source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
"Keep dreaming" vs. "keep on dreaming" Which is correct? Is there a difference in meaning? <Q> Keep dreaming is a staid, somewhat dry phrase. <S> It can be used in many contexts, formal and informal. <S> In this usage, dream can have several meanings. <S> I am not finished with my REM tests; please keep dreaming. <S> Keep dreaming, and you will never face reality. <S> Keep on + <S> ing verb = <S> Keep continuing/trying to + verb. <S> Keep on dreaming = <S> Keep continuing/trying to dream. <S> Dream here means hope. <S> It does not refer to having dreams while asleep. <S> Keep on dreaming is an idiomatic usage, usually used in informal language. <S> The on in the phrase provides the idiomatic/informal nuance of continuing to, usually indicating encouragement, much as it does in keep on trucking. <S> I feel like giving up on my lifelong dream, but my brother says I should keep on dreaming. <S> Note, Keep on dreaming and keep on trucking do not have the same meaning, but the on in both phrases serves the same function, namely to stress the aspect of continued trying or continued attempting to try. <S> We also have the phrase keep on keeping on, which is informal encouragement to continue battling through whatever obstacles one faces in life. <S> Life is so hard, but I have to keep on keeping on. <A> If used by themselves in a sentence, they both have the same connotation of "what you want to happen is never going to happen", in sarcastic response to a statement from somebody else that the speaker believes is unrealistic, wishful thinking. <S> Like such: You think your stupid idea for a mobile app can make you the next Bill Gates? <S> Keep dreaming. <S> You think America will ever give up its power in the name of world peace? <S> Keep on dreaming. <S> Generally I've seen the first one used more often for this connotation, but there's no appreciable difference in meaning or tone. <A> They both mean to continue or persevere in an action. " <S> In casual conversation or very direct usage (a command or threat), you would hear "keep" more, since it is shorter and more to the point. <S> For example, someone with a gun to your back might say, "Keep walking!" <S> The only real difference between these is when it's not a verb that follows it. " <S> Keep quiet" is valid, for example, while "keep on quiet" is not.
| Continue dreaming" or "continue to dream" would both be acceptable replacements. In the context of being followed by a verb (dreaming, talking, going), there is no difference in grammar or semantics between "keep" and "keep on".
|
Asking for instruction with present and future simple What is the difference when we ask for instruction with simple future and simple present. For instance: Where do I pay? and Where shall I pay? Both of these sentences ask for instruction. Are there something differences between them? <Q> I hardly see any difference in meaning between the two sentences, but I've tried to figure out two situations where each would be more appropriate: <S> It's my first visit to a store <S> and I haven't noticed any cash desk. <S> I ask someone: <S> Where do I pay? <S> There are several cash desks in front of me <S> and I do not know which queue to join according to my means of payment <S> , I could show my specific credit card and say: Where shall I pay? <S> As other possibilities we could consider: can <S> Where can I pay? <S> which I feel could apply to both 1. <S> and 2. <S> above. <S> It could also serve as asking for options, for example if I inquire about train tickets <S> and I want to know where and when to get them: <S> Where can I pay? <S> The answer would be: <S> Either at the station or on the train. <S> should which is more asking for advice. <S> Following the preceding conversation: <S> Where should I pay? <S> which indicating <S> I'm expecting to be advised on the best option: <S> At the station, because on board the train you'd be charged with a supplement. <A> They are basically equivalent. <S> Of the two, I would more naturally say 'Where do I pay?', or even more naturally 'Where can I pay?' <S> or 'Where should I pay?'. <S> If there is a difference in meaning:'Where do I pay?' <S> is present simple, which usually has the meaning of 'always <S> ' - the question means 'Where always is the place to pay?' <S> (which is unidiomatic, but you get the idea. ' <S> Where shall I pay?' <S> is modal present simple, but is usually understood as future simple(-ish) <S> - the question means 'Where in the near future is the place to pay?' <S> (which may be the same place as anyone always/usually pays, or may be somewhere different on this occasion). <A> By using shall <S> you're talking about an inevitable situation. <S> This is going to happen. <S> With <S> do <S> it's a factual form, so <S> you might not actually carry out the task you're asking about. <S> Clearly in this context they are the same, but the difference in general is certain. <S> Where shall you work today? <S> Who shall you vote for? <S> Future definite. <S> Where do you work? <S> Who do you like in the elections? <S> General routine question. <A> I believe it's a dialectical difference. <S> "Where do I pay" sounds more natural to me as an American, while "shall" sounds British to me. <A> "Where shall I pay?" <S> ~ Unlike British English ~ <S> In Australia where I come from, is a question a person asks of another, for advice, or of himself or herself when making up their mind as to what they will choose, like: <S> "Where shall I go on holiday?" , or in a restaurant, <S> "What shall I eat?" <S> Although a menu suggestion from a dining partner could be offered, it is not expected. <S> More likely, the other will say nothing, taking the comment as a cue that the person wishes to stop talking and get down to the business of choosing something to eat. <S> If a person were to ask, "where shall I pay? <S> " it might be greeted with a smile, because it would be taken as a joke - perhaps because there are so many cashiers to chose from. <S> Or, because they're being facetious, (as if they have a choice). <S> So, when in a department store and wishing to pay for goods, an appropriate question can be: <S> "Where do I pay?" <S> or"Where <S> should I pay" or"Where <S> can I pay?
| I would not recognize a difference in meaning in most contexts.
|
Account At/With A Bank Suppose it is a banking situation: He has an account at a bank. He has an account with a bank. Should " at " or " with " be used? Is one of them wrong? <Q> The Google Ngram ( here ) shows that they are used about equally. <S> If there is any difference, 'at the bank' might mean 'physically', as in 'I keep my jewellery at the bank', but an account is not kept physically 'at' the bank. <A> In school I learnt that "account at a bank" is American English and "account with a bank" is British English. <A> As SydneyAustraliaESLTeacher said in the answer with an Ngram, it's clear that both the phrases are used equally and convey the same meaning without creating any complexity. <S> None of them is wrong. <S> But still, if we want to dig in further, I in my opinion we use at to refer the bank as the place as in <S> I'm at bank , <S> I forgot my cellphone at the bank and so on. <S> On the other hand, with talks about being a part of bank . <S> We often say My documents are with bank, Collaboration with bank, Tie up with bank... and etc. <S> So, my account is at X bank talks about the place, the bank which I may not prefer. <S> My account is with <S> X bank shows my account is a part of bank. <A> Both are correct but they have different nuances. " <S> With" refers to the company but "at" could refer to either the company or the specific branch. <S> So "He has an account at/with MegaBankCorp" are equivalent but you'd probably say "He has an account at MegaBankCorp on Main Street", rather than using "with" in that case. <A> While they are generally used interchangeably, there is one exception that I know of. <S> If a bank employee wants to know if you already have an account, he or she will ask "Do you have an account with us?", and never "Do you have an account at us? <S> " <S> Likewise, you would tell a bank employee, "I would like to open an account with you", and not "I would like to open an account to you."
| They have the same meaning and are both correct.
|
Can "alternative" mean "choice between"? It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the union, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address. This is from the Federalist Papers.But I don't understand the first sentence. The noun alternative is used here like the choice between A and B...Why? <Q> Because one meaning of alternative is the choice between A and B. <S> In this case, the two alternatives (choices) are: an adoption of the new Constitution a dismemberment of the Union <S> As my Oxford English Dictionary states: <S> A proposition containing two statements, the acceptance of one of which involves the rejection of the other; a statement or offer of two things of which either may be agreed to, but not both. <S> Compare favorably with Collins online . <A> I am no native speaker, but it does not sound strange to me. <S> I just get it to mean something like an "alternate possibility or choice". <S> Alternative is also a noun, not only an adjective. <A> From the start of the sentence, removing the additional information, it looks like this... <S> Nothing can be more evident than the ALTERNATIVE OF an adoption of the new Constitution OR a dismemberment of the Union. <S> Hope this helps. <A> SUPPLEMENTAL HISTORICAL NOTE: <S> However, that is a recent development—very recent in linguistic terms. <S> Within my own lifetime the word has often been employed to designate the fact of choice presented, the possibility or necessity of choosing. <S> I have, for instance, a copy of Merriam-Webster’s New World Dictionary , 2nd College Edition, issued in 1980 , which gives as the first meaning: a choice between two or among more than two things. <S> In fact, for almost its entire history the noun alternative has been used in both senses, in exactly the same way as choice or option is still used. <S> The usage will only remain “strange” to you if you confine yourself to works of the past quarter-century or so.
| It is true that today the noun alternative is used mostly of the individual entities among which one chooses.
|
Question about meaning of "Legoland" While surfing the internet, I came across this sentence and I wonder what it really means: We Americans sometimes seem to view Canada as a kind of Legoland version of our own country ... I searched the web and found meaning of Legoland in the web page below. But my real problem is the meaning of the expression square edges . Could you simplify the meaning of both legoland and square edges , please? slang - A place characterised by square edges and extreme regularity.1997, Mark McCrum, No worries: a journey through Australia ...three hundred yards back from that, behind a legoland of hotels and apartment blocks... Source: http://www.wordsense.eu/Legoland/ <Q> Legoland is an amusement park, one of whose prime attractions is the intricate scale models of real-world landscapes and landmarks. <S> In this context, calling Canada a "Legoland" version of America is a derisive metaphor, saying that Canada is just a scaled-down reproduction of the USA. <S> In many ways, the two countries share similar cultures and institutions, but nearly everything in Canada is on a smaller scale due to its much lower population. <A> The full quote is: <S> We Americans sometimes seem to view Canada as a kind of Legoland version of our own country — one in which we see pretty much our own values, worldview, language, and culture, albeit not with the perfect clarity one might find in, say, a mirror or a well-executed still life painting. <S> So I think that in this context, Legoland would be a synonym of toy version , decaffeinated version or imitation ( with a slight negative connotation). <S> We Americans sometimes seem to view Canada as a toy version version of our own country <S> The main components of Lego are plastic blocks, so the author emphasizes that the edges of the blocks are straight (mathematically square edge doesn't make sense) : <A> Square means "in the shape of a square", but it can also refer to 90 degree angles, which are commonly called right angles . <S> Square edges <S> means two or more edges that are at right angles to each other. <S> The tool below is called a square because it is used for making things square. <S> (That is, it is used for making right angles.) <S> If you were making a box out of wood, you could use that tool to make sure that all the corners were square.
| Legoland is a place dedicated to Lego toys. I don't think that the square edges are an important part of the metaphor, other than the fact that a model built of square blocks is necessarily a low-resolution model.
|
Two distinct usages of "could" here? Consider this dialogue (only the third utterance is made up by me; the rest is from here ): A: "You could 1 send him an email." B: "Yeah, I could 2 send him an email, but I won't; he only checks his email about once a week. I'll phone him." A: "He could 3 be in a meeting right now. You want to check the schedule before you do." In my opinion, could 1 and could 3 share the same usage of expressing factual possibility here, the first utterance representing a suggestion and the third an uncertain assumption. Besides, could 3 could be substituted for may with the meaning more or less unchanged. As for could 2 I would think it's another story. I won't in the utterance cancels the implicature that "I" am likely to send him an email. Thus, I think could 2 is different from the other two could 1&3 . The other reason for my thinking is that could 2 couldn't be substituted for may in the context because may itself isn't in a preterite form for hypothetical thinking (but might would be an alternative for the second utterance), so I believe could 2 is a purely hypothetical version of can . ( But I'm not sure whether could 2 has the same usage as in [58] The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, aka CGEL .) If we try to backshift the last two utterance we can see the difference: I could 2 send him an email, but I won't. ⇒ I could 2 have sent him an email, but I didn't. #1 He could 3 be in a meeting right now. ⇒ He could 3 have been in a meeting just now. #2 I think #1 is a remote (conditional) construction while #2 is a modal perfect construction, which demonstrates in the original dialogue could 2 is different from the other two could 1&3 . Is my understanding on could 2 and could 3 correct? And is my proof method valid? <Q> that 'it's a possibility' If I substituted it for ' may ' <S> or ' might ' we would then start talking about the probability of it happening, since it was affirmed that he wouldn't do the action, the use of ' may ' or ' might ' would be very inappropriate here. <A> One way I might look at it is like this, in which case the "could" shares the same notion again, because it is somewhat of a quotation. <S> A: "You could send him an email." <S> B: <S> "Yeah, your suggestion is feasible, but I won't follow it." <S> In this case, B is just saying that the suggestion on behalf of A is a possibility, but he has decided he will not follow through on it. <S> As for could 2 <S> I would think it's another story. <S> I won't in the utterance cancels the implicature that "I" am likely to send him an email. <S> I really do see what you're getting at here. <S> Honestly, I struggle to explain it a bit, but I think the meaning of "could" remains the same. <S> I think all three are expressing the same notion of it is possible . <S> A: <S> " It is possible for you to send him an email." <S> B: <S> "Yeah, it is possible for me to send him an email, but I won't; he only checks his email about once a week. <S> I'll phone him." <S> A: " <S> It is possible that he is in a meeting right now. <S> You want to check the schedule before you do." <S> Either way, I don't think it's fair to say this is a different meaning of "could" . <S> Keep in mind , "could" (or "can") and "may" are not always interchangeable. <S> Can I defeat Ganondorf? <S> ( questioning ability ) <S> Could I defeat Ganondorf? <S> ( questioning possibility ) <S> May I defeat Ganondorf? <S> ( asking permission ) <S> As a result, I don't think it's fair to map "may" to "could" in this context. <S> It makes the construction a bit awkward, and I think your conclusion is incorrect as a result. <A> "Yes, I could... <S> but he never answers his emails <S> so I'll phone him instead" <S> Emailing is a possibility, albeit an unlikely one. <S> I have the ability to email him. <S> I have a networked computer and thus the wherewithal to email him. <S> I am not forbidden to email him. <S> I can email him, and I <S> may (am free to, am not violating any rule or etiquette) email him, and were it not for the fact that the $*%&%! <S> luddite never answers his emails, I might have emailed him! <S> But I opt not to do so. <S> I'll phone him instead. <S> So perhaps @Kinzie B, the OP, is looking for the nuance of option here? <S> Choice is a particular kind of future possibility. <S> could-1 and could-2 both have to do with choice.
| All of the ' could ' uses here are equal meaning The first two sentences could also both be substituted for "be able to" (that is, "You are able to send him an email," "Yeah, I am able to send him an email, but...").
|
What does "bite" here mean? Olivetti’s whisper was cold. “You sure this time?” Langdon didn’t bite . “We need a map. One that shows all the churches in Rome.” —Angels & Demons Bite has a meaning of taking the bait fish-wise but I don't see it fit in here. It just seems it mean Langdon just hold his tongue and turn the attention to other stuff in this context. What does it mean actually? <Q> With so little context, it's hard to say exactly what the phrase means in this specific situation, but I think you have the right idea. <S> “You sure this time?” <S> sounds like a taunt . <S> Someone that bites on a taunt gets irked, or gets sidetracked into an argument. <S> Someone that doesn't "bite" keeps his original train of thought, and focuses on the matter at hand. <S> The phrase could also be used when alluding to a lie . <S> If Evan broke a window, but then pointed at his little brother, saying, “I didn't break the window, Michael did!” <S> Someone that bites on the lie might start upbraiding Michael, but someone who doesn't bite can see through the lie, and leaves the fault where it belongs. <A> I haven't read the book, so I couldn't say if that was the case. <S> Otherwise I would just assume it was bad writing. <S> Dan Brown is a notoriously clumsy writer . <S> As a learner of English, you probably shouldn't be reading him ;-) <A> "You sure this time?” <S> Langdon didn’t bite. <S> Olivetti is questioning Langdon's credibility, it sounds like Langdon was wrong about something before... <S> - he is asking if Langdon has made [another] mistake. <S> Langdon didn’t bite. <S> Is exactly as you think, it's a sideways reference to him not ' taking the bait ', the bait being <S> Olivetti's criticism - Olivetti is trying to get a reaction out of Langdon; Langdon simply ignores him and changes the subject: " We need a map. <S> One that shows all the churches in Rome. ”
| If Olivetti's tone was mocking and he was trying to provoke a reaction, then bite meaning taking the bait would make sense.
|
How to say that I hit a car (by accident) How does one say that one was in an accident with one’ car? I am not sure if any of the following phrases are correct. Please tell me if the spoken forms below are correct, or if there are any other idioms or phrases used to express this idea. I hit a car in the street. I crashed a car in the street. I collided a car in the street. <Q> The first one is OK. <S> The second and third can be changed like this <S> I crashed into a car in the street. <S> I collided with a car in the street. <S> do accident <S> should be <S> had an accident <A> Informally, you can have a shunt or (esp. <S> UK, prang ), but those nouns are usually only used of relatively minor collisions (not fatal accidents). <S> The "idiomatic" versions of OP's suggested verbs (where another vehicle is involved) are... <S> I hit a car in the street. <S> I crashed into a car in the street. <S> I collided with a car in the street . <S> Note that you can say <S> "I pranged my car" (you hit something, or ran it into a ditch, say), but you don't usually prang into another car . <S> And as a verb usage you don't shunt your own car - you might (rarely) shunt into another vehicle , but that usually implies the other car wasn't moving at the time - if two moving vehicles collide (usually, at relatively low speeds), they have a shunt . <S> More serious accidents include pile-ups or smash-ups (involving three or more vehicles), but they happen on things like motorways, not streets. <S> If a vehicle is damaged beyond economic repair you might say you totalled it (where an insurance company would say it's a total write-off, and offer you the value of the car before the accident, rather than pay for it to be repaired). <S> You wouldn't normally use that expression if fatalities were involved. <S> If you're in a line of (usually, relatively slow-moving) traffic in a street and one car stops suddenly (to avoid hitting a dog, say) several of the following cars may be unable to stop in time. <S> In which case they're involved in a shunt collision (only the tailgate/boot of the first car and the front bumper/bonnet of the last are damaged, but all the others suffer both types of damage). <A> Two Different perspectives for you. <S> I crashed my car - only my car had been involved in the accident (edit- <S> most probably only my car, as otherwise, we would use one of the below sentences, except in the case of omitting what exactly you hit, in this case, you would most likely be subjected to further questioning and then would explain what exactly you had hit, thus see options below first) <S> I crashed my car into another car/ <S> I hit a car/ <S> Hope this helps!
| I collided with a car - my car (or vehicle) and another had been involved.
|
What does this "merely" imply? She had no hatred against the merely vulgar traits of his. This is a stand-alone sentence from my grammar workbook.But the nuance of merely here is strange to me. <Q> " Merely vulgar traits" implies that there he had traits which were more sinister. <S> I like the phrase; very literary, of course. <A> Personally, it seems a little opposing in idea, but certainly possible. <A> She had no hatred against the merely vulgar traits of his. <S> Here merely refers to only (no better than what is specified) <S> that means She doesn't hate against only vulgar traits of his <S> but there is something else for which she hates. <A> As the comments from FumbleFingers say, it's a little ambiguous as to whether he has other traits which are worse than "mere" vulgarity, which she does hate, or whether she is indifferent to his traits (which are merely vulgar), and hates someone else's more sinister/malicious traits -- or if she was expected to hate his vulgar traits but only dislikes them or is indifferent to them. <S> However, since the phrasing is "the merely vulgar traits of his," that focus on the " traits of his" in the sentence structure implies (at least to me) that there are other traits of his that go beyond mere vulgarity into something hateful. <S> ...in the end, though, it's a standalone, and the "merely" is modifying "vulgar" -- <S> the traits under consideration are nothing but vulgar, rather than malicious, sinister, sadistic, or otherwise more deliberately unpleasant.
| It's an adverb modifying the significance of the word vulgar, it's reducing the vulgarity of his traits.
|
What's the difference between "used to like" and 'liked'? What is the difference between used to like and liked ? What is the difference if I say... When I was 4 years old, I had one pink dress. My cousins used to like it (my dress) very much. Or When I was 4 years old, I had one pink dress. My cousins liked it (my dress) very much. <Q> used to like it -> <S> it often implies that they don't like it anymore. <S> liked it: - <S> > <S> no implication: maybe they still like it. <A> But first, let's clear the definition of used to - used to - (takes an infinitive or implied infinitive) used as an auxiliary to express habitual or accustomed actions, states, etc, taking place in the past but not continuing into the present. <S> and liked is a simple word, the past tense of *like. <S> Let me think of an example to clarify it. <S> I had a pink dress which I wore on my cousin's wedding ceremony. <S> She liked it very much. <S> = <S> It could be for that one time occasion. <S> She liked the dress and that's it! <S> On the other hand, I had a pink dress. <S> My cousin used to like it very much. = <S> Whenever/every time she would meet me, she'd recall that dress. <S> It's not a one time 'liking'. <S> Also, consider what others said and the dictionary mentions - if your cousin used to 'like' it, she does not like it anymore. <A> 'Used to like' means they stopped liking it for some reason. ' <S> Liked' has no such connotation. <S> An example would be the Guns and Roses lyric: 'I used to love her, But I had to kill her...' <A> In these contexts both are very similar and could mean that they still do like it, or they don't. <S> It's not so defined here. <S> The greater relevance is inside using either of these forms. <S> Used to like refers to a repetition of action in the past - <S> here they saw the dress on various occasions and perhaps, wore the dress as well. <S> Liked is more matter of fact in the past - maybe they only saw the dress once! <S> Hope this helps!
| It depends on the context or else both quite mean the same.
|
How to express strong decision? The following context is given: Two friends are talking about by-time. One of them want to express very strong decision of to swim the next year. How it can be said? My understanding:I think it is a fixed arrangement. This implies we can use Present Progressive to express that: I'm swimming the next year. But how to express very strong decision? Will this sentence express very strong decision, if we emphasize to be+ swimming during the speaking? <Q> Swimming is not synonymous with learning to swim : you would have to explicitly state that. <S> Colloquially, I would say: I'm definitely learning to swim next year. <S> Definitely implies a firm decision. <A> One could also say "by next year, I will have learned to swim." <A> As Laure notes , next year can be considered a bit too far in the future for present tenses. <S> However, it would not be uncommon to hear something like this in colloquial conversation: <S> Next year, I'm learning how to swim. <S> I prefer using <S> will here, because the action is in the not-so-near future. <S> Will also conveys a powerful sense of certainty or determination when properly stressed: I will be learning how to swim next year. <S> You can also add definitely or a similar emphasizer to highlight the strength of the decision. <S> I've stuck with progressive tenses as that's what's mentioned explicitly in the question. <S> They suggest that the learning will be a somewhat involved or longer process, and also leave open some possibility that it will not be completed by the end of the next year. <A> If you say, "I'm learning to swim next year." <S> It usually implies you have already enrolled in a course, paid your fee, unavailable. <S> Likewise if a woman declines a man's offer to go out on a date on Saturday night claiming the old, put-down excuse, "I'm washing my hair on Saturday Night," she means that her hair-washing plans are pretty much already a foregone conclusion.
| You might also say: I'm definitely going to learn to swim next year.
|
How to call people with two racial backgrounds in English? My mother is an American and my father is a Chinese, is there a term for people with two racial backgrounds in English? Update: Is "halfer" a good word for it? Is it kinda derogatory? <Q> The term I'm familiar with is 'biracial.' <A> Sometimes, if one of the two racial backgrounds goes back many generations (i.e., is considered to be more or less homogenous), we might self-identify as <S> I'm half <S> ~~~~~~. <S> For instance, someone might want to describe themself as half-Chinese or half-Lithuanian. <S> I use the latter for myself, because it is true. <S> Half-American does not work, because American is not a race in this sense. <S> But a lot of people might wish to refer to themself as (for example) half-Irish , half-Greek , half-Italian , half Japanese , half-Cherokee , etc. <S> I am talking about people referring to themselves. <S> For someone to self-identify as half-something is usually a sign that they value that racial or genetic component of their background. <S> In other words, it is a term that is used positively. <S> People can also refer to others as half-something, which may or may not be true, and may or may not be intended as a kind statement. <S> Cautian: We have the term half-breed , which also refers to someone who is considered (rightly or wrongly) to be half something. <S> It is an offensive term, a racial slur, and pretty much no longer used in today's English. <S> But it is encased in our popular culture, largely due to cowboy-and-Indian movies , where you might hear the term half-breed used to describe someone who is half-American Indian and half-something else. <S> In the 1970s television show, Kung Fu , the main character is half-Chinese and half-Caucasian American. <A> <A> You can use the term <S> Eurasian for someone who is half Asian, half European. <A> The term dual heritage is also used in public services to describe someone with two ethnicities.
| Here we say mixed ethnicity. The term mixed race, although implied, would not be used officially in a multicultural society since it might offend.
