discount the good opinion of someone holds of you just because they hold such a high opinion of you", then Don't overlook the esteem of the person who values you the most. <S> is what you want. <A> As noted in other answers, 'worth' is not a verb, and the verb you most likely want to use here is 'value'. <S> But with that aside, it looks like you're asking specifically about the verb conjugation in this expression, rather than the choice of word. <S> In that respect, the correct expression would be: <S> This is because in this sentence 'value' is being used as a third person verb. <S> In English, regular verbs such as 'value' are typically conjugated with an 's' or 'es' at the end in the singular third person form (but not others). <S> Here is the Conjugation of 'value' and a useful website for checking other verbs' conjugations. <S> I hope that helps.
| Do not overlook the worth of the person who values you most.
|
difference between ‘fast’ and ‘quick’ I was reading a game of thrones and got an ambiguous understanding of two words: fast and quickIt looks like the author is describing two characters whose characteristics are quite opposite. Is there any subtle difference? <Q> It is difficult to differentiate these two words. <S> I think it helps a bit to say "fast" refers to movement, "quick" to reaction. <S> But a lot of uses are idiomatic and a matter of the dictionary. <S> A clean differentiation of "fast" and "quick" is not possible as there is an overlapping area. <S> The matter is complicated as "fast" has two meanings, it can refer to speed and it can express firmness. <S> Dictionaries should have two entries, but often "fast 1" and "fast 2" are intermingled in one dictionary entry. <S> Normally dictionaries are not very good at differentiating words whose meanings are very close. <S> If you compare dictionary explanations of "fast" and "quick" you often find such definitions/explanations don't helpat all. <S> Often dictionaries with up-to-date lexicology try to solve such problems by giving a special information box where more information about the use of words with similar meanings is given. <S> But I haven'tseen such an information box for "fast" and "quick" yet. <A> In many cases the two words mean the same thing. <S> If you are encouraging people to hurry you may urge them on with either Do it quick! <S> or Quick! <S> or Do it fast! <S> or Fast! <S> You may describe a good student as a quick learner or a fast learner . <S> But in other contexts they may have somewhat different meanings. <S> Fast tends to be used when you are speaking of the time it takes someone of something to move a given distance: <S> a fast train, or a fast runner. <S> Quick tends to be used when you are speaking of how long it takes someone to respond to something: a quick answer to a question, or events following each other in quick succession. <S> The distinction is particularly marked in the way we speak about athletes. <S> A batter in baseball, or a batsman in cricket, must have a quick eye, to react in a fraction of a second to the pitched or bowled ball. <S> But when he runs he must be fast , to cover the distance between bases or wickets in as short a time as possible. <A> "Fast" and "quick". <S> AdjectivesIn their adjective forms, "fast" and "quick" are fairly similar ; look at their definitions. <S> fast adj. <S> moving or able to move, operate, function, or take effect quickly; quick; swift; rapidquick adj. <S> done, proceeding, or occurring with promptness or rapidity, as an action, process <S> You can say:The train is fast. <S> The train is quick. <S> Adjectival PhrasesWhile still being used as adjectives, "fast" and "quick" can have specific meanings when modifying certain words. <S> fast adj. <S> characterized by unrestrained conduct or lack of moral conventions, esp. <S> in sexual relations; wanton; loose ex. <S> Nancy is fast, as evidenced by her way of speaking and her cheap clothes. <S> fast adj. <S> firm in adherence; loyal; devoted ex. <S> Joe and Chris were fast friends until the day they died. <S> quick adj. <S> easily provoked or excited ex. <S> Your father has always been quick tempered. <S> quick adj. <S> prompt to understand, learn, etc. <S> ; of ready intelligence: ex. <S> George is a quick student.
| I think that these words are interchangeable when used as adjectives generally describing speed, but are less interchangeable ,or not at all interchangeable when used in adjectival phrases.
|
Does 'Good Try' always mean good efforts but ultimately you didn't succeed at it? It's quite common expression (condolence?) we hear from others when we don't succeed in what we wanted or made an attempt toward. It's a kinda motivating gesture and to encourage the person by telling good try... you surely worked harder for it but... Does the word try always mean the task/target/aim remained incomplete? In a dictionary, it is defined as.. try (v) - make an effort to accomplish something But then, it simply leaves it halfway by telling 'make an effort'. What about the result? By any means, may I greet someone with Good try when they succeed? <Q> In the phrase "good try", "try" is being used as a noun. <S> try (n) - an effort to accomplish something; an attempt attempt <S> (n) - an act of trying to achieve something, typically one that is unsuccessful or not certain to succeed From my understanding, you cannot use "good try" unless the person put effort into an attempt and did not succeed . <S> It is a nice thing you can say to somebody when they really wanted to succeed <S> but they did not succeed. <S> " <S> Nice try" has a very similar meaning. <A> To compliment someone on their attempt is to imply the only thing commendable about their attempt was that they made it. <S> Compare, "Well, at least you tried." <A> Yes. <S> It would be over-analysing to suggest that 'Good try!' <S> meant anything other than encouragement after a failed attempt. <S> We could contrast it with 'Way to go!' <S> which SOUNDS as if it should mean the same thing - ' <S> nice try but still some way short of a result' - <S> but is actually used as simple congratulation for success. <S> (I might mention that I - a native speaker of British English - only recently discovered the meaning of this Americanism. <S> I would only put it into the mouth of an American character.)
| "try" as a noun means something more like "attempt" (also a noun here), which implies that one did not succeed.
|
Is "which in turn" correct here? Money can be exchanged for goods or services that fulfill people’s needs and wants which in turn bring happiness. Is the usage of "which in turn" correct in this sentence? <Q> The usage of "which in turn" is fine. <S> Basically, the sentence has three clauses. <S> Money can be exchanged for goods or services [ that fulfill people’s needs and wants ] <S> [ which in turn bring happiness ]. <S> a) <S> Money can be exchanged for goods or services. <S> b) <S> ( that = Goods or services) <S> fulfill people’s needs and wants. <S> c) ( which = Such goods or services) <S> in turn bring happiness. <S> The phase in turn is used in the sense of "it follows that" (or "as a result of things in the series of events"). <S> In a sense, you can think of "in turn" as something that describes events that each of them takes turn to happen. <S> Here is its definition by Macmillan: <S> in turn 1 one after the other in an order that has been agreed or officially decided We look at each element of the process in turn. <S> 2 <S> as a result of something that is part of a connected series of events <S> The oil-producing nations have decreased production, and this decision in turn has caused heating oil prices to rise in the United States. <S> Her mother taught her, and she in turn taught her own daughter. <A> The words are fine; I would prefer some commas, though I'm not sure they are, strictly speaking, necessary. <S> Money can be exchanged for goods or services that fulfill people’sneeds and wants, which in turn bring happiness. <S> Money can be exchanged for goods or services that fulfill people’sneeds and wants, which, in turn, bring happiness. <S> It is potentially ambiguous whether is the goods and services bringing happiness, or the needs and wants. <A> The word "which" is ambiguous, it could mean any of the following a) Money b) Goods or services c) <S> Fulfilling people’s needs and wants which could all in turn bring happiness.
| The sentence is grammatically correct, and its meaning is clear.
|
Words to describe a person or a group of person who think themselves elite, but I don't think so? What are some noun and adjective that can describe a person or a group of person who think themselves elites, but I don't necessarily agree? <Q> To indicate that someone is claiming a title or stature that you don't think they deserve, you can refer to them as self-appointed or so-called ; you can also put their label in quotes to indicate that you disagree with it: <S> These self-appointed "elites" seem to believe that they know better than you do how to spend your money. <S> These so-called "elites" can't even tell a salad fork from a dinner fork. <A> It depends on whether you're calling into question the elite status of the group to which they claim to belong, or whether you are calling into question whether they really belong to a group you consider elite. <S> For instance, if you wish to disparage people who think their superior poetry-writing skill makes them superior to those people who aren't into poetry, you might say they are "putting on airs", "full of themselves", or "snobs". <S> If, contrariwise, you wish to disparage people who think their poetry-writing skill is enough to be considered an elite poet, you might call them a "wannabe" or a "poser". <A> For people that act like they are better than you and are rude about it, I personally like to use... <S> Cocky <S> Arrogant <S> If you want to use less common, more formal words for this, there are dozens, including... <S> Pretentious <S> Snobby Elitist Egotistical <S> Condescending Egocentric <S> Some other honorable mentions after looking at the thesaurus are... <S> Presumptuous <S> Haughty <S> Overbearing <S> Pompous <S> There are so many good words to describe these kinds of people. <S> Take your pick. :) <A> Ditto Hellion. <S> I'd also add, <S> if you want one word you can prefix the name of the group with "pseudo" or "faux", both meaning "fake". <S> Like, "Bob and Tom think they're smart <S> but they're just pseudo-intellectuals." <S> "Sally wants everyone to think she's very creative <S> but really she's just a faux poet."
| Self-Important Supercilious
|
Can I write - sit parallel I wrote this sentence - His name was criticized severely and now his name sits parallel with all sort of corruption. I wrote this sentence. And I want to know what you think about the usage of "sit parallel" in this sentence? Is it understandable? If it's then what meaning you think of it? <Q> I'd say it's understandable but not a usage that would normally be seen and, assuming I did determine the meaning correctly, would suggest " is associated " as an alternative. <A> parallel means "lying alongside and never touching ". <S> And in English we do not normally say "his name was criticized" to mean that the person bearing the name was criticized. <S> The name of one of the oldest and most prestigious civil-rights organizations in the US, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, has occasionally been criticized because it employs a now deprecated term for persons of color; but that does not imply criticism of the organization. <A> No. <S> First of all, "to be parallel to," as has been pointed out, means literally "to be next to but not touching" and figuratively "to be similar to," not "to be associated with." <S> The road ran parallel to the beach for about five miles. <S> She was living a life parallel to his own; they attended the same schools, ran with the same crowd, but never met. <S> Second of all, the most common preposition used with "parallel" in English, as seen in the examples above, is "to," not "with." <S> Third, the construction you've chosen, which compares one person's name to an abstract concept, is very limiting in its choice of verbs. <S> "Associated with" is one of only a few verbs that can comfortably take a name as a subject and "corruption" as an object in this context. <S> You can either use this construction, with a verb like "associated": <S> Now his name is associated with all sorts of corruption. <S> Or you can use a more parallel construction and have a choice of more colorful language: <S> Now his name is yoked with Benedict Arnold's as a watchword of corruption. <S> His corrupt practices are pressed from the same mold as those of other corrupt politicians we have seen over the years. <A> I guess you are using sit parallel in a figurative way to say that his name is now closely associated with al sort of corruption. <S> I'd probably say his name sits parallel with the names of other corruptors
| What you suggest is certainly understandable, but I think it's a poor metaphor:
|
"Scared of you" vs. "feared of you" I am not scared of you. I am not feared of you. Are both grammatical? Is there a difference in meaning between them? <Q> The verbs fear and scare reverse their object and subject, like the verbs learn and teach . <S> The fox scares the rabbit. <S> The rabbit fears the fox. <S> The rabbit is scared of the fox. <S> The fox is feared by the rabbit. <S> However,some dialects use feared of to mean scared of : <S> I never was feared of Flint in my life, and by the powers, I'll face him dead. <S> — Treasure Island , by Robert Louis Stevenson. <S> This kind of reversal of subject and object is not uncommon in languages. <S> For example, in some dialects learn can also mean teach : <S> Why, she tried to learn you your book, she tried to learn you your manners, she tried to be good to you every way she knowed how. <S> — Huckleberry Finn , by Mark Twain <S> These uses of feared of and learn are not standard English. <S> In fact, the verb fear is not used with the preposition of in standard English. <S> Note that in the dialects that use these non-standard forms, there is little chance of confusion with the standard meanings; the prepositions distinguish feared of and feared by , and learn means teach only when it has an indirect object. <A> Consider using "afraid" or the more formal "frightened" instead of "feared." <S> I'm not afraid of you. <S> I'm not frightened by you. <S> "frightened," unlike "afraid" and "scared," is not normally followed by of + pronoun . <S> Or, using the rather informal "scared": I'm not scared of (sometimes by ) you. <A> Simple answer: "I am not feared of you" simply cannot be used that way. <A> read the explanations given by others and remember these two sentences and it will clear your doubts: <S> I am scared of people. <S> I am feared by the people. <S> you will then notice the difference in their usage. <A> Scare vs fear <S> is like borrow and lend give and take provide and receive eat and be eaten <S> He fears my antics. <S> My antics scare him. <S> My antics are feared by him. <S> He is scared by my antics. <S> She lends me money. <S> I borrow money from her. <S> The money is lent by her. <S> The money is borrowed by me. <S> She takes the food they give. <S> We receive help provided by the welfare department. <S> They eat rabbits. <S> Rabbits are eaten by them. <S> People don't normally say feared of , but we normally say feared by . <S> His fear of my antics is driving him nuts. <S> My antics scaring <S> him is driving him nuts.
| Using feared of to mean scared of is not standard English. Correct would be "I am not afraid of you", which would be (mostly) synonymous with "I am not scared of you".
|
Different idiom to "there are two sides to every coin" There was a similar question posted a couple of months ago, but the details of what that person was looking for are a bit different from mine. I am looking for another saying that describes you being unable to have one without the other. Two sides to a coin is one, and someone mentioned "you can't make lemonade without lemon and water." The two entities that I am trying to describe are very different on their own, but fuse into its own entity when together. Any ideas? Thanks! <Q> 'Two sides of the same coin' does not quite mean what you describe. <S> two sides of the same coin - different but closely related features of one idea <S> It essentially means that two things are the same. <S> I might use it in a context where someone is describing someone else as both 'lazy' and 'messy' and in response I could say that those are 'two sides of the same coin' and thereby suggesting that they are one and the same, in this case suggesting that the person is messy because they are lazy. <S> As far as I can tell you want a pithy phrase to describe two things that are good together but not necessarily either good or as good apart. <S> I'd suggest a simile in this situation. <S> A very common type of phrase is to say: [Something] without [something] is like [something else] without [something else]. <S> Currently on the London Underground for example there is an advert that says something along the lines of 'a woman's hair without product <S> x is like rock without roll' (the latter part usually a ridiculous separation for humour value). <S> There's no standard phrase used here <S> but it's an opportunity to be creative. <S> A couple more examples: <S> A man without ambition is like a bird without wings (from a 1908 business magazine) <S> A house without books is like a room without windows (a proverb that goes back even further) <A> You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. <S> You can't have a picnic without ants. <S> Seek first to understand. <S> Then to be understood. <S> There are two kinds of people: those who believe there are two kinds of people, and those who don't. <S> There are two kinds of people: those who finish their sentences, There are two sides to a coin: "Heads I win and tails you lose." <S> Some of my originals: <S> There are two sides to every coin but that has nothing to do with solving any real, complicated problem. <S> You can't have duality without duality. <A> The closest idiom I can think of to your requirement for something that requires two elements is: <S> It takes two to Tango. <S> There is no dance without two different participants. <A> "No rainbows without rain." -- not an idiom, but idiomatic. <S> Also, by the way, the "two things fuse to something very different than constituent parts" is what is meant by the word "synergy"/"synergistic", and by the expression "more than the sum of its parts". <A> You could say : "if you want to have your face in the light, you should have your back in the dark". <S> "Two sides of the same coin" has a different meaning : 2 things seem different, or opposed but boths are the same actually. <S> You could say democrat and republican politic leaders are two sides of the same coin for example. <A> A few coined phrases showing two sides <S> You have to take the good with the bad . <S> Don't fly higher than you're willing to fall <S> Don't invest more than you're willing to lose . <A> "double edged sword" <S> For example: Technology is a double-edged sword. <S> It has its goods and its bads. <S> Merriam-Webster defines "double-edged sword" as: something that has or can have both favorable and unfavorable consequences
| "There are two sides to every coin" means you can't have the good part of something without its bad.