|
Do verb tenses have to remain absolutely consistent through a piece of writing? Generally, I've been told that I should maintain consistency of tenses in my writing. That is, if I begin a piece of writing in the past tense, I should ensure that all verbs agree with that through the document. But as I read more articles, books, and other such things, I get confused by the verb tenses used by these other authors. For example, I copied a portion of an article below. I believe it started in the past tense, yet the second paragraph switched to the present tense (it sounds like the...) In the third paragraph, the past and present usage is mixed (the word gave is in past tense, yet remain is in the present tense). I understand that the writing in the article is most likely correct. But why can it switch verb tenses and be ok while I was told in school by my professor to keep my essays in a single tense? Is there a guideline I can adhere to? REPRESSED for decades, the anger burst like a summer storm. Rioting youths flooded city streets. The shaken regime granted hasty concessions: freer speech; an end to one-party rule; real elections. But when Islamists surged towards victory in the first free elections the army stepped in, provoking a bloody struggle that lasted until the people, exhausted, acquiesced to a government similar in outlook, repression and even personnel to that which they had revolted against in the first place. It sounds like the recent history of several Arab countries: Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen, the states of the 2011 Arab spring, have seen some or all of the story unfold. But this is also, and originally, Algeria, a quarter of a century earlier—the first major political crisis in the age of modern Islamism. A flurry of freedom in the late 1980s gave way to a vicious civil war in the 1990s that left as many as 200,000 dead and Algeria’s Islamists more or less defeated, but not eradicated. Today the country’s citizens remain powerless spectators to a continued stand-off between what they call le pouvoir—the entrenched oligarchy that controls the state, the oil money and the army—and the now-marginalised Islamist radicals, who serve more as a justification for ongoing repression than as any sort of inspiration to ordinary people. <Q> The excerpt changes tenses because it's talking about things at different times. <S> The first paragraph describes completed actions which took place in the past, hence the use of past tense. <S> The second uses the present because it's talking about things at the current time or the recent past. <S> The third begins by talking about the past, then proceeds to discuss the current state. <S> Think of the first paragraph like a big quotation. <S> It's not describing any specific actual events - indeed, the second paragraph says that the first could describe several places - just some generic history. <S> Because it's talking about history , it's in the past tense. <S> It sounds in the second paragraph <S> is talking about the first paragraph. <S> This is in the present because you're currently reading the article. <S> Its words <S> sound <S> a certain way at the time you read them. <S> Incidentally, I find this: <S> But this is also, and originally, Algeria, a quarter of a century earlier—the first major political crisis in the age of modern Islamism. <S> somewhat confusing; specifically, the aside about Algeria. <S> I get the meaning (I think!), but I think the remark should be expanded a bit, and probably in the past tense. <S> The third paragraph opens by discussing completed actions in the past: <S> A flurry of freedom in the late 1980s gave way... <S> This first sentence sets the stage with some historical context. <S> After giving us a bit information about the past, it goes on to describe the present state of affairs, appropriately shifting to the present tense to do so: <S> Today the country’s citizens remain powerless spectators... <S> Past, present and future match up with the times being described. <S> Very generally speaking, you should work towards maintaining a single tense in your writing, especially if you aren't comfortable with the fine details of changing them. <S> But there are plenty of reasons to change tenses. <S> For example: Simple descriptions of events, as commonly seen in news, should be in the relevant tense (past events in past tense, etc). <S> Literary foreshadowing might call for future tense: he gazed over his shoulder at her. <S> He would never do so again. <S> Dialogue written as spoken or thought by persons involved should be tensed as it normally would when speaking; e.g. she said, "I will go to the store tomorrow." <A> You are allowed to change verb tenses to reflect the temporal relationships between what has happened in the past (seen in the entire first paragraph) and the authors commentary that is being made at the present time (in the second paragraph). <S> The present nature of the second paragraph is emphasized in the expression to "have seen some ... of the story unfold"--the story is not over yet and cannot be expressed entirely in the past tense. <S> In the third paragraph the use of two tenses is necessary for explaining how the current state of affairs is influenced by past events. <A> The first paragraph is telling us what happened in the past, so it's properly past tense. <S> The second is talking about the story told by the first. <S> Even though the story is about the past (Algeria, 28 years ago) you are reading the story now, so it is present tense. <S> The last paragraph mixes it up. <S> It starts taking about the past state, and then in the next sentence talks about the current state. <S> It ok to use different tenses, as long as they remain consistent to the information being delivered. <S> You don't want to use present tense with history, or past tense for describing future plans. <S> It's ok to talk about history and future plans in the same piece though, or even the same sentence <S> You asked a question so I will submit this answer. <A> This block of text seems so clear to me as an English speaker that I get the impression you're adventuring into reading texts which are beyond your own level of comprehension - which is often a very good way to learn. <S> What concerns me is that you misunderstand what is being said in the second paragraph - which is pretty much what would be said in any language. <S> I'm sure that if your read this paragraph again carefully, it should become clear that the writer is talking about "how the history reads" today.
| It is not a hard-and-fast rule that there needs to be the same prevailing tense throughout an entire article or even in one paragraph.
|
How to say that there is a poster located on the wall of my room? How to say that there is a poster located on the wall of my room ? How to say that ? By the way , Is "on the wall" correct ? what about room , in or on ? <Q> Posters hang on the wall. <S> You got that right. <S> As for where that particular wall is, you can use either "of" or "in": <S> There is a poster on the wall of my room. <S> There is a poster on the wall in my room. <S> Sometimes there's a "right" preposition to use, and sometimes more than one can be used and the meaning of the sentence doesn't change. <S> You've given a sentence where there's an obvious choice for the first preposition, but wiggle room with regards to the second. <S> Yes, we hang posters "on the wall", although I can see how a beginner might be unsure of that. <S> See meaning 1c at Macmillan : <S> touching, sticking to, or hanging from a surface or object <S> There were several interesting posters on the wall . <A> I would suggest changing "of" to "in." <S> Also, adding "located" is valid, but unnecessary. <S> There is a poster on the wall in my room <A> Not very specific <S> There is a poster on the wall. <S> Not specific about where in the room: <S> There is a poster in my room. <S> (It could be on the wall, or in the closet, etc) <S> Most specific: <S> There is a poster on my [bedroom/bathroom/living room] wall. <S> There is a poster on the wall in my room. <S> There is a poster on the wall of my room. <S> In English, yes, you should use the preposition "on" when hanging things "on" walls. <S> Things don't go "in" the wall, unless they're actually encased in it, like water pipes or electrical wires, or perhaps a safe that's actually embedded "in" the wall. <S> You'd use "in" for "in the room" because it is a space you can go "in"to. <A> and 99% of native speakers will know what you mean. <S> If your goal is to be able to communicate your ideas in English, that sentence might be all you want. <S> If you want to use more natural English, you could say There is a poster hanging on the wall of my room. <S> which is close to your sentence in construction.
| You can say: There is a poster located on the wall of my room. You can't go "on" a room (unless you're standing on top of it, and even then it sounds weird).
|
How can we say someone is falling into sleep and awakening repeatedly? Have you seen a man who is falling asleep while sitting but tries to stay up? On this occasion usually the head goes to a direction but the person moves it back suddenly. Do we have an expression for this? <Q> nod 2. <S> To let the head fall forward when sleepy. <A> Often, I would say that my father is "dozing off" or "nodding off" while watching the television. <S> This implies that he is in the act of falling to sleep while repeatedly awakening, instead of full-on sleeping (in which case, I would say he "dozed off" or "nodded off"). <A> For Getting Up, ("Get up" means rise from bed, usually for the day): <S> "I slept fitfully last night." <S> "I must have been up a dozen times." <S> For dozing in a chair, "He kept falling asleep and waking with a jerk. <S> ""He was fighting-off sleep" <A> Although slightly different, this can also be known as a hypnagogic jerk. <S> This is a phenomenon where one falls asleep and has the feeling of falling, so he or she wakes suddenly with a jerk.
| This is called nodding off precisely because when they fall asleep their heads move just like if they were nodding at someone.
|
A Twist Of The Unexpected In this sentence : In four years the grandest soccer tournament of all will take another twist of the unexpected , as Russia welcomes the travelling World Cup hordes with open arms – and promptly packs a bunch of them off to somewhere that is usually so cold most people assume it is in Siberia. Does "a twist of the unexpected" mean "a twist of the unexpected kind "? <Q> In this situation, it would be equivalent to saying " <S> In four years the grandest soccer tournament of all will take another unexpected twist." <S> (You could technically say "a twist of the unexpected kind," but it would sound odd because it is overly complicated) <A> As written, it's really a tautology, presumably to add emphasis to the unexpectedness of the event. <S> twist [noun] : an unexpected or strange occurrence. <S> It could have been written with exactly the same meaning as "... <S> the grandest soccer tournament of all will take another twist," or "... <S> the grandest soccer tournament of all will have another instance of the unexpected," . <S> Although it technically means the same thing, I wouldn't say <S> "A twist of the unexpected kind" because it implies there is a kind of twist that is not unexpected. <S> Edit: <S> There also seems be some confusion because of the different uses of the word "unexpected" . <S> Take notice of the article "the" , meaning it's a noun here, not an adjective! <S> ... <S> of the unexpected. <S> ^ <S> ^ <S> article noun... of the unexpected kind. <S> ^ <S> ^ <S> ^ <S> article adjective noun <S> When something from such a collection happens, we can refer to it as "a case of X". <S> Don't confuse this with the adjective as in "an unexpected accident" or "an accident of the unexpected kind". <A> We say, an "unexpected twist." <S> To say, "a twist of the unexpected" might just be a clever turn of phrase <S> (like for a TV cooking show, the host might be making a play on words regarding the "twist of lemon" used in recipe speech. <S> (But then, we must remember that sports writers' styles and language contusions are often the butt of jokes!) <S> Long live the sports writers' colourful english!
| "The unexpected" (N) means the collection of all things which are unexpected (A) .
|
What's the meaning of "it was collapsing in on itself" From "The Da Vinci Code": (Describing a scheme) It had all begun as a holy cause. A brilliantly crafted scheme. Now, like a house of cards, it was collapsing in on itself , and the end was nowhere in sight. How to understand the part "in on itself"? I can understand if it's only "collapsing itself", but what's the meaning of "in on" here? <Q> When something simply collapses , it falls more or less straight down. <S> While it was standing, it occupied a certain amount of space on the ground. <S> When the collapse is complete, the thing is much shorter, but takes up more space on the ground, because it spread out or tilted over as it fell. <S> If you picture a person standing, they occupy only about a square foot of ground space; when they collapse, their knees would buckle and the start of the fall would be straight downward, but not everything bends in the same way and the person would end up lying on the ground, probably taking 5 or 6 square feet of space. <S> When something collapses in on itself , it falls more or less straight down, and it ends up taking no more ground space when fallen than it did while standing. <S> Obviously a person can't really do this, but a building can be made to do it. <S> (check out wikipedia's page on Building Implosions for some images and videos.) <S> Both prepositions are necessary; you can't collapse on yourself because the on , when used alone with collapse , is describing where you land. <S> (You might "collapse on the floor", or "collapse on the bed"; but "collapse on yourself" sounds like you end up floating in mid-air since you didn't actually land on anything else.) <S> And you can't collapse in yourself because in , when used alone with collapse , describes either the general manner in which you end up, or something that you do while collapsing. <S> (You might "collapse in a heap", or "collapse in a flood of tears".) <S> When you combine both prepositions, though, in describes the direction of your collapse (as being not a normal "spreading-out-as-you-fall" collapse) and on now specifies correctly where you (or the parts of you that did not spread out as normally expected) landed. <A> "A web search <S> (and I just performed one) produced innumerable results. <S> On the other hand, I don't remember hearing of anything simply "collapsing on itself," again confirmed by a lesser number of search results . <S> Both expressions are perfectly self-explanatory and visual in their imagery. <S> There is also the possible implication that anything which collapses [in] on itself does so without any external pressure; as if its collapse results from poor design at the outset, or physical scientific inevitability. <A> It simply means that the scheme (just like a house of cards) collapsed on itself. <S> In other words, the external efforts played no major role in the failure of the scheme. <S> in is an adverbial particle which is quite optional in this case. <S> You can remove it and it'll still convey the message. <S> It's a writing style basically. <S> [Note that not in all cases, removing adverbial particles will keep its meaning intact. <S> There, they have to be there.] <A> I think the metaphor might have arisen through astronomical explanations of a black hole as star which collapses in on itself. <S> ( Inwardly , towards its centre). <S> Pretty powerful imagery. <S> Aside: We Aussies, far from quoting expressions faithfully as they were originally coined, actually prefer to modify. <S> Hence the description of, say, an egotistical tyrant in a workplace, whose very ideas eventually bring about his own undoing, whose plans "collapsed in on themselves" like the death of a red dwarf star, someone'll come up with an inelegant line like, "He finally disappeared up his own [expletive]" <A> I don't think houses of cards generally collapse in on themselves. <S> They more just fall down in a heap, so I don't think it's really the right expression to use here. <S> (Dan Brown really is a bad writer.) <S> Nonetheless, "collapse in on itself" is good English. <S> If something is collapsing on in itself, then parts of the thing are falling or moving IN towards the center, and ON to other parts at the center. <S> If some of the walls of an old house fell in, and the roof fell down, you could say the house collapsed in on itself.
| The usage (and it's pretty common) is, as you say, to "collapse in on itself.
|
What does "that of" here mean? Wong said one charge - that of providing false information - brought against one of the organizers was for giving police the incorrect number for a street address, though the correct street name was provided. — Reuters Is it just another way of saying which is ? And does those of act in the same way with plural? <Q> Using "that" is a way of avoiding repetition. <S> Otherwise the sentence would be: One charge - the charge of providing false information ... <S> Instead of saying "that of", you can also say "the one of" or "namely". <S> I find it difficult to use "which is" without the sentence sounding awkward or changing the meaning. <S> Since there were 4 different charges : failure to comply with instructions from a police officer, obstructing officers performing their duties, leaving a running vehicle and providing false information to an officer, if you refer to more than one, you can use "those of", just as you suggested: <S> Two charges - those of leaving a running vehicle and providing false information ... <A> Firstly, I feel that the sentence must have 'em-dashes' and not the hyphens that you typed there. <S> Now, answer to your second question - No. <S> The those of... won't fit there because the sentence is about a single charge due to an act of providing false information. <S> Answer to the first question - <S> yes. <S> It may work in this context. <S> 'Em-dashes' are used to replace commas here. <S> You may simply remove those dashes and put commas along with your option which is <S> and it'll convey the scene. <S> Wong said one charge, which is providing false information, brought against one of the organizers was for giving police the incorrect number for a street address, though the correct street name was provided. <S> [Side note: <S> I think it's an indirect speech and thus should have that . <S> Wong said that... <S> If it's not, it should have the quotes - <S> Wong said, "One charge, ..."] <A> And yes, a plural version can be made to work just as well: "Wong said two charges - that of providing false information and that of assaulting a police officer- brought against one of the organizers..." <S> ~or~ <S> "Two pairs of shoes - those of the victim and those of the accused, were found at the scene of the crime." <S> Both of these examples are used to <S> specify what is being referred to. <S> "Which is" might be used to describe something about a [charge] - <S> but no, it cannot be used in the circumstance you describe.
| Yes, this is a correct, simple and respected clause used to identify specific matters, especially in legal parlance.
|
Use of would and verbs in past I would like to know if this sentence is correct : When I was in high school , one of my friends would get a date every single day, all he had to do was just show his wallet. I don't want a formal English version, just an American common way to say it because I won't actually write it, I will just talk but I want it to make sense. By the way, can I say "all he would do was just show his wallet" too? I don't wan't to change the meaning of what I'm trying to say. <Q> Your sentence is fine and natural. <S> Changing had to to <S> would is also natural, but it does change the meaning slightly: The original, all he had to <S> do <S> (which might be paraphrased as ‘the only thing he was required to do’) emphasizes that no further effort was necessary. <S> The rewrite, all he would do , loses this particular emphasis—it simply reports the fact that showing his wallet is all he did do. <S> In fact, you could also communicate this meaning with a simple past: ... <S> all he did was just show his wallet. <S> There’s also a possible rewrite in the first clause. <S> In the dialect spoken where I went to high school, would was replaced by used to (‘useta’): <S> When I was in high school one of my friends used to get a date every single day ... <A> Changing "had to" to "would" won't change the meaning significantly. <A> Technically, this is a run-on sentence. <S> You have two clauses each of which is a complete sentence on its own: "When I was in high school, one of my friends would get a date every single day" and "all he had to do was just show his wallet". <S> Slapping them together like this is called a "comma splice" and is incorrect. <S> You should either break it into two sentences, connect them with a semi-colon, or add a conjunction: <S> When I was in high school, one of my friends would get a date every single day. <S> All he had to do was just show his wallet. <S> When I was in high school, one of my friends would get a date every single day; all he had to do was just show his wallet. <S> When I was in high school, one of my friends would get a date every single day, as all he had to do was just show his wallet. <S> Of course in spoken language the difference between a comma and a period or semi-colon is hard to identify precisely. <S> Also, "all he had to do" and "just" is a shade redundant. <S> I'd probably say either "all he had to do was show his wallet" or "he just showed his wallet". <S> But that's getting nit-picky.
| Your sentence is correct and would sound natural in conversation. There’s no difference of meaning or emphasis there, just a dialectal preference for useta in contexts like this.
|
What is this usage of enough to do.? As soon as they had had enough to eat and drink they wanted music and dancing, which are the crowning embellishments of a banquet, so a servant brought a lyre to Phemius, whom they compelled perforce to sing to them.(Odyssey) I know that "I have enough to eat." means that "I have lots of food." In the example above, it means "I had lots of food and drink."So in a sense,it is a done act.Is it possible to say so? <Q> I know that "I have enough to eat. <S> " means that "I have lots of food." <S> Not quite. <S> It's closer to " <S> I have a sufficient amount of food" or "I won't be hungry after I eat all the food I have". <S> So, in context, "as soon as they had had enough to eat and drink" means "as soon as they were no longer hungry or thirsty"; that is, they ate and drank until they were full and then decided they wanted to dance. <A> I have had enough to eat. <S> This means that I have eaten enough and I am no longer hungry. <S> Did you have enough to eat for lunch? <S> Yes, I had enough to eat. <S> That means that at lunchtime, I ate enough that I was no longer hungry. <S> I understand your confusion. <S> To have can mean to eat . <S> It is kind of strange, I suppose, but it's an old part of the language, and we are used to it. <S> We don't think it is strange at all. <S> I had a sandwich for lunch. <S> That means I ate a sandwich for lunch. <S> I'm having chicken for dinner. <S> That means I will be eating chicken for dinner. <A> People sometimes sit around the table a while before they agree they've had enough. <S> The phrase just means they ate and then went dancing. <S> It's common to say to your dinner companions, "when we've all had enough to eat and drink, let's go [dancing]. <S> That way you're not asking anybody to leave in a hurry. <S> [Edit: now that I think I see the mistake you seem to have made:] <S> As soon as they had had enough to eat and drink Notice the two <S> **had**s? <S> That means they'd eaten and drunk sufficiently. <S> A hostess might ask all her guests, " <S> Has everybody had enough to eat? <S> There's still some cheese if you'd like. <S> ~on the other hand~ To "have enough to eat <S> " can simply mean the food is in the house; you have it and can eat anytime. <S> A hostess, before eating, could say to a guest, <S> "Do you have enough to eat?" <S> The guest, looking down at his plateful of food, might look up and say, "Yes, plenty, thanks!" <S> I think maybe you didn't notice the second, "had" <S> so you thought it read, <S> "As soon as they had enough to eat and drink they wanted music and dancing.." <S> Which makes me picture the hilarious situation you probably imagined: The hostess serves everybody a lovely meal. <S> But instead of eating it, they instead suddenly want music and dancing! <S> ROTFL
| To "have had enough to eat" means you've eaten enough.
|
What does “To have had enough to eat would have been to have reached paradise at once.” mean? To have had enough to eat would have been to have reached paradise at once. Source: A Dog of Flanders: A Story of Noël, by Ouida Does this mean if they had had enough to eat, it would be like they had reached paradise at once? <Q> The sentence is a very straight-forward shift of following sentence into past tense: to have enough to eat would be to reach paradise at once <S> Very consistently, the past tense is formed changing "have" to "have had", "be" to "have been" and "reach" to "have reached". <S> Both occurrences of "to v-infinitive" become "to have v-past-participle". <S> The reason is that this is the correct grammar for shifting "to v-infinitive" units into the past tense. <S> For instance "to be great" shifted into the past becomes "to have been great", and not "to was great", which is simply ungrammatical. <S> I don't know the exact rule, but intuition is telling me that "to" must be coupled with a verb in the present tense, and the auxiliary "have" serves that purpose. <S> Additionally, "would be" goes to "would have been", because "would" also needs a present tense pairing; it never takes a past tense verb as in the ungrammatical "would was". <S> In terms of meaning, the meaning of the present tense version is: <S> The speaker of the sentence is taking the point of view of someone: the subject. <S> The subject could be the speaker, or someone else with whom the speaker empathizes. <S> (The semantic subject of the sentence, not a grammatical subject.) <S> The speaker is conveying the fact that the subject doesn't have enough to eat. <S> The speaker imagines the unrealized situation that the subject does have enough to eat. <S> The speaker compares that situation to reaching paradise, essentially saying that the unrealized situation is very good compared to the real situation. <S> With the past tense version, the speaker makes a very similar remark, except that it is about a situation which occurred entirely in the past: <S> The speaker of the sentence is taking the point of view of someone: the subject. <S> The subject could be the speaker, or someone else with whom the speaker empathizes. <S> The speaker is conveying the fact that at some point in the past, subject did not have enough to eat. <S> The speaker imagines an unrealized past situation in which the subject did have enough to eat. <S> The speaker compares that unrealized past situation to reaching paradise, essentially saying that the unrealized situation is very good, from the subject's perspective, compared to the real situation that was. <A> Suppose <S> A = <S> B <S> Now form the sentence like this <S> - A would have been B A = <S> To have had enough to eat. <S> B = <S> To have reached paradise at once. <S> Now replace A and B, you will find the sentence you have quoted. <S> To have had enough to eat would have been to have reached paradise at once. <S> Does it make sense? <A> What the sentence itself stands to do is show the reader how if there was enough to eat would have been comparable to having reached paradise. <S> If one is to elaborate this would mean that the feeling that one would attain from having had enough food to eat would be the same as one reaching the elation/bliss that is related to the imagery around the word paradise. <A> I agree with the answers above and appreciate the analysis. <S> Subjectively, as a reader, I feel a severity of circumstance because of the structure of the sentence. <S> It feels almost like a light or passive remark yet because of this somehow backwards phrasing delivers a weighted message. <S> For me I feel it could be inferred that they might be starving, surely have been hungry for a terribly long time, and can't imagine hope or change at this point. <S> They certainly aren't expecting miracles nor heaven. <S> Again, this is purely my own opinion of what the sentence says. <S> The sentence doesn't seem awkward to me. <S> I like it.
| In simplest terms the writer is saying that the happiness one would have had from having a full meal/enough to eat would be the same as being in paradise.
|
What does "if not" mean in the given sentence Let there be given this sentence (which came from an English-Chinese dictionary ): The contest has become personalised, if not bitter. Then what does the phrase if not mean? Seeking after is a general guide or rule of such usage. <Q> Let's look at simpler example - Try to finish at least 10 chapters from that book, if not all. <S> This means if all chapters are not possible, try to finish at least 10. <S> That smell (from a rotten thing) can cause nausea, if not vomiting <S> This means that that smell is likely to cause vomiting but <S> if it does not , at least it can causes nausea. <S> In other words, that smell is capable at least to cause nausea <S> but it can also go closer to vomiting or <S> in worst cases, it can cause vomiting. <S> [Part A of sentence,] if not [part B of sentence]. <S> In such cases, the part B is expected or desired but <S> then actually part <S> A is likely to happen. <S> I'll pick you at 1900 hr, if not earlier. <S> This simply means the latest will be 1900 hr. <S> The speaker wants to say that he'll try to pick the listener earlier <S> but not later than 7 pm. <S> Another such example may be - I'm a good tennis player, if not a great one. <S> So, in your sentence, the contest did not turn bitter but at least got personalized. <S> A later edit (from J.R. and user42307's input): <S> The sentence may also mean that the contest is on the verge of getting bitter (nausea's example) or has become bitter. <A> Unfortunately the phrase is used in two ways, and especially when written it can be difficult to distinguish them. <S> The hypothetical "if" might mean that "bitter" is acknowledged not to be true, or it might just mean that there's doubt. <S> So the first meaning is that the contest has <S> not become bitter, although perhaps is close to it. <S> The phrase creates a contrast, and could be replaced with "the contest has become personalised, but not bitter" or "personalised, but not quite bitter". <S> Then the phrase is used to make a certain statement followed by the less certain one. <S> It could be written, "the contest has certainly become personalised, and quite possibly bitter". <S> When spoken, listen for which word is more stressed: "The contest has become personalised , if not bitter" means it's not bitter (or probably not). <S> "The contest has become personalized, if not bitter " means it's probably bitter (or certainly so in the speaker's opinion, but they choose not to assert it). <A> "The contest has become personalised, if not bitter" - The contest has become bitter. <S> "As a worker, he's lazy and arrogant, if not downright dishonest" <S> He's downright dishonest . <S> "I'm disappointed, if not shocked, at your behaviour." <S> - I'm shocked at your behaviour. <S> The wide and varied English language gives us this "Get out of jail free" card. <S> Isn't it wonderful? <S> Enjoy! <S> [Edit] Correcting my mistake in thinking "if not" is always pejorative... <S> The following, Nothing if not variation might also help: <S> "She's nothing if not generous" <S> - She's generous -And <S> I won't tolerate any contradiction of that. <S> Then there's the " a little " modifier:(without the "not) <S> "He's diligent, if a little slow." <S> - He pays so much attention to detail it slows down his work (or with <S> the "not"): <S> "He's diligent if not a little undervalued." <S> - He pays attention to his work and his talents are being wasted on this menial work Or the use of both the " at least " and the " if not a little " modifiers: <S> "At least the band is relentless if not just a little funny." <S> - The band isn't very good but never gives up and makes me laugh. <A> [A] if not [B]. <S> [A] is certain while [B] is not certain but may be possible. <S> The contest has certainly become personalized. <S> It might also be getting bitter. <S> Usually [B] is a more extreme interpretation of A. <S> My answer is good, if not the best. <A> The sentence containing "if not" is a short way of expressing the following sentiment: <S> The contest has become personalised. <S> You might even say that it has become bitter, <S> though in my opinion it hasn't quite reached that point yet. <A> Take the following. <S> A: <S> The food in my house is goodB: the best <S> The food in my house is good, if not the best. <S> The comparison of my food in my house is being done with the value of being "the best". <S> Therefore the statement says that my food is good, if not the best. <S> This lightly refers to my food being close to the best value through the "if not". <S> So the use of "if not" allows one to compare values with an adjective whilst using another adjective. <S> Adjective A: <S> GoodAdjective B: <S> Best I am stating that my food is describable by both adjectives <S> but I put adjective B at a higher value by saying "If not". <S> It may seem a bit confusing but it allows for the use of multiple describing objectives to a subject without the need for a break in the flow of the sentence. <S> Hope the answer helps. <A> The phrase "if not" has two common but essentially opposite meaning. <S> Consider the sentence. <S> Ronaldo is a great footballer, if not the greatest ever. <S> The sentence can mean "Ronaldo is a great footballer but definitely not the greatest ever". <S> This is the usage I prefer. <S> The sentence can also mean "Ronaldo is a great footballer and quite possibly the greatest ever. <S> " I dislike this usage but it is certainly widely used.
| The second meaning is that the contest probably has become bitter, but that this opinion isn't certain or might be disputed. If not usually is placed in a sentence to compare the sentence value with another.
|
What is the meaning of "to learn to one's cost"? If found the expression "to learn to one's cost", which seems to be "learning a lesson at the expense of their money". Some examples: Thousands of people - mostly internet-savvy men in their 20s or 30s - have learnt to their cost the legal and financial risks involved in file-sharing copyrighted music in large quantities. Toyota have learnt to their cost that it is far better to be transparent and open when issues are identified than to try and cover up any faults. Is this an idiom? Another definition of "to learn"? Would it be correct "to learn to one's health"? <Q> You've got the sense of it, though the price need not be paid in money. <S> For example: Thousands of people - mostly internet-savvy men in their 20s or 30s - have learnt to their cost the legal and financial risks... <S> Learning a lesson about the dangers of file sharing may have cost them their freedom rather than just their money. <S> For example, the proprietors of some notorious file sharing sites have been jailed over their conduct ( 1 , 2 ). <S> Anything which can replace X in cost someone X can be used in this way. <S> I wouldn't call this an idiom. <S> It's perhaps a bit unusual, but the meaning follows directly from the definitions and grammar. <S> Would it be correct "to learn to one's health"? <S> Yes, but it's extremely unusual and I've never seen this turn of phrase before. <S> Native speakers will get the meaning but find it a strange thing to say. <S> Here's a contrived example: Upon drinking the supposedly poison brew, Socrates learnt, to his health, that it was actually the nectar of the gods, granting him eternal life and a place in Olympus. <A> <A> I'll try to be simple. <S> The expression to someone's cost means that the thing learned did not come easily. <S> They had to face some difficulties or losses to learn it. <S> Oxforddictionaries describes the meaning of to someone's cost which is used in the sentences in concern- to someone's cost - With loss or disadvantage to someone <S> Having said that those internet savvy men and Toyota learned whatsoever lessons after having faced difficulties or bad experiences.
| You are nearly correct in your guess - it doesn't necessarily mean 'learning a lesson at the expense of their money ', it can mean at the expense of anything meaningful, for example, reputation. Learn is used in the standard sense of learn a lesson .
|
"meant" and "mean" do both words have the same meaning? Which would be the correct use of the word in the two sentences below: I mean, I can do it! or I can do, I meant it Also, please explain why! Because I'm trying to improve my English usage of words in everyday English. <Q> Is the phrase 'I mean' on the first sentence means you're like correcting something? <S> Or are you saying that you stand for being able to do something? <S> Also, the 2nd sentence will sound better with : I can do it <S> and I mean it. <S> If you really want to improve, try watching movies or reading books. <S> If a sentence/phrase sounds a bit odd, then most likely it is wrong. <A> mean, meant, meant are simple present, simple past, and past participle respectively. <S> So using each of them in a sentence would depend on what tense you're talking about. <S> So, let's say both of them are in present, then your sentences will be: <S> I mean, I can do it. <S> Intend to <S> say something <S> This shows your intention, emphasizing on what you particularly intend to say. <S> I can do it, I mean it. <S> Intend to do <S> something say something seriously <S> This one means to intend to do something or you're serious about what you're saying. <S> The #2 definition is the main usage of your second sentence most of the time. <S> Reference: LDOCE. <A> One is a colloquial synonym for "intend": <S> "I mean to do it" = <S> "I intend to do it". <S> It's much stronger than "I'd like to do it", "I want to do it", "I expect to do it" etc. <S> It can be on the same level as "I will do it" but only if "will" is stressed: "I will(!) <S> do it". <S> The other is a synonym for the phrase "is defined as": '"to walk" means "to go on foot"' = '"to walk" is defined as "to go on foot"'. <S> That second one is a very awkward construction and no native speaker would ever actually use it, but it is legitimate. <S> It's just embarrassing because it's so unnatural. <S> "To mean" in the sense of "to define as" is one of those verbs that everyone uses for the very reason that there is no well-polished synonym, so one must resort to things like "to define as" or be trapped into trying to use it to define itself, something that rarely works well. <S> Hope that helps!
| The verb "to mean" has 2 different, er, meanings :-)
|
Difference between "lady" and "woman"? Are there differences between "lady" and "woman" ? Google say lady is a polite social woman. But we don't use them just as this. Do we? English isn't my native language so I am better clarifying myself. <Q> An analogy should illustrate the difference well: <S> Lady : woman :: gentleman : man. <S> That is, "lady" and "gentleman" typically occur in the same contexts, as do "woman" and "man". <S> Examples: <S> "Ladies and gentlemen" as a term of address in public speaking. <S> Women and Men , the title of a novel by Joseph McElroy . <A> When it's spelled with a capital letter, it is the title of a woman with the equivalent rank of a Lord, or a woman who is married to a Lord. <S> As "just a word", though, it usually refers to somebody who is of a different social rank from yours. <S> You would use the terms "cleaning lady" and "bag lady" just as much (and probably more in these less-formal times) as you would "lady of the house" and other sorts of "you are more important than me" phrases. <S> One needs to watch the use of "lady" these days. <S> Because it has been as much a word that comes automatically with marriage as one that may be earned, it is sometimes felt as belittling, dismissive or condescending; something like calling Jane, who is married to John Smith, Mrs. John Smith. <S> The word itself isn't a bad one, and can be used in very positive ways, but many of its uses—uses that once would have been the height of proper manners— <S> are very much unwelcome these days. <A> Both user3820386 and Stan Rogers answers are correct, but there is more to the question. <S> There has been a generational shift in the meaning and implications of "lady", at least in the US. <S> For instance, my father (born 1913) used to tell the joke, "What's the difference between a diplomat and a lady?" <S> If a diplomat say yes he means maybe, if he says maybe he means no, and if he says no he's no diplomat. <S> If a lady say no she means maybe, if she says maybe she means yes, and if she says yes she's no lady. <S> In the 1950s, the animated Disney movie "The Lady and the Tramp" http://movies.disney.com/lady-and-the-tramp was a popular family movie, but it included a play on words with the juxtaposition of "lady" and "tramp", with the latter meaning a sexually promiscuous woman. <S> At the same time, "lady of the evening" was a euphemism for prostitute. <S> With the advent of the Sexual Revolution, the aspect of compulsory chastity is no longer part of the definition of lady. <S> As far as I know. <A> A lady was a woman with an higher rank in society. <S> Nowadays lady and woman means the same (but lady is more complimentary than woman).
| "Lady" can be used to refer to someone of higher or lower social rank.
|
Plural of "that's my boy" Is there a plural of this phrase that preserves the sprachgefühl ? The obvious "those are my boys" somehow doesn't feel right. <Q> I'd go with "Them's my boys!" <S> It is not "grammatical" <S> but it preserves the casual and dialectical feel of the original, as well as the prosodic features. <A> I'd feel fine saying or hearing <S> "That's my boys!". <S> "That's my boy!" <S> is literally a prideful expression of the exclaimer's relationship to a single boy which also implies some degree of personal responsibility for or shared ownership of the boy's success which prompted the exclamation. <S> "That's my boys! <S> " implies the same degree of pride and personal connection as it sounds similar to the well-known singular form. <S> However, its literal meaning is different: it's more like an abbreviation, e.g. of "That's <S> [how] my boys [do it]!", or "That's [what] my boys [can do]!". <S> These statements emphasize the ease and regularity with which said boys perform successfully. <S> I find that the singular form can actually be exclaimed with this meaning in mind as well <S> (e.g. "That's <S> [how] my boy [does it]!"). <S> This pluralization of the phrase has the benefit of also fitting the phonetic pattern of the singular form as it has the same number of syllables and can be exclaimed with the same sing-songy inflections in pitch. <A> You can just try : "My boys !" <A> If the questioner is using "That's my boy" to indicate that a certain action or behaviour, such as a comment, which has just taken place is highly characteristic and representative of the male person to whom it refers then more appropriate than "those" or "them's" would be <S> "That's my boys". <S> "That's my boys" effectively says "That's typical of my boys", "That's the way my boys are", "That's how it is with my boys". <S> It should be noted that in this scenario the phrase may not actually refer to the speaker's child, in the same way that "Go on my son" is often used between male friends. <S> An example conversation where such use of the phrase would fit well might be where a woman hears from a friend that her husband and son were seen returning from a football game, cheering victoriously and waving their scarves. <S> The thought of this scene is one that amuses and touches emotionally - and seems both familiar and unquestionable - so the women smiles and says "Ahh yes... <S> that's my boys!" <A> If the intended sense of "That's my boy" is "Well done young man!" <S> , then a colloquial plural version, certainly in the UK, would be "Good lads!" <S> The problem with "Them's my boys" as a plural version is that it only makes sense if said to someone <S> other than the boys in question, whereas with the singular "That's my boy" is typically used as praise to the boy in question. <S> On the other hand, if the intended sense of "That's my boy" is "That person there is my son", then a plural is simply "Those are my boys". <A> I don't think any sprachgefühl is lost when you make it plural. <S> I can't say I've heard someone exclaim " <S> those are my boys <S> " as much I have heard "that's my boy. <S> " I think the feeling that is usually conveyed by this expression is one of boastfullness. <S> Is that the sprachgefühl you were going for? <S> By the way, sprachgefühl is a very cool word--thanks for introducing it to me. <S> I'm going to have to integrate it into my lexicon. <A> I think it worth mentioning that this particular idiom is paralleled, at my guess is preceeded by, " attaboy ". <S> This, in turn is from Titus Andronicus saying, "That's my boy" as a reference to his son. <S> In that context, it would probably be more accurate to say that the plural is <S> " that's my boys. <S> " <S> That said, the common modern (American?) <S> plural is either "Those're my boys!" <S> or "Them's my [or me] boys". <S> Strictly speaking, though, when you move from singular to plural, the original would have been, "that's my boys" or perhaps, "there're my boys". <S> Again, though, in SAE, "Those're my boys! <S> " is a perfectly acceptable plural. <A> If you're telling someone that the young men in question are your children, then "Those are my boys" sounds right to my Midwestern ear. <S> If you're telling someone that you are proud of the achievement(s) or accomplishment(s) of these young men then "That's my boys!" would sound right. <S> If addressing the young men directly, though, I'd probably use "Good job, boys!". <A> "That's my boy! <S> is an expression probably loved as much at the boy himself. <S> Learn it, love it and keep it in your armoury of English idioms to be used at some precious moment. <S> You modify these things at your peril. <S> So the answer is "no". <S> -But <S> I bet some of the smart people on Stack Exchange can come up with something you mean -but using entirely different words.
| Alas, there is no a plural of this phrase that preserves the sprachgefühl.
|
Out Of The Office, Outside The Office A question about some phrases using "office": out of office out of the office outside the office Do they mean the same thing? <Q> Out of the office: This means "on vacation". <S> Example: I will be out of the office until January 2. <S> Please leave me a voicemail. <S> Outside the office: <S> This refers to an area just outside the room. <S> Example: <S> A long queue formed outside the office after the computer system became unresponsive. <S> By extension, it might also be used metaphorically to mean "while not at work": <S> John only shows his sense of humour outside the office. <S> Out of office: This is a completely different meaning of office : an elected or appointed government position. <S> After a series of unpopular decisions, the entire board of education was voted out of office. <A> out of office doesn't make sense by itself. <S> Since you are referring to specific office that is countable, an article is needed, as in example 2. <S> It works with uncountable nouns though, for example: <S> I am out of coffee. <S> next out of the office <S> This is normally used, as in: <S> I am out of the office until Friday. <S> Basically you are away from your workplace. <S> And finally outside the office <S> This refers to a physical location in relation to the office, as in: There is parking outside the office . <A> Out of office/ <S> Out of the office - Usually used as a communication in office mails to say that the person is away. <S> For ex. <S> I am out of office till Monday. <S> I’ll address your query when I’m back. <S> Outside the office means that the person is just near the entrance or in the vicinity
| You could use outside of here with basically the same meaning.
|
Inversion in condition clauses For instance: Had I continued to advance in the field of science, especially in my linguistic knowledge and computer skills, I would have become an unrivaled pioneer in that field. Hi again I know the sentence above is a conditional sentence. I am wondering which kind of conditional sentences or in which situation can be inverted such above. I would appreciate it very much if you could elaborate your explanations or give me some source about this case. Many thanks <Q> ⇨ <S> Had I continued to advance ... <S> The use is very similar to subject/auxiliary inversion with questions, but much more limited. <S> Nowadays you may invert only a small number of verbs, and these only in the ‘subjunctive’ past forms: had , <S> were , <S> should and could . <S> If I should continue to advance ... <S> ⇨ <S> ok <S> Should I continue to advance ... <S> If I were to continue to advance ... <S> ⇨ <S> ok Were I to continue to advance ... <S> Inversion with other auxiliaries was common at one time—down to the early years of the 20th Century—but is no longer permitted, unless you are deliberately emulating old-fashioned speech: <S> If I might suggest that ... ⇨ <S> ∗ <S> Might I suggest that ... <S> Could is borderline: you will still encounter <S> Could I for <S> If I could , but this use is rapidly vanishing. <S> Just as with questions, were <S> may be inverted even if it is used as a lexical (non-auxiliary) verb: <S> If I were a rich man ... <S> ⇨ <S> ok Were I <S> a rich man... <S> But inversion of lexical HAVE (that is, non-auxiliary HAVE ), although it was common down to the early part of the 20th Century, is no longer permitted unless you are deliberately evoking old use: <S> If I had a hammer ... <S> ⇨ <S> ∗ Had I a hammer ... Inverted had , were and could are understood as irrealis (unreal) or counterfactual in mode. <S> Should , however, has realis, indicative (albeit tentative) significance, just as it does in uninverted position: <S> If I go to town I will bring you back a present. <S> If I should go to town I will bring you back a present. <S> Should I go to town <S> I will bring you back a present. <S> All of these inverted constructions are markedly formal. <S> They are rarely encountered in conversation, and they are never obligatory. <S> You may omit them entirely from your speech and writing, in all registers, and they will never be missed. <A> Putting the condition first, as in the example you provided, serves to place more emphasis on the condition than the independent clause, which may be important for the overall impression you're trying to make. <S> I think it is mainly a matter of style whether you choose to do this or not. <S> Within the greater context of the piece you're writing, inverting conditional sentences like this can also serve to break up the pattern of repeatedly using the un-inverted (I would..., had I) form. <A> Your example is of an unreal past condition (third conditional): <S> If I had continued ... ---- <S> Had I continued ... <S> Inversions like this might occur in formal or literary styles, with unreal conditionals. <S> You can see examples on p. 457 of The Teacher's Grammar of English with Answers: <S> A Course Book and Reference Guide and on p. 9 of Inversion Written and Spoken Contemporary English . <S> You can omit "if" and then invert the subject and "had" or "were". <S> Third conditional sentences can always be inverted because the auxiliary "had" can be placed at the beginning. <S> The inversion in the second conditional is also possible but there are two cases: 1) when the verb in the if-clause if "to be". <S> Then we invert the verb and subject: <S> Were I in your place, I would do exactly as you have done . <S> (Were I --- <S> If I were) 2) <S> when there is a different verb. <S> Then the inversion is not possible. <S> We can use "was/were ... to ...": <S> Were I to live another 10 years, I would be 95. <S> (Were I to live --- <S> If I lived) <S> You can also omit "if" both with real and unreal conditionals if you use "should", but this is a different case, there is no inversion of the verb and subject.
| The inversion you are speaking of is subject/auxiliary inversion, with deletion of if , in the condition clauses of conditional constructions: If I had continued to advance ...
|
Difference between 'Go to a movie' and 'Go for a movie' I've googled go for a movie and I think that it is as same as go to a movie but it is less used. What is the difference in these two? <Q> Go has different meanings. <S> (1) Go to a movie. <S> Definition 2 : to move or travel, especially with someone else, to a particular place or in order to be present at an event <S> The idea of travel is included. <S> Other verbs-of-motion can be substituted: walk to a movie; swim to a movie; run to a movie; roller skate to a movie; hop on one leg to a movie; crawl to a movie. <S> (2) Go for a movie. <S> Idiom: to choose to attend something How about going for a movie? <S> equals How about choosing to attend a movie? <S> (Note: <S> this does not mean How about choosing a particular movie to attend.) <S> How about going for a fashion show? <S> equals How about choosing to attend (go to) <S> a fashion show? <S> Other verbs-of-motion may not be substituted: <S> *walk for a movie; <S> *swim for a movie; *crawl for a movie From <S> The Great Gatsby : <S> Jordan suggests they go for a movie as Daisy signals them to pull alongside the coupé. <S> She asks where they should go and Jordan again suggests the movies. <S> This is also not the same usage as such common phrases as: go for a drive; go for a walk; go for a drink; go for a swim While you can change them to: <S> go driving; <S> go walking; <S> go drinking; go swimming <S> but you can't really say go movieing <A> I'd like to discuss another possible context that hasn't been mentioned. " <S> Go to a movie" is so much more popular because it is the standard way of saying you are seeing a movie. <S> For example, "I'm going to (go see) a movie tonight. <S> " You would never say "I'm going for a movie tonight." <S> So, when and why do we use "Go for a movie"? <S> There's a phrase in English to express a desire for something: "I could go for X." <S> For example: <S> "I could really go for an ice cream right now. <S> " or "I could go for a nap." <S> This means, <S> X sounds really good to me right now. <S> I would imagine "Go for a movie" being used in the following context: <S> "What do you want to do tonight?" <S> "I could go for a movie." <S> This is actually the only situation in which I can imagine using "Go for a movie." <S> Another answer mentions the question "How about going for a movie? <S> " I don't think this is wrong, but I've never heard before. <A> I would rather avoid saying "go for a movie" if you are suggesting to someone <S> let's "watch a movie". <S> But when asked where are you heading off to, to say I am "going to a movie" is appropriate. <S> It infers I am heading to watch a movie.
| go for a movie = choose to go to a movie, instead of something esle
|
What does "hang the sense of it" mean? I'm reading the marvelous book "The Hitchhiker's Guide of the Galaxy" and I've found what it seems to be a famous quote: "The chances of finding out what's really going on in the universe are so remote, the only thing to do is to say 'hang the sense of it' and keep yourself occupied … " I was looking around and I found an alternate version that drops the 'to say' and I wonder if that makes any difference: "The chances of finding out what's really going on in the universe are so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied … " Because of the huge success of the book I couldn't google my way to any explanation of the phrase. My mother language is Spanish, if that helps. <Q> I've never heard that expression before. <S> I read the book a long time and don't remember what the context of that sentence. <S> However, "hang the sense of it" is not a common idiom in English <S> is an idiom in English at all. <S> My impression is, given that the source of the expression if The Hitchhikers Guide, the expression is likely made up. <S> The way I interpret it, though, is to mean that, given that "the chances of finding out what's really going in the universe are do remote," it's not worth trying to find out. <A> There is a kind of colloquial expression that I believe is British (not any of the American dialects I speak or know) is something like "hang it all." <S> Short answer: <S> it means "forget that person," "forget that idea," essentially because it is not worthy of consideration. <S> Long answer: " <S> To hang someone" is to kill another human being under government sanction as a form of punishment generally terms an "execution" for committing a crime that the government deems worthy of death. <S> Also, in many stories from or during the period of the 19th and early 20th centuries, it wasn't uncommon for a group of self-proclaimed law-keepers--say a "posse," or a gang of Fascists, like the Ku Klux Klan, to deem a person worthy of such a punishment as well. <S> We might feel contempt for a person who is worthy of such a crime. <S> By extension, we might feel contempt for anything. <S> So, we might say, "Hang them. <S> " It more or less carries the connotation that those people are not important or are worthy of contempt. <S> Joe: <S> "We need to get back. <S> Baker's going to be angry. <S> "Bill: <S> "Hang Baker. <S> I'm going to get dessert." <A> I'm not familiar with the idiom "hang the sense of it" either. <S> Building on what Mark & Obfuskater said, I think rephrasing the quote might clarify it a bit (though I think the original is much better). <S> e.g. <S> - The chances of MAKING SENSE of what's really going on in the universe <S> are so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied. <S> So, in other words, stop worrying about the why and instead just live your life. <S> Reminds me of my reaction to an acquaintance who spent a lot of time seeking proof of life after death and even publishing on the subject. <S> My unexpressed attitude was why bother seeking proof - we'll all find out soon enough if there is, so why spend precious time on the subject, especially if it turns out that there isn't? … <A> From Oxford Living Dictionaries : <S> hang ... <S> 2.2 <S> dated Used in expressions as a mild oath. <S> From Collins : <S> hang ... <S> v. 15. <S> slang to damn or be damned: <S> used in mild curses or interjections From Longman : <S> hang something British English, old-fashioned used to say that you are not going to do something: <S> Oh hang the report, let’s go for a drink. <S> , i.e. no point in spending time trying to work out what it all means.
| "Hang the sense of it" can be paraphrased as "to hell with the sense of it" or "never mind the sense of it"
|
What is the best way to describe "fixed, routine gag" by comedians? I think every comedian has "the fixed patterns of actions or lines" or "the routine way of getting a laugh", which are repeated many times. What is the normal way to call them? Basically I want to say "Doing something is someone's famous _____." or "This line is known as a _____ to English-speaking people.", and I need a phrase that fits here. My research yielded several candidates: "shtick", "formula", "gag routine", "signature gag", etc., but I have no idea about the nuances. In particular, the word "shtick" seems good according to this Wikipedia article , but this term is new to me. Googling shtick basically lists the definitions in many online dictionaries and glossaries, rather than the actual occasions of this word in news headlines, etc., which gave me the impression that this word is used rather infrequently. <Q> A schtick refers to a comedian's style and choice of topics in general, and could include facial expressions or actions as well as words or style of delivery. <S> It doesn't refer to a specific gag that is repeated often (although a repeated gag might be part of a comedian's schtick). <S> It also often distinguishes a comedian's on-stage role from their actual personality: <S> Gracie Allen typically played a dingbat character, but that was just her schtick. <S> In real life she was an exceptionally intelligent person. <S> A running gag is a joke that is repeated in a given work (book, film, tv show, etc.) or series of works. <S> It's not necessarily spoken by the same actor at each occurrence. <S> "gag routine"(*) is not a commonly used idiom in English. <S> , it's just two words used together that mean what you want. <S> However, the phrase is "signature line" is probably more common than "signature gag". <S> For example, "Take my wife, ... please" is Henny Youngman's signature gag [or signature line ]. <S> A catchphrase is another related term, meaning a particular phrase used by a performer (not necessarily a comedian) throughout their career. <S> This could include Henny Youngman's "Take my wife," or John Wayne's calling people "pilgrim". <S> (Thanks @JoeSteele) <A> A 'bit' would be another synonym I haven't seen mentioned yet (in the US at least). <A> I think the word you're looking for is "bit." <S> "John Pinnette was most famous for his Chinese buffet bit." <S> "Jim Gaffigan's Hot Pockets bit always cracks me up. <S> " <S> I was hoping that comedian would give us an interview, but instead of serious answers, he kept doing his bits.