|
"being" vs "were" after "due to" Which of the following sentence is grammatically correct? Revenue declined due to lesser units of property being sold in 2013. or Revenue declined due to lesser units of property were sold in 2013. <Q> Revenue declined due to lesser units of property being sold in 2013. <S> Is grammatically correct. <S> "being sold in 2013" is a participle phrase that acts as an adjective to "units of property". <S> A point about "lesser": this seems to indicate that the units of property that were being sold (adding "that" would make the second sentence correct!) are of lower quality compared to others. <S> If you simply refer to the number of units that were sold, I would use less . <S> A bit more details about why this sentence is wrong: <S> *Revenue declined due to lesser units of property were sold in 2013. <S> From here <S> (Emphasis mine): <S> "Due to" is very similar to "because of. <S> " It gives a reason for why something is true. <S> You can use "due to" with phrases and single words, but you can't use "due to" with a clause . <S> Now "units of property were sold in 2013" is a clause, and should not be used after due to. <S> You could however substitute because for due to , and the sentence would be fine, as J.R. pointed out. <S> This is because because can join two clauses. <S> [1] Conjugated, not declined, of course. <S> Thank you @SnailPlane, and my apologies for confusing anyone, including @Pupu! <A> It's the first one ("being sold"), although, interestingly enough, that isn't the case when you change due to to because : Revenue declined due to lesser units being sold in 2013. <S> Revenue declined because lesser units were sold in 2013. <A> You could say that anyway with these small changes: Revenue declined due to lesser units of property <S> which were being sold in 2013. <S> Revenue declined due to lesser units of property <S> which were sold in 2013. <A> After a preposition or a preposition group such as "due to sth" you can only use a noun or the noun-form of a verb (the gerund). <S> Of course, you can replace a noun by a pronoun, but that's basic grammar knowledge.
| You can use the participle (being) as and adjective, but not the conjugated [1] verb form (were).
|
Wondering if you could help with my perception of the words "crude" & "literally" & "toss" & "over" in the context below HRW says the use of barrel bombs has "terrorised" Aleppo in recent months. The bombs are crude devices, often made from oil drums or large gas bottles, packed with explosives and bits of metal, that are literally tossed over the side of helicopters. What does "crude" mean ? Does it mean "natural"? ( based on what I saw in dictionaries about crude oil ) My perception is that when the writer writes: ...that are literally tossed over the side of helicopters, he or she really means: ... that are in large numbers fell into ground from the side of helicopters. Am I right? Does the word "literally" here means " focal" or " in large numbers" ? Or something like that?Does the word "over" means "from"? Does the word "toss" mean "thrown" , "fell" , something like that? <Q> Crude : Not carefully or skillfully made; rough. <S> Literally: Really; actually: (Used as an intensive before a figurative expression.) <S> Toss over : To throw upward: <S> The bull tossed him over the fence . <A> <A> crude in this context means 'made directly from "raw" or "unprocessed" material'. <S> the author says "oil drums"/"gas bottles".. <S> this obviously denotes that the final product would be pretty amateurish ? <S> at least anything but professional or out of a production line. <S> this answer is also crude in that I don't follow a decent format to lay out information (although I try to do justice to logic). <S> that is crude. <S> literally means according to definition. <S> if "I literally barked" then it's understood as I yelled "bow wow" <S> .. get it? <S> if I literally "tossed over" or whatever, it means that I "performed" the act of tossing over..if you read "her words felt like she bit my lips <S> " it means that what thisguy heard from this girl nearly felt like she was making out with him. <S> but "she literally bit my lips" means that it happened crudely. <S> aha! <S> literally tossed over.. now figuratively or metaphorically (the opposite/antonym of literally) "tossed over" would mean that the "tossing" or "throwing away" hadn't actually happened but did in the writers mind. <S> but literally tossed over, is, according to definition, these objects were thrown away or dumped into the sea or whatever. <S> over in tossed over means "clean above the platform of the helicoptor's side". <A> To expand a bit further on some excellent answers already given: crude : Roughly made; primitive in form, capability, or appearance; of poor quality; Not professional. <S> tossed over : thrown so as to pass above a specified boundary. <S> literally : in actuality; used to declare that the following phrase is a real description, not figurative or metaphorical. <S> The bombs are ... literally tossed over the side : Some person physically picks up these barrel-bombs with their hands, and propels them out of the helicopter door with their own, unassisted muscle power. <S> (There is no mechanical conveyance, no launching device, nothing; it's all done "by hand".)
| Crude means primitive, simple, or rudimentary in your context, literally means exactly and tossed as you guessed means thrown.
|
What is the exact meaning of " He had too much money for a young man?" He had too much money for a young man. I have two explanations: He gave too much money to a young man. As a young man , he had too much money. I am curious of the usage of "for" here. <Q> Personally I don't think it's either of those. <S> To me this sentence means... 3 . <S> People his age usually don't have so much money. <S> The idea here is that it is unusual for somebody his age to have so much money. <S> The prepositional phrase "for ____" is adding emphasis to his age. <A> "for" in this sentence means "for being". <S> The sentence suggests two things: 1) <S> Young men don't usually have as much money as he did. <S> 2) <S> Something negative is implied about the relationship between young age and large fortunes ("too much"). <S> I would suggest the author means to say that this person, for his lack of experience and maturity, ended up doing or becoming something indesirable through this combination of youth and wealth. <A> The meaning of the phrase is close to your second suggestion, but I find the expression "as a young man" a little too ambiguous, as it can be interpreted as "when he was a young man". <S> I would rephrase it to say: Being a young man, he had too much money. <S> The sentence can also be expanded as follows: <S> He had too much money for it to be desirable for a young man. <S> The speaker is probably trying to say that excessive wealth is undesirable (e.g. it may weaken ambition or morale) for a young man with little real-life experience. <A> Neither; it means that young men either usually do not, or should not, have so much money. <S> Depending on context, a couple of implications come to mind: <S> The man is too young to have earned so much money legitimately; it implies that there was something unusual, if not shady, going on behind that fortune. <S> The man is too young to maturely and responsibly handle so much money; it implies that he lacks the experience and perspective to not waste the money.
| The meaning of "for" in the sentence is to say that the condition ("having a large amount of money") is a condition that is undesirable for a young man.
|
What's the difference between until and until after? As in "The sun doesn't rise until after dawn." Would the meaning of the sentence be changed if we used until ? I found on a website that 'After' is just an intensifier or clarifier. <Q> For instance, compare: "wait until tomorrow" with "wait until after tomorrow". <S> This is because a period of time is defined by two events: its beginning and end. <S> And "until" works in such a way that "until tomorrow" is referenced the start of tomorrow, while "after tomorrow" is referenced to tomorrow's end. <S> The meaning of until does not change if a single precise event is referenced, rather than a range of time. <S> The reason is that "X not until Y" implies that event Y happens first, and then X. And that is exactly the same as X happening after Y <S> ; i.e. not until after Y. Similarly, the positive version "X until Y" implies that event Y cancels X. <S> But event <S> Y has to occur first, causing the cancellation of X. In other words, the cancellation of X takes place after event Y. <S> The implicit causality makes "after" redundant. <S> For instance, "wait until the light turns green" isn't meaningfully different from "wait until after the light turns green". <S> Canceling the wait, and proceeding through the intersection is triggered by seeing the green light, and seeing the green light takes place after it turns green. <S> It is plausible that "after" serves as an intensifier, such that "wait until after the light turns green" emphasizes the need to wait properly and not move before the change. <S> Also consider a sentence like, "In a bankruptcy, unsecured creditors don't get paid until after the preferred creditors, if at all". <S> The "after" here seems to be quite necessary, not only for emphasis but because the unsecured creditors getting paid is not caused by or triggered by the preferred creditors getting paid. <S> There is a due process external to both of them which imposes an order. <S> About dawn, it is an extended event, like "tomorrow". <S> Dawn does not begin when the sun comes up; dawn ends at that point, which is called "sunrise". <A> Interesting example. <S> When referring to an event that has duration -- that is not instantaneous -- such as dawn, normally "until" refers to the start of that event: <S> We will be frantically cleaning until the party. <S> Adding the "after" clarifies that the "until" refers to the end of that event: We will be frantically cleaning until after the party. <S> In your example, what is being said is that the sun rising happens after dawn. <S> (That is precisely correct: dawn ends when the first sliver of sun appears at the horizon.) <A> "The sun doesn't rise until after dawn" simply means, in my opinion, that "The sun rises as soon as dawn begins"
| The meaning of until changes if the time being referenced is a period of time.
|
past perfect continuous in negative sentence I was wondering if it was possible to write that: My mother had not been writing for so long I know that "My mother had not written for so long" would be better. But imagine that the mother wrote a lot to her daughter(may be 1 or 2 letters per day during 4 years) and then she stopped . Could the daughter tell after not receiving any letters for one month"My mother had not been writing for so long " <Q> Continuous forms are often scene-setters. <S> They create a backdrop on which to hang specific events at precise points in time, and using them creates an expectation. <S> So when I read "My mother had not been writing for long", I expect an event set against this backdrop. <S> For example: when the phone rang . <S> In your example the mother has stopped writing. <S> Stopping is sudden; it is not a backdrop. <S> A continuous form is therefore not appropriate. <A> Yes the grammatical form is correct if the context is in the past, but I'd probably say: I had not been hearing from my mother for long. <S> But if your sister is saying it now: I have not been hearing from my mother for long. <S> To hear from: To get a letter, telephone call, or transmitted communication from. <S> Source: <S> Collins Dictionary <A> Yes, you may use your example. <S> Imagine a situation like in the following example: <S> “I failed receiving letters because my mother had not been writing for long ”. <S> This is an example of using past perfect continuous before another action in the past, which shows cause and effect.
| The daughter might say "My mother has not written for a month" or, to imply continuity in the past, "She used to write every day but she stopped about a month ago."
|
How would different verbal emphasis in spoken English change the meaning of these sentences? What is the meaning of verbal emphasis in Spoken English? For example, the difference between the following three sentences and how emphasis changes the semantics? I love you. I love you. I love you . I love you very much. Are there other ways of verbally emphasizing "I love you" to express different meanings? <Q> I love you. <S> "It's me <S> who loves you. <S> " <S> This would be said in the context where you're contrasting with someone else: <S> "He likes you, but I love you!" <S> I love you. <S> You're emphasizing the fact that it's love, rather than anything else. <S> This is also the emphasis you would use if you want to emphasize the whole sentence. <S> For example: <S> "I'm moving to South Africa!" <S> "What?! <S> You can't! <S> I love you!" <S> I love you . <S> It's you <S> that I love. <S> Again, contrasting with another person, but it's the loved person who's being contrasted now, not the one who is doing the loving. <S> "Of course there's no-one else. <S> I love you , silly." <S> I love you very much. <S> Here you're just emphasizing the degree of the love. <S> Other ways of verbally emphasizing "I love you" to express different meanings <S> I can think of a couple: <S> I do love you. <S> This "do" is a common way of expressing emphasis. <S> Read more in this answer. <S> I love you . <S> This can be a way of saying "I love you too" if it comes after "I love you". <S> "I love you." <S> "And I love you ." <S> This emphasis could come after "Bob loves Tom" or something, it doesn't have to come after "I love you". <A> Emphasizing a proper word may change the meaning of the sentence (download from the link). <S> I love you - <S> It's me <S> who loves you; nobody else does that <S> I love you - <S> it's not just friendship or simply caring. <S> I love you - and nobody else <S> I love you very much - my love is more intense, high degree. <S> Good read here <S> (it'll download an MS Word file and is not corrupt). <S> Are there other ways of verbally emphasizing "I love you" to express different meanings? <S> - I think you covered every word in it, that's all! <S> Bringing in other words would change the meaning then. <A> Here, emphasis is being used to put things straight, to banish confusion. <S> The thing emphasized is more important than the thing not emphasized, in a relationship of duality, or perhaps polarity. <S> To illustrate: I love you, not her, she just wants your money. <S> Emphasis on the person who loves. <S> I love you <S> , I don't just like you, darling I love you. <S> Emphasis on the sentiment. <S> I love you , not him, you fool! <S> Emphasis on the person loved. <S> I love you very much, even if I don't say it very often. <S> Possibly tinged with guilt; compensating for not having said 'I love you' often enough. <S> Are there other ways of saying I love you ...? <S> Yes. <S> "Love you" can be heard between intimates as a way of saying goodbye. <S> " Honestly , I love you" means I don't love you <S> but I want you to think I do. <S> Etc.
| To put it simply, verbal emphasis is the way of stretching a particular word or changing a pitch or volume in the sentence to emphasize it.
|
Report what someone said about his habitual affairs Let's say you read a story and see this sentence: ; and finally he went off on a tangent about how he worked as a carpenter's apprentice for little remuneration and about how he gets itchy cheeks after a horse nuzzles his face. I don't like that those verbs are in the present, while the whole situation is in the past ( went off ). A native speaker said that the sentence is fine. But I can't believe that I can say: A day before his death he said that he never tips waiters. (Here I used death to make sure the subject does not exist at the moment of utterance.) Am I right that the present tense here is illegitimate? If yes, what tense should I use? <Q> Your native-speaker correspondent is correct. <S> You could write it off as an idiomatic oddity of English (there are lots, after all). <S> Or you could use the following as a conceptual breakdown of "why it works". <S> The simple present ("gets", "nuzzles") is used for habitual aspect . <S> So when the chatty ex-carpenter's apprentice in the story was talking to the narrator, he would have said... <S> I get itchy cheeks when a horse nuzzles my face. <S> (For simplicity, hereafter the narrator will be called "Alice", and the chatty person described will be "Bob".) <S> Now, if Alice directly quoted what Bob just said, she would say... <S> Bob said, "I get itchy cheeks when a horse nuzzles my face." <S> But this isn't what Alice does, and indeed, in speech (and in writing meant to mimic a natural tone of speech), direct quotation is pretty rare. <S> Instead, it's usual to change the person —but not the tense: <S> Bob said he gets itchy cheeks when a horse nuzzles his face. <S> Changing "gets" to "got" would lose the habitual aspect. <S> You would also have to change "nuzzles" to "nuzzled", because having the two verbs in different tense is wrong. <S> (Well, okay, by "wrong <S> " I just mean that it reads really awkwardly to me, for what that's worth.) <S> On that topic, you may have noticed yourself that "nuzzles" is actually Bob using the same principle. <S> It would be possibly to use a longer phrase to indicate habitual aspect without the simple present tense, but it be rather long-winded—something like... <S> I have always gotten itchy cheeks <S> whenever a horse has nuzzled my face. <S> Finally, to your "a day before his death" example. <S> It reads just fine to me. <S> But I can also see how a reader (even a native Anglophone!) might be struck by the apparent oddness of the present tense, and find it strange or even funny. <S> This one could legitimately be rephrased like so... <S> A day before his death he said that he had never tipped waiters. <S> If it didn't mention his death, though, this could be interpreted as "he has never done so, but he's considering doing so now"! <A> There are several ways to talk about habits in the past. <S> Using an adverb : he went off on a tangent about how he worked as a carpenter's apprentice for little remuneration and about how usually got itchy cheeks after a horse nuzzles his face. <S> Present as in your example would not be my favourite in the sentence you give, although not shocking. <S> A day before his death he said that he had never tipped waiters. <S> (Past perfect tense for tense agreement with preterite.) <S> Using used to : <S> As a teenager I used to listen to the Beatles a lot. <S> Which implies I don't any longer. <S> Using would : <S> As a teenager I would (never) listen to classical music. <S> Used to and would are interchangeable when talking about habitual actions in the past. <S> But would is not normally used when talking about states. <S> As a child I used to be afraid of the dark. <S> Is usually prefered to: <S> As a child I would be afraid of the dark <A> Example: "Then the prince gets on his horse and quickly rides away." <S> Using the present simple makes the narration more lively. <S> Of course, the past simple is also correct.