| A signature gag would be immediately understood to have the meaning you suggest, but it isn't an idiomatic phrase
|
A word for ''Try to solve some difficult problem once more'' Is there in english a word connotating the idea ''try to tackle a difficult problem once more''? The word I want has meaning more than simply ''try again''. Much appreciated! <Q> I am not sure about a single word, but some phrases you could use: Make another attempt. <S> Work harder to solve ... <S> Informally: <S> Take another stab at it. <A> I would like to suggest the phrase "to reengage the problem." <A> How about persevere : to continue doing something or trying to do something even though it is difficult ( Merriam-Webster Online ) <S> Note that persevere can also be used for continuous successful (but difficult) action, rather than just repeated unsuccessful attempts, but I would say it definitely meets your needs. <A> I've just heard this expression at BBC Radio 4: <S> To have a second bite at the cherry To emphasize the hardness of the task, one may add an adjective before cherry , such as tough, hard . <S> Let's have a second bite at this tough cherry. <S> Or, to substitue the word cherry with something a bit tougher. <S> Let's have a second bite at this hard nut, hope it will crack this time. <S> P.S. <S> Personally I like Obfuskater's reengage <S> : the word has military connotations ("engage the enemy") and thus seems to imply hardness. <A> In English, we have a prefix to describe a verb as being retried Retry is the word you are looking for Other examples of using this prefix: <S> Re-learn Re-send Re-run (as in televison, or running cables) <S> Re-live
| Give it another go. Say, borrow from the idiom ' a hard nut to crack '.
|
'The Finale' or 'The Final' when it's NOT about a music event I know the word finale . Almost all dictionaries define this word as the final event of a musical event or competition. Say, the grand finale of American Idol. But then, can it be used for a sport event? Say football? The grand finale between Germany and Argentina? I read it on International Business Times , The Times of India , the USA Today and Orange News but frankly don't agree! :) The grand finale happens of some musical competition, quiz or the like. For sports, it should be 'The Final'. I'll be thankful if you all enlighten me on this. <Q> In this sense, finale is more of a colloquial term for any culminating event. <S> While, for example, the 'official' name might be the World Cup Final, it can still be a finale in general, or even the finale of the World Cup. <S> Note that the definition of finale doesn't specify it has to refer to music: <S> the last part of a piece of music, an entertainment, or a public event , especially when particularly dramatic or exciting. <A> There's nothing wrong with using "finale" to describe a culminating sporting event, though it's not musical, it is entertainment. <S> Using the term "final," on the other hand, stresses the competition between teams. <S> In the end, regardless of whether these nuances I've described are intended or not, it's just a matter of style and tone. <A> There is a definition of finale in the oed as follows: <S> The last scene or closing part of a drama or any other public entertainment. <S> So it's a correct usage of the word, since the world cup is a public entertainment. <S> I also agree with /u/user8543 that it is used colloquially for any culminating event. <S> Wiktionary says The grand end of something, especially a show or piece of music. <S> "Something" is vague enough to include the world cup final, or anything else, although it is rare for it to be used for anything other than a piece of entertainment. <S> For example, you could say My time at the company culminated in a grand finale when I told my boss "you have no idea how high I can fly". <S> But as I said, that is quite unusual and sounds a bit unnatural. <S> The "final" is the specific name of the last match in the world cup. <S> Since it is the culmination of this sporting event, one can say that the final is the finale of the world cup. <S> The World Cup Final is the finale of the World Cup. <S> When referring to the match specifically, you would call it "the final". <S> I wonder whether an England player will score in the final. <S> No, of course they won't, because England will never be in the final. <S> When referring to the end of the competition in general, you could call it the "finale". <S> Will the world cup have a spectacular finale, or will it end with a whimper? <A> Although I think this has been sufficiently answered above, I would add this: In sports <S> , it's the "final" because a tournament has multiple rounds of competition that need to be identified: qualifying, quarter-final, semi-final, final. <S> It's sort of a numerical distinction for equally spaced iterations within the larger event. <S> Both "final" and "finale" are "the end," but "final" is the last in a series of things. <S> An event doesn't have to be a series of sub-events in order to have a "finale" but it could: acts in a play, movements in a concerto, scenes in a movie, etc. <S> It could also just be "the end" of a short story or a one-act play - not a series. <S> A more abstract distinction is timing. <S> Many artistic performances follow an "arc" in energy and tone that almost always reaches a climax shortly before the end, and culminates in a (hopefully satisfying) "finale. <S> " It's easy to guess where the peaks & lulls will be. <S> This gives the "grand finale" an air of excitement, suspense, and eventually closure. <S> Ideally that happens in a sports tournament, but you can never tell. <S> The best game of a tournament may be in Round 1, with the Final being a boring disappointment. <S> "Final" then is sort of shorthand referring to the "final round" or "final stage" of a larger sequence. <S> You can't have a "final" without some preceding rounds, whereas you always have a "finale" as long as the event ends a some point. <A> First, as everyone said, from Merriam-Webster dictionary: fi·na·le noun \fə-ˈna-lē, fi-ˈnä-\ : the last part of something (such as a musical performance, play, etc.) <S> Full Definition of FINALE: the close or termination of something: as a : the last section of an instrumental musical composition b : the closing part, scene, or number in a public performance <S> c : the last and often climactic event or item in a sequence From definition (c) <S> , it becomes totally appropriate for a situation like a WC Final. <S> From Google books, here are some examples other than a musical event: <S> Dutch: <S> The Finale Revelation: God's Grand Finale <S> The Tragic Finale: <S> An Essay on the Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre Life's Finale: <S> Voluntary Exit <S> I hope these examples help you see that authors use it for other purposes.
| The term "finale" stresses the entertainment/performance nature of the event, of which spectators (the audience) are a part.
|
What is the difference between "event" and "incident"? "Leaving home was a major event in his life." Can I use "incident" instead of "event" in that sentence? Are they synonyms or not? <Q> An event is usually a planned thing. <S> Leaving home, a birth, a wedding, a party, those are generally considered events . <S> An incident is usually unplanned. <S> It is something that happens unexpectedly, and often there is a negative connotation. <S> For example, at a help desk, people register incidents , meaning that something happened (a bug, a problem, a system failure) that was not only unplanned, but also unwanted. <S> If you say that leaving home was an incident, you give the impression it happened by accident, and probably because something bad happened. <A> In this case, "event" and "incident" are not synonymous. " <S> Incident" has a common connotation of "accident" or "problem," which doesn't fit your sentence. <A> Incidents, on the other hand, are when something happens and it interrupts something else. <S> Events and Incidents are not mutually exclusive. <S> All incidents are events but not all events are incidents. <S> For example: "He got hit by a bus" is both an incident and an event but "He went downstairs" is only an event but not an incident. <S> However it also depends on the context of the situation. <S> For example in your case, "Leaving home" is an event on its own, but if "he" is not allowed to leave the house and "he" "leaves home" <S> then it becomes an incident.
| Events are when something happens that is (most of the time) unusual, whether planned or unplanned.
|
Gender neutral word for alumna/alumnus 1.I read in a grammar book that the gender neutral word for alumna/alumnus is "alum", but I couldn't find the word anywhere else.The word alum also means-a specific chemical compound.So is the usage of "alum" common enough for me to use it? 2.Can someone suggest me a gender neutral word for air hostess ? <Q> It is used more commonly than alumna or alumnus. <S> Alumni is the plural form. <S> "Flight attendant" is the appropriate gender-neutral term. <A> I never took Latin, but if I read it correctly, my dictionary seems to suggest "alumnum" as a neutral noun. <S> It came up when a friend who identifies as gender neutral wanted to use the plural "alumni. <S> " Thoughts? <A> There is no neuter (gender-neutral) form of the noun alumnus <S> /a, only masculine and feminine forms. <S> "Alumnus" is an individual male graduate and "alumna" is an individual female graduate. <S> A group of male graduates are "alumni," and a group of female graduates are "alumnae." <S> For a group of graduates comprised of both men and women (which is what I think the question is attempting to determine), the masculine plural "alumni" is used. <S> Hence, schools have alumni organizations, alumni events, etc. <S> There is no such word as "alum," although I've seen people use it. <S> The word probably started as someone's misguided effort to employ a gender-neutral term because he was unaware of the applicability of "alumni" to mixed-gender groups. <S> "Alumnum" is the neuter form of the adjective alumnus ("fostered" or "nurtured"), not the noun alumnus that is the focus of the question above.
| "Alum" is the singular, gender-neutral term for someone who has graduated from an educational institution.
|
Help me understand this quote: "There are two kinds of leaders, cowboys and shepherds. Cowboys drive and shepherds lead." I came across a quote by JP Warren There are two kinds of leaders, cowboys and shepherds. Cowboys drive and shepherds lead. Question 1: Why are cowboys called leaders in the very first clause because the later part of the quote don't prove them leaders. Question 2: If cowboys drive livestock, they lead them, don't they? And if shepherds lead livestock, they drive them, don't they? The meaning of lead and drive in this context is the same. Am I missing something? <Q> Maybe what's meant here is that cowboys lead from behind, compelling the cattle to go before them, while shepherds go ahead themselves, and their sheep go after, following their example. <S> Thus a cowboy leader will rely on harsh methods to compel other people to execute tasks, while a shepherd leader will rely predominantly on inspiration, not force. <A> Cowboys use intimidation and fear to get animals to go in the desired direction (think sharp cries, and the sound of whips cracking). <S> The cattle run in front of them. <S> Sheep follow behind their shepherd with a spirit of trust. <S> Lead and drive and not the same in this context. <S> One is done from the front, and the other is done from behind. <S> In the context of management styles, the quote is contrasting those who manage with a spirit of intimidation vs those who lead in a more gentler manner. <A> in addition to the other answers, boss of course is the cowboy and leader is the shepherd <A> Basically it illustrates the difference in two styles of leadership, one driving the team, using force, prodding, intimidation, another leading from the behind, not too high profile, but motivating the team to do well. <S> The Cowboy here is the high profile leader, who leads from the front, seeks to project himself on to the team. <S> His style is often authoritarian, in fact to the extent of pissing off his employees. <S> He gets his people to do things, using a mix of intimidation, force, domination. <S> He does not believe in hand holding, he believes in letting the team members take their own decisions, and giving guidance where necessary. <S> But at the same time, he ensures that ultimately individual interests are reconciled with team interests. <S> You rarely see the sheep going out of line, under the shepherd's guidance.
| The Shepherd on the other hand is more low key, he believes in guiding the team, allowing them to work at their own pace, giving them more freedom.
|
'Resonant frequency' or 'resonance frequency'? I have seen both 'resonant frequency' and 'resonance frequency' used in scientific literature. But which one, actually, is correct: 'resonant frequency' or 'resonance frequency'? <Q> Resonant frequency means a frequency which is deep clear and continuing to sound or reverberate. <S> Here resonant is an adjective and modify the noun frequency. <S> Resonance frequency means the value of a frequency when the resonance occurs. <S> Here the resonance is a noun and has an attributive relation with frequency. <A> As you noted yourself, both terms are in use (and actually yield similar amounts of Google hits). <S> However, in my eyes the term that should be used is 'resonance frequency', referring to the frequency at which resonance occurs. <S> 'Resonant frequency', i.e. the frequency at which something is resonant, strikes me as a very unusual structure <S> and I struggle to come up with examples following this concept. <S> See also: http://users.ece.gatech.edu/mleach/misc/resonance.html , an opinion pretty much mirroring my own. <S> As a native German speaker, I can add to that that in German the term is "Resonanzfrequenz" and not "resonante Frequenz", which, of course, boils down to the same discussion in the end. <A> Several answers have touched on this point, but I'll try to dive it home. <S> More likely, you mean to describe the frequency of resonance of some system. <S> That's why "resonance frequency" would be the better choice. <S> Never the less, "resonant frequency" is widely enough used to qualify as an idiom. <S> No one will think less of you for using it. <A> They both seem fine to me. <S> One of the meanings of resonant is simply "pertaining to resonance", so I don't see there is a problem describing a frequency as being resonant. <S> Personally I like resonant frequency more than resonance frequency . <S> It just sounds better to me, but that's just personal preference.
| The term resonant (adjective) frequency (noun) implies that it the frequency that is resonating. Both are correct but have different meanings.
|
Can 'come up to' be used in the context of a bill? Is the use of come up to correct in this context? We bought tons of stuff at X place. The whole bill came up to X dollars . I often see people (non natives) use come out in this situation: The whole set up came out to be Y dollars. Which of these two or both is correct idiomatic usage in this context? <Q> Come/came up to is not exactly wrong, but it isn't a commonly use phrase for talking about money in the way that come <S> /came to is. <A> I would use: <S> The whole bill came up to X dollars. <S> because on a bill you are adding up indiviual charges that add up to the total amount. <S> You could also say: The whole bill amounts/amounted to X dollars. <A> Both sentences are acceptable, though they have slightly different meanings. <S> Came up to <S> emphasizes the rising total, which eventually stopped rising when it reached X dollars. <S> Came out to be <S> expresses initial uncertainty about the bill, followed by the revelation that X dollars was the result.
| Usually you would just say "came to X dollars": come to ( preposition ) to amount to (a sum of money): your bill comes to four pounds ( dictionary.reference.com )
|
rump rebel organizations - "rump" used as an adjective Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/world/europe/obama-widens-sanctions-against-russia.html?_r=1 The administration also barred business dealings with eight state-owned defense firms; four Russian government officials, including an aide to Mr. Putin and a top official in the Federal Security Service; an oil shipping facility in Crimea, which Moscow annexed; a pro-Russian separatist leader; and the rump rebel organizations in the eastern Ukrainian cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. What is the meaning of the word rump when it's used as an adjective? I looked it up in a dictionary, but couldn't come to a conclusion on what it might mean as used in the example senetence. <Q> You are right in saying that rump here is "used as" an adjective : it has the place of the adjective and it qualifies the noun "organization". <S> But grammatically it is still a noun. <S> It is common to use a noun to qualify another noun, a few examples : a love story a family car a country house a guest house Nouns used as adjectives: are always singular except when these nouns are usually used in the plural like "clothes": <S> family houses <S> a clothes shop always come before the noun there may be more than one noun used to qualify another noun : a rump rebel organization <S> when several adjectives and nouns are used to qualify a noun, the adjectives are placed before the qualifying nouns in front of the qualified noun : a big old country house <S> The rump is the rear part of an animal. <S> In your quote it means the remaining part of whatever organizations existed before. <S> It was first used with that meaning in the Rump Parliament <A> Rump here means the small, unimportant remnants or left overs from something larger. <S> MW def. <S> 3 , <S> Oxford def. <S> 2 . <S> Rump steak works the same way grammatically; it means a cut of beef from the hindquarters of a cow. <S> Here the author is talking about groups which now don't have much or any major significance, and originally were notable rebel factions. <S> The rebel groups broke up, and now there are only small knots of them remaining. <A> The "rump" in reference to meat, is an "end" piece that's less desirable or "choice." <S> In 1939, when Hitler occupied the (modern) Czech Republic and left the remainder, Slovakia, nominally independent, Slovakia was referred to as a "rump" state.
| Rump rebel organizations is a compound noun phrase, lumping all the words together to form a single idea.
|
all you need to do is figure out - if "figure out" is changed to "to figure out", how does the meaning change? Like most programming problems, if you understand the logic behind what you’re trying to accomplish, all you need to do is figure out a way of representing that logic with programming code. So let’s think for a moment about the problem we have to solve. How would the meaning of the sentence change if figure out was changed to to figure out ? <Q> Both forms are correct, and they mean the same thing. <S> The form without the "to" is more common. <S> (I did a search in the COCA corpus. <S> The form without the "to" is six times more common.) <A> to-infinitives and bare infinitives . <S> The use of one form or the other is generally determined by the verb controlling the infinitive clause. <S> Typical examples of a verb requiring the use of a to-infinitive are: <S> I want to go home. <S> I need to go home. <S> Other verbs admit both to-infinitives or bare infinitives , e.g.: <S> I will help <S> you go home. <S> I will help <S> you to go home. <S> Auxiliary and most modal verbs don't admit a to-infinitive , e.g.: <S> I did go home. <S> I will go home. <S> I should go home. <S> I needn't say anything. <S> I need go home. <S> (rare) <S> A few modal verbs demand a to-infinitive , e.g.: <S> I was unable to go home. <S> I ought to go home. <S> The lexical verb need to and the modal verb need/ <S> needn't <S> are an interesting case. <S> Note that whereas need/needn't doesn't admit a to-infinitive , need to demands it. <S> As a consequence, it is possible to find both: <S> I need to go home. <S> (common) <S> I need go home. <S> (rare) <S> A search in Google's n-gram viewer reveals that the use of need + bare-infinitive <S> is rare. <S> The example in this question: <S> [...] all you need to do <S> is figure out a way [...] <S> is compounded by the use of two verbs, need that usually takes a to-infinitive and do that takes a bare infinitive . <S> Based on the above arguments, one would expect the following uses: <S> all you need is to figure out a way <S> all you need to do is figure out a way <S> However, another search in Google's n-gram viewer reveals that the following alternative, although rare, is also possible: <S> all you need to do is to figure out a way <A> Actually, using to in front of figure out would be correct and acceptable, but unnecessary, since figure out here is governed by the first to . <S> In a sentence without the first to , you would have to supply it: <S> All you need is to figure out... Since it would be incorrect to say: All you need is figure out , we know that to is not optional in your sentence - it is required, and present, supplied by the first to . <S> However it can be restated with no change in meaning. <A> As Dangph says, both forms mean the say thing. <S> I would say these represent stylistic options. <S> However, the beginning of the next sentence "So let's think..." makes reveals that the tone of the paragraph is meant to sound informal.
| There is no difference in meaning between Using "to figure out" gives the sentence a more formal and precise tone to it.
|
Is added or has been added What is right way to write or speak? I am a developer and want to add message to my application once the record has been added to the database. So I am confused about the right way to write/speak the message. The record is added or The record has been added <Q> Another possibility is to simply say it like this: Record added. <S> That's short for "[The] record [has been / was] added. <S> " <S> You will see that sort of thing all the time in software. <S> Message sent. <S> File deleted. <S> Users don't like to read a lot of text. <S> It's good to get straight to the point with them. <A> " Both sentences would then be correct. <S> But, for a software application, "the record has been added" sounds better to me. <A> I usually prefer "Record added successfully ", especially with databases. <S> The reason for this is because there might be access restrictions causing the record to be revoked ("no permission").
| "The record is added" is incorrect--it should be "the record was added.
|
The month starts to..? I don't know if is correct to use "the month" with "starts". Is correct to use "to" Store or is "at" better? Here below the phrase: The month of the Special Summer starts to Archivio Dondup! Note: Archivio Dondup is the name of a store. <Q> Given that you have a store name, the sentence would be: <S> The summer starts at Archivio Dondup! <S> Which would imply that the store is having a summer sale or a stock full of summer products. <S> The preposition to would indicate a movement to the store and is therefore wrong. <S> at really means inside the store, i.e. at the store's location. <S> Alternatively, you could use something like the following: Get ready for the summer with Archivio Dondup's super summer sale! <A> As @Ijacqu says, you wouldn't say "the summer starts to ..." "To" indicates direction or movement, and the summer isn't going anywhere. <S> Also, "starts" doesn't take a direction. <S> It is fairly common to say that something "starts at ... <S> " This is the first place where the event will happen or where it begins. <S> You could mean this literally, like, "Summer starts at the international date line at midnight on the summer solstice." <S> Or in this case, figuratively, you must go to this store as the first step in enjoying your summer. <S> You can also say "starts with ...", meaning that you need to do this thing or have this thing to start. <S> Again, it could be literal, like "The engine starts with the press of the start button." <S> Or figurative, "Summer starts with [our store]", meaning, our store is what you need to begin your summer, or where you go to begin your summer. <S> I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the word "month". <S> That's grammatically correct, but I don't know what idea it would be intended to convey. <S> What month? <S> What is significant about the beginning of the month? <S> It certainly could make sense in a totally different context. <S> Like, "At our company, the month starts with an inventory count." <A> Yes, you can use the article <S> the with month , <S> but your sentence raises a lot of questions. <S> Is "Special Summer" the formal name of an event? <S> (The capital letters make it appear that way, like it's the name of an established summer sale.) <S> If Special Summer is not a proper noun, I would suggest this: <S> The month of summer specials starts at Archivio Dondup! <S> If Special Summer is a proper noun, then perhaps there are better ways to write this: <S> The month-long Special Summer starts at Archivio Dondup! <S> Also, in English, a season (such as summer ) can be used adjectivally: <S> A month of summer specials begins at Archivio Dondup! <S> In this case, I prefer <S> a to the , although using the would not be grammatically incorrect. <S> (Using <S> the instead of a would suggest that you expect the readers to be familiar with the summer specials at this store, either from past years, or else from a preceding advertising blitz.)
| You could say, "The month starts at [our store]". (Yes, at is the correct preposition to use).
|
What is a word or an idiom for "an act that makes alive something inanimate"? I am seeking after either a word or a phrase or an idiom to convey that an act brings alive something inanimate. Is there such thing in English? Much appreciated for every suggestion. I think about another closely related question: How to describe in a word or in an idiom that a stroke, when added on an animal drawn on a painting, makes the animal more vivid? <Q> As in <S> He casts the spell to animate the dead <S> Or The chains animated, swinging around to attack their terrified victim <S> There are a number of other phrases that might apply such as "bring to life", "vitalize", etc. <S> There are also a number that would apply only to bringing back to life something that was previously alive such as "revive", "resurrect", etc <A> There's a famous Christmas song that uses this wording: <S> Frosty the Snowman, is a fairytale, they say. <S> He was made of snow, but the children know he came to life one day. <S> There must have been some magic in that old silk hat they found <S> For when they placed it on his head, he began to dance around! <S> The phrase is also used (albeit as a pun) in this headline : Bringing Frankenstein to Life <A> You've gotten lots of verbs and phrases that act as verbs, but your question asked about a word for the act. <S> The act is vivification . <S> This is a rarely used word but it is the correct word ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vivify ) For example. <S> He vivified the puppet. <A> The word galvanize came to my mind. <S> It seems to often take as its object the noun corpse and seems to apply predominantly to (dead) biological objects. <S> From a "galvanize * corpse" search at Google Books: <S> Now within our own time there arose an unfortunate fuss which threatened (as Mr. Turnbull would say) to galvanize the corpse of Christianity into a fictitious life—the alleged case of a Highland eccentric who wanted to fight for the Virgin. <S> (Chesterton) <S> Note that the life produced by galvanization is fictitious, not full-fledged. <S> The same aspect is stressed in the following quote: Madame Rachel can only galvanize the corpse, not revivify it. <S> Ancient French tragedy, red-heeled, patched, and be-peri- <S> wigged <S> , lies in the grave; and it is only the ghost of it that we see, which the fair Jewess has raised. <S> (Thackeray, Paris Sketch Book ) <S> Here we've struck upon another verb: to revivify . <S> Also partially useful for your purpose: it applies only to objects that were initially alive. <S> You cannot revivify a broomstick or a brickbat. <S> I guess that you cannot galvanize them either. <S> But at least you can revivify a body to a real, not make-believe, life. <S> There's another word: to vitalize . <S> An example of usage: <S> The power of God vitalized the world to the extent that his spirit infused life into dead matter. <S> This word seems be closer in its meaning to something like "infuse with life power". <S> Thus, "I used a magic spell to vitalize <S> my toy soldiers" might seem a bit strange. <S> Per Dangph's note, there's also the verb vivify . <S> Also close to "infuse with vital power", also used in high-style sentences. <S> Tappert also makes some interesting comments on the tempo rubato with which Wagner vivified the Ninth Symphony.. <A> Breathe Life into. <S> This is a well-used idiom for bringing life to ... 'inspiring' also means to bring life to ... <A> The word "personify" might fit your needs. <S> It means to attribute human-like qualities to something.
| One phrase that's often used is bring to life (or come to life ). The simplest answer is "animate".