| The present simple is also used for narrations, so it's correct.
|
What does "carved in relief" mean? I was looking up “cameo” and came across this definition: A gem or shell carved in relief, especially one in which the raised design and the background consist of layers of contrasting colors. Source: American Heritage Dictionary definition of “cameo” This just confuses me more. What does “carved in relief” mean? <Q> For example this is a relief carving of a Viking ship: <S> Cameo jewellery typically also displays this kind of carving: <A> Did you try looking up relief in a dictionary? <S> Check out Macmillan, <S> definition #4: <S> relief ( n. ) <S> art <S> a design or sculpture consisting of a raised surface on a flat background <S> You can also see some examples by looking up the phrase on Google images . <S> The woman on the brooch on the left is carved in relief. <S> On the other hand, the wheel on the right is stamped in relief: <S> In addition to being used in the phrase in relief , the word relief can also be used adjectivally: <S> Everything that does not exist is a relief sculpture carved into the stone of consciousness . <A> It means that the background has been cut away to make it look like the the sculpted or carved material has been raised.
| "Carved in relief" is a style of carving where an image stands out (or occasionally is cut into) a flat background.
|
"I'm marrying with her" or "I'm marrying her"? Which one of the following is correct? I'm marrying with her. I'm marrying her. <Q> "I'm marrying her" is correct. <S> A lot of people get confused with this word.to marry (someone)- <S> this is the general verb. <S> It is the time when people come together as husband and wife. <S> You can say: I'm married to someone.(When the wedding is over) <S> To get married/ or marry someone- <S> this talks about the time two people got married. <S> It makes us think of the wedding. <S> Examples: " <S> I'm getting married to her tonight" or I'm marrying her tonight." <A> Most people use "I am getting married to her." <S> Just in case you happen to be a priest, and need to be quite specific as to whether you are overseeing the marriage, or participating in it. <A> The verb form of "marry" is inherently transitive, requiring a direct object. <S> "I am marrying X." <S> X serves as your direct object and completes the transitive thought which would otherwise be incomplete. <S> If you stated "I am marrying with X", you have deprived the transitive verb of its direct object; hence, you made the thought incomplete. <S> "With X" is a prepositional phrase which can only serve as an adjective or adverb, but not a noun or pronoun (all direct objects must take noun or pronoun form). <S> I am marrying Dina (with her son alongside.) <A> Use either "marry" or "get married". <S> However, in everyday English the latter is usually preferred. <S> E.g. <S> ,He married Sue in 1980./Her parents got married 30 years ago. <S> By the way, you shouldn't use "be married with or get married with". <S> Instead, use "be married to or get married to". <S> E.g. <S> ,Nicole is married to my brother.
| "I am marrying" uses "marry" in verb form.
|
What could be a nice word to use in the title of my presentation slide which represents failures? Background: I have done a scientific project as a part of my graduation program and now I want to present my work through presentation slides. There were some techniques which didn't work and meant I had to employ other techniques. I want to name those techniques on a single slide, but I am unable to find a suitable title for that slide. I don't think that I should use "Challenges" as the title, because I think that that would only be suitable for techniques which posed some problem to me but I managed to solve them somehow. What should be the title of the slide on which I present the techniques that failed? <Q> <A> Speaking as a scientist, I'd recommend the word: Failures <S> There's no problem with being honest. <A> As SeanD says, there's nothing wrong with honestly identifying failures as "failures". <S> If you didn't ultimately succeed, you may not want to admit your failures. :-) <S> But if you failed three times and then succeeded, I don't think there's anything embarrassing about saying, "I tried A and it failed. <S> Then I tried B and it failed. <S> Then I tried C and that failed too. <S> But then I tried D and, wow, that worked. <S> " It makes it clear that you worked diligently to overcome your failures. <S> Like I often say, it doesn't matter if you fail ten times in a row ... as long as you try eleven times. <A> You could use 'Lessons Learned' as an option, but it looks like you already have a few good answers from which to choose! <A> Science proves itself wrong every day, that is the advancement of science. <S> Only by acknowledging failure do we move forward.
| "Approaches Tried" (particularly if you're giving an account of things you tried that didn't work on the path to discovering the technique(s) that did work) "Other Approaches Tried" "Unsuccessful Approaches" "Unsuccessful Techniques" When you're talking about experiments -- whether scientific experiments or attempts at building a machine or whatever -- I think the common phrase is "negative results".
|
We were discussing (whether / if) to leave early (or not) I have read many articles, but I don't know why often the verb " discuss " is followed by the conjunction "whether," but not "if". Do you confirm that this verb is an exception and after that we have to use always "whether"? In other words as an example I believe that: We were discussing whether to leave early (or not). Correct We were discussing if to leave early (or not). Incorrect <Q> It's not the verb discuss that makes the second sentence ungrammatical: <S> *We were discussing if to leave early (or not) . <S> It is the infinitive (which is, in our case, to leave ). <S> According to Practical English Usage (by Michael Swan), 621 <S> whether and if 3 infinitives <S> Whether , but not if , is used before to -infinitives. <S> They can't decide whether to get married now or wait. <S> (NOT They can't decide if to get married ... ) <A> You could say, for example: <S> We were discussing if it's okay to leave early. <S> I would claim that it's more natural to say whether there, but if is also acceptable. <A> Whether should be used not if. <S> The test for whether you can use if is called the inversion test. <S> Take the sentence <S> "We'll go to the beach if it's sunny." <S> This sentence can be inverted to say "If it's sunny, we'll go to the beach," with no loss of meaning. <S> In the sentence "We were discussing if it's okay to leave early," the inversion produces a nonsensical statement: <S> "If it's okay to leave early, we were discussing." <S> Accordingly whether should be used not if.
| Using if after (some form of) discuss is certainly possible.
|
What are the Correct pronunciations for "Wednesday" and "pizza"? Most people do not pronounce the d in "Wednesday" but many times on the radio or TV I hear them pronounce the d slightly (so that everyone can hear it). Is this correct, either in American or British accents? I'm also curious about "pizza". I know it's an Italian word but in English how should it be pronounced? Some people add an extra t in the middle but someone pronounce it as it's written. <Q> Wednesday - I've always remembered how to spell this by saying WED NES DAY or "WEDDING'S DAY", but it's primarily pronounced wenz day or wenz dee . <S> I searched several references, and found only a small set of people who include the "wed" sound, saying "wednz day": <S> IPA: /ˈwɛnzˌdeɪ/ <S> (AmE) <S> /ˈwɛnzdeɪ/ <S> (BrE) <S> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/Wednesday?q=wednesday has an AmE say "wenz day" or "wenz dee". <S> http://www.forvo.com/word/wednesday/#en <S> (Note that of all sample pronunciations, at this time only one, by TopQuark <S> (Male from United Kingdom) , says "Wednz day". <S> http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=wednesday&submit=Submit has an BrE speaker suggest either "wenz day" or <S> "wednz day" - Pizza Most Americans pronounce it like " Pete's a good guy" or technically: IPA: /ˈpitsə/ <S> (AmE) <S> /ˈpiːtsə/ <S> (BrE) <S> Some people might say pee zza because that's how it looks or their parents and friends said it <S> or they think it sounds Italian (it doesn't). <S> When it comes to radio shows , announcers are trained to enunciate, over-pronounce, or stress words in special ways that emphasize clarity over absolute correctness; it might not even be precisely the correct pronunciation. <S> So if you listen to radio announcers, you can sometimes hear non-typical pronunciations. <S> Information on pronunciation of minestrone has been moved here: <S> How do you pronounce, "minestrone"? <A> In re: "Pizza" American English: "PEET-za". <S> Always. <A> and /dz/ representing the affricate sounds. <S> The pizza pronunciation is normal, but the Wednesday pronunciation probably isn't. <S> The differences probably are 1) using an alveolar affricate instead of as the alveolar sibilant 2) pronouncing the long a sound as a pure /e/ <S> instead of the diphthong /eɪ/ <A> Pizza: /ˈpiːtsə/ ____ Wednesday:/ˈwenzdeɪ/ and /ˈwenzdi/
| I have always pronounced Pizza and Wednesday as /pitsə/ and /wendzde/ with /ts/
|
what's a long-shot job? I know that "long-shot" roughly means "improbable", but I am not sure what a long-shot job is, at least in the context of searching for such a job. Is it a really odd job, a job where the appliant has very few possibilities of being hired, or something else? <Q> A "long-shot" in terms of a job search is similar to any other "long-shot" attempt at something. <S> As an example, consider a generally unremarkable fresh graduate from college saying the following: [Major multinational company] just fired their CEO and is looking for a new one. <S> It's a long shot <S> but I think I'll apply! <S> In this case the speaker is probably being humorous, but you could use this term to describe applying for a position for which you are somewhat, but not completely qualified, in the hopes of impressing the hiring manager and/or recruiter enough to get the job anyway. <S> Point of clarification: as @Chokkeliet mentioned, "long-shot job" sounds odd and is not necessarily a phrase that is often used, however you can describe a job as being a "long-shot" Another expression you may sometimes hear in place of "long-shot" is "Hail Mary" which I believe is a reference to a Hail Mary <S> pass as explained in this section . <S> Hope that helps <A> From wikitionary : <S> long shot ( plural: long shots ) ( idiomatic, nautical ) <S> Something unlikely; something that has little chance of happening or working. <S> The term arose from the accuracy of early ship guns, which were effective only at close range and unlikely to hit the mark at any great distance. <S> We can try your plan, but it's a long shot and it probably won't work. <S> Though, in general, I'd consider "long-shot job" to have at least two clearly different meanings (as opposed to a job that is a long shot). <S> The first is it means that it's a job (read: occupation) <S> that's really hard or difficult to get. <S> The second is it means that it's a job concerned with working on things that are hard or difficult to complete or finish. <S> Unless, however, a "long-shot job" is some kind of slang that I've never heard before... <A> A "long shot" is a gambling term, typically used in referring to horse races. <S> In the U.S., wagering on horse races uses a "parimutuel" system for determining the value of a winning bet. <S> Increased wagerng on a particular horse will cause the amounts paid to winning bettors to decrease; diminished wagering on a particular horse will cause the amounts paid to winning bettors to increase. <S> The more a horse becomes unpopular among bettors, it becomes more of a long shot, and the odds paid on a winning ticket might increase to 20-1, or 30-1, in other words winning ticket holders might be paid $42 or $62 on a $2 wager. <S> Usually (but not always) <S> the actual probability that a horse will win the race correlates with the wagering odds, due to the "wisdom of crowds." <S> So the term "long shot" refers to an improbable event; and also to the fact that, if wagering is permitted on the outcome of the event, an increased payment is had if one bets on the improbable event and it occurs.
| It is a job that the speaker could apply to, but has little chance or expectation of getting.
|
What does the phrase "I wish I could meet you so bad" mean? Can you help me to understand this phrase: I wish I could meet you so bad. <Q> Don't interpret bad, as a negative thing here. <S> Not that the manner in which they want to meet you, is a negative thing. <A> The idiom "so bad" should be taken to mean "very intensely and urgently", and generally applies to wanting, desiring, or needing. <S> As in "I have to go to the bathroom so bad." <A> The bad should be understood as an adverb, and 'corrected' (apologies to Americans) to badly . <S> A slight re-ordering of words then gives "I wish so badly (that) I could meet you" . <S> The use of the word bad itself is well explained by @A Prejean
| When the person says they want to meet you so bad, they mean they really want to meet you.
|
What the meaning of "reckless abandon" here? From http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/50_things , #4. Take naps in the middle of the afternoon with reckless abandon. I think I understand reckless and abandon , but what does reckless abandon mean here? <Q> @Maulik V is basically correct, but it's important to note that the author's choice of phrase, "reckless abandon", is very ironic and wry; it's meant humorously. <S> The phrase "reckless abandon" typically is applied to actions that are, well, very active . <S> Things to which "with reckless abandon" are most typically applied are operating motor vehicles and handling fire arms – <S> things that if not done carefully are dangerous to innocent by-standers. <S> One might make edits on a database in production "with reckless abandon", especially if it involves "DELETE *". <S> So to instruct people to nap with reckless abandon is meant to be clever and funny in its incongruity. <S> Perhaps to a slight degree it also is meant to gently tease the reader not to be too scandalized by the idea of napping -- saying with sarcasm that it's not like napping is driving a car with your eyes closed. <A> Straightforwardly he means... <S> Take rest (in the afternoon) without getting worried! <S> [with devil-may-care attitude!] <S> Here it is... <S> reckless (adj) <S> -showing a lack of care about danger and the possible results of your action. <S> And... <S> abandon (n) - The trait of lacking restraint or control; reckless freedom from inhibition or worry. <S> Putting reckless , the speaker/author just wants to emphasize. <A> I thought I understand what reckless abandon means after reading the two answers, but today, when I read another example from XP's retirement triggers another wave of deserters , I use Chromebook to browse the web with reckless abandon <S> I found that my understanding was completely wrong (I thought "with reckless abandon" is use to describe things that are most typically like operating motor vehicles and handling fire arms – things that if not done carefully are dangerous to innocent by-standers). <S> So I'm searching for better answers myself now: From https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080425132954AAMMJm4 <S> To do or say something without regards for the consequences (Jackie C) <S> Basically it means to abandon all sense of responsibility or consequence and just take the plunge despite the possible outcome (Aunt Susan) From http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Reckless%20Abandon <S> It's idiomatic English, means roughly "without care or regard for consequences". <A> My football coaches in high school used this phrase when telling players how to "pursue the ball(carrier)". <S> a complete surrender to natural impulses without restraint or moderation; freedom from inhibition or conventionality: to dance with reckless abandon. <S> ( Source: Dictionary.com ) With "freedom from inhibition" being attached to a positively connotated "lack of reason"/mindlessness/wu-xin/uninhibitedness/recklessness.
| The word "reckless" comes from the same root as "reckon" (to account, to tally, to figure), and means "without thought to the consequences", or "thoughtless" in the pejorative sense.
|
'if', meaning 'even if'. Why would ommision occur in some cases? From Michael Swan's Practical English Usage 261.10: If , meaning 'even if' We can use 'if' to mean 'even if'. I'll finish this job if it takes all night. I wouldn't marry you if you were the last man in the world. I wonder if we can omit 'even' in any other 'even if' clauses. If not, when is the omission acceptable without causing any misunderstanding? <Q> Yes, as your source seems to indicate as well, if on its own can have the meaning of even if . <S> In the given examples, even is omitted but the meaning is still there. <S> I will beat this game if it's the last thing I'll ever do! <S> is equivalent to <S> I will beat this game even if it's the last thing I'll ever do! <A> Those sentences you gave as examples are extremes (and also set phrases, almost idioms), so people will understand that you omitted the "even" from context. <S> But other less extreme/familiar sentences would be less clear, and therefore be strange. <S> For example, "Take off your sweater if you are cold. <S> " does not make sense (why would someone tell you to take off a sweater when you are cold ?), but "Take off your sweater even if you are cold" makes sense because now the speaker is saying to take off the sweater despite the fact that you are cold. <S> I also think leaving out the "even" is sort of slangish and considered "incorrect" in more formal English, though people will understand it in those particular examples. <S> It's similar to how people say, "I could care less," when they mean "I could not care less," yet people understand their meaning due to the fact that the phrase is used often, and from context. <A> The word " even " in " even if " is implied in cases where the condition is particularly strong. <S> Omitting it in these cases would not alter the meaning of the sentence and one can argue that it is in fact redundant as the strong condition already provides emphasis. <S> In the following case: I wouldn't marry you if you were the last man in the world. <S> " last man in the world " is an extremely strong condition and therefore provides emphasis on its own. <S> Adding " even " does not change the meaning of the sentence and is not necessary here.
| No, there are cases where if you omit the "even", it will sound strange.
|
Would you please help me to understand the following sentence? On page 187 of Peter Benchley’s Jaws I came across the following sentence: “If you’d testify, you might be able to slap a loan-sharking rap on these guys.” I can’t get the meaning of the expression in bold. I thank you in advance for your help. <Q> to slap a legal charge - To charge someone with a crime. <S> Here, "slap" has a connotation of a slap: in a manner that is expedient or unexpected; in a manner that shows the person being slapped that they don't have the power to prevent the slap. <S> It can also mean bringing a charge that is, in some way, unfair or indirect. <S> The FBI could not charge mob bosses with any of various violent crimes, so they finally came up with the idea that they could slap them with tax evasion. <S> The word "rap" is sometimes referred to as "Record of Arrests and Prosecutions" . <S> This itself is one good definition of "rap", but the word "rap" pre-dates this usage in literature. <S> [If you’d testify, you might be able] [to slap] <S> [a loan-sharking] <S> [rap] <S> [If you’d testify, you might be able] [charge them with] <S> [offering loans at illegally high interest rates] [that would get put on their criminal record (if they got convicted)]. <A> To slap a loan-sharking rap on [someone] can't be interpreted literally, as you might have guessed, because what is a rap, and how can it loan-shark? <S> It makes no sense. <S> Let's break this phrase down. <S> The phrase to slap [something] on [someone] (also to slap [someone] with [something] ) means to impose something on them, usually a punishment of some sort. <S> The officer slapped me with a $100 fine for speeding. <S> I wasn't even going over the limit! <S> My boss was getting to be unbearable, so I slapped <S> my two weeks' notice on him . <S> The payday advance companies all got hit with loan-sharking raps <S> once the government started making them post their effective interest rates in the fine print. <S> Put those two together <S> and you get the phrase you want: <S> If you’d testify, you might be able to slap a loan-sharking rap on these guys . <S> which, given the two definitions we just gave up there, becomes: <S> If you’d testify, you might be able to impose a criminal charge for charging illegally high interest rates on loans on these guys . <A> Rap is referring to the phrase "bad rap" meaning a bad name for themselves.. <S> in this case its saying if he/she testifies, he will be seen by everyone as a loan shark which gives him a bad rap (put simply as reputation). <S> I think rap comes from the shortened version of rapport <S> but im not completely sure where it originates. <S> Loan sharks are people who charge large interest rates on money that people have borrowed from them, usually associated with illegal activity.
| A "bum rap" or "bad rap" means an unfair or unethical use of charging someone with a crime. A loan-sharking rap can also be also read as a rap for loan-sharking , which other answers have indicated means "a criminal charge for loan-sharking", or "a criminal charge for charging illegally high interest rates on loans".
|
"Were not doing" versus "would not do" versus "had not been doing" In my previous organisation we were not doing so much of work. In my previous organisation we would not do so much of work. Do both the sentences mean the same thing or there is any difference? And also what is meaning of the sentence below? "We had not been doing so much of work in our previous organisation" <Q> As mentioned in a comment, you have a problem with that of . <S> In my previous organisation we were not doing so much work. <S> In my previous organisation we would not do so much work. <S> Sentence 1 strongly implies "actually, we worked very little" or "we didn't work as much as this", while 2 means "if we were asked to do this, we wouldn't have done as much work on it as you/ <S> we/they are doing now" or possibly, "in comparative situations, we did not do as much work on it as you/ <S> we/they are doing now." <S> Honestly, on a gut check level, as a native speaker, my first roguish thought was Sentence 1 <S> is the one you use to insult your previous job. <S> ("We were worthless lazy slackers.") <S> Sentence 2 is the one you use to insult your present job. <S> ("You guys are working too hard. <S> There's a much easier way to do it.") <A> It is better to use the past tense, or "use to", when referring to a past habit or past situation. <S> Example:In my previous organization we didn't do or we didn't use to do much work. <S> The past continuous is used to describe an action which was in progress at a stated time, so it is not appropiate here. <S> Example:"At seven o'clock yesterday evening we were working. <S> "The second sentense is correct, since "would", like "used to" is used to describe repeated actions or routines in the past. <S> The third sentence is wrong, since the past perfect continuous is used to put emphasis on the duration of an action that started and finished in the past before another past action or a state time in the past. <S> Example:"They had been working hard before they won the lottery. <S> "Be <S> careful: " <S> so much work",not "so much of work" <A> In my previous organisation we were not doing so much of work. <S> In my previous organisation we would not do so much of work. <S> The first sentence states a fact saying that you did not do much work, the sentence written in the continuous form to show that this lack of working went on for a while, because it is a continuous progress. <S> Also the second sentence, in my opinion could mean this: <S> In my previous organisation we didn't use to do so much work, because would can be used in the same way as used to to talk about events that used to happen in the past again and again. <S> Would or wouldn't can also imply refusing to do something e.g <S> :I won't get up= <S> I don't want to get up/ <S> I refuse to get up. <S> The very last 3rd sentence is a past perfect which can be used in the same way as the present perfect: have been doing, have been, only in the past when talking about the past. <S> Compare: <S> PresentWe have been walking for hours, I want to rest, but the walk leader won't let us have a break. <S> We had been walking for hours, I wanted to rest but the walk leader wouldn't let us have a break. <A> All three sentences are radically different in the contexts in which they can be used. <S> For a full explanation you would need to consult an English grammar. <S> Here are some main differences. <S> I am eliminating the "do" to make this examples easier to understand. <S> In my previous organisation we would not work much. <S> One day the mailman came with a new package... <S> This construction is used when describing persistent background conditions in which other events happen. <S> We were not working much when the large order finally came in. <S> Here the past progressive tense is used because "doing" is describing an action that is pictured as in progress at a particular point in time when another action happens. <S> The important part is the fact that it is in progress . <S> Finally, the 'had' version is less common and usually interchangeable in modern English with the previous tense. <S> However, modern English still strongly prefers the 'had' version when the focus is on the length of time the action has been in progress or the change that is caused by a second, later action . <S> For example, to paraphrase from Wikipedia, I had been working on my novel when she entered the room to talk to me. <S> implies that I stopped working when she came in (or had already stopped a short time before); the plain past progressive (I was working...) <S> would not necessarily carry this implication. <S> As I said, an advanced English grammar will describe this in much greater detail and precision. <S> Wikipedia has some information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_perfect_progressive#Past_perfect_progressive
| The second sentence suggests that you refused to do so much work even further emphasized by the usage of the word so to magnify the amount of the work. Here the use of the 'would' construction indicates that the action described is habitual or continuous .
|
"was decapitated" or "got decapitated" Could someone please tell me if it would sound better if I replaced was with got in the text below? In the Vietnam War, Bob Walker had been a helicopter mechanic, and he’d watched as his best friend was decapitated by an incoming helicopter’s propeller blade. Source : The Verge <Q> Either is fine. <S> My gut check as a native speaker says that in your sentence, was sounds more detached, removed from the action, while got is more immediate. <S> I say this as someone who has to write about violent trauma as part of their job: I would never use got decapitated in a formal report unless I was quoting a witness who said that, because it's bad enough having to read these things to begin with, the last thing I want is to increase the immediacy of the description for whomever the poor person having to read it <S> is (sometimes myself in the future) and possibly vicariously traumatize them (even worse). <S> I want my text to be as unemotional and sterile as possible, and to leave any emotional impact in the content of the words themselves. <S> If I'm writing fiction, and I want to increase intensity for the reader <S> , I might very well use got decapitated . <S> The choice is yours. <A> The passive voice is normally formed with the verb 'to be" and the past participle, but we can use the verb "to get" instead of the verb "to be" in everyday speech when we talk about things that happen by accident or unexpectedely. <S> So, here it would sound better to use "get" <A> I also agree that 'was' and 'got' are the difference between formalism and colloquial usage, with 'got' being something that would be spoken, while 'was' would more likely be written. <S> However, I disagree with the usage of 'get' in any form given the original sentence of ".. <S> and he'd watched as his best friend get decapitated by an incoming... <S> " <S> " <S> I would have posted this as a comment, however, I apparently need 50 points to do so.
| The only way that would sound correct would be an alteration of the sentence to, "...and he watched his best friend get decapitated by an incoming...
|
past perfect or past simple why? Is it possible to write that"My cat caught 3 mice today."I think it is better to use present perfect: "My cat has caught 3 mice today" because the cat may catch another one or many more till the day is finished.(if he is a good hunter) <Q> Use of the present perfect always depends on context. <S> So if you are narrating past events - what happened this morning, or the history of your cat's predations, for instance - use the simple past. <S> But if you are speaking of the present situation - your current infestation with mice, or the extraordinary cleverness of your cat - and you wish merely to mention your cat's prior predations as an example of these, use the present perfect. <S> This is treated in more detail than you probably want at <S> What is the perfect, and how should I use it? , particularly sections <S> 3.1 Grammatical meaning , 3.2 Pragmatic <S> meaning and 4.When <S> and how should I use the perfect? <A> After coming home from work you could say either one: " my cat caught three mice today" or " my cat has caught three mice today." <S> Don't let grammar rules constrain expressiveness. <S> It all depends on what you want to communicate, and not necessarily the precise, scientific concept of the probability that your cat might catch another mouse before the official end of the day. <S> You might want to tell a story using a more simple, dramatic, active voice: "You won't believe what I found when I got home from work. <S> My cat caught three mice today and put them all at my bedroom door like they were a present for me!" <S> "Eww that's gross!" <S> "Yeah, I know. <S> It makes me feel bad. <S> But I feed her good food <S> so I guess she's just returning the favor!" <S> Alternatively, if it's early in the day or you want to hold out hope that your cat might catch more mice because you're proud of your cat's hunting skills, then you are surely within your grammar rights to stick with the present perfect and say <S> "My cat has caught three mice today. <S> And I think he'll catch another two or three before I go to bed!" <A> The past tense is used to describe an action that finished/happened in the past, whereas the present perfect is used for an action which has happened within a specific time period which is not over at the moment of speaking. <S> So it can depend on the time the sentence is stated. <S> For example, if it is 9:00 PM and your cat caught the mice in the morning, then you could say either of the following: <S> "My cat caught three mice this morning." <S> (The past tense is ok.) <S> "My cat has caught three mice so far today." <S> (The present perfect tense is ok because the day is not over yet.)
| The present perfect is not a past tense and it does not recount events; it is a present tense which mentions past events.
|
Which part of the sentence does "for about 1.4 million pounds" modify? The Martins sold their house for about 1.4 million pounds . I have two explanations of the this sentence: (1) The Martins sold their house in order to get about 1.4 million pounds. (2) The Martins sold their house which cost about 1.4 million pounds. So I wonder which explanation is correct? How to understand "for" here? Likewise, there is another sentence alike: The doctor was prepared to do the operation for a large sum . <Q> I wouldn't say that it's modifying anything, it's an oblique argument or object . <S> An oblique argument is an argument of a relation that is marked with a preposition. <S> (Syntactically, oblique arguments aren't direct arguments; that is, they aren't subjects or direct objects or second objects). <S> And, from SIL : An oblique object is a grammatical relation proposed for a noun phrase clause constituent with the following characteristics: Its nature and behavior are more readily describable in semantic terms than syntactic. <S> It is likely to be the most constrained in the semantic roles it may individually express. <S> It is likely to be marked by an adposition or case affix. <S> To answer your other question: the most felicitous expansion, I would say, is The Martins sold their house in order to get about 1.4 million pounds. <S> However, and I admit my limitation here: it doesn't quite sound <S> right that way. <S> Can't put my finger on it. <A> Grammatically, it modifies the verb. " <S> The phrase is used as an adverb here. <S> It can fit both your explanations, depending on context. <S> On its own, it doesn't imply either one more so than the other. <S> See here for details on prepositions like "for" and how they're used: http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/prepositionalphrase.htm <S> I don't have enough rep to comment <S> but I believe jimsug's answer is a bit off. <S> Technically, I think "about 1.4 million pounds" is the oblique object which is part of the prepositional phrase. <S> Your question was specifically targeting the preposition's usage so that's why I went with the adverb answer. <A> It's definitely the first. <S> Grammatical concerns aside, this would seem to be a usage rule: " <S> For [money]" always means "done in order to receive [money]". <S> And while any rule can have exceptions, I've been thinking, and I honestly can't come up with any for this one.
| For about 1.4 million pounds" is a prepositional phrase modifying how they sold the house.
|
Pointing out someone in a photograph How should I refer to someone in a photograph with language? I know expressions like "the second girl on the right", but what should I say about "the first girl to the right"? Does "rightmost" sound natural? <Q> Does "rightmost" sound natural? <S> It can, but rightmost wouldn't usually be heard in casual conversation. <S> StoneyB is correct: most people would say, "The girl on the right." <S> I've never heard, " <S> The rightmost girl," although it does make sense. <A> Let's say you have 5 people in a row: Person 1 - Person 2 - Person 3 - Person 4 - Person 5 <S> Then I would say it this way: Person 1 is the person on the left. <S> Person 2 is the second person from the left. <S> Person 3 is the third person from the left (or right). <S> Person 4 is the second person from the right. <S> Person 5 is the person on the right. <A> This means roughly the same thing as rightmost and could also be used if you wanted to say something like "I was on the very edge of the cliff" to say that you were especially close to the edge.