|
Lewis Carroll is confusing me I was skimming through "Information Security" by Mark Stamp. Each chapter has some weird (but, nice) quote. Today, I came across something inconceivable . It said, "... if you'd like it, put more simply - Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." - Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland) I don't understand how that's simple. Is there a better way to grasp this horror ? <Q> It's a joke. <S> In the original this reads (the emphasis is mine, not Carroll's): <S> I quite agree with you. <S> And the moral of that is: Be what you would seem to be , or if you'd like it put more simply: <S> Lewis Carroll was by profession a mathematician and student of logic, and was very fond of incorporating logical puzzles and allusions into his works. <S> Here he is poking fun at the very subtle and complicated forms into which a logician has to cast apparently ‘simple’ natural-language utterances in order to deal with strict logical meaning. <S> Real Linguists, too, are frequently compelled to express themselves this way; but their tongues are not usually in their cheeks. <S> There are amusing discussions of this passage here and here and here . <A> It's true that the sentence could be mind-boggling at first, but my opinion is that the sentence is not difficult , but it's structurally complicated . <S> It's not difficult in the sense that it has any difficult words or phrases. <S> (The use of otherwise than could be a bit unfamiliar, though.) <S> What really makes it difficult is its syntax. <S> To understand my point, consider this shorter example: <S> The rat the cat the dog chased chased ran away. <S> It's a rather short sentence, and it has only plain words--no difficult phrase or idiom, but it should make you think a little to understand its meaning. <S> (Hint: The rat that the cat chased ran away. ) <S> This answer wants to show you that we can understand the sentence straightforwardly. <S> But first, let's simplify the sentence a little with a few simple substitutions: ORIGINAL: <S> Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise. <S> SIMPLIFIED: <S> Never imagine yourself to be anything else but what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not different from what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise (which wouldn't be what you had been) . <S> Here is its structure: <S> Never imagine yourself to be [ anything else but <S> [ what it might appear to others that [ [ what you were or might have been ] was not different from [ [ what you had been ] would have appeared to them to be otherwise ( which wouldn't be [ what you had been ] ) ] ] ]] <S> or in exact words according to original text: Never imagine yourself to be [ otherwise than [ what it might appear to others that [ [ what you were or might have been ] was not otherwise than [ [ what you had been ] would have appeared to them to be otherwise ] ] ]] <S> I hope that the meaning of the sentence should now be self-evident. <A> The sentence itself is actually grammatically sound, it's just that he applies a kind of enthymematic structure to his grammar which makes it appear more complicated than it is and as though it were flawed. <S> The original sentence is as follows: "...never imagine yourself to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." <S> Now, the first confusing bit is "... or might have been was not... <S> "The second confusing bit is "... than what <S> you had been would have appeared..." <S> Having recognized these two bits, slightly rephrasing these two peculiarities and altering some of the syntax will lead to a clearer sentence. <S> Viz. <S> , "Never imagine yourself to be other than what it might appear to others that you were or might have been <S> were you not other than what you would have been had <S> you appeared to them, otherwise, to be. <S> " <S> This can be simplified in a way which retains the same meaning. <S> Viz. <S> , "Always imagine yourself to be as to others you appear; never imagine how you might appear otherwise."
| Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.
|
How do we understand "Being a fan is better with friends."? Being a fan is better with friends. This is from a Facebook ads: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152894408351729 It seems to be a slogan. Literally I have a feeling that it's saying "It's better to be a fan rather than be with friends"... But I don't think that's what Facebook would say So how should I understand it? Thanks, <Q> X is Y with Z <S> means that adding Z to X will make X become Y. <A> Don't confuse better with and better than . <S> They mean very different things. <S> These two sentences have very different meanings: <S> Being a fan is better than [having] friends. <S> Being a fan is better with friends. <S> An example of better with : Potatoes taste better with salt. <S> That is, if you add salt to potatoes, they will taste better. <A> Being a fan is better with friends. <S> As an example, lets say you are going to a pro baseball game or another sporting event where your favorite team is playing. <S> You are a fan of the team, and hope they win. <S> You also want to have a fun time watching the game. <S> Sure, you could still likely enjoy the game if you went alone, but if you brought friends with you, you'd likely have a better time, than just being by yourself.
| It's saying "your experience of being a fan will be enhanced or improved if you have friends with you (while you are being a fan)".
|
Meaning and the position of "all" in a sentence All my friends answered my questions in the class yesterday. Every one of my friends answered my questions... My friends all answered my questions in the class yesterday. Each one answered my questions... My friends answered all my questions in the class yesterday. Every one of my questions was answered by my friends... My friends answered my questions all in the class yesterday. Not acceptable English. My friends answered my questions in the class all yesterday. My friends answered my questions all day, yesterday. Do you agree with these? I am confused with the fourth one. <Q> Actually, the fourth is acceptable. <S> The first, second, third, and fifth make perfect sense, as you've described in italics,but the fourth is actually acceptable english. <S> The first one implies that each and every one of your friends went and answered your questions, whereas the second implies that a group of friends are present, and that they are all answering your questions. <S> The third is exactly as you've described. <S> The fourth one is acceptable english, and it implies that your friends (that are present) answered your questions in and only in the class today. <S> For example, I ate my cookies all in one hour. <S> means that I ate my cookies in not two or three hours, but in one hour. <S> This implies that you ate quickly, finishing them in one hour and not anything else. <S> I ate my cookies in one hour. <S> This sentence, on the other and, doesn't imply anything, it just tells the reader that I ate all in one hour, not mentioning anything about the speed that you ate it. <S> so the fourth sentence: <S> My friends answered my questions all in the class yesterday. <S> implies that your friends answered your questions in only the class yesterday, and not the class 2 days ago, or the class today. <S> Whenever you put 'all' between the object and 'in,' it will always allow the reader to infer that the action being done by the subject is hard to accomplish in the given time. <A> Check out these sentences: <S> The new system only confused <S> the PA -It did nothing other than confusing her Only the new system confused the PA -It's the new system, the old one did not confuse her <S> The new system confused the only PA -there is only one PA in the office <S> In some way, only and all in this context are the same. <S> I mean, the meaning of the sentence changes depending upon the placement of those magical words . <S> Here, these words apply to the word following it. <S> This is quite clear from the above mentioned sentences. <S> A similar magic word 'all' in your question also works in the same way. <S> It depends on the following word that comes after it. <S> And, it changes the sentences accordingly. <S> I may not agree with Pyraminx that only the fourth one is acceptable. <S> To me, all sentences make sense. <S> It's just the placement of the word 'all' (like 'only') <S> that confuses us. <S> I think you have pretty well understood the nuance. <S> All my friends answered my questions in the class yesterday <S> -'All' <S> followed by my friends <S> so you are emphasizing on <S> "every one of my friends answered my questions..." <S> My friends all answered my questions in the class yesterday -'All' <S> followed by 'answered' which means the emphasis is on everyone answered your questions... <S> My friends answered all my questions in the class yesterday -'All' followed by your questions that means they might not have answered anyone else's questions. <S> This sounds okay as well. <S> They answered all in the class, not outside! <S> And finally... <S> My friends answered my questions in the class all yesterday - 'All' followed by 'yesterday'. <S> As you guessed it correctly, your friends answered your questions all day, yesterday. <A> All my friends answered my questions in the class yesterday. <S> All the friends you have, in your class, answered your questions. <S> My friends all answered my questions in the class yesterday. <S> Some friends of yours (not necessarily all of them, but multiple), answer <S> all the the questions you asked. <S> My friends answered my questions all in the class yesterday. <S> The 'all' is largely unnecessary here as it doesn't pertain to anything. <S> It's confusing two sentences, "My friends were all in the class yesterday" and "My friends answered my questions". <S> It would make more sense as "My friends answered my questions, all of which were in the class yesterday." <S> My friends answered my questions in the class all yesterday. <S> This is poor English, it's passable in a colloquial setting. <S> It should be 'all day' or 'all of'.
| The position of all in a sentence largely infers what 'All' of something you have. My friends answered my questions all in the class yesterday -'All' followed by in the class. This sentence is incorrect/awkward English.
|
Correct use of 'at all' after a verb I don't know how to use the expression ' at all ' correctly.Please, which of the following two sentences is correct? There are people who do not believe in gender equality at all . There are people who do not believe at all in gender equality. Thanks in advance for your help. <Q> At all is an intensifier for certain types of Negative Polarity Items . <S> As long as it is commanded by the negative trigger, it can be niched practically anywhere any other adverb could go in the sentence. <S> There are a lot of niches, and even more kinds of adverbs . <S> Concentrate on making sure you understand negation and negative polarity items before you worry about unimportant variation like where you put an adverb. <S> Nobody cares as long as you put it in a niche. <A> In this case "at all" is being used adverbially. <S> In English, there are three positions for adverbs. <S> The "mid position" (between the verb and the object) is one of them, but only for certain adverbs - "at all" is not one of them. <A> As Carlster indicated, adverbials in English can be placed in the initial position, the mid position as well as the end position. <S> The initial position is not available for at all because that is reserved for time or comment adverbials, so you have correctly isolated the two possibilities. <S> I would say that the end position is the default position for at all , as indicated by Fumble Finger's figures for not believe (at all) in God (at all) in the comment above: an overwhelming majority of at all being in end position. <S> The use of the mid-position adverbial in your second sentence makes it much more strongly emphatic than your first sentence.
| In your case the first variant (with "at all" at the end) would be the correct one.
|
how should I ask a barber for a bald haircut I want to ask my barber to make my hair bald. Which one is correct? I want to go bald Bald haircut by bald, I dont mean completely bald. I want to keep little bit of hair. would this be fine "take it all off, close to very short" <Q> Neither! <S> Going bald refers only to the natural loss of hair (although your barber would certainly understand you). <S> Say "take it all off, leave nothing." <S> Or "I want a buzz cut." <A> I would call that a shaved head . <S> You might request this as <S> I would like my head shaved, please. <S> The barber would cut off as much hair as possible with clippers, and then use a razor to shave off the remaining stubble. <S> You will then have only the smooth skin on top of your head, but you need to maintain it regularly. <S> Then, you will appear to be bald, but you will not actually be bald. <A> I said, "Take it all off and razor shave me smooth". <S> My lady barber did just that. <S> She used the clippers to bulk cut my hair to a stubble, then razor shaved my head totally smooth. <A> When I asked my barber to ' take it all off ' he shrugged ran the bare clippers ( No guard) from forehead to crown three times then said ' short enough, or do you want The razor? ' <A> In the UK (and I think in America too), very short haircuts are done with clippers. <S> And you specify the length by a number. <S> "Number one" is a very short cut, 1/8 of an inch long (3mm) with scalp clearly visible. <S> If you want to have all your hair cut off, but not go completely bald <S> you would ask for "A number one, all over please". <S> Expect the barber to check a couple of times to make sure this is what you really want, especially if your hair is longer. <S> Longer clipped cuts are also possible, up to number 8 (one inch or 25mm). <S> And you can ask for "Number 5 on top and number 2 on the sides" for example. <S> A "Number 0" would be without any guard, or about 1/16 of an inch (1-2 mm) <S> Mens haircuts gives examples of the appearance of the various cuts
| Baldness is a state in which you cannot grow hair, while choosing to remove all your hair is called shaving your head.
|
About the idiom in Hindi (चुल्लू भर पानी में डूब जा) that literally translate 'Go, commit suicide"! There's an idiom in Hindi चुल्लू भर पानी में डूब जा This literally translates - go, die/commit suicide! The context where it is used - This phrase is always used in a sarcastic way advising someone to go, die or commit suicide because they could not perform at all in the field they master. Example - If I am a pro at the language English and if I cannot explain what is verb , you will say, "चुल्लू भर पानी में डूब जा". The closest phrase I can think of is Couldn't you explain what is verb? Shame on you. But this is much milder than the idiom in Hindi. What else it could be? Go, hang yourself? Is it valid and understood in the context? Any suggestions? <Q> Actually, I can think of a few a colloquial expressions used in this situation, at least in my neck of the woods: You want to be an English major and can't even explain what a verb is? <S> You may as well hang it up. <S> ... <S> meaning "You better forget about becoming an English major and pick another subject." <S> An English major who can't explain what a verb is? <S> Don't quit your day job. <S> ... <S> meaning "Don't quit your other job, because you won't make any money as an English major." <S> Some English major! <S> You can't even explain what a verb is! <S> ... <S> meaning <S> "And you claim to be an English major?..." <A> Although in Dutch it not uncommon to command someone to die (albeit in any way, suicide or not), I'm not familiar with that exact dismissal used in English (at least, idiomatically). <S> I am not sure about the register in which the Hindi expression is used, but if you are looking for something really blunt, you could tell someone to have carnal knowledge of oneself <S> (go fuck yourself). <S> Do not use this in any but the most informal situations - it is highly likely people will take offence! <A> There are a number of American idioms that suggest suicide, but they may be used in slightly different situations. <S> In the example you gave, of someone being bad at their job, an English speaker would probably not suggest suicide; instead, it would be idiomatic to say something like: <S> You ought to be ashamed of yourself. <S> or some of CocoPop's suggestions. <S> At a stretch, you might say: You really can't even define a verb? <S> You might as well just go kill yourself right now. <S> But this would be extremely rude to say to a stranger, and even said to a friend might be taken wrong. <S> On the other hand, in English, if someone is annoyed and wants another person to go away, he or she might say something like: <S> or Why don't you go take a flying leap? <S> Go jump off a cliff! <S> These are rude ways of telling someone to go away, that you don't want to see them again. <S> Because this is the way they are used in English, if you say something along these lines it will probably be interpreted as you telling the person you want them to leave and not come back, rather than as a criticism of their abilities. <A> About the idiom in Hindi <S> (चुल्लू भर पानी <S> में डूब जा) that literally translate 'Go, commit suicide"! <S> The English meme, dated January 27th, 2018, from Roblox is: " Go commit die ", but <S> it's use is noticed on Google Trends much earlier: <S> Other English expressions involving hanging oneself or walks on a short pier are not as close a one-to-one translation. <S> On Quora these translations are offered: <S> Hindi: ‘ <S> Chull bhar paani me doob mar’ English : ‘You should be ashamed of yourself’ “Go die” (imperative sentence) " <S> Drown yourself in handful of water” <S> The best fit is “shame on you”, “look at yourself” etc. <S> "... because they could not perform at all in the field they master." <S> Similar saying: Jack of all trades, master of none. <S> Meaning <S> : Describes a person whose knowledge, while covering a number of areas, is superficial in all of them. <S> A loser. <S> The Urban Dictionary seems to have support for " kill yourself " but the expression is so old that I'd forgotten it, perhaps some grandparents are using it; certainly not mine.
| Go take a long walk off a short pier!
|
What are you doing? If someone asks you what are you doing, can you answer what you are being done to? Example: Bob: What are you doing? Joe: I am being licked by my dog. Being is a verb, like is and are . Can I say the answer is logical, or " correct "? <Q> You can answer this question with any gerund (-ing), passive or active. <S> Your example is very good. <A> It might help to think of it as describing a state of being. <A> Yes, that is correct. <S> You can say: My dog is licking me. <S> Or, as in your example, you can say: I am being licked by my dog. <S> Both ways are correct. <S> The first one is in the "active voice". <S> The second one is in the "passive voice". <S> The difference is that the first one puts the emphasis on the dog, whereas the second one puts the emphasis on "me" (or "I" in the sentence). <S> You can look up "active voice" and "passive voice" if you want to know more.
| Yes, Joe's answer is logical and a natural way of expressing that his dog is licking him.
|
What is the difference between "do you like" and "would you like"? Do you like candy? Would you like some candy? Do you like walking? Would you like to go for a walk? What is the difference? And are they the same or not? Do they any use in different situations? <Q> Asking someone <S> do you like <S> is asking whether they like it, and asking them would <S> you like is offering it to them. <S> Here's how one would answer: <S> A <S> : Do you like candy? <S> B: <S> Yes, I like candy. <S> And: A <S> : Would you like some candy? <S> (Do you want some candy right now?) <S> B: <S> No thanks. <S> (Not now.) <A> They are not the same: <S> Do <S> you like <S> is used to ask if someone generally enjoys or is partial to something. <S> Would you like <S> is a politer way of asking "do you want" when offering something. <S> In English, as in many languages, the verb "want" is considered very direct, and the conditional serves to soften it a bit. <A> The other answers are not incorrect. <S> However, there are cases that can blur the lines between the two. <S> Consider the following instances: <S> Bob: Man, I'm starving. <S> Alice: Do you like pizza? <S> In this case, Alice is asking "do you like" but because Bob has already said he's looking to have some food, it is implied that Alice has some pizza to alleviate Bob's hunger. <S> This can also be unsolicited, such as Alice grabs plate of nachos and motions them towards Bob <S> Alice: Do you like nachos? <S> Here Alice still has something to offer Bob, using "Do you like". <S> There's a number of replies. <S> A simple "no" would be inappropriate: Bob should indicate whether he is stating he doesn't like nachos, or whether he just doesn't want any right now. <S> These are both technically incorrect on Alice's part. <S> (Get it together, Alice!) <S> However, they're common enough that I wouldn't consider them fringe cases. <A> Would you like is <S> hypothetical.it could be an offer but <S> not necessarely, it refers to something that you think you will like : would you like to be rich ? <S> would you like some food? <S> Do you like is more concrete and based on knowledge. <S> Do you like food? <S> do you like to be rich?the person that asks you <S> the question assumes you have experience in this field.
| They are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
|
"People are opting to pay their bills" — grammatical or not? Can someone please tell me if the following usage of opt in is appropriate: These days large number of People are opting to pay their bills online. <Q> "Opting to pay" in this context is unexceptionable, but there is no reason whatsoever to capitalize people unless you are writing an Amendment to the US Constitution, and you are missing an article before a large number . <S> Also, you can use Simple Present rather than Present Continuous. <A> Yes, the use of opting to is appropriate for this sentence and sounds natural. <S> To echo what ЯegDwight said, 'people' isn't a proper noun and therefore shouldn't be capitalized. <A> That is correct. <S> The present continuous is often used to contrast the past with the present in this way. <S> It is a very vivid way of presenting something this is becoming increasingly common, as in your example.
| However your sentence should read: These days a large number of people (no caps) are opting to pay their bills online.
|
Meaning of "Then again" " Then again , it didn't matter, did it?" What's the meaning of "then again" here? Is it the same as "thinking better" ? <Q> "Then again" is used to introduce an afterthought or second thought to a previous statement. <S> The latter usage elicits a spoken emphasis on the verb (especially a modal). <S> I didn't want Larry to see what happened... <S> then again I figured as a doctor, maybe he could help me. <S> (= thinking better of it) <S> | <S> I don't want Larry to see what happened. <S> Then again he is a doctor. <S> (=on the other hand) <A> "Then again" would only be synonymous with "thinking better [of...] <S> " when the prior thought was negative. <S> "On the other hand" (or "then again") could be used in either circumstance. <S> [Something negative]; thinking better of it, [something positive]. <S> [Something positive or negative]; on the other hand, [something opposite]. <S> In both cases, the second statement opposes the first, but the inclusion of "better" implies a positive meaning to the second statement. <A> Then again mean "however" or "on the other hand"
| Depending on the tone of the speaker, it can mean "thinking better of it..." or "on the other hand."
|
What does the meaning "to being" in sentence above? See how close kid comes to being run over by minibus and lorry What does the meaning "to being" in sentence above? <Q> "to" in this sentence belongs to "close" since this is the complement used with it to describe proximity: Our house is close to the post office. <S> In your sentence, the word order is a bit "free," however it's the same principle: <S> See how close to being run over by a minibus and lorry the kid comes. <S> Here we have all the same components, but in a different word order to show you the more familiar position of "to" in relation to "close." <A> See how close kid comes to being run over by minibus and lorry . <S> Means : <S> See how the kid is about to be run over by minibus and lorry . <A> The expression in question is "to come close to [gerund]. <S> " The gerund occurs with an "-ing" ending, making it look a lot like a participle, which is likely the confusion here, as participles don't directly follow the preposition "to." <S> Gerunds are verbs functioning as a noun. <S> Unfortunately, they look exactly like participles and that can be confusing. <S> For an example, I could say example a): <S> a) <S> I came close |to the beach|, but I didn't go onto the sand. <S> In a), "the beach" is a noun and occurs after "to" as a part of the prepositional phrase. <S> In the example you site, the verb phrase "to be run over by a minibus and lorry," occurring as a gerundive (drops the infinitive "to" and becomes "being run over..."), functions as a noun and as a part of the prepositional phrase starting with "to." <S> But, this is something of an idiomatic expression. <S> It's meaning isn't one of location, as with "the beach," and as marked by the preposition "to." <S> By semantic extension, the meaning of "to come close to [gerund]," means that it ALMOST happened. <S> It didn't happen, but it almost did. <S> As with a), I was ALMOST at the beach, but not quite. <S> In your example, I was almost hit by a vehicle, but not quite.
| Anyway , "close to" or "about to be" : Indicates something that will happen very soon; indicates that something is imminent.
|
Russia 'Fired Rockets INTO Ukraine' - BBC A headline from a BBC News app on my mobile reads: Russia 'fired rockets into Ukraine' I could not find this on the BBC website, but it shows on my cellphone. Why into? You fire at someone/something. Maybe into refers to somewhere inside Ukraine but it looks a poor use of the preposition. Correct me, please. <Q> The "into" says something about the path the rocket took. "At" only says something about how they were aiming. <S> "in" would not be appropriate, since that would imply that Russia fired the rocket from Ukraine. <S> "at" would not be appropriate, because they weren't aiming at Ukraine: they were aiming at some more specific target within Ukraine. <S> To hit that target, the rocket must go into Ukraine. <S> The article is emphasizing how Russia crossed the border with their rocket. <S> (Of course these accusations are at the moment not proven, but this is about English, not politics or news.) <A> Firing a missile at something would mean that I am firing at a target . <S> Unless Russia is firing very powerful nuclear weapons, it would be strange to think that it is aiming at "Ukraine" as its target. <S> It would be hard to miss, but it would certainly not be a big feat either. <S> In this case, what is meant is that Russia fired missiles at targets that are somewhere inside Ukraine. <S> The wording is chosen to emphasize the fact that Russia did not move into Ukraine to fire, but that they are firing from within Russia to a target within Ukraine. <S> Obviously, the actual targets are either unknown or deemed unimportant to be mentioned in the headline: the main message is not that some target was fired at, but that a country that denies all military involvement in this conflict is now said to have fired missiles that crossed the border of what is internationally still regarded as an autonomous country. <A> Not at all a poor use of a preposition. <S> Perhaps it's somewhat idiomatic, but into is a commonly-used preposition when talking about rockets and missles, whether those are being fired into space, into the ocean, or into enemy territory. <S> Commercial and military satellites are frequently fired by rockets into orbit Source: <S> Peter P. Wegener, <S> What Makes Airplanes Fly? <S> : <S> History, Science, and Applications of Aerodynamics , 1997 <S> We build huge bridges and concrete dams and send mammoth rockets into space <S> Source: <S> E.J. Hearn, Mechanics of Materials Volume 1 , 1997 <S> Von Braun recognized that shooting rockets into the heavens could arouse fear and religious anxiety Source: <S> James Gilbert, Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science , 1997 <S> Four <S> Turkish F-100 <S> fighter planes buzzed concentrations of National Guardsmen and fired rockets into the sea Source: <S> Andrew Faulds, 1988 Lebanese terrorist groups lobbed rockets into Israel's northern settlements and tried to penetrate the border Source: Ira Sharkansky, Policy Making in Israel: Routines for Simple Problems and Coping with the Complex , 1997 Against von Braun's fervent hope that this would not happen, German military forces launched more than thirteen hundred V-2s at targets in England, and more than sixteen hundred V-2s into Belgium and France <S> Source: Stuhlinger & Ordway, Wernher von Braun, Crusader for Space , 1994 <A> "Russia fired rockets at Ukraine" The missiles went from Russia in the direction of Ukraine, but they did not necessarily get as far as Ukraine. <S> People would read this to mean that they did not in fact reach Ukraine, since otherwise they would have used a different preposition to make it clear that the missile had reached the Ukraine, which makes a more shocking headline. <S> "Russia fired rockets in Ukraine" Someone associated with Russia, perhaps Russian soldiers, while inside Ukraine's borders, fired a rocket. <S> "Russia fired rockets into Ukraine" Missiles were fired from Russia, and the missile did end up inside Ukraine's borders. <A> You are quite right that logically you would fire at Ukraine since Russia aimed to attack Ukraine, however, being English myself <S> I know that this is actually valid and correct English (to say "into"). <S> It is more of a local quirk (I am currently studying Arabic where I have to compare quirks between my own language and theirs) within the English language; that when talking about vast areas/entities like this, i.e. regions/countries (Ukraine being a region and an entity), you are more likely to say "into", irrespective of what armament was used. <S> However if you were talking about something smaller and more specific, say, a plane then "at" should be used. <S> Another example of specifics would be "firing at Ukrainian soldiers" which of course the quote you see in the title <S> later refers to (I read the story earlier today). <A> This seems fine in American 4th grade. <S> However, ' and ' seem to imply that someone may have stated this phrase in other press. <S> Are there any cited names listed in the rest of the article other than the reporter? <S> Being on that mobile os is that your cache and/or news results may be poisoned by another running app. <S> I've seen this before on android.