| Some people would also say "The girl on the very right" to emphasize, especially if there are many people in the photo.
|
What is this "much?" I saw this sentence in an article in the New Yorker : The question is as much philosophical as it is scientific , since the answer depends on how these terms get defined. I came up with my own sentence based on this structure: You have got to act twice as much extravagant as usual. Is there not much of a difference with or without "much"? Can I say, "You are twice as much cute as Sarah"? <Q> The example sentence is poorly worded. <S> A fluent English speaker would just say, "You have got to act twice as extravagant as usual." <S> You might say, "Should I be extravagant?" <S> "Oh yes. <S> Twice as much as usual", or "Twice as extravagant as usual", but NOT "twice as much extravagant". <S> Likewise, "She is twice as cute as Sarah", NOT "twice as much cute". <A> In the context you're using, "much" means "a large quantity" or "a large amount"; so the use of "much" in the sample sentences is redundant with the word "twice". <S> The sample sentences could be re-written: <S> "You have got to act twice as extravagant as usual." <S> (remove the word "much") <S> "You have got to act much more extravagant than usual." <S> ("much more" replacing "twice" as a quantity). <S> Similarly: <S> "You are twice as cute as Sarah" <S> "You are much cuter than Sarah" <A> @user4550 <S> you're swapping adjectives and nouns, and "much" applies differently. <S> "is as much" literally means <S> "has an equal amount of", so the original sentence means "half philosophical and half scientific". <S> It's fine as originally written. <S> When "much" is applied to a noun it is a VAGUE QUANTIFIER, you can substitute "a large amount". <S> It applies to uncountable nouns (like "money"); countable nouns (like "dollars") would use "many" instead of "much". <S> When "much" is referencing an adjective <S> it is an AMPLIFIER, and an additional modifier is needed (like "more" or "less", or changing "cute" to "cuter") to indicate the direction being amplified. <S> "Much" actually applies to the modifier. <S> With the adjective you can say:Twice as extravagant. <S> More extravagant. <S> Much more extravagant. <S> More extravagance. <S> Much more extravagance. <S> Twice as much extravagance.you can even say "with much extravagance".a large amount of extravagance. <A> The original sentence you found in the article means that the question is equally philosophical and scientific. <S> To whatever extent the question is philosophical, it is also scientific. <S> However, adding "much" into the sentence doesn't change its meaning significantly. <S> They could have also said: <S> The question is as philosophical as it is scientific , since the answer depends on how these terms get defined.
| You cannot say "a large amount of extravagant"but you can say "a large amount MORE extravagant" Changing the adjective to a noun you can say:Twice the extravagance.
|
The usage of a comma with conjunctions I am a little confused about the usage of a comma in sentences with conjunctions. For example: Dairying is concerned not only with the production of milk but with the manufacture of milk products. Can we put a comma before but ? Can we say " Dairying is concerned not only with the production of milk, but is concerned with the manufacture of milk products. "? Or must there be an it after but in this case? Or is the original sentence wrong at all? <Q> It is a matter of personal taste (or the professional opinion of your editor or publisher if you have one.) <S> (Myself, honestly, I think commas are, well, you know, awesome, and will use them, with rare exception, anywhere they might possibly fit.) <S> In your second example, you have an additional is , which is unnecessary: it is redundant with the initial is , and breaks the grammatical parallelism. <S> Adding an it just exacerbates that. <A> The comma is not required. <S> Also, the structure " ...not only...but also... " has a particular structure. <S> The question in concern and the structure is one of the most confusing things in English grammar. <S> Here is a wonderful tip from DailyWritingTips - <S> But before we go any further, note not only that a comma following “not only” is unnecessary but also that also (or too or as well) is essential after but. <S> The structure is (Subject) (this) (verb) and (that) but <S> the correct structure is (Subject) (verb) (this) and (that) <S> So, all in all... <S> Dairying is concerned not only with the production of milk but also with the manufacture of milk products. <S> Putting comma is extraneous. <S> Here is the example (#5) from that page: <S> “They understood that the devastation was not solely (serves as 'not only') <S> about the lack of water but also about the way the land had been used.” <S> Then where use comma before 'but'? <S> When two sentences merged into one with but – comma is required - GrammarMonster . <S> I also notice that the conjunction but takes comma before it when the latter clause is in contrast of the former one. <S> He is a great swimmer , but he prefers to play golf. <A> Not enough rep to comment. <S> :/ <S> At the end of your post, you asked if the original sentence was correct. <S> It is correct except for one thing: <S> something to imply that with the manufacture of milk products is in addition to something. <S> Dairying is concerned not only with the production of milk but withthe manufacture of milk products, too . <S> If someone is going to be reading this aloud, I recommend adding a comma to help separate the "thoughts" in the sentence. <S> Otherwise, Codeswitcher is absolutely correct: it's a matter of personal taste.
| You can put a comma before but or leave it out.
|
Buy a home VS Buy a house VS Buy a building I am learning English a foreign language and I was wondering if anybody here could help me out denoting the difference between three expressions below? Buy a house Buy a home Buy a building <Q> "Building" is a general term for any sort of structure that is built by people, is large enough for people to enter and that is basically routed to the ground in some way and expected to remain indefinitely. <S> A house, an office building, a warehouse, a storage shed, would all be considered "buildings". <S> A "house" is a specific kind of building, one intended for a single person, a family, or some other small group of people to live in. <S> A building that is primarily intended for commercial use would not be called a house. <S> If it is divided into sections and many different people and families live there, it is an "apartment building". <S> A "home" is where a person lives. <S> For many, their home is a house, but that isn't necessary the case. <S> For many others, their home is an apartment or a military barracks. <S> Another person's home may be a tent. <S> Some truck drivers live in their trucks, so that is their home. <S> Etc. <S> There's a common phrase in English, "to make a house a home", meaning, to take the house that you have bought and turn it into a pleasant place to live. <A> If you buy a house, <S> you are probably buying what will be your future home. <S> A building is a generic term for a construction that may be both for residential or commercial use. <A> The other answers are correct, but it's probably more useful to talk more about the context in which you would use each phrase. <S> Buy a home <S> - if I said I just bought a home, that would mean I just bought a new place that I intend to live in - in particular, it means I'm not renting, but it could be a house <S> , it could be an apartment, it could be a big RV that I intend to live in (though it's far more likely to be a building than this last one). <S> Buy a house - this is similar to the previous one, but it's more likely to mean that I bought a building intended to be a single family home , and I may or may not intend to live there <S> (I might be renting it to someone else). <S> Buy a building - if I said this, I most likely mean that I bought a building for some commercial purpose. <S> It may mean that I bought a house in order to rent it out, but it's more likely to mean that I bought a larger structure, perhaps an apartment building to rent out, or an office or industrial building where people go to work. <S> My intention may be to rent it out, or to turn around and sell it for a higher price. <S> Most people would not say that they "bought a building" if they intended to live there. <S> House and Home are sometimes used in place of each other, but "house" is more often used if you're not living there. <A> There is a distinction that none of the other answers (so far) have been able to make clear. <S> A building is anything that is built, from a shed, to a skyscraper. <S> a house is a building that is designed to be lived in a home is a place that has personality , emotion , and memories . <S> It is unique to an individual (or a family). <S> Often, a home is a house, but it could be anywhere. <S> I would suggest that it is impossible to "buy a home". <S> You don't buy a home, you make a home. <S> A house is your home <S> when you know it well, it has your decorations in it, when you know what doors are squeaky, etc. <S> I would not expect to hear someone say "I am going to buy a home". <S> I would expect to hear them say "I am going to buy a house, and make it my home". <S> Once people have established their home, they will normally refer to it as their 'home', not their 'house', for example, they may say "I bought my home last year". <S> Note that it is possessive, it is " my home", but " a house"... <S> I will buy a house , but I bought my home . <A> An added distinction for "home" is that is usually your legal address for purposes of taxation, voting, jury duty, etc. <S> You normally have a fixed legal home address, but can be temporarily living elsewhere.
| A home is the place (house, apartment etc) where you usually live.
|
Meaning of "he claims to announce" Could someone please clarify the exact meaning of claims to announce in the paragraph below. A Greek philosopher of the late 6th century BCE, Heraclitus criticizes his predecessors and contemporaries for their failure to see the unity in experience. He claims to announce an everlasting Word (Logos) according to which all things are one, in some sense. Does it mean he claims that he is the one who has invented this word? <Q> Word is the literal translation of Greek logos ; but the meaning of the Greek term is enormously greater than that of the English term. <S> Depending on context it may mean speech, language, discourse, thought, opinion, reasoning, principle, and most exaltedly <S> the Mind and Generative Capacity of God. <S> (That's why the author capitalizes both Word and Logos.) <S> Most Western readers will be reminded of the opening sentence of the Greek Book of John in the Christian Bible, which employs the same term: <S> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. <A> Well, announcing a word would imply that the word was new and was being introduced with the statement. <S> However, if one were to announce an 'everlasting' word, it would remain to be seen whether the word would indeed be 'everlasting' when introduced. <S> Therefore, the author likely used the phrase <S> He claims to announce an everlasting word... <S> because it is, even now, still unknown if the word is 'everlasting.' <S> Actually, it can never be verified, so one might always say 'claims to announce' in this context unless the word is repurposed at some future time to mean something else entirely. <S> An author might then say He erroneously claims to announce an everlasting word... or He erroneously announces an everlasting word... <A> The implication of "he claims to announce" is that this is simply a report of what Heraclitus said, and that the writer does not necessarily agree. <S> (In fact, since "he announced" wouldn't necessarily imply agreement with the announcement, this qualification suggests that the writer thinks Heraclitus was wrong.)
| So when Heraclitus is said to have claimed to announce a new Logos, we are to understand that he claimed to have discerned and to be revealing a new understanding of the rational divine principle which gives shape and meaning to the universe.
|
When does the determiner "each" modify the plural noun? [A] We interviewed each individual member of the community. ( OALD ) For they have this meaning for ‘each’: “ used to refer to every one of two or more people or things ” in OALD , isn’t it proper to write [B] “~each individual members of the community~” instead of the above clause? If there isn’t the typo, can we use either singular or plural after each , for each means the individual members of a set”(CGEL, p.378)? If it’s possible, how about their meaning difference? If your answer is we can’t use the plural of [B] grammatically, what about this?: [C] to tell two or more people who have not met before what each other's names are ( OALD ) For [C], other's names is the set, so it ought to be plural; but for [A] the community is the set, so we can't use plural form of members that is not part of the set? <Q> Simply put, I think [C] is a typo. <S> You don't use plurals with each as a pronoun. <S> [C] should read "each others' names are" or "each other's name is". <S> "Each" is a singular pronoun but you'll see it used as an adverb as well, which will show plural verbs: <S> "We were allowed two tries each. <S> " That's from M-W ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/each ). <S> For a more esoteric explanation of "each" as a quantifier, see: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/116662/each-pronoun-or-adverb <A> Each refers to every single member of a set individually , as opposed to all , which refers to all members of a set together . <S> So the usage is as follows: <S> I gave an apple to each child in the class. <S> I gave an apple to all children in the class. <S> As for your last sentence: to tell two or more people who have not met before what each other's names are <S> There are several names (two or more) belonging to the people (plural) that get introduced. <S> Here, each is not used on its own, but together with other . <S> I agree with Fantasier that you could well use the singular here: <S> They got to know each other's name. <S> They got to know each other's names. <S> They sound both OK to me, but the difference is in how you parse the sentence: do you read it as: <S> They got to know the name of each other person. <S> Each [other's name] or <S> They got to know the names of the other people. <S> _ <S> [Each other's] names <A> If a speaker or author wants to use each with a plural noun there is a way <S> We interviewed each of the community <S> members ... <S> each of the 46 member countries of the Council of Europe were... <S> Each of my aunts have two children <S> He saw each of the boys once a week <S> Here the word <S> each is being used a pronoun, not as a determiner. <S> Usage <S> Dictionary.com <S> When the pronoun is followed by an of phrase containing a plural noun or pronoun, there is a tendency for the verb to be plural: <S> Each of the candidates has (or have ) spoken on the issue. <S> Some usage guides <S> maintain that only the singular verb is correct, but plural verbs occur frequently even in edited writing. <S> It is also sometimes said that the pronoun each must always be referred to by a singular pronoun, but again actual usage does not regularly observe this structure: <S> Each member of our garden club had their own special interests. <S> In the most formal speech and writing, singular verbs and pronouns occur more frequently than plural: <S> Each member … had his own special interests.
| Each in the above examples stands for "every one individually" i.e. every individual member ; every individual aunt ; every individual boy .
|
Synonyms to "pick up" Is this sentence correct: I picked up this word in the dictionary ?? Do you know any synonyms to "pick up" in this context? Thanks in advance! <Q> Using "pick up" in this way is not very idiomatic. <S> To "pick up" a word, idea, or skill, means to learn it informally; it is often used to minimize the importance of the word, idea, or skill. <S> So you would, for example, say: While I was living in Moscow <S> I picked up a little Russian. <S> But you would be less likely to say: <S> I picked up a little Russian by taking an intensive Russian course. <S> unless you were trying to minimize the amount you actually knew: <S> I took an intensive Russian course, but only picked up a little of the language. <S> When it comes to a single word, "picked up" normally describes an informal process, where you learn the word by being exposed to it. <S> So it might make sense to say: When did you start saying "metaphysical" so often? <S> Oh, I just picked up the word hanging out with my friend Aristotle. <S> You would not say: <S> *I was trying to find the right word to describe her hair; so I picked up "oleagenous" out of the thesaurus. <S> You might instead say: I picked the word out of a dictionary or <S> I found the word in a dictionary <S> or I looked up the word in the dictionary <S> All have varying shades of meaning; which one you mean will depend on what, exactly, you are trying to say. <A> To me, "picked up this word in the dictionary" implies that the person was reading the dictionary without necessarily any specific intent to learn the word, but still remembered it later in an appropriate setting or something. <S> If you had heard it elsewhere before looking up the definition in the dictionary I might propose these two sentences:"I <S> picked up this word from [elsewhere].""I <S> picked up this word's definition from the dictionary." <S> In any case, I would propose the synonyms " acquired " and " learned ". <S> "I picked up this word in the dictionary." <S> "I acquired this word from the dictionary." <S> "I learned this word from the dictionary." <S> "I picked up this skill in England. <S> "I acquired this skill in England. <S> "I learned this skill in England. <S> "I picked up this move from the karate master who trounced me." <S> "I acquired this move from the karate master who trounced me." <S> "I learned this move from the karate master who trounced me." <S> In the first 2 examples there is no difference between the three words - but in the third example "learned" implies the karate master intentionally taught it to you, while "picked up" <S> implies you figured it out from being trounced. <S> "Acquired" gives no implication either way. <S> Also keep in mind that when using "picked up" in relation to physical objects "acquired" remains a synonym but "learned" does not. <A> As I understand your sentence, synonyms that come to mind are Spot Raise <S> Note <S> I recommend you to look at their different definitions and see if they fit.