| The preposition at is common when specifying a particular target, but into is frequently used to indicate that a missile or rocket landed inside a particular region or country.
|
Difference between these 'killing' words Please explain the difference between these words. When to use which? to kill/killingto murder/murderto slaughter/slaughterto slay/slayinghomicidemassacre <Q> to kill/killing Most basic/versatile expression. <S> to murder/murder <S> Implies the voluntary killing of a sentient being. <S> In US law, there is a distinction between "murder" (intentionally killing someone) vs. "manslaughter" (unintentionally killing a person); murder is considered even worse. <S> Depending on the context, "murder" may have a sense of cruelty. <S> to slaughter/slaughter <S> Literally to kill an animal prior to butchery. <S> When used in other contexts it has an overtone of being very messy or cruel, because of the association with killing a defenseless animal and then dismembering it. <S> Thus, it has the implication of completeness or thoroughness; an army that was slaughtered was killed brutally; a sports team that was "slaughtered" was beaten by a painfully large margin. <S> to slay/slaying <S> Somewhat archaic. <S> Focuses on the act more than the results; may be considered a "deed" or significant action. <S> May also imply a sense of struggle. " <S> He slew the wolf" sounds like he fought with it on equal terms (or terms that were not favorable to him), and accomplished something by killing it; "he murdered the wolf" focuses on having killed a living being, and has a pronounced tone of disapproval. <S> homicide <S> Literally killing a person. <S> More of a legal term. <S> massacre Killing of a large number of people (or "multiple people" at least-- <S> the Boston Massacre actually only resulted in the deaths of five people after all). <S> Usually there is a tone of disapproval, though in metaphoric usage it's similar to "slaughter" above ("We massacred them" in the context of a sporting event <S> means our team won by a large margin.) <A> These terms vary mostly in number and moral connotation: <S> Kill : a generic term for ending something's life. <S> Unique in that itdoes not have a strong moral connotation. <S> Murder : to criminally and intentionally kill an individual. <S> Has astrongly negative moral connotation. <S> A accidental killing of anindividual would be termed ' manslaughter .' <S> Slaughter : to kill many or brutally. <S> Originally used exclusively torefer to the killing of animals, if applied to humans it communicatesa killing, "as if they were animals. <S> " Can have a neutral or negativemoral connotation: <S> "I slaughtered my cow yesterday" - neutral <S> "It was a slaughter of innocents" <S> - negative Slay : an older, less frequently used equivalent of kill. <S> Frequentlyused in fantasy contexts. <S> Homicide : a more precise term for a human killing another human. <S> Typically refers to the crime of murder. <S> Almostalways used refers to killing of people, and almost always has astrong negative connotation. <A> To a great extent, the rest of these words are synonyms or clarifications of "to kill" or of one another. <S> To kill: cause to die Murder: kill with intent or forethought; not accidental Slaughter: kill with relish or abandon, or large number Slay: another form of slaughter? <S> Homicide: noun form; murder Massacre: noun or verb form; slaughter
| Massacre : similar to slaughter: a brutal killing of many.
|
How do I pronounce these fractions? 1/2 cup of spinach is "one-half cup" of spinach 1/3 is "one-third" But what do you say for 3/4 and 3/5 ? <Q> <A> You say "three quarters of a cup" or "three fifths of a cup". <S> In US English you sometimes come across "fourths" instead of "quarters" but that is unusual elsewhere. <S> It would also be more natural to say, for example, "half a cup of spinach", rather than "one half-cup of spinach". <S> For other fractions with numerator 1, you would usually say "a third of a cup", "a quarter of a cup", etc. <A> All these numbers are fractions, which is the answer to the title of your question. <S> The examples you use suggest that you actually want to know how to pronounce these fractions. <S> In addition to the correct answer by user3724662, let me mention that an expression such as "2/ <S> x" is pronounced as "two over x". <S> The use of "over" may also be simpler once the numbers involved become very large (compare "eleven over ninetynine" with "eleven ninetynineths"). <A> 3/4 can be three fourths or three quarters or three over four . <S> 3/5 can be three fifths or three over five . <S> See the table: 1/2 - one-half or a half or one and a half <S> 1/3 - one-third or <S> a third <S> 2/3 - two-thirds or two over three 1/4 - one-fourth or one over four or a quarter 2/4 - two-fourths or two over four or two quarters 3/4 - three-fourths or three over four or three quarters 1/5 - one-fifth or one <S> over five 2/5 - two-fifths or <S> two over five <S> 3/5 - three-fifths or three over five 4/5 - four-fifths or four over five
| You call 3/4 "three fourths" or "three quarters", and 3/5 "three fifths".
|
What does "out of energy" mean? Will you please tell me what the sentence below means? They are almost out of energy. <Q> The phrase I'm out of energy means: <S> I'm tired, and not energetic . <S> The phrase is used in various contexts, and could be used to describe mental energy or physical energy. <S> For example, a basketball player might be out of energy, and ask for a sub to come into the game, so he can rest on the bench. <S> Or, on Friday afternoon after a hard week at work, a teacher may be out of energy. <S> This means – those essays her students just handed in? <S> She will carry them home, and grade them on Saturday after a good night's rest. <S> She doesn't have enough mental alertness to deal with them right now. <S> I'd also say that the phrase is somewhat figurative. <S> Many times, people who say they are "out of energy," actually have could be more energetic, but they are just wanting to relax. <S> For example, the basketball player is probably not on the verge of collapsing, but he probably won't play very good defense. <S> The teacher probably could grade the papers if she really needed to, but it's not an ideal time to do so. <S> The expression could also be used to describe teams, too, and not just individuals: After the German team scored their first two goals, the Brazilian team seemed to lose their energy . <S> This doesn't necessarily mean that the Brazilian team looked tired , but it could also mean that they looked discouraged , and played with no heart. <A> I wouldn't consider it as an idiom, because it is pretty straightforward. <S> I can think of two types: After you exercise, you are out of energy (hungry, tired, can't catch your breath) <S> In a videogame, you are out of energy (a variable for energy in programming) <A> <A> The phrase "out of" means "to have no" or "don't have", so, you used to have <S> but now you don't have it anymore. <S> You could say "I'm out of milk", which means "you had milk <S> but now you don't have it". <A> It means to be tired, hungry, exhausted and not energetic. <S> They are out of energy . <S> So when you use this, you specify that you don't have enough power to do it. <S> You can be hungry or tired. <S> Also you can use for other things like: <S> They are out of drink . <S> Now, you specified that they had a drink <S> but they don't have right now. <S> They seemed to have lost their energy . <S> Now, specified that they weren't energetic like tired.
| It means "exhausted" or "tired".
|
Usage of “That's final” I ran into the expression 'That's final' in a piece of American English text. a) Is it used in Britain too? b) Has it an arrogant or authoritarian connotation? <Q> I wouldn't say it has an "arrogant" connotation, but I do think it generally connotes authority. <S> It means, "No more discussion about this; the debate is over." <S> Usually, peers can't unilaterally close a debate, so I'd expect to hear this uttered by a boss to a subordinate, or a parent to a child. <S> It might also be used in the context of price negotiations (as in, "That's my final offer.") <S> As a side note, it might be worth including a few more details about where you've seen this. <S> I'm making some assumptions about the context; these could be inaccurate. <S> As for whether or not it's common in the UK, I'll let someone from the UK answer that. <A> a) <S> It would seem normal if used in conversation and wouldn't stick out like say, calling a tap <S> a 'Faucet' or the boot of a car a 'Trunk' would. <S> b)Yes, most of the time. <S> It's used to end a conversation before both parties feel the discussion has ended - this is normally rude but may be a lot less rude than what really you want to say. <A> It has acquired a negative connotation from one common context: the authority of men over women. <S> As modern society recognizes this as a sexist convention, any man who says "that's final" deserves a slap -- or a divorce. <S> As with most sexist behaviors from the recent past, AMC's "Mad Men" gives us a great example (click for video!) <S> : <S> Pete: Spence Chapin [a child adoption agency]. <S> How did that happen? <S> Trudy: I put us on the list. <S> And, I don't know -- we went right to the top! <S> Pete: <S> Well, I'm not going. <S> And neither are you. <S> Trudy: <S> Peter, you're shouting. <S> Pete: <S> [interrupting] Don't do that. <S> Listen to me, very carefully. <S> We are not. <S> Adopting. <S> A child. <S> That's final . <S> Trudy: Will you calm down and we can talk about... <S> Pete: <S> [interrupting] Hell's bells Trudy! <S> That is final! <S> It's possible to use "that's final" in different contexts without the sexist connotation, such as business negotiation. <S> However, you likely won't encounter this usage as frequently, especially in popular culture. <S> I can't give good first-hand experience on usage in British English, but the Google Ngram viewer suggests that British authors use the expression about half as much as American authors. <S> Also interesting: "that's final" took a big dive in American writing in the 1960's, the same time that the civil rights and women's rights movements were becoming popular.
| It could be used in a lighter context and not be seen as rude - but usually between people who know each other well. "That's final" indicates an unconditional end to any negotiations, as in "that's my final offer". It's an Americanism but one of the more common ones.
|
differences between in one day & one day What's the differences between "in one day" and "one day"? Does the sentence "I need to change eight pieces of clothing in one day" sound natural to you? Thank you very much! <Q> "in one day" means "all in one day". <S> It refers to a single day, whereas "per day" might be an average over multiple days. <S> Depending on the context, it could also mean "sometime in the past". <S> "I need to change eight pieces of clothing in one day" does not sound natural to me. <S> The "in one day" part of the sentence sounds natural, but the use of "change" is unclear. <S> You might mean: <S> "I need to mend eight pieces of clothing in one day" (as in repairing clothing), or "I need to change clothes eight times in one day" (as in partially or completely undressing, and then dressing in different clothing), or "I need to alter eight pieces of clothing in one day" (as in changing the size or shape of the pieces of clothing). <S> If you were to say "I need to mend eight pieces of clothing one day", it would imply that some time in the future, you might get around to fixing eight pieces of clothing. <S> The amount of time it might take to fix the clothes is just as unspecified -- it might be a day, or a week, or a year. <A> If you omit “in” then your sentence means that sometime (in an unspecified future, sooner or later) you need to change eight pieces of clothing. <A> in one day binds you with the period of one day whereas one day talks about you wish something to happen one day . <S> Compare... <S> I'll have to finish checking this file in one day <S> - There's a deadline given to you or you set yourself. <S> By the time you leave for your house, that file should be completed. <S> over... <S> I'll become an engineer one day - it's your wish or dream.
| "one day" can either mean "one day", or "sometime in the indefinite future". Your sentence as it is sounds natural to me and means that you need to change eight pieces of clothing in a single day.
|
What is the difference between S' and 'S? What is the difference between S' and 'S? When can we use S' and when can we use 'S?? <Q> Both express possession, of course. <S> We use 's with singular nouns . <S> For example, " my son's toys " will be "the toys that belong to my son". <S> We use only an apostrophe (') after plural nouns that end in -s : " my sons' toys " means that I have more than one son and these are their toys. <S> We use 's for possession with the other plural nouns . <S> For example: " my children's toys; women's wishes , etc. <A> Fluffy's answer is correct about the possessive usages, so I won't repeat those. <S> However, it misses an important point. <S> Possession isn't the only use for 's ; it can also be a contraction for is . <S> For example: it's , <S> how's , <S> he's , <S> she's , <S> that's , etc. <S> In standard English, s' is never a contraction * . <S> The double meaning of 's leads to one of the most common mistakes in written English: confusing its , which is the possessive form of it , and it's , which is a contraction of it is . <S> * <S> - When approximating certain dialects or slang in writing, s' may be used, rarely, as an abbreviation or contraction of <S> it is when placed at the front (never the back!) <S> of another word. <S> For example, there's a famous comedy puppetry bit which makes heavy use of s'alright to mean <S> it's alright . <S> However, this is absolutely neither standard nor something you should emulate. <A> 's if for singulars' for plural Mary's dog. <S> The Wilsons' dog. <A> First and foremost -- considering that this site is for people who are learning English and who are mostly at the beginning of that process -- you need to understand this: s' almost NEVER appears... and even people whose mother tongue is English will accidentally use 's when they should use s'... <S> it's a VERY common error. <S> So forget about it and focus on other issues. <S> Don't get me wrong: I don't mean to suggest that this distinction doesn't matter, but rather just this: to get by... <S> you can always use 's instead of s' and you will be making a mistake about 1% of the time and when you do, very few people -- possibly nobody! -- <S> will ever notice. <S> Take away: be confident and use 's rather than s' all the time. <S> Expect to master this only after you have mastered almost everything else. <A> "'s" is for single specified object, for instance, " <S> Ben's dream", could mean, "the dream of Ben", or, it could be a abbreviation of "is", in American English, likewise, "Jack's dead!", which is actually meaning that Jack is dead.
| "s'" is for multiple, shared, common object, likewise, "parents' night", in other side, it could mean, "the night of parents".
|
Question about the meaning of the word "treat" and "moderate" in this text Fentanyl treats moderate to severe chronic pain. This medicine is a narcotic pain reliever. Does the word "treat" here mean "act"? Does the word "moderate" mean "so so" ? <Q> It does not mean act in this context. <S> Broadly, we divide pain into three categories - mild (bearable), severe (unbearable) and moderate (between them). <S> I'm a healthcare provider and often use mild/moderate and severe as adjectives to define the degree of pains. <A> When talking about medicines, "Treat" means: "aims to heal, partially heal, or relieve" a symptom or disease. <S> Moderate pain is an annoying level pain, but not so strong as to feel terribly bad. <A> "Fentanyl treats moderate to severe chronic pain" Could be reworded to a sentence that might be more helpful to you: "Fentanyl acts to treat chronic pains which (whom) range from moderate to severe" <S> So the medicine acts to treat the pain and the medicine is effective in the range of moderate to severe. <S> Hopefully along with the other answers that gives you a basis for how to read this.
| Treat is simple treat here meaning to cure or heal.
|
The meaning of "shooting" in this sentence "Here's the HTML we're shooting to generate" I don't know what "shooting" means in this sentence: This is where the rubber meets the road. Let's start by building a page that just spits out our DB entries in a mildly pretty form. Here's the HTML we 're shooting to generate: (Code snippet follows) Could anybody enlighten me? I met the sentence above in this tutorial and I think "intending", "aiming" and "would like to" are all good replacement in that context. <Q> You could also use aiming . <S> Here's the HTML <S> we're aiming to generate. <A> "Here's the HTML we would like to generate." <S> By "shooting" for a goal, you are trying to reach it, but are not certain you will <S> ("I'm shooting to leave here by 4:30, but the boss may ask me to stay late."). <S> In this case, there may be some reason the person believes that the goal may not be accomplished. <S> Or they are just using poor phrasing to mean "This is the HTML we are expecting to generate". <A> In the case the meaning is "Intending" I wouldn't use "shooting" in this case. <S> "Here's the HTML we're intending to generate." would sound better. <A> It's a malformation of the apparently American Idiom: "shooting for" . <S> I've never heard it phrased that way, but I have heard "shooting for" in Canada and the western US. <A> I am a native speaker from the UK with a lot of exposure to US English (work in IT) <S> and I have never heard this expression before. <S> I would guess it is either a typo or a slip of the tongue. <S> The person could have English as a second language and 'shooting' in his/her language could be a standard phrase. <S> I have experienced that a lot in my time I Germany. <S> German phrases will be translated directly into English and used as if it were the Queen's English ;-) <S> As another poster suggested, 'aiming' might be a better word but 'shooting' conveys a different meaning <S> and I could only guess what was really meant. <S> It could be that 'shooting' sounds better than just 'aiming' - more pro-active! <S> See comments below <S> Here's the HTML <S> we're planning to generate... <A> To be strictly pedantic/semantic, aiming and shooting are two different things. <S> Aiming is only targeting, shooting is targeting and pulling the trigger. <S> In the context of the tutorial, the author is not only aiming or intending, he's actually trying to help the reader make the attempt. <S> There are actually two cliches in the that paragraph ("rubber meets the road" and "shooting to ... <S> "). <S> The author adds cliches elsewhere, like "I know this isn't rocket science" and while I admit, it does make for interesting reading, in the end, to be clear in a tutorial, cliches are probably best replaced with concise instruction, especially if the target audience is not all from the same cultural background. <A> Shooting (other than indescriminate) requires that you are aiming at something and that's exactly what the phrase means and can also be said in English <S> - You're aiming to generate the HTML. <S> In this case aiming
| "Shooting" in this case means "trying" (i.e. if you shoot at a target, your are trying to hit it, but you may not).
|
What does "a man apart" mean? What exactly "a man apart" mean, or when is this formula used? I know that there is a movie with "A man apart" in its title, but I have the feeling that it can be used in some situations, maybe when somebydy is left alone in a hard situation? <Q> You can have a look at some of these 268 written instances of "is a man apart" to get a better feel for how it's used. <S> The label is usually either admiring or pitying, not "derogatory". <S> FWIW, I personally tend to think of a man apart as someone who's unable or unwilling to interact with others very much, or "in the normal way" <S> (like Camus' Meursault in L’Étranger ), rather than just someone very different from the average (such as an amazingly gifted musician or groundbreaking scientist). <S> So although I say apart is a figurative rather than a literal usage (such a man doesn't normally live a long way away from others), he probably doesn't actually spend much time in the close company of others. <A> I agree with FumbleFingers. <S> It's figurative usage, describing the man as distinct from his peers, but without qualifying exactly why - so as to make him appear intriguing. <S> The title alludes to an unknown story, which of course helps ticket sales because people are drawn to find out why he is "apart." <A> Whether or not the Vin Diesel film is referencing this is questionable but the original phrase that is most notable is the line from Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities, where the character of Doctor Manette who was imprisoned for 18 years in the Bastille becomes an unspoken hero among the french revolutionaries for his suffering. <S> Here is the line: "No man better known than he, in Paris at that day; no man in a stranger situation. <S> Silent, humane, indispensable in hospital and in prison, using his art equally among assassins and victims, he was a man apart.... <S> a Spirit among mortals." <S> The Vin Diesel film was originally supposed to have another title <S> but I think a clever and well-read executive probably suggested this title somewhere in production.
| Briefly, it normally just means a man who's not like most others (the usage is figurative , not to do with being physically distant from others).
|
"be to do" versus "have to do" What is the difference between be to do and have to do ? I googled it and searched for other options as well though I couldn't figure out the differences. Examples: I am to do these things. I have to do these things. <Q> " Have to " expresses obligation , while " be to " is usually about arrangements, giving orders or instructions . <S> It is used in formal contexts. <S> You can find more information on it here and here . <S> If it expresses prohibition <S> (an order not to do something), then " be to " would be close to " be allowed to, can't ", and of course " don't have to " has a completely different meaning: <S> You are not to leave without permission. <S> When used for arrangements, scheduled events , it is close to " be going to ". <S> The Prime Minister is to make a further visit to Devon next week. <S> You can also use " have to " here, it would mean that he is obliged to, based on the arrangements that have been made, while " is to " simply informs us that it has been scheduled. <S> Only " be to " can be used in an if-clause : <S> If you were to bake a cake, I would eat it. <S> (= <S> If you baked a cake, I would eat it.) <S> When giving orders you can use both: <S> You are to/have to come at 9! <S> You' re to/have to sit in the corner and keep quiet. <S> You are to/have to carry your passport at all times. <S> Often " have to " means that there is a rule and what the speaker says is based on that rule, he is only reporting the order, not issuing it. <S> In the last sentence, for example, it is the law. <S> In a sentence such as this: All students are to/have to take a written exam at the end of this course! <S> without any other context we have no idea whether this is a written order, issued by the principal, or a teacher informing the students of that order. <S> The good news is that most of the time " have to " and " be to " are interchangeable when referring to orders. <S> In the two sentences you have given, the second means that someone told you to do it. <S> It is external obligation. <S> The first sentence could mean 2 things: 1) <S> It is your turn to do it (scheduled) or 2) someone ordered you to do it (obligation). <A> Perhaps it comes from the fact that "You are to do this" seems to be a standard phrase in military orders. <S> On the other hand, "I have to do these things" just means that for some reason it is necessary for you to do them. <S> If the sink is full of dirty dishes and I decide this needs to be taken care of, I would say "I have to wash the dishes." <S> If my family is getting ready for a party and everyone has been assigned chores, I might say "I am to wash the dishes." <A> "to be to do" is elliptic. <S> A past participle after to be has been dropped. <S> Possible is you are ordered/demanded/required/destined/expected/supposed etc to do. <S> http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/be-to-do-something
| I can't really articulate why, but I think "I am to do these things" suggests that someone has ordered or instructed you to do them.
|
Guided tours in English and Spanish languages. Would the following sentence look OK on a main page of a hypothetical tour company's website: We offer guided tours in ( the ) English, Spanish, Italian and French languages . Or would the word languages be out of place, and the following sentence will be preferrable: We offer guided tours in English, Spanish, Italian and French. I've noticed that the second construction is seen way more often on Google. Tour in English language brings up several dosens of sites which were apparently created by non-native speakers of English. Why so? Would the use of the word (Spanish) language make the sentence imply that the visitors will be sightseeing the language itself, instead of that the guide is speaking Spanish, say? <Q> If you were to offer guided tours of the Spanish language then it would imply it is a language learning center and not a tour guide <A> I would use the second option. <S> We can say that by omitting the use of the word languages we have an instance of ellipsis: the omission from a clause of one or more words that are nevertheless understood in the context of the remaining elements. <S> Context - and previous knowledge- will help those that come across this sentence to know that the word languages is implied. <S> In order for people to understand that they are doing a tour OF a language, you should change the preposition IN to OF. <A> The first sentence would be correct only if you use the word "the", and would mean the exact same thing as the second sentence. <S> However, it would not be a good choice, simply because it is not the normal way to refer to languages in English. <S> The normal way is to refer to the English language as "English", the French language as "French", etc., and this is what will be understood more quickly and look more natural to native English speakers. <S> Taking @Nico's suggestion to use Google's n-gram viewer, comparing "written in Spanish" to "written in the Spanish language" , for example, shows that while both are used, "in Spanish" is 40 to 50 times more common. <S> The first sentence would not imply a tour of the language itself , unless you actually used the word "of". <S> The word "in" makes you safe from that.
| The 2nd option would be preferable as the language is implied.
|
Are the words "harmless" and "interests" ambiguous in this context? Lysander is harmless enough. We keep each other company with our mutual interests , yet I don't think he could handle the enormity of our present situation. Source: Diablo 2, Drognan (sells magic items) about Lysander (sells magic potions) Are these words ambiguous in this context? I wonder whether "harmless" means "not causing any physical or mental damage or injury" or "unlikely to annoy or worry people" and "interests" "something in which one is interested; a hobby or pursuit" or maybe "benefit; advantage" (the definitions from the Collins English Dictionary). <Q> your 2 definitions of harmless aren't even really different. <S> harmless means causes no harm . <S> harm is a fairly broad word which essentially means " bad stuff ". <S> It generally implies bad for something or someone. <S> things that are morally bad don't necessarily imply harm if they don't have any effects on anyone or anything. <S> Causing annoyance is considered bad, and causing physical injury is considered is bad. <S> and considering that interests is in the context of keep each other company , then it sounds like it probably means "something in which one is interested; a hobby or pursuit"* <A> Given a very short sentence, such as: Foxglove is harmless enough. <S> the word <S> harmless is bound to be "ambiguous" in such a short snippet, although that ambiguity might be cleared up after you examine enough surrounding text. <S> For example, a harmless person: is unlikely to incite violence is unlikely to betray <S> friends is unlikely to hurt their employer's reputation is unlikely to assault or harass someone is unlikely to be a bad influence <S> doesn't mean to hurt someone's feelings when joking around <S> That said, context can provide a more specialized view. <S> Let's say my 17-year-old daughter is spending a lot of time around a 23-year-old guy named Joe. <S> They are good friends, but I'm concerned that an unhealthy romantic relationship might be starting. <S> My wife might assure me by saying, " <S> Oh, Joe is harmless enough." <S> In that context, she probably means that she doesn't think our daughter wants the relationship to turn romantic, and that it's unlikely Joe is going to try to seduce her. <S> A dictionary can't possibly cover all the different ways a word like this could be used or applied. <A> Some in-game insight: <S> Lysander is harmless enough <S> In Diablo II, the NPC Lysander set to be one of those "My own interest/benefit <S> comes first" type of person. <S> While this is not welcome to many other 'folks in town' (other NPC), he ready does not cause any threat to other, thus meaning he's harmless enough <S> We keep each other company with our mutual interests <S> This is referring to their benefit in specific; selling magical items for gold.