| I learned the word from a dictionary or First of, "Pick Up" is correct and indeed usable in this context
|
"I am been" or "I have been"? The scenario is: I have started my job in a company a few weeks ago. Now I am telling someone that I am doing this from a short time only, that is only from a while. The sentences that come in my mind for expressing my view are: I am been , from a short time an employee of that company. I have been , from a short time an employee of that company. I think first sentence(am been) is correct because the second sentence(have been) gives a sense that I no longer work for that company which is false. Another sentence that comes in my mind is: 3 I am been, for a short an employee of that company. this 3rd sentence express my intention even worse. The for implies that I am currently doing the job but will soon resign from that job. So should I use "have been" or "am been" ? Please do not explain grammatically(or technically). I learn English by just reading it and by watching movies. <Q> It is "have been". <S> It is basically never correct to say "am been", and it wouldn't mean what you want it to mean anyway. <S> One possible, correct sentence is: <S> I have been, for a short time, an employee of that company. <S> Or (this is more natural for me, but arguably less correct): <S> I have, for a short time, been an employee of that company. <S> Either way, it means the same. <S> It says that you were employed a short time ago. <S> It doesn't mean you're about to leave. <S> I see why you might want "from" in this case, and not "for", but don't panic: <S> in this case, "for" does not mean that it will only be "for a short time"! <S> Just that it is "a short time" so far . <S> Now, you said you didn't want a grammatical or technical explanation, so we can stop there. <S> But in case anyone else wants to know the grammar behind it, I'd like to elaborate a bit anyway. <S> A construction like "have been" is called the present perfect . <S> It is for actions that are past and finished, at this moment. <S> Its structure is have + past participle . <S> (There is also a past perfect , which is for actions that were already past and finished at some previous time. <S> Its structure is had + past participle .) <S> A construction like "am being" is called the present continuous . <S> It is for actions that are happening (right now), or that often happen (not necessarily right now, but before now <S> and, we expect, after now too). <S> Its structure is be + present participle . <S> But "to be" leads a complex existence. <S> It is also used in ways that are basically unrelated to the present continuous. <S> A construction like "am been" is called the present passive . <S> It is for actions where the subject ("I", in "I am been") is the recipient or target of the action. <S> Its structure is be + past participle . <S> You might say "I am insulted" (someone gave you an insult), or "I am seen" (someone saw you), or "I am blessed" (someone gave you a blessing). <S> It would be very unusual to say "I am been", though. <S> That would mean someone was being you . <S> If an English speaker really wanted to say that, they would almost certainly use different words. <A> Simply put, it should be "have been". <S> That's how you describe an action from the past that continues into the present. <S> Also, "from" should be "for" to be correct but it still sounds awkward. <S> "I've been working for/at that company for a short time." <S> "I've worked there for a little while now. <S> " <S> "I'm employed at/by that company and have been for a little while/a short time. <S> " <S> Example #1 is wrong due to "am been". <S> They are both forms of the verb "to be" so <S> they aren't combined. <S> Example #2 has a correct verb but "from" should be "for": "I have been, for a short time, an employee of that company. <S> " Since "have been" is present-perfect-continuous*. <S> It implies an ongoing action: your employment as a state of being. <S> *Typo: <S> See comments. <S> Example #3 is wrong for the same reasons as #1 <S> but you got the preposition right (but left out "time"). <A> “I have been, for a short time, an employee of the company” is a technically correct way to say the you are still working at the company, but started there only recently. <S> I have been is used for an action started in the past, but not yet ended. <S> It would be more natural to say “I have been an employee of the company for a short time”. <S> “I had been” is used for an action started in the past, carried out for a period of time, then stopped. <S> But “I had been an employee” says you are not longer working there. <S> “I am being” is usually used for an action happening at this moment. <S> “I am being employed at the company” would mean that you were, at this moment, starting employment there, or being offered employment there. <S> You’d be more likely to use it with a more active verb, like “I am being chased by a bear!” <A> I am ... <S> [What I am, generally true] <S> I am an employee. <S> (I am employed, but i may not be at work now.) <S> I am being ... <S> [What I am be-ing right now - not any other time - only applies in some situations that are very temporary] <S> I am being informative. <S> NOT: <S> I am being an employee. <S> I have been ... <S> [What I was be-ing in the past, that I keep the experience of] I have been an employee. <S> (I'm not an employee now, but I know what its like to be one.) <S> I am been ... is incorrect - its 2 different verbs in a row with different tense.
| "I've been an employee for that company for a short time/a little while." “I am been” is wrong.
|
“While she is sleeping, we...” – what verb tense comes next? While she is sleeping, we decided to wake her up. Trying to understand this grammar. Should we use decide or decided to? Edit: Okay, the reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to make some captions for a video. So the video will be "While she was sleeping, we decided to...." and afterwards we have another caption follows.. "Now she is awake..." Using 'Now' usually uses present tense afterwards. If we use past tense earlier, it does not logically flows well with present tense later. So I don't know if I should use present or past tense. <Q> Note, a colloquial (chatty/informal) use of the present tense can be used while planning something to indicate the future: While she is sleeping we will sneak in and scare her! <S> You can even continue that phrase with a statement in the present tense: While she is sleeping, we sneak in and scare her! <S> The second actually feels more natural to me, although neither would sound incorrect to my ear. <S> EDIT <S> Given the context (a video) <S> I think the first version makes most sense. <S> Narrating a video is most often done in the present/future tense. <S> Think about David Attenborough narrating a nature video: <S> Now the lion is crouching low in the grass, ready to take action. <S> In just a momentshe will spring forward with lightning speed..... <A> While she is sleeping, we decided to wake her up. <S> This sentence is wrong because "While she is sleeping" seems to be in the present while "we decided to wake her up" seems to be in the past. <S> I think the best correction to this sentence would be <S> While she was sleeping, we decided to wake her up. <S> Telling that this 2 events both happened in the past. <S> More info : http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/pastcontinuous.html <A> While she is sleeping, we decided to wake her up. <S> That's simply wrong. <S> You are mixing a present tense with a past tense. <S> This is pretty rare usage, though. <S> In English we almost never give a narrative in the present tense. <S> Present tense is primarily used to, (a) describe something literally happening right now. <S> "Where is Bob?" <S> "He is out to lunch." <S> Or (b) to describe a continuous state. <S> Like "Paris is the capital of France. <S> " It has been for a while and it is now and it probably will be for some time in the future. <S> More likely would be: <S> While she was sleeping, we decided to wake her up. <S> Also, when you have a conditional expression referring to a future event, you use the present tense, though logically you might think you should use the future tense. <S> WRONG: While she will be sleeping, we will decide whether to wake her up. <S> RIGHT: <S> While she is sleeping, we will decide whether to wake her up. <S> (There's probably a name for this, it's not really the present tense <S> , it's some kind of future conditional tense. <S> But I don't know the name.) <S> Similarly: If the stock market goes up, I can retire early. <S> Unless you stop acting irresponsibly, you will never get a good job. <S> Etc.
| You could say: While she is sleeping, we decide to wake her up.
|
I have had enough of eating burgers I have had enough of eating burgers. Can we say that if I eat too much burger continuosly through the day and don't want to eat it anymore? <Q> All of these are acceptable as well as some <S> I'm sure I missed: <S> I ate enough burgers. <S> I have eaten enough burgers. <S> I have had enough burgers. <S> I've eaten plenty of burgers. <S> I don't want anymore. <S> I've had my fill of burgers. <A> Simpler to say: "I have eaten enough burgers today." <A> I would say: <S> "I have eaten my fill of burgers today." <A> As other people have indicated, there are several different ways this sort of thing can be said, but it's worth noting that some of them can have slightly different implications or impressions on the listener. <S> "I've had enough of (something)" generally means that you've experienced so much of something that even thinking about it brings up bad feelings for you now. <S> For example: I've had enough of eating burgers. <S> I don't want to eat another one as long as I live! <S> On the other hand, saying something like "I've eaten enough burgers" or "I've had enough burgers" is a less strong statement, and might just mean that you're satisfied with the amount you've eaten and don't feel a need to eat more right now: <S> I've eaten enough burgers recently. <S> I think I'll have something else for dinner. <S> or I've had enough burgers today, but if you really want to go to the burger place, I suppose I could eat another one. <A> I already ate burgers today. <S> People often use this construction with yesterday as well. <S> The meaning is the same, since the speaker ate burgers yesterday the listener knows they probably don't want any today either. <S> It is too soon to eat the same food again. <S> I had burgers yesterday. <S> The construction you used <S> "I have had enough of eating burgers. <S> " is correct, but has a different meaning! <S> That sentnece means that you ate burgers so often (maybe every day for a year) and now you can't eat any more. <S> They don't taste good to you anymore. <A> I'd say I am fed up with burgers for today
| Saying you already ate a food today is a common way of saying you don't want to eat any more.
|
Is it disappointed with, in, or by? Are all of those words used? How does the meaning of the sentence change when either one is used instead of the others? 1.I was disappointed with/by my result. 2.I am disappointed with/by/in you/him/her. <Q> The difference between "in", "by", and "with" in this context actually depends on the nature or type of disappointment you feel: "Disappointed with" implies that the cause of the disappointment was something basic about the nature or attributes of the thing: I was disappointed with my new toaster. <S> It really didn't toast the bread as well as I hoped. <S> The "with" form is usually used with inanimate objects (like toasters), though can sometimes be used for people if you're expressing a general disappointment about their qualifications/abilities/etc, rather than being disappointed by any specific thing that they've done: <S> I was disappointed with the second candidate. <S> He didn't really have the skills we need for the job. <S> On the other hand, "disappointed by" usually indicates that somebody has done something specific to cause you to be disappointed: I was disappointed by Fred. <S> He said he'd give me a ride, but he never showed up! <S> (The "by" form is occasionally used with objects, but most of the time only makes sense for people.) <S> "Disappointed in" usually indicates a deeper level of disappointment with the nature of somebody or something, or repeated problems with them, and often indicates that the speaker has lost faith in someone's ability to do what's expected of them: <S> I'm very disappointed in Bill. <S> I thought he had experience with this job, but every time he does it he does something wrong. <S> or I'm disappointed in the government. <S> They just can't seem to get anything done! <A> Where the cause of disappointment is a person , we normally use in . <S> Where the cause is a physical thing or an action/event , we're more likely to use by or with . <S> Thus, for OP's first example context, "I was disappointed by my result" is the most common form. <S> There's nothing wrong with with there, but in is unlikely. <S> In OP's second example, the most common form is "I am disappointed in you" . <S> There's nothing inherently "wrong" with either with or by - they're just not so common. <S> Not all native speakers will necessarily agree with me here, but I feel the above usage tendencies can lead to a potential distinction... 1: <S> "I am disappointed in you" (about 26,400 results in Google Books) 2: <S> "I am disappointed with you" ( 525 results ) <S> 3: <S> "I am disappointed by you" ( 7 results ) <S> Apart from the obvious difference in prevalence , I think there's also a case for saying that #1 there tends to imply everything about you disappoints me, whereas #2 and #3 carry a stronger implication of being disappointed by some specific thing you did . <A> Normal usage is as follows: <S> Disappointed with (object) - an object of neutral gender. <S> E.g: I am disappointed with your service . <S> Disappointed over - an incidence. <S> Disappointed in/with - very similar but slightly different connotation. ' <S> In' is more personal and conveys reflection on the individual. '
| With' is more used for disappointment over an isolated incidence.
|
Can I say "attention hooker"? I picked up the phrase ' attention whore ' from this question at ELU . On the next day I remembered the phrase as ' attention hooker .' It transformed and this one even sounds better for me, but I guess it is idiomatically flat wrong. I don't feel the difference since hooker and whore have the same meaning. How do you feel the difference as a native speaker? Is the difference so striking that If I use it somewhere, I will be corrected by a native speaker: "We say whore, not hooker"? <Q> The difference as far as I am concerned is that while the two words may have an essentially identical dictionary definition, hooker is never used as a direct insult; it is actually less pejorative and more literally descriptive. <S> If I catch my fiancee sleeping with my best friend, I would never say "You hooker! <S> How dare you!", but only <S> "You whore! <S> How dare you!" <S> Conversely, if we spot someone actually out on a street corner trying to trade sex for money, I would be much more likely to say "wow, I didn't know hookers worked this part of town" So to answer your final question, <S> yes: if you were to call someone an "attention hooker" <S> I would look at you funny and say "actually, the phrase is 'attention whore '." <A> The established term is attention whore . <S> There is certainly nothing to prevent you from employing the term attention hooker ; but it has a different rhythm, it will not be familiar to your hearers, and it risks confusion with The Hook , which is common in the CW † trade I follow for any attention-grabbing device at the opening of a text or video. <S> † <S> Commercial Writer / Corporate Whore <A> You shouldn't use the word whore in polite company. <S> The phrase attention hooker is just wrong.
| The correct phrase is attention seeker , but you could say attention whore if you are sure that you won't offend the company you are in.
|
Does 'expose' always have a negative connotation? I went through several dictionaries and checked the meaning of the word. I'm also familiar with the headlines in dailies; for instance, Someone exposed as his servant reveals the truth. or Someone exposed her curvacious body in a dark brown gown on the red carpet. But then, can it be used this way? 2013's Best HGH Supplements Exposed - Check meta title of this page. Note: I know such websites are not reliable for their language in content. But I'm just asking, is it possible to use the word exposed to mean revealed? Here, the author wants to say that The list of best HGH supplements in 2013 revealed . Can anything be exposed positively? If I go by books, it is possible but then my mind does not believe it! The word exposed is influenced by Latin expositus meaning 'put or set out' and in this sense, I can certainly expose top 10 software companies of the world . But does it mean I revealed a bitter truth about those fraud companies or simply revealed the companies those were not known before? <Q> Does expose always have a negative connotation? <S> I think it doesn't. <S> However! <S> Should it be used this way: <S> 2013's Best HGH Supplements Exposed , where the exposé or whatever being exposed there seems to be good news? <S> I think we should not. <S> And, as you suggested, revealed is a better word choice. <S> According to Macmillan , the usage in your example fits sense 3: 3. <S> to deliberately make something publicly known because you believe that it is wrong or illegal <S> The press helped to expose the appalling living conditions of the farm workers. <S> expose someone/something as something: <S> The videotape of the meeting exposed him as thoroughly corrupt (=showed that he was corrupt). <S> However, I believe that these following senses don't carry any negative connotation. <S> sense 2: to allow something that is usually covered or hidden to be seen sense 4: to provide someone with the opportunity to experience new ideas activities, etc. <S> so that they can learn about them sense 5: to allow light to reach the film in a camera so that you can take a photograph <S> In my opinion, sense 4 even carries a positive one! <S> Also, as language learners, we all need to be exposed to the languages we want to learn, the more the better. <S> For me, that is a good thing. <S> ;-) <A> <A> I actually think that what you're seeing in the example "2013's Best HGH Supplements Exposed" is some psychologically canny ad-craft. <S> I think the word "exposed" was chosen for both its negative and sexual connotations, even though it then makes the sentence make less sense. <S> I think the copywriter (ad creator) very cannily chose that word to make the headline seem salacious, and to thus intrigue the reader into clicking the link; it seems to imply that "2013's Best HGH Supplements" were a secret that was being kept from the reader, a conspiracy against ordinary people, and which the poster of the ad is oh so generously letting the reader in on. <S> It is reasonable to assume that the language of any popular ad was honed by A/B testing of what actually got more viewers to click through, and it may be that the more effective ad was a less grammatical one. <S> Advertisements, from an English language usage standpoint, should best be understood as a perverted form of poetry. <A> Often it does have a slightly negative connotation, suggesting that something was intentionally hidden before. <S> But this isn't necessarily the case. <S> For example you can say: There was a fossil underground that got exposed when I was digging in my backyard <S> Here 'exposed' is similar to 'unearthed'. <S> It's not negative in this case because you can't blame anyone for putting the fossil underground. <S> An alternative word here would be 'discover'. <S> It kind of depends on context though. <S> Compare: <S> The secret documents were buried, but I discovered them <S> The secret documents were buried, but I exposed them <S> The reason 'discovered' sounds less negative than 'exposed' <S> here is that the meaning is slightly different. <S> To discover secret documents is akin to 'learning of them'. <S> But to 'expose' secret documents suggests that the person who found them went on to publicize them (which probably resulted in some controversy). <S> In technical documentation the word 'exposed' can have no negative connotation at all. <S> You can say: My computer program exposed a small set of functions for general usage but did a lot of work behind-the-scenes. <S> Here it's kind of a synonym for 'presented'.