| When X is a person, the statement X is harmless enough , usually means "unlikely to cause much annoyance or damage," but there are several contexts in which harmless can be applied.
|
She's a twin to her brother? Is it correct? There are two questions, quite similar. I know the word twin which means one of the twins. Now, while introducing a girl to my friend, I want to say, "she's a twin" but in this sentence only, I want to tell that who is the other twin of that twins. She's a twin to her brother OR She's a twin to her sister Is it fine? Now the second question... Do I need to put other/another in this case? She (A) and her brother (B) are twins. She has one more brother (C) but while introducing, she's with her non-twin brother (C). Should I say... She's a twin to her another/other brother? Is that okay? If not, how do we say that? <Q> These are all good options: <S> Anne is Bob's twin. <S> She is Bob's twin sister. <S> Bob is her twin brother. <S> Meet Anne, and her brother Charlie. <S> Their brother Bob is over at the pub. <S> Bob is Anne's twin. <S> Meet Anne, and her brother Charlie. <S> Their brother Bob is over at the pub. <S> Anne and Bob are twins. <S> An introduction might go like this: Maulik (to Anne and Charlie, and gesturing towards Sarah): Anne and Charlie, I'd like you to meet my cousin Sarah. <S> Anne (to Sarah): Pleased to meet you. <S> Charlie (to Sarah): Pleased to meet you. <S> Maulik (to Sarah, and gesturing towards Anne): <S> Sarah, this is Anne... <S> Sarah (to Anne): <S> My pleasure. <S> Maulik (gesturing towards Charlie): and her brother Charlie... Sarah (to Charlie): Pleased to meet you. <S> Maulik (to Sarah, and gesturing towards the pub): <S> Their brother Bob is over at the pub. <S> Anne and Bob are twins. <A> You can say "She is a twin" though I think that's fairly rare, you usually identify the pair. <S> If the other member of the pair came up in the course of conversation or if the idea is spread across several sentences, you might mention them in the singular. <S> Like, "This is Sally. <S> Oh, look, there's her brother Bob. <S> She has another brother named Jack. <S> Jack is her twin." <A> I would actually use a different turn of phrase to convey that information: <S> She and her brother are twins. <S> If she has more than one brother, and another brother, who has a different age, is present (or known to the person you are talking to, or you need to make a distinction for any other reason), you can say: She and her other brother are twins. <S> But again, that is only necessary if you need to distinguish between several brothers. <S> I don't often come across the use of singular twin , somehow it is usually used in the plural, since there are normally two people involved. <S> However, if one of the twins should die, it is perfectly fine to say she is the remaining twin . <A> Do I need to put other/another in this case? <S> No, it reads fine without adding "other". <S> "other" seems useless in this case since it is implied by saying she has a sibling. <S> If she had say three brothers but only one one of them was her twin <S> you would logically say: She's a twin to one of her brothers at which point, when asked in greater depth about which, you would be more specific. <S> However, "other" can be used if she is with someone. <S> Say she has three brothers and is with two <S> but she is not with her twin: <S> She's a twin with her other brother who is in the pub
| I think the conventional phrasing is, "She and her brother are twins" or "She has a twin brother".
|
Do I need "a/an" or "the" in this sentence? Suppose that I have submitted a job application.And now I am waiting for the result.Do I say "I am waiting for an answer from the company" or "I am waiting for the answer from the company" ? Which article do I use? <Q> Both are possible. <S> Using "an" is simply stating the fact, without it there would be a mistake in the sentence. <S> Using "the" will leave the impression that you know or believe that their will be an answer, either because this company always replies to everyone or because you have connections there and were told that they will respond or simply because you prefer to believe there will be one. <S> The reason for that is that as a definite article "the" refers to something particular, something that we are familiar with. <A> I would say: I am waiting for an answer from the company. <S> because you probably do not know what the answer will be in advance. <S> If it were known (for "answer" it probably has to be after the fact), you could say something like: <S> The answer I received from the company was positive. <A> I would use "an," since you still don't know if you are going to be accepted or not. <A> Well, when it comes to such situation, this is what I've heard in common... <S> I'm waiting for their reply . <S> When you submit your resume, that's the better way to say because you did not ask anything to what they'd answer! <S> Still, let's consider that you want to use that sentence only. <S> Then I'd prefer the . <S> I'm waiting for the answer. <S> The reason for that is you are waiting for an answer that is the reply to your job application and not anything else. <S> It's not a reply in general. <S> It's specific to your job application. <S> You, yourself, used "I am waiting for the result!" <S> Does not it answer the question? :) <S> Maybe, this is helpful to clarify it. <S> Yes, I also applied for the position and <S> you know what, the reply was positive! <S> Here, the is used because that reply is unique to that application.
| If "the" is used, it makes me feel that you are expecting only one answer (and you are not considering any other option).
|
How could one 'sit on the hearth'? From Dickens : Dear reader! It rests with you and me, whether, in our two fields of action, similar things shall be or not. Let them be! We shall sit with lighter bosoms on the hearth , to see the ashes of our fires turn gray and cold. But hearths seem not to have places for sitting on them, except maybe the narrow shelfs fit for cats and suchlike creatures. I would understand 'sit by the hearth' or 'sit close to the hearth', but why on ? I found some instances of the same use of the on preposition at Google Books, like this one: I took a couple of snap shots of Judy, who had moved to sit on the hearth to get closer to the warm fire. and She set down the bellows and stood, saying, “Please, sit on the hearth and dry yourself. And can I get you anything? Hot tea . . . or wine?” Finn sat down on the wide stone hearth, and held his hands up to the flames. “No, thank you,” he replied, ... Could one sit on any hearth or only on a hearth that has a special area extending into the room? I just can't help recalling James Winterbottom, Esq. when I read "please, sit on the hearth". (0: <Q> As a child this was a common setting for taking our family holiday photos. <S> In Dickens' time I imagine it was the warmest, brightest place in the house for the family to gather, tell/listen to stories, and simply watch the fire. <S> His quote refers to this situation. <S> As modern homes have made fireplaces more an aesthetic addition than a necessary one, the hearth has probably shrunken a bit to be less for sitting on, and more for staring at. <S> The "hearth" can refer generally to areas around a fireplace. <S> The "mantle" is a more specific term for the "narrow shelf for cats" above the fireplace. <A> Ditto @mc01. <S> I'd add that a hearth is typically made of brick or stone, while a floor is normally wood or tile. <S> So if the fireplace has a section of this brick or stone extending several feet out from the chimney et al -- which it often does -- this whole brick section is normally called the "hearth", and someone could well sit on it. <A> One can sit on the right hand side of the hearth. <S> The raised hearth makes it easier to see inside the stove when you reload it.
| In a Google image search for "hearth" you will see that many fireplaces have a raised "bench" of brick or stone about 1ft off the ground, which is perfect for sitting "on."
|
What do we call someone who's in between -a friend and an enemy! He's a friend of mine The message is clear. He's my friend. He wishes all good for me and helps me whenever I need one. He's an enemy of mine The message is clear again. He's my enemy. He wishes all bad for me and never helps me whenever I need! He's ...... of mine! The message is clear. He's neither friend nor enemy. He's in between. At times, he may help me but then I cannot always rely on him. He's not a friend of mine. Other times, he does really bad to me but maybe, there was no any other go for him. He's not an enemy of mine! :) <Q> acquaintance: a person one knows slightly, but who is not a close friend. <A> Qubei's answer of "acquaintance" is probably the best. <S> But in general, this is just a problem where the word you're asking for doesn't entirely exist because if the purpose of language is to communicate information then the word wouldn't really communicate any information about this person. <S> In general you just refer to such a person by whatever other descriptors cover your relationship with/knowledge of the person. <S> " <S> This coworker of mine, John,...", "This cashier at the supermarket I know, Sally, was telling me,..." etc. <S> In addition, it's fairly rare to actually refer to someone as an "enemy". <S> "Rivals" is probably the far more common phrase, or in informal conversation with others who aren't friendly, one might use some more rude adjectives. <A> "unfriend" is not as strong as "enemy". <S> Tolkien used the term "unfriend" in the Lord of the Rings to describe the long-lasting bad feelings between the elves and the dwarves. <S> A rival can be either a friend or an enemy (or something in between) depending on the circumstances. <A> An associate works as well. <S> Essentially it's someone with whom you have a working relationship. <A> Frenemy. <S> Like in the movie. <S> I have an enemy who isn't all the way my enemy. <S> He actually can be quite rude and selfish around me, but usually around other people, he is nicer to them. <S> I would call them my frenemy.
| He's an acquaintance . "rival" might be the word you are looking for.
|
Why refer to cocaine as "she"? In Cocaine song, by Clapton, why does he refer to cocaine as "she" instead of "it"? She don't lie, she don't lie, she don't lie,Cocaine In the same sentence, why does he use "don't" instead of "doesn't"? <Q> The use of she personifies the drug. <S> Not only that, the word compares the addiction to a damaging love relationship. <S> Cocaine is the temptress that lures you back with her love, and that love, like the drug, can hurt you when you break up. <A> Don't as used here is an informal slang usage. <S> In any case, artistic license lets you write what you want. <S> Also words have to fit the music timing, etc. <A> I think (she) cocaine here is influenced by (she) heroine . <S> While "heroin" is a drug, " heroine " is a female form of "hero", as in "Marie Curie was the tragic heroine of science". <S> And "she don't" is just clumsiness dressed up as licentia poetica :) <S> These are just guesses. <S> Why an artist said or sung this or that? <S> Of course nobody exactly knows (including perhaps artist himself).
| She personifies the cocaine.
|
"between ... and" for relations between one specific thing and several other things Suppose I want to enumerate several relations between apple and other kinds of fruit, say pear, orange, and peach. Of course, I can say something like: (1) relation between apple and pear, relation between apple and orange, relation between apple and peach. But this sounds too verbose. If I instead say something like (2) relations between apple and pear, orange and peach, it becomes less clear what relations I am talking about, in particular, the principal relatum apple common to all three relations does not stand out. Is it better to say something like (3) relations between apple and pear, and orange, and peach? Edit : How about (4) relations between apple, pear, orange and peach? <Q> "Relations" is both too general, and too likely to be misinterpreted as "Sexual relations". <S> Perhaps you mean How are apples, pears, oranges, and peaches related? <S> What do apples, pears, oranges, and peaches have in common? <S> What are the differences between apples, pears, oranges, and peaches? <S> Compare and contrast apples, pears, oranges, and peaches. <S> or: <S> How are apples related to each of the following: pears, oranges, and peaches? <S> What do apples have in common with pears, oranges, and peaches? <S> Compare and contrast apples with pears, oranges, and peaches. <S> In lists like this, it is common to sort the items either alphabetically, or so that similar items are adjacent. <S> If the items are sorted alphabetically, the list would be "apples, oranges, peaches, and pears". <S> One way to sort by similarity would be "apples, pears, peaches, and oranges". <S> In lists of three or more items, I prefer to include a comma after each item (except the last item). <S> The last comma is before the "and", not after the "and". <S> Some people prefer to omit the comma before the "and". <S> You can look up "Oxford comma" to learn more about this issue. <A> I agree that relation may not be the right word here. <S> However, I'll leave that issue unaddressed here, and get back to the root of your question (namely, how to structure a sentence that compares one thing to three other things). <S> How about: <S> A relation between an apple and each of the following: pear , orange , and peach . <A> How about combining the remaining entities into a single unit? <S> like these three fruits. <S> The only relation between apple and three fruits, namely orange, pear, and peach, is a common alphabet 'a'. <S> In this construction, you can use any common property for the group, if any, like tropical fruits, citrus fruits or any. <S> If there is none, then simply use something like I used in the above example. <A> I would prefer to make it like: <S> relations between apple and pear, orange, peach or relations between apple and pear, orange, and peach
| The term 'relation' is inappropriate in this context.
|
Differences between "the USA", "the US" and "the States" Are the any differences in formality or context between "the USA", "the US" and "the States"? I've tried NGram and it seems that "the US" is by far the most common expression and "the States" is the least common (would you sound like you are from the 19th century if you used it?). Of course, the search doesn't include spoken language. Finally, in a conversation, would you say "the US" or "the United States? <Q> I personally use the US when speaking about the country generally, the States when talking to someone overseas (about coming over, comparatively), and rarely, or never the USA . <S> However, I think generally, most people use the US in conversation. <S> I think the only time I hear people use the USA is when they say it emphatically and patriotically. <A> "USA" is more formal and official. <S> While, based on my own experience, "States" is hardly used by natives. <S> As a general rule, spoken language uses the smallest available options. <A> As far as I know, "US" can be used as an adjective while the others can't (though I'm not sure why) -- "US cities" is OK but "USA cities" or "States cities" sound weird. <S> That might be one reason for its frequency. <A> Some of the trouble comes from being a federation of states, not a single country. <S> " <S> The States" refers to the collection of states, "The US" refers to the states that are united, or, more loosely, to the union of States. <S> The problem is that there's very, very, very many nations made up of multiple states. <S> Even Belgium is made up out of 3 parts that could very well be called states. <S> " <S> The USA" is therefore the only unambiguous way to refer to "The United States of America", in fact it might better be "The United States of North America". <S> Ultimately, the USA have no name for there union! <S> Except maybe just "America", after the continent it is the biggest nation in. <S> It would also retrofit the use of "Americans", which probably used to refer to people that lived on the continent, but now refers to citizens of "The United States of (North) America". <S> Ultimately it doesn't matter. <S> The US, The States, the USA, it all refers to the same thing in people's heads. <S> Just use the word your audience expects you to, that'll work best. <A> well, here in Brazil it is comon to refer to USA as "the States", although we say a "brazilianized" version of it <S> : "os estates". <S> We use it to refer to America, since it it easer to say than "US" or "USA" and we also try to say "os estates" with an American accent to make it sound more "American". <S> Also Brazilians do not refer themselves as Americans, neither to Canadians. <S> Americans refers exclisively to people from the USA. <S> Canadians are Canadians and Brazilians are Brazilians. <A> USA - United States of America. <S> US - United StatesThe States <S> - well, self-explanatory <S> I'm from England <S> and I have never heard anyone English refer to it as the states, though I've watched American sitcoms where a character might say it. <S> We don't really say the US either, we prefer saying America or USA, moreso America than anything else (despite theire being two seperate contintnets which have America within their name). <S> I think it's just a preference thing, <S> but like I said the English like saying America or USA Note: we use 'America' for North America. <A> When I travel oversea, I always answer that I am from States, and people understand. <S> When my friends come back from travel oversea, I ask either "when were you back to States?" or "When were you back to US?"I rarely use USA in conversation, I use it in formal paper. <S> I was taught that way.
| In US, the word most commonly spoken out of three is "US".
|
One-word synonym for 'out of context'? Context : Here, because 'him' refers to another human suspect and 'you' to British Army Major Rachel Dalton (portrayed by Rhona Mitra), http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/downwind doesn't make sense and is out of context . <Q> Noncontextual <S> However, the best definition will depend on the context, since something taken out of context can be described by a slew of adjectives such as misquoted, misconstrued , etc. <A> The adjective incongruous describes something that is out of place. <S> Something that does not blend in with its surroundings. <S> It would fit well in your example context. <A> This may not answer your question exactly (as it isn't even an adjective), but I was also looking for a word to describe "taking something out of context, and stumbled across the following: con·tex·to·my [kon-teks-tuh-mee] <S> noun <S> The practice of misquoting someone by shortening the quotation or by leaving out surrounding words or sentences that would place the quotation in context. <S> Looks like a pretty good answer for the word you are looking for. <S> Does it help? <S> For reference: <S> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contextomy <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context <A> I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but there is a word that describes when you have used a word out of context when you really mean a similar-sounding word: malapropism <S> I did so recently when I accidentally substituted 'inert' for 'innate'. <S> On Wikipedia . <A> From what I've understood you think the word " downwind " isn't the appropriate word to use in that context. <S> In cases when something is somewhere where it shouldn't be - isn't appropriate or suitable there <S> (doesn't fit in) <S> we use: inapt, inapplicable, inapposite, misplaced, Irrelevant " <S> Out of context " means ' Without the surrounding words or circumstances and so not fully understandable. ' <A> Learn to use phrases rather than words. <S> You can always change the formatting of a sentence to accommodate for the three-word adjective 'out-of-context'. <S> In fact, that is arguably the best way to say it: the word 'non-contextual' dampens the meaning and sounds pretentious without adding value to any statement you could possibly throw it in. <S> Compare ' <S> that's non-contextual' to `that's out-of-context' and let me know if you agree.
| You are misunderstanding the phrase " out of context " with the phrase " isn't appropriate there ".
|
During your tour, you will see historic buildings.. or historical? In the description of a guided tour across a city, what adjective should one pick: During your tour, you will see historic buildings or During your tour, you will see historical buildings Judging by this helpful explanation , one should opt for historic if the building is important in history, and for historical if the building is merely part of the city's history: The adjective historic means having importance in history or having influence on history. The adjective historical means having taken place in history, from the past or pertaining to history. Judging by Google, both adjectives are used, although historic seems to predominate. Which of them is more appropriate in my case? <Q> In your example, historical buildings is correct, if you are referring to old, landmark buildings that have a "history" or have been around from time historical. <A> A historic event is an important event whereas historical event is the event happened in the past. <S> The past is history and thus, the event is historical . <S> 'Historic' means very important and likely to be remembered in coming years. <S> Say historic building , the building that is likely to be remembered. <S> On the other hand, historical means something already happened in the past or connected with the past (as in historical study/research). <S> So, in your case, the buildings are monuments and a part of tour (sightseeing). <S> They are historical buildings . <S> A piece of information from OALD <S> Historical usually describes something that is connected with the past or with the study of history, or something that really happened in the past:I have been doing some historical research. <S> ◇ <S> Was Robin Hood a historical figure? <S> To play a pun, the building that is historic today will be historical in coming decades ;) <A> Longman Dictionary says a historic place or building is very oldthe restoration of historic buildings <S> Macmillan says a historic place is important because it is old and interesting or impressivethe historic city of York
| Historic is usually used to describe something that is so important that it is likely to be remembered:Today is a historic occasion for our country.
|
What is the opposite of 'wall of text'? What is the antonym of wall of text ? That is, a text where every paragraph is a single sentence. If the antonym doesn't exist, how can the opposite of wall of text be described grammar-technically? There must be a term or a description for this common type of error in writing. Exhibit A [1] object is valid for all .NET versions. It is the base type that all other types inherit from, so any type can be cast to object. You can't dynamically add and change anything on a variable declared as object. The declaration is a statically typed and checked by the compiler. dynamic is new for .NET 4.0. It allows you do dynamically add and change properties and methods without the compiler checking them (so if what you wrote is wrong you will only find out at runtime). 1. Reference: Raw text . Rendered . <Q> It is therefore hard to mentally outline a "wall of text". <S> Your example seems to be of the "opposite of a wall of text" that you seek a word for. <S> Some words that might help: "broken up" "staccato" "disjointed" "not fleshed out" "outline" <A> Maybe point form or note form . <S> You could describe it as sparse . <A> After a little research online, I believe there is no set term for what you're describing. <S> I think the next best thing is to use a descriptive: a scrawny line of text <S> a measly blurb in the middle of the page etc. <A> The defining characteristic of a wall of text is its rambling verbosity, not necessarily that it lacks paragraph breaks. <S> A wall of text with paragraph breaks would still be a wall of text. <A> I would describe Exhibit A as bulletpoints. <S> There isn't actually a bullet point in from of each line, but it seems like there might as well be. <A> TL;DR <S> Yes, I think TL;DR can be used as an antonym of wall of text . <S> They were both born in the Information Age; aren't they a perfect pair? :-) <S> Usually, TL;DR is used in a similar way we use Synopsis or Executive Summary (or just Summary ). <S> Your text looks like a summary ; it contains several summarized points (which makes it look similar to a bullet list, just without the bullet points). <S> If I have to describe that block of your example text, I think I'd call it summarized points, in short , and probably head it with either TL;DR or Summary , depending on the occasion. <A> A document composed entirely of single lines cannot really be said to have "paragraphs". <S> A "paragraph", by nature, is different from a sentence . <S> It can be of a single sentence, and dictionary definitions note this - but <S> grammar texts state that as a "rule of thumb" (ie, not a hard and fast rule, but generally accepted) a paragraph should have between 3-8 sentences . <S> There is also the " classic 5-sentence paragraph ". <S> The linked definition of "wall of text" sounds like a term has been coined for a document without paragraphs . <S> The exact opposite that you have described - a text where single lines are separated - sounds more like a bullet-pointed list , albeit without the bullet points.
| A piece of writing that is the opposite of a wall of text might be described as succinct . According to the definition you cite (and my understanding), a wall of text is a solid blob of text without paragraph breaks.
|
Meaning of "to take the biscuit"? What is the meaning, origin and earliest use of the phrase "to take the biscuit"? In the British comedy TV serial I am watching, the guy is upset because things are not happening as per his wishes. He is assembling a do-it-yourself baby cot for his daughter's baby, finishes assembling it, and goes out of the room. Then, when he returns to the room after some time, he sees that the baby cot is undone and all the parts separated, so he becomes very angry. He is talking to his wife narrating all things during the day that went wrong, and when he comes to mentioning the baby cot, he says "...but this one takes the biscuit". <Q> According to The Urban Dictionary , the phrase Take the biscuit is defined <S> as- take the biscuit Chiefly a British idiom. <S> Couple of examples of the usage of this phrase- <S> Jeff has always been annoying, but his latest stunt takes the biscuit. <S> Petrol has always been expensive, but these new prices really do take the biscuit. <S> Therefore, in the show you saw, the phrase- <S> "but this one takes the biscuit" is an idiom that the guy uses to say that among all the things that went wrong/bad that day, the baby cot(or rather- undoing of the baby cot ) was the worst of them all. <S> Hope <S> the meaning is clear to you now! <S> Also, here is a Google N-Gram which shows the usage of this phrase across 1800-2000. <S> I would say, it started being used roughly around 1880. <A> If I'm not mistaken, the original context stems from the Afroamerican plantation slaves occasionally doing dance contests accompanied by music or rhythm where the awarded prize was in fact a cake (e.g. "cakewalk", early jazz music). <S> The one contestant who did the most extreme, most interesting or unconventional show on his way to the trophy "took the cake". <S> It had a positive connotation back then, but shifted to "extreme" and then "extremely bad" in the later decades/centuries, I presume. <A> I'm British and when I (or anyone I know for that matter) uses it, we mean it to mean we're p****d off. <S> I use the curse because it relates to Cockney rhyming slang. <S> Its origin was most likely London, though I can't give a name nor can I give you a time, but I've always known it to mean that. <A> Its meaning is "takes the prize," and not necessarily for something good. <A> It's a naval expression from around the 1700's. <S> If you were on a long voyage and having a hard time, all food gone except the ship-biscuit or hardtack, then the last misfortune was to run out of it, or loose it through spoilage. <S> If the biscuit was taken, then things were desperate.
| When something "takes the biscuit" then it has become really bad, annoying or objectionable. Often used when something has worsened. A more American expression in this regard is "takes the cake."