| It is true that expose is primarily used in sentences with negative implications as you show in your question: I think that probably the only exception is when it is used with the meaning: to present to view; exhibit Especially if used as a noun exposition A public exhibition or show, as of artistic or industrial developments.
|
'deep' in 'Beauty is more than skin deep.' What is the exact meaning of deep in the following sentence: Beauty is more than skin deep. Is it an adverb in this case? If yes, what is the meaning? If not, what grammar rule is applied here? <Q> deep is an adjective. <S> skin is a noun which forms a compound with the adjective, modifying its meaning: it answers the question "how deep?" <S> In general, when a noun modifies an adjective, it indicates that the adjective inherits the properties of the noun. <S> Examples: <S> snow <S> white = white like snow; as white as snow <S> sky high = as high as the sky (hyperbole meaning "very high") <S> dirt cheap = as inexpensive as dirt (hyperbole meaning "very cheap") <S> "The new guy is smart, but not Bob smart , you know? <S> I miss Bob." <S> (The new employee is smart, but not as smart as Bob. <S> I wish Bob would come back.) <S> skin deep = <S> (only) as deep as the skin (metaphor/simile for not very deep, superficial). <S> lightning fast = as fast as lightning (very fast) <S> rock hard = as hard as a rock (very hard) <S> ice cold = cold as ice <S> (very cold) <S> stone cold = cold as a stone (cold due to being dead (inanimate like a stone), or emotionally cold) <S> As you can see, this grammatical construct is used not only literally, but also for metaphors and exaggerations. <S> The likely reason is that it is very slick: only two words are used, but they carry a lot of meaning. <S> Note that this syntax is used for adjectives that denote something concrete and directly perceptible. <S> For instance, "abstract" is an adjective, and "mathematics" is a noun which names a subject which is abstract. <S> But we don't say "this is mathematics abstract" in place of "this is as abstract as mathematics". <S> Some of the combinations are canned phrases. <S> For instance, we don't often hear "stone hard" as a substitute "rock hard" (but "diamond hard" and others are possible). <S> However, there is a "stone cold" combination, which in turn is not substituted with "rock cold". <A> I think we should consider skin and deep together as a single unit, skin-deep , and it works as an adjective . <S> To understand the structure, let's consider something simpler: <S> James is good. <S> James is a good man. <S> The two sentences basically say the same thing: James is a good man. <S> Suppose that someone thinks that "good" is not enough to describe James. <S> (James is probably a great person.) <S> In other words, James is "more than good", they can say: James is more than good. <S> James is more than a good man. <S> Obviously, good is an adjective describing James. <S> This is the same structure as the structure of your example sentence: <S> Beauty is more than skin-deep . <S> Here is how a dictionary defines the word <S> skin-deep : <S> skin-deep adjective <S> Not deep or lasting; superficial: ' <S> their left-wing attitudes were only skin-deep' <S> So, to understand the meaning, your sentence can be rephrased to <S> "Beauty is more than superficial. " <A> The sentence may mean that beauty is not something superficial (skin deep) , implying that beauty is something deeper: a question of personality rather than appearance.
| Yes, deep is used as an adverb in this context, and means "to or at a considerable or specified depth."
|
"I should be doing my homework." Vs. "I should do my homework." I can discern a certain nuance from the following examples: I should be doing my homework. I should do my homework. I would think #1 suggests that I am supposed to be doing my homework now while #2 suggests that I may as well do my homework now but it is not required. I am not sure I got it right. Please help to elaborate on this. <Q> Your feeling is correct! <S> I should be doing my homework. <S> This implies that I am doing something else, but the right thing to do would be to stop that and get started on my homework. <S> I should do my homework. <S> This does not imply anything about what I am doing right now. <S> Therefore, it also lacks a strong sense of value judgement about doing homework now. <S> It might be a good idea to start it right now, but it's not necessarily bad behaviour if I don't. <S> Why the difference? <S> I think it's down to two things: Because "should be" is used for deliberate contrast with what is , <S> while "should" alone doesn't have this sense of contrast. <S> Because "do" could mean now or later, whereas "be doing" is definitely now. <S> Even if it's clear from context that I mean now, the vagueness of the former makes it seem less urgent. <A> The first sentence implies right now ,the second sentence does not. <S> For example: I should be doing my homework now instead of playing video games. <S> as opposed to: Every day I should do my homework before playing video games. <A> A slightly different perspective: <S> It seems to care less about the homework "being done" and more about the fact that the student is seen to be studying. <S> "I should do my homework <S> " focuses on the outcome . <S> " <S> Good students do their homework". <S> It doesn't matter when they do it - it matters that it gets done. <S> The process and timing is less important in this phrase. <A> You are correct. <S> In particular, the first has a specific time at which you should be doing your homework (now) while the second entirely lacks a time frame. <S> Even the implied <S> "before it is due <S> " is weak, as the homework in question could already be overdue. <S> So, sentence 1 says you are doing something other than your homework, and whatever that is, it is not what you should be doing at the moment. <S> Sentence 2 says you are not doing your homework at the moment, but at sometime you should do so. <S> This leaves open the possibility that what you are doing now is what you should be doing at the moment. <S> Note that neither implies that you will do your homework, only that in your opinion you should do so. <A> I should be doing implies that right this moment you should be in the act of doing something, but aren't. = <S> I am doing my homework (continuous action being done presently) <S> I should do means that maybe not now, not later but at some point in the future near or far you should do your homework.
| "I should be doing my homework" implies that you want the activity (doing the homework) to take place.
|
"Starve a fever, sleep a concussion". What does it mean? I'm watching an American Dad episode (S9E17), and one of the characters (Francine) say this sentence: Well, come on. With a head trauma like this, you should get right into bed. It's like they say, "starve a fever, sleep a concussion" I really don't get the meaning of this joke (i think it's a joke...), can someone help me to understand, or to translate it in French? <Q> Yes, it is a joke. <S> There is an expression Starve a fever and feed a cold . <S> This comes from an old wives tale about treatment of illness. <S> Sleeping a concussion is a play on the saying. <A> Firstly - I'm not a doctor, but I would suggest that if you do feel the urge to sleep with a concussion that there's someone to look after you! <S> This comes from the phrase feed a cold, starve a fever , which expresses the belief that eating more cures a cold, eating less cures a fever. <S> I'm not sure how much truth there is to this, but Wiktionary has some translations, including French: <S> nourrir un rhume et affamer une fièvre <S> With my rudimentary French, I'm sure that's a literal translation, though. <A> (Some medical authorities take issue with this, but that doesn’t come into play here.) <S> The joke, such as it is, is that Francine makes up a new second half of the proverb to lend authority to her immediate purpose, and betrays its factitiousness by deploying sleep in an unconventional sense— sleep is used as a transitive verb only in the phrase sleep it off . <S> To translate it into French would require you to find a corresponding French proverb to mangle. <A> I'm french too, so my answer is just what came out after some searches. <S> I think it's a detourned version of the old adage: "Starve a fever, feed a cold.". <S> It was a popular believe that not eating when you have a fever is bad and it make the cold worst. <S> Today, we know that certain foodstuffs (like vitamins) help to fight disease. <S> In french, I can't find a similar proverb. <S> Maybe a more or less literal translation on the tone of an adage will do the job, like "Fièvre sans manger, commotion évitée". <A> So in this case, it's a joke showing Francine is not so smart (or maybe the writers are not aware that this is just a myth) https://www.marshfieldclinic.org/news/cattails/2014-winter-cattails/Medical-myth-busters-concussions
| This is a twist on a folk proverb “Feed a cold, starve a fever”—that is, you should eat when you have a cold, fast when you have a fever. I think you guys are not aware that there is a myth that says you shouldn't sleep after a concussion. It sound like a bullshit proverb like the original text.
|
How to parse "I get ready for school"? I get ready for school. Does it mean: I get ready and I am going to go to school. or I get ready for going to school. It means that I make preparation for going to school. Which one is correct? <Q> In this case "get" means "become". <S> For example, you can tell your friend: "We are leaving in 5 minutes. <S> Get ready." <S> If you want to specify the target of preparation, you use "for". <S> For example: "The football match is about to begin! <S> Get ready for the action!" <S> The present simple tense ("I get ready") means you are simply describing what you usually do on any typical day. <S> As opposed to present continuous ("I'm getting ready") in which case you are describing your activity at this very moment. <S> Combining all this together we get: <S> "I get ready for school. <S> "~"I do whatever preparations are needed to become ready for school." <S> -- this may include taking shower, doing homework, getting dressed, packing the backpack etc. <A> The second one is closest. <S> It means that you are preparing for everything that "school" entails: going to school, doing work at school, having lunch at school, etc. <A> 'I get ready for school' is in the simple present, which is not the most common tense. <S> One area of life where it is used all the time is sports commentary, so you are providing a commentary on yourself. <A> The second one, even though it is using basic, rough English is correct. <S> "I get ready for school. <S> "(better worded " <S> I am getting ready for school.") means that the implied person is in the process of getting ready to go to school.
| "get ready" is a stable phrase that means "make yourself prepared".
|
Which between "crap" and "shit" is more rude? According to the Oxford dictionary , shit is defined as "(i) Faeces, (ii) Something worthless; rubbish; nonsense", whereas crap is defined as "(i) Something of extremely poor quality, (ii) Excrement". In addition, to me as a non-native speaker, those carry the same meaning when used in the following sentences: This book is crap. This book is shit. While neither are to be used in polite conversation ("This book is worthless" would be more appropriate), which of the two words is more rude? <Q> I view shit as a swear word, crap as a rude word and poo (poop) as a word suitable for children to use. <S> It just doesn't sound right; it's like listening to a non-native speaker swearing in English, it doesn't convey the feeling. <S> I would also add that shite is a stronger word in my profanisaurus. <S> In order of 'sweariness' That book was shite <S> That book was shit <S> That book was crap <S> That book was poo (poop) <A> Perceptions may well have been influenced over the last 20 years or so by so influential a figure as B Simpson using the word 'crap' freely, as Frank mentions. <S> Perhaps there are regional differences in taboo-ranking; Collins reflects my perception (in the UK) that 'crap' is the more taboo. <S> (AHD doesn't differentiate wrt degree of tabooness.) <S> From previous contributions here, the general situation in the US seems to be the opposite. <S> But subjectiveness is unavoidable in these areas. <S> shit <S> AHD: <S> shit Vulgar <S> Slang <S> Collins: <S> [no warning tag] <S> crap <S> AHD: crap 1 <S> Vulgar <S> Slang <S> Collins: <S> Usage: This word was formerly considered to be taboo, and it was labelled as such in previous editions of Collins English Dictionary. <S> However, it has now become acceptable in speech, although some older or more conservative people may object to its use <A> Crap is generally considered more acceptable than shit. <A> To me, your second example is more rude. <S> According to Ngram <S> it is also the most used.
| Shit always seems to be a bit of an Americanism to me which weakens its impact a little for my ears, rather like an Englishman calling someone a motherfucker .
|
Positioning of a participle phrase Profit before tax surged 286.4% year on year to US$60 million, supported by a 90.2% increase in revenue and doubling of profit margin. Is the above sentence grammatically correct ? Should the participle phrase "supported......" be put at the beginning of the sentence ? <Q> Phil's points about using established phrases for the industry ("year over year", etc) are worthwhile, as they can make it much easier for your audience to understand your meaning, but regarding the explicit question, the sentence as provided is grammatically correct, yes. <S> Regarding the placement of the "supported" phrase, it would be perfectly acceptable to place it either at the beginning or the end of the sentence <S> (both are grammatically correct). <S> Pretax profits surged 280% year over year to US$60 million, supported by a doubled profit margin and a 90% increase in revenue. <S> This emphasizes the pretax profits as being the most important part of the sentence, whereas the profit margin and revenue increases are a less important (explanatory) point. <S> Supported by a doubled profit margin and a 90% increase in revenue, pretax profits surged 280% year over year to US$60 million. <S> This sentence puts the emphasis on the profit margin and revenue as being the most important point being made, whereas the profits are a secondary consideration. <A> Although grammatically correct (as per jimsug) I would like to suggest a revised sentence that would read better in business or financial writing: <S> Pretax profits surged 280% year over year to US$60 million, supported by a doubled profit margin and a 90% increase in revenue. <S> Justification <S> "Pretax profits" is a set phrase and will require less effort to read. <S> "year over year" is the name of a defined metric. <S> I reduced the precision on some figures to be more consistent: providing four significant figures for a percentage and then rounding to the the nearest million (or 10 million <S> , unclear) dollars makes little sense. <S> switched order, since the profit margin is profit divided by revenue, it the result should come first. <A> The above is perfectly grammatical: commas mark constituent/phrase movement in writing (and is marked in speech by a pitch movement).
| Where you put it really depends on which part of the sentence you want to emphasize most.
|
Is "series" Plural or Singular? Such expressions as Drama series and TV series are plural or singular? E.g. I like to watch drama/TV series or I like to watch a drama/TV series? <Q> "Series" can be singular or plural depending on context. <S> Both of your sentences are therefore correct but different. <S> I like to watch TV series. <S> uses series as a plural and means you like to watch a number of different TV shows. <S> I like to watch a TV series. <S> uses series as singular and means you like to watch one TV show. <A> Nice Question. <S> The word series is both <S> singular and plural. <S> Good information from thefreedictionary quoting American Heritage <S> Dictionary as its source <S> When it has the singular sense of "one set," it takes a singular verb, even when series is followed by of and a plural noun: <S> A series of lectures is scheduled. <S> When it has the plural sense of "two or more sets," it takes a plural verb: Two series of lectures are scheduled: one for experts and one for laypeople. <S> Our concern is series in broadcasting. <S> So, a set of radio or television programs that deal with the same subject or that have the same characters. <S> * - OALD <S> Having this said, you watch a TV series. <S> And yes, do consider Nigel's answer if you are specific about one particular program or series. <A> It's like the word "fish" — it's both. <S> (Although "fishes" has been used frequently as a reluctantly accepted plural of fish. <S> For example, the slang statement, "sleep with the fishes".)
| : Series is both a singular and a plural form.
|
"Black market" or illegal work? Is the phrase " Black market " correct? Meaning illegal or undeclared work and are there any other words or phrases, that are used to describe this kind of work or jobs? <Q> The terms you're looking for are Unreported employment, "working under the table", being paid cash-in-hand or moonlighting , a domain of Grey economy - activities that could be legal if passed through legal channels, but due to, e.g. tax evasion, constitute illegal activity. <A> The black market is as its name suggests, a market; somewhere specific goods or services are exchanged outside the eyes of the law. <S> The black economy or underground economy is broader, and includes cash-in-hand and other undeclared income sources, which is more in line with what you mean I think. <S> definition: <S> The part of a country's economic activity which is unrecorded and untaxed by its government. <A> Illegal work in itself is not black marketing so they cannot be used interchangeably. <S> Any other words for it - unauthorized work smuggling in some cases <A> Black market indicates the trades of goods (sometimes services) in a non-regulated market outside the view of legal and legislating instances, which means that not only are (some) taxes unlikely to be paid, but other legal details may be overlooked as well (consumer protection, anti-trust legislation, warranty, etc.) <S> This kind of market operates usually illegally, but not all illegal work or work that is not declared for the taxes would be considered as part of a black market, or a black market in their own right. <S> Note that not declaring proceeds from work for tax purposes can be illegal, but that does not mean the work itself has to be illegal: If I sell drugs, in many countries that is illegal work. <S> If I paint your house and I do not declare my revenue, the work was not illegal.
| "Black market" is a broad term, usually meaning trade of illicit goods or bypassing legal channels in trade of restricted goods.
|
finish doing something (in the future) How can I say "When you finish something, please let me know"? Let me know when you finish doing your work. Is it grammatically correct? <Q> Yes , you are correct there. <S> It can also be written as: <S> Let me know when your task is completed OR <A> There's a simple rule of thumb: <S> You use simple present to express future time after the conjunctions when , after , before , as soon as and until . <S> So, your sentence is grammatical. <A> If your uncertainty is about to finish + gerund Longman DCE has registered this construction, whereas in dictionary.com it is not mentioned. <S> http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/finish_1 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/finish?s=ts <S> By the way, ... when you finish your work is shorter and simpler. <A> Yes, it is correct. <S> You can say it as: <S> Let me know when you finish doing your work. <S> Or: <S> When you finish doing your work, let me know. <S> Invoker: <S> Let me know when your task is completed. <S> Bob <S> The Zealot: <S> When your task is completed, let me know. <S> Invoker: <S> Inform me when you accomplish your work/task. <S> Bob <S> The Zealot: <S> When you accomplish your work/task, inform me. <S> It can go both ways, and it still mean the same thing.
| Inform me when you accomplish your work/task.
|
A particular usage of "could" So far, we’ve seen that could is often used as the past tense of can. Other important meanings and uses include the following. •Use could (not can ) to refer to conditional situations, in which something has to happen or be the case in order for someone to be able to do something or for something else to occur: We could buy a new sofa if we stop eating takeaway meals every night. --Source I wonder why can cannot be used here. I would think if can were used, it would suggest capability or opportunity to do this in the situation, which would be quite reasonable. Are there any other examples which can justify this usage? Please help to clarify <Q> In the Q-clause (consequence clause) of conditionals, can usually implies a fairly definite intention—under such-and-such actualized or about-to-be-actualized circumstances, we will at last be able to do something we’ve wanted to do. <S> Now that we’ve saved so much we can buy a new sofa. <S> Could is more tentative. <S> If we stopped eating takeaway every night we would save enough that we could buy a new sofa. <A> The difference between "can" and "could" here is a difference in the verb's mood. <S> In the sentence: We can buy a new sofa if we want to. <S> the verb phrase "can buy" is in the indicative mood. <S> This means that you have the present ability to buy a new sofa. <S> In the sentence: We could buy a new sofa if we had a hundred dollars. <S> the verb phrase "could buy" is in the conditional mood, indicating that it is dependent on the fulfillment of the condition given in the following clause. <S> This can be a subtle distinction. <S> For instance, you would say: We can buy a new sofa as soon as you win the lottery. <S> This seems, logically, like a conditional--but grammatically, at least, winning the lottery is not seen as a contingency here, because it is not phrased as one. <S> In this case, the statement is sarcastic, and the sarcasm comes from the fact that "as soon as you win the lottery" is not phrased in such a way as to suggest a contingency. <A> Consider these two sentences: a) <S> We could buy a new sofa, but I don't know if we have enough money.b) <S> We can buy a new sofa, because we have enough money. <S> "Could" means that buying the sofa is uncertain to a small degree, but still possible to happen, depending if a set of conditions are met (if the characters manage to save enough monety) "Can" means that "they" can perfectly buy the sofa, and that the possibility of doing so rests completely on the subjects' decision.
| It’s used to express a suggestion rather than an intention: under such-and-such circumstances we would be in position to consider doing something we’ve wanted to do.
|
What's the meaning of "impossibly complex"? In this context, does "impossibly complex" mean "utterly simple" or "without any complexity"? Much like the current attitude toward the Balkans that brands it as impossibly complex and utterly simple at once, Macedonian discourse of pathology was also logically inconsistent. (From Understanding Life in the Borderlands: Boundaries in Depth and in Motion , p 166.) <Q> "Impossibly complex" means "so complicated that true understanding is impossible" . <S> The phrases "utterly simple" and "without any complexity" can be considered antonyms of "impossibly complex". <S> I believe, based on a quick look at the text, that the author of your example is discussing the attitudes previous ethnographers took when analyzing the Balkans. <S> The author is contrasting the extremes of "impossibly complex" with "utterly simple" . <S> Despite the fact that the Balkans are very complex in many ways starting with geography previous ethnographers have been able to assign detailed racial judgments and distinctions about the people living there even though the same people could not make the distinction themselves. <A> impossibly complex here means that the subject matter (attitudes toward the Balkans) is so complex that it is impossible to solve/resolve/figure out etc. <S> The use of "utterly simple" (so simple anyone could understand it or figure it out) is a contasting point to "impossibly complex" as they are opposites. <A> I always felt it was an interplay of the fact that something that is complex is often associated with the conceptual - ie complexity is something associated with the minds perception of interplay of understanding of facets. <S> Things just are, complexity is something we attribute to them through our understanding. <S> impossibly complex would transcend complexity to the point where the mind is incapable of comprehending <S> The use of the words simple and complex in the context of a 'logical contradiction' implies some kind of philosophical influence in my opinion - and could also be interpreted to also reflect what i was saying above. <S> Simple and complex (or composite) are heavily laden words in a philosophical context. <A> The author is arguing that a certain line of thinking (the "Macedonian discourse of pathology") was as logically inconsistent as simultaneously ("at once") believing (as some do of the Balkans) <S> something is both "impossibly complex" and "utterly simple".
| "Impossibly complex" means "so complex as to be impossible to understand".
|
"Something will be available by some time" Does Something will be available by 3pm tomorrow. mean it will become available after 3pm tomorrow, or between now and 3pm tomorrow? I get the latter meaning, because "by" can mean the end time? Thanks. <Q> General usage of by + time <S> In English, the preposition "by" + time generally means: not later than; before; (Collins UK , US ) <S> Note that, while it can mean something will happen at a specific time <S> , it almost always implied that something will happen at or before a specific time. <S> In fact, the preposition at is exactly what you would use to specify that something will occur at a specific time and no other. <S> action + by + time <S> You can verbs because they become attributes. <S> Compare: <S> At midnight, I ran [ten kilometres]. <S> By midnight, I ran [ten kilometres]. <S> In the first instance, the usual reading is that I started to run ten kilometres from midnight onwards. <S> In the second, the usual reading is that I had <S> finished running ten kilometres before midnight. <S> Similarly, compare: <S> The bell rang three times at noon. <S> The bell rang three times by noon. <S> I ate three pounds of salmon at 3pm. <S> I are three pounds of salmon by 3pm. <S> by + state/attribute <S> You can use by with attributes, which can be adjectives. <S> For instance: He grew to 135cm by the age of five <S> He grew to 135cm at the age of five <S> In the first instance, he grows to 135cm before the age of five. <S> In the second instance, he became five years old, then promptly had a growth spurt and grew to 135cm in that moment. <S> Similarly: I'm painting this wall. <S> It will be red by noon. <S> Obviously, I'm not going to wait until noon precisely and then paint the wall entirely red <S> - I'll be painting it, and I think I'll finish at or before noon. <A> Your car/fixed-jewelry/pressed-shirts will be available by 3pm tomorrow. <S> To put it simply, this idiomatically means: <S> Your item will not be available today. <S> Your item will be available no later than 3pm tomorrow. <S> You can plan on getting your item at 3 pm. <S> You might be able to pick it up before 3pm, but you would need to call. <S> Note that if you want, for some things, you can ask if they can have it earlier. <S> For example, with prescriptions, one might be able to get it within one hour if one were to ask for that. <A> For example if someone says: "You car will be ready to be picked up from the mechanic by 12pm tomorrow <S> " they are saying that you can go pick your car up at 12pm tomorrow.
| In modern American English when someone uses that phrase they are implying that the implied item will be available at 3pm.
|
What does "There's such a thing as ..." mean? In a TV Show I am watching (Doctor Who) there is moment where a character says There's such a thing as** too keen. I am wondering what does the "There's such a thing as too [adjective]" mean? <Q> Backing up a bit: "there's such a thing as X" means that X exists. <S> "There's no such thing as X" means that X does not exist. <S> So: There's such a thing as a zebra, but there is no such thing as a unicorn. <S> For example, on my fifth birthday I learned that there was such a thing as too much ice cream. <S> Unfortunately, so did the living room carpet. <S> :) <S> Now, have a look at these: <S> There's no such thing as too quiet. <S> There's such a thing as too quiet. <S> Both of these sentences have the implied assertion that quiet is desirable. <S> However, the first sentence is saying that absolute silence is the speaker's ideal, and the second is saying that while a certain level of quiet is desirable, too much quiet isn't. <A> There's such a thing as too X , is a rhetorical device - a figure of speech - that highlights something that someone is doing by pretending they've never heard of X. Generally, it's a normally positive adjective, turned negative by having too much of it. <S> For instance: If you were riding a bicycle in heavy traffic without a helmet, I might say " there's such a thing as too brave " If you were eating too much food, I might say " there's such a thing as too full <S> " If you were on fire, I might say " there's such a thing as too warm " <S> In each of these cases, the emphasis (and pitch movement) is on too , signalling that this is the news - you can have too much of a good thing. <A> The adjective in "there's such a thing as too [adjective]" is something which is usually regarded as a positive. <S> The expression "there's such a thing as too [positive attribute]" expresses the contention that the positive attribute becomes a negative one when had in excess, or as the English idiom has it, "too much of a good thing". <S> (Compare with the contrary stock phrase, " <S> There's no such thing as being too thin or too rich.") <S> In the circumstances in which the expression is used "out of the blue", that is, without preamble or obvious context, it comes with the added connotation, "You seem to be behaving as if you thought it was good thing that you are so very [positive attribute], but I think you're becoming insufferable in how [positive attribute] you are."
| As for "such a thing as too...", it's a way of saying that too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
|
The Western 'State of Gujarat'? Shouldn't it be 'The Western 'State of India'? I read it somewhere in an authentic news (I think from the BBC). It was about recently elected Mr. Narendra Modi. He's the next Prime Minister of India. I surely remember the sentence that said... The chief minister of the western state of Gujarat. For clarification, I'm uploading the map here. Check the position of the state of Gujarat. It's in the west of India , the west-most corner I mean. Ahmedabad and Rajkot are the cities of Gujarat State. India has 28 states and Gujarat is one of them. There's no county, province etc. It's clear Country-State-District-City. Now the question: Shouldn't it be... The chief minister of Gujarat, the western state of India? OR The chief minister of the western state of India? Can't the former one mean that Gujarat is country and not the state because it already mentioned 'state of' Note: I'm aware of calling London city as The city of London , Chicago city as The city of Chicago. But then using it this way would certainly create an ambiguity. The western state of Gujarat or western state of India! <Q> The chief minister of the western state of Gujarat. <S> is correct. <S> Western refers to the location of Gujarat within the (implied) country of India. <S> of Gujarat <S> specifically names the western state . <S> If you say: The chief minister of the western state of India it is saying India is the name of the western state. <S> However you could say: The chief minister of a western state in India(, Gujarat) <S> It has to be a western state because there are many states in the west. <S> Possibly you could say of India , but in India sounds more natural because all the states are in India. <S> Then you could add Gujarat to define which one you are talking about. <A> Looking at your comments, I see this is an article problem. <S> As the others have said, the way the sentence is worded is fine. <S> We can say: (A) ... <S> the chief minister of the western state of Gujarat. <S> We could also use the indefinite article, but the sentence would need to be restructured: (B) ...the chief minister of Gujarat, a western state [in India]. <S> Sentence B means there are at least a few western states in India, and Mr. Modi governs one of them. <S> However, in the first sentence, we are pinpointing the state (Gujarat), by using the definite article. <S> It's odd (and tricky) <S> how – even though the name of the state is mentioned in both sentences – you can't use the indefinite article in Sentence A, and you can't use the definite article in Sentence B. However, you could use the definite article if you changed the adjective in Sentence B to a superlative: (C) ... <S> the chief minister of Gujarat, the westernmost state in India. <A> Looking at Collins' , sense 6: used to mark apposition <S> In this case, it just means that Gujarat is a western state . <S> You could say The western state of India, Gujarat if there is only one state in the west (or, rather, if you thought your interlocutor thinks there's only one state in the west). <S> With multiple states, you would have to say a western state of India, Gujarat. <S> The reason for this is that if there is more than one western state, without more context you cannot know which state is being referred to, and so you use the non-specific determiner. <S> It may be helpful to look at the nominal group in this way: <S> The western state of Gujarat = <S> Gujarat, the western state (not the city/state/district, for example) <S> The city of Chicago = <S> Chicago, the city (not the pizza) <S> The of in The western state of India denotes a part-whole relationship, whereas in the western state of Gujarat shows an appositive, descriptive/equitative relationship. <S> The use of <S> the in the western state of Gujarat <S> is simply because the writer/speaker has assumed that you know what <S> western and state are, and so using a would be ungrammatical.
| A western state of Gujarat would mean that there are states within Gujarat, and one of them is to the west.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.