|
If potato chips come in contact with humid air, they become what? In my mother-tongue, there's a word for it. I'm wondering what the English word is. If potato chips come in contact with humid air (as in rainy days), they lose their crispiness, and become _____________. Fill in the blank. Note that the chips are eatable and won't cause food poisoning. But neither are they wet because of contact with liquid water. They are just not crispy. In other words, if you take a potato chip and break it, it won't produce any sound of 'cracking'. It'd rather bend :) I'm not looking for something like 'uncrispy' because it'll serve an all different purpose in this context. To avoid confusion of chips or fries , this is the picture of what I mean chips here. <Q> Saturated or sodden with moisture; soaked: soggy clothes . <A> Stale adjective (staler, stalest) (of food) no longer fresh and pleasant to eat; hard, musty, or dry <S> : 'stale bread' synonyms: <S> dry, dried out, hard, hardened, old, past its best, past its sell-by date Taken from the Oxford Dictionary of English and the Oxford Thesaurus of English . <A> This is a somewhat technical answer. <S> Hey, I'm an amateur cooking geek :-) <S> For a starch or starch-oil food (which includes bread, chips, french fries, etc.), there are several ways they become less palatable: Soggy. <S> This seems like what you're mainly describing. <S> It's a change in the texture (how it feels) not so much how it tastes. <S> If you dipped it in water, it'd become soggy. <S> (Similarly, cereal left in milk too long becomes soggy). <S> Stale. <S> This is a change in both taste and texture, and is a change to the starch. <S> The texture (for bread at least) is normally drier . <S> Put some bread in the fridge for a few days, and it'll be stale. <S> (Note this can be mostly reversed by heating). <S> In bread at least, it occurs fastest around fridge temperatures. <S> Rancid. <S> This is the oil or fat oxidizing, so it can't happen without fat or oil. <S> For things with a lot of oil, and once its well-progressed, you'll notice a <S> very off odor that's normally described as "chemical" or even "paint thinner". <S> This is also what, for example, limits the shelf life of whole wheat flour; the oils go rancid. <S> This won't actually give you food poisoning, by the way. <S> Spoiled. <S> There is mold, bacteria, etc. <S> growing on it. <S> It's no longer safe to eat it. <S> Also, especially in extreme cases, rotten . <A> From the Wikipedia entry on " Jaffa Cakes ": McVities defended its classification of Jaffa Cakes as cakes at a VAT tribunal in 1991, against the ruling that Jaffa Cakes were biscuits ... <S> The product was assessed on the following criteria: ... <S> The product hardens when stale, in the manner of a cake. <S> The implication here is that while some things (e.g. cakes) harden when stale (presumably by losing moisture) while other things soften (e.g. biscuits) when stale (presumably by gaining moisture). <S> If the chips got directly rained on, then that would be " soggy ", but if you left the bag open on a humid day, causing them to get a bit damp, that would be " stale ". <A> I recommend the simple contrast of soft if the environment is such that the chips lost their crispness much faster than normal. <S> (Or, for humor value, you could refer to them as flaccid .) <S> Stale is also quite appropriate, as many others have pointed out: it is kind of a middle state where the food is no longer fresh, has lost some of its appeal and has degraded in some way, but is not yet harmful or inedible. <S> Normally you would use this if the food has sat out for some extended period. <S> Soggy is a more drastic state that implies an excess of moisture, to the point that it may actually drip water, or at least will make your fingers damp if you hold it. <A> We've also got a word for that in my country's primary language. :D <S> From experience, I believe the English word you are looking for is "stale". <S> "Stale" seems to have the meaning "no longer pleasant to consume after being left in the open for too long". <S> In which case, stale chips have lost their crispness, stale bread has become hard and dry, stale beer has lost its carbonation, stale coffee has oxidized and become sour and rancid. <A> Mushy would be a good description. <S> Merriam-Webster defines it as "soft and wet". <S> Soggy could also work, but I would say that it applies only when the chips are significantly saturated with water. <S> If the chips are merely no longer crispy due to exposure to low levels of moisture, mushy would be a better word. <A> They become damp . <S> damp moisture <S> diffused through the air or a solid substance or condensed on a surface, typically with detrimental or unpleasant effects. <S> This isn't unique . <A> Given that it's come in contact with water, the word would not be "stale" which is when it becomes hard and dry but, as others have said, "soggy" or perhaps "sodden" . <S> A stale chip will snap audibly, a soggy chip will bend and tear.
| Soggy fits the bill I believe. The answer IS stale :
|
Have to / having to? As fas as I know, "have to" is the commoner version of the two, but I'm finding more and more that "having to" is also used instead of "have to" . She has to / is having to look after herself now. Are both freely interchangeable without any difference in meaning? If any,I want to know what is the difference between the two and when you use "having to" more preferably than the other. Proper contexts with good examples to be given will be very helpful to me. <Q> You need an auxiliary when you use it in a question or in the negative : <S> Do I have to do that now ? <S> You don't have to go. <S> It can be used in the past: I had to get up early this morning. <S> And you can use it the with -ing form. <S> Choosing to use -ing form or not is done a purpose of course, and the difference will be the same as with any other verb. <S> Two extracts from US writers : <S> There have been many times, when Laura Bell has had to walk all alone back to her home, unless a few of her siblings would walk along with her while she is having to walk to school or having to run an errand out on the Ridge for her Ma... <S> now after four months cooped up, her arthritis is so bad, <S> she is having to learn a new stand-up style... <S> a New Zealand paper: the parents are having to make really difficult choices <S> a British Californian blog <S> Why are we having to subsidize the tight proprietors who don’t pay their staff properly? <S> Other examples from what seem to be reliable sources * , links provided for having full context: People are having to leave their rural areas my builder is having to come back in and repaint our baseboards <S> I am having to attend a disciplinary hearing <S> * <S> The difficulty in finding examples in English on the Internet is that English is used as a lingua franca and you can never be sure what is written has been written by a native who has a good knowledge of the language. <A> Has to is the common form correct in great most cases. <S> is having (without to ) appears only as an idiom for eating . <S> She has to buy a sandwich <S> - means opinion/necessity: "she definitely should buy a sandwich" or "She has no other choice, she must buy a sandwich." <S> She has a sandwich - ownership. <S> She bought a sandwich and kept it, it's hers. <S> She is having a sandwich - eating. <S> She is eating the sandwich. <S> I don't think I could think of an example where "She is having to do something " would be correct. <A> Difference Between "Have To" and "HAVING TO" is similar to the use of Present Simple (Present Indefinite) and Present Progressive (Present Continous) tenses. <S> While using have to, we refer something that we do regularly / for a longer period of time, e.g. I have to walk 5km every day to pick the bus for my office. <S> (i.e. this is a part of my routine activities) <S> Whereas, "Having To" is used while we mention something that we are doing for a limited time period due to any need / requirement, e.g. I am having to do extra work in the absence of my colleague. <S> (i.e. it's not my job <S> but I am doing it due a specific reason and for a particular time period.) <S> Hope it helps in answering your query. <S> If anyone thinks I am not correct then please rectify.
| "Have to" as expressing obligation or importance of having to do something has all the possibilities of a normal verb.
|
What does “positively ill” mean? The following quotation is from “A study in scarlet” by Arthur Conan Doyle: That book made me positively ill. I know the meaning of both positively and ill, but when consolidating (combining) them I can’t figure out the meaning of the expression positively ill . I can’t even realize how can be associated two opposite (in meaning) words, but I guess is one of the particularities that English can offer. <Q> There's no contradiction. <S> In this sentence, positively doesn't have its literal meaning of "in a positive manner". <S> Instead, it's used as an intensifier , emphasizing the following adjective ill . <S> When an English word is used as an intensifier, it loses its literal meaning. <S> Originally, very meant "truly" (like verity, verify, verily, and so on), but now we can say very tasty ("tasty to a great degree"). <S> Likewise, really meant "in reality", but now we can say really sick ("sick to a great degree"). <S> A lot of similar words belong to this class, including awfully, absolutely, terribly, or the slang words super, way, totally, and literally . <A> "Positively" in this case serves as an intensifier. "Positive" has a root in the verb "posit", which means "to put forward as fact or as a basis for argument". <S> Outside of mathematical contexts, "positive" is understood to mean that something is acceptable as truth (pending counter-proof). <S> As such, a medical test can be "positive" in that it presents evidence to believe that the person is sick, pending the results of other tests to corroborate or counter the statement. <S> In this case however, "positively ill" can mean that the speaker felt ill in some way, and while actual medical tests may prove him to be wrong, he feels that the things he felt were discomforting enough to warrant it being "illness". <A> "Positive" can also be used in the sense of "positive evidence" versus "negative evidence". <S> "Negative evidence" is the result of tests that rule other things out. <S> "Positive evidence" is actual evidence of something. <S> Some possible "positive evidence" of being ill might be: nausea (wanting to throw up, wanting to vomit) asthma attack (trouble breathing, wheezing) <S> itchy eyes <S> ear <S> ache <S> head ache a pain in the gut <S> So "That book made me positively ill <S> " might mean " <S> That book (literally) gave me a headache", or "That book made me want to puke".
| So "positively ill" can mean "obviously ill", as opposed to "not feeling great", "not feeling bored", "not merely feeling miserable", et cetera .
|
How to refuse an offer of partially eaten food? If someone has already started eating his food and offers me some, I don't eat the food he has already started eating. How do I frame a sentence for that? Thanks for the offer, but, I don't eat food ____ Any other sentence would be appreciated. <Q> This is a potentially awkward situation, since I assume the reason OP doesn't want to eat the food is because he's concerned bacteria may have been transferred from the original diner's mouth via cutlery (knives and forks) to the still-uneaten food. <S> As a Brit, I'd be far too prissy to call attention to something like that in most contexts. <S> It's a bit like saying you never kiss anyone on the lips for fear of tonsilitis (not the most tactful thing to say just after midnight at a New Year's Eve party! :). <S> But if you really don't care what others think... <S> " <S> "No thanks - I never eat other people's leavings " 1 <S> In my house, things like gnawed chicken drumsticks are likely to be gathered up and put in the stockpot along with the remains of the carcase (and be boiled for at least an hour to make stock, so there's really no danger of any bacteria surviving). <S> No-one I know would ever offer a half-gnawed bone to another diner though - we're well into "Waste <S> not, want not", but one must observe the limits of decorum . <S> 1 <S> Note that this use of leavings is relatively uncommon, and has particularly negative overtones <S> (leavings are discarded/undesirable , whereas leftovers are simply surplus to current requirements/appetite) . <A> Avoid giving a reason. <S> Something to the effect of "No, thank you. <S> " <S> is perfectly acceptable. <S> There's no need to give a reason and in this case it's much better not to. <A> One polite way of refusing based on the OP would be: " <S> Thanks, <S> but I don't like to eat other people's food." <S> polite: <S> "No thank you." <S> less polite: <S> "I never eat half-eaten food." <S> satirical (for close friends): <S> " No , it might get in my mouth." <S> (while raising a hand in rejection) <A> If the person has been served ahead of you then presumably they are trying to be considerate. <S> You don't need to express disgust. <S> Simply say a polite no and possibly something appropriate for the circumstances. <S> Oh, no thanks. <S> I don't mind waiting for mine to arrive. <S> Oh, no thanks, I've already eaten. <S> Oh, that's very kind <S> but I won't, thank you. <S> If they insist, say, "No really, I won't thank you."
| No thanks - I never eat leftovers from the plate" ...or... A reason can be phrased politely but you will still convey the message that you consider the other person's offer to be unworthy, and probably leave the other person a tad belittled.
|
Use of tense and clause in a sentence 'when shone through a prism, a beam of white light breaks into all the colours of the rainbow' Is the usage of shone correct here? Is it an adverb clause? <Q> I think that "shone" is correct here, but it sounds a bit old fashioned. <S> For more on shone vs shined, you could see this: http://grammarist.com/usage/shined-shone/ "shone" in your sentence is a passive participle from "shine," and it is part of an adverb clause. <S> Some English teachers will tell you not to write in the passive voice very often. <A> shone works. <S> So do passed and directed . <S> Alternatively, you may opt to not use the passive voice at all: <S> When a beam of white light passes through a prism... <A> In this case, the use of "shone" versus "shined" is a matter of personal preference.
| Yes, the usage of "shone" in your example is correct.
|
What does "idiot-proof-ness" mean? I'm looking specifically for the meaning in this sentence: But I would say the biggest advantage of Optional syntax in Java isn't in readability: the advantage is its idiot-proof-ness. <Q> The suffix <S> -proof <S> added to something means " can't be harmed by " <S> If it's waterproof it can't be harmed by water. <S> If it's fireproof it can't be harmed by fire. <S> If it's idiot-proof it can't be harmed by idiots. <S> The suffix <S> -ness is used to reference the quality or characteristic of being something. <S> If I talk about something's "fireproof-ness" <S> I'm talking about the thing's quality of being fireproof. <S> In this specific case it's saying Java's Optional syntax is hard to mess up. <A> "Idiot-proof-ness" pretty much means people that are idiots can't mess up with the said object. <S> "The new phones are equipped with metal coating and are completely idiot-proof". <S> This shows that the new phones have metal coating and idiots will not be able to be mess up with it <S> (drop it). <A> It's saying that the object in question has a characteristic <S> such that "it's so easy <S> even an idiot will not fail when using it" It has nothing to do with a capability of not breaking when tampered with by an idiot, by the way
| Idiot-proof-ness therefore refers to a thing's quality or characteristic of being incapable of being harmed by an idiot.
|
"Claim" = "Action" in the legal context? I ask this because a book on Legal English says "claim" is the modern equivalent for "action", but doesn't explain it. If the book's right, then I could argue that "file a claim" means exactly the same as "bring an action". Page 69, Legal English: How to Understand and Master the Language of Law I think I'd better draw some examples from COCA. To me, filed a claim doesn't sound equivalent to "bring an action": Halverson's bailiff, a black man, says he was ordered to rub her feet, give her back massages, put on her shoes, change her oxygen bottles and pick up papers, cookie crumbs and sunflower seed hulls strewn on the floor of her chambers. He eventually filed a claim for discrimination based on race, religion and sex. She sued this supermarket, claiming her foot had been run over by a cart. And at the local bank, she says her foot was hit by this door, so she sued about that, too. She filed a claim against the city of San Francisco, saying she slipped in a puddle at City Hall, spraining her ankle and tearing her nylons. The family attorney says he will likely file a claim in a matter of weeks alleging the federal government is liable in Terry's murder because gun found at the scene were part of "Operation Fast and Furious." The McCoys, along with two other Chicago-area Wave investors, say they plan to file a claim against Web Street for arbitration by the National Association of Securities Dealers. They contend that Web Street misinformed them about the transfer process. <Q> A claim is a demand that something be given to you. <S> Possibly something that you own but do not possess or something you feel entitled to. <S> When you file something you register it with some sort of authority — hopefully one who is in a position to act on your request. <S> So filing a claim is registering your demand for something with some authorized agent. <S> It doesn't have to be in the form of a lawsuit seeking compensation. <S> I could file a claim to get my impounded car back. <S> But it's always a demand for ownership of something you believe is or should be yours. <A> Claim is not quite synonymous with action . <S> By action , I assume you mean legal action . <S> As @Jim noted, a claim <S> is a demand that something be given (or given back) to you. <S> Of the relevant definitions … A demand for something as rightful or due. <S> A basis for demanding something; a title or right. <S> Something claimed in a formal or legal manner, especially a tract of public land staked out by a miner or homesteader. <S> a. <S> A demand for payment in accordance with an insurance policy or other formal arrangement. <S> b. <S> The sum of money demanded. <S> A statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth: makes no claim to be a cure. <S> [irrelevant in the context of "file a claim"] … <S> all of them include some sense of property, ownership, or taking. <S> A legal action is a judicial proceeding brought by one party against another; one party prosecutes another for a wrong done or for protection of a right or for prevention of a wrong <S> For example, you can file a claim for reimbursement of business trip expenses, or file an insurance claim. <S> Since no law court is involved, it's not a legal action. <S> You can initiate a legal action that wouldn't be thought of as a claim. <S> For example, environmental activists could seek an injunction to prevent a construction project in a wilderness area from proceeding. <S> It's not really appropriate to call it a claim, since they aren't asserting ownership of the wilderness, nor are they expecting any personal gain from the action. <S> Some legal actions are also claims. <S> The four examples in your question all imply that the plaintiff is seeking legal compliance, compensatory damages, and likely punitive damages as well. <A> I think one of the problems with your question - and the answers to it - is that it covers more than one jurisdiction in which English is spoken. <S> The first passage you cite, deals with developments in terminology in English law. <S> The second is (I guess from words like "attorney" and "federal") the USA. <S> The other answers to this question may be entirely correct for the USA, but they are at best misleading in the context of England. <S> In England pre-1999, civil legal proceedings were started in many different ways and the terminology varied a lot (writ, originating application or summons for example). <S> There has since then been a steady process of using the word "claim" universally, so that civil legal proceedings are started using a "claim form" and what follow is then referred to as a "claim". <S> @200_success gives the example of environmental activists seeking an injunction: in English law, the usual procedure would be to complete a claim form, there would then be a claim for an injunction. <S> The distinction made in that answer does not apply to England. <S> It's a claim, by the way, because the claimants (English terminology for plaintiff etc) are claiming an injunction. <S> "Claim" and "legal proceeding" in England aren't quite synonymous because (1) the new terminology applies to civil not criminal proceedings, where other reform movements have happened at a different pace (2) <S> there may still be obscure examples of things that are technically not claims, though I cannot think of any - <S> and I've appeared in some very unusual forms of legal proceeding. <S> So, from the point of view of your first piece of text, "claim" is pretty nearly synonymous with "legal proceeding" in the legal context. <S> Obviously "claim" has other meanings ("insurance claim", mathematical claim) <S> but those are not in the legal context. <S> In England you would file (and generally serve) a "claim form" not a "claim" but "filed a claim" may be used informally as far as I know. <S> The way lawyers use the word filing a claim form initiates a claim. <S> This is just addressing the English part of your question. <S> US law is very, very, different.
| I believe that legal action and file a claim partly overlap: You can file a claim that is not a legal action.
|
Antonym of 'calculated, deduced (value)' In computer programming, I'm looking for a word to describe values that are not calculated or deduced based on other values. The only word came to mind is 'authentic' but it seems far-fetching. What are my options? Edit: Thanks for the answers and comments but 'constant' is not what I am trying to express. I want to say this value is not a 'calculated column' (database metaphor) or a transformation of another pre-existing value, instead, the value carries unique information that if you delete this value, some information is lost whereas if you delete a calculated value, nothing is lost as long as you have the formula. Maybe 'raw' is the best fit here? <Q> Some words have very specific meanings within computer programming. <S> Below are some standard(-ish) definitions. <S> constant and static are keywords in many languages, with precise meanings. <S> I would steer clear from using them unless they fit your needs exactly. <S> persistent and fixed are not common keywords, and are open to interpretation depending on use. <S> A <S> A Static variable is one whose value does not differ between instances of a class. <S> Persistent means that it exists both before and after some event that would otherwise reset the value, like a page load, or a restart. <S> Fixed means 'unchanging'. <A> My best guess would be an independent variable or an unattached variable . <S> Note that these are NOT technical computer programming terms. <A> original value is usually uncalculated, unbiased and untransformed, which gives the sense of rawness. <A> I would use fixed values . <S> Variables are usually dependent on other values or calculations, while fixed values are not. <S> X=5 <S> (X is fixed) <S> Y= <S> a(determined elsewhere)+4 <S> (Y is variable)
| Constant is a variable that will never change.
|
meaning of passive voice: "a letter is written" A letter is written . The passive voice is not familiar with me and so vague to me. I would think that the sentence above means: “ A letter [i] has been written and [ii] is seen by the speaker now .” Is it what the sentence mean? Can any other meanings be there: for example, a letter is being written now , etc. - it seems at least part of it to be in : It is often said that history is written by the victors ( daum.net )? <Q> A simple present passive has the same range of uses as a simple present active: To express enduring truths, as in your second example. <S> History is written by the victors means, approximately, It is always the victors who write the Received History of a conflict . <S> To describe repeated or habitual actions over time. <S> A letter is written every 30 seconds to the White House . <S> To report events as current 'hot news', as in a sportscast or photo caption, or by convention in chronicles and plot synopses. <S> In Chapter IV a letter is written, which will have unfortunate consequences in Chapter XII. <S> With future reference in a schedule or timetable. <S> On Monday a letter is written. <S> On Wednesday the Board receives it. <S> On Friday the Board convenes to discuss it. <S> With contingent future reference in subordinate clauses: If a letter is written I will answer it. <S> I'm doing it now, before a letter is written forbidding it. <S> Keep any letter which is written you on this subject. <S> Let me know when a letter is written. <S> It is essential that a letter is written. <S> But without further context it is impossible to say which of these uses obtains in any particular instance. <A> Don't worry: it's vague for native speakers too! <S> Actually, the vagueness here isn't really the fault of the passive voice. <S> The simple present tense is the real issue here. <S> To illustrate, let's use your quoted sentence: <S> History is written by the victors. <S> This contrasts with the active voice: <S> The victors write history. <S> Both of these mean exactly the same thing. <S> Both of them are vague on the things you ask about: When was it written? <S> Who's reading it? <S> The only thing that the passive voice does is put the focus on "history" more than on "the victors". <S> That's because the vagueness isn't the passive voice's fault. <S> The simple present can mean several different things. <S> It can be a statement of general fact, which is what it means here. <S> It can describe habitual actions. <S> It can sometimes describe ongoing actions (although that's normally the job of the present continuous ). <S> Now, back to your original example: A letter is written. <S> This isn't vague because of the passive voice. <S> It's vague because it doesn't say much. <S> It just states (as a general fact) that a letter exists, that someone wrote. <S> The sky is blue, water is wet, and a letter is written. <A> Sometimes people use present tenses to tell a story which would otherwise be told in past tenses, to make it more interesting and - well - 'present'. <S> It happens with many jokes - "A man walks into a bar and orders ...' - <S> and when summarising a novel or play - "Romeo loves Rosaline but meets Juliet at a party at her house and falls madly in love with her". <S> One sentence of four words isn't enough to tell whether that's the intention here.
| Another possibility is that 'A letter is written' is an example of what is called 'the historical present'.
|
Meaning of "no day at the beach" Those kids are terrible and I am no day at the beach either. There is no definition on the internet, but it sounds like "I am trouble." <Q> "Day at the beach" is being used as a metaphor for something easy, enjoyable, and/or agreeable . <S> It's similar to the second (idiomatic) meaning of the phrase ' walk in the park '. <A> Since I can't comment (argh!)... <S> I would ammend to @jfhc answer and say it doesn't necessarily mean you're in trouble. <S> It also can mean it's not as fun or easy. <S> Whether it means trouble or boredom is a matter of context. <S> If you're working a shift on the checkout-counter at McDonalds, it doesn't mean you're in trouble, just not having fun. <S> After all, it's no day at the beach. <A> I would use this term to describe a situation or person that might be challenging. <S> It is preferred to use "isn't" , but some people would use "ain't", which is non-standard [ (1) ] English. <S> How’s your job? <S> It ain’t no day at the beach. <S> (It is tough, or I don’t like it). <S> What’s it like working for your boss? <S> He/ <S> she ain’t no day at the beach. <S> (He/she is demanding/grouchy/difficult to get along with/incompetent) <S> What was it like dating him/her? <S> He/ <S> she ain’t no day at the beach. <S> What’s it like looking for a job? <S> It ain’t no day at the beach.
| A day at the beach means swimming, sitting on the sand, eating hot-dogs and potato salad, maybe a beer. Your guess that it means 'I am trouble' seems roughly correct: the speaker is suggesting that the kids are behaving terribly but that his behaviour is also difficult for those around him.
|
An example from the OxfordDictionaries using the preposition 'from' - can it be written differently? I was reading about the prepositions on OxfordDictionaries and encountered this sentence as an example there. There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English. The boldfaced phrase looked a bit unnatural to me. I understand that you ban someone 'from' something but then that preposition (from) is followed by the phrase the end of the sentence which is actually a place. In such cases, it follows the preposition 'at' . Tell me the last letter 'at' the end of the sentence is far too common over Tell me the last letter 'from' the end of the sentence May I adjust this sentence to fulfill my dogma! There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from using (them) at the end of sentences. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English. Your inputs are welcomed. <Q> A phrase using the verb "to ban" with a subject and a location typically follows the form "To ban subject from [ (verb)ing at] location " ILLOGICAL: <S> There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from using (them) at the end of sentences. <S> When you ban something from (verb)ing at location , you prohibit the subject from performing the action at the specified place. <S> Here you are prohibiting the prepositions themselves from using (something unspecified: them ) at the location the end of the sentence . <S> The issue here is less the structure of the sentence than the choice of verb: 'using' appears to have no object, and it seems unlikely that a preposition would be able to 'use' (take illegal drugs) in a colloquial sense. <S> CORRECT: <S> There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from being at the end of sentences. <S> Here, prepositions are prohibited from performing the action, being , when at the end of sentences. <S> They are not allowed to exist at the end of sentences. <S> This is quite clear. <S> ALSO CORRECT: <S> There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. <S> When banning someone/something, the "verb + at" is optional. <S> If excluded, as in "To ban subject from location , "being in" or "being at" is implicitly understood. <S> This example has the same meaning as the previous example and is also very clearly phrased. <S> Both correct examples are fairly standard and including "being at" shouldn't sound particularly strange to a native ear. <S> Since language tends towards simplicity, however, the exclusion of the verb is more likely. <A> There is nothing wrong with the phrase "to ban prepositions from the end of sentences". <S> In fact, if we take into consideration the meanings of the verb ban and the preposition from, the phrase will be clear and come across easily. <S> The verb ban means to prohibit from doing, using, etc. <S> The "from" means (among others) in regard to, which is often used in this sense with different verbs such as prevent, prohibit, save, protect, ban, etc. <S> So if we keep the said meanings in view, the sentence will sound clear and natural to us. <S> However, it can be written in different ways, a few examples of which are as follows: <S> There is no necessity to ban prepositions at the end of sentences. <S> There is no necessity to ban prepositions from being used at the end of sentences. <A> There is no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. <S> There is no necessity to ban prepositions at the end of sentences. <S> Both of the above sentences sound fine to me and have the same meaning <S> So many times we come across words that can be used interchangeable, the authors choosing what they feel most appropriate to their particular context.
| There is no necessity to ban prepositions from being at the end of sentences.
|
Proper greetings on the phone English is my 2nd language and I need your advice on this little awkward moment I had with a lady on the phone today. She left a voice message so I was returning her call. Me: Hi. I'm ** returning the phone call from Ms. ##### Lady (on the phone): Hi. How are you? Thanks for calling me back! Me: Yeah..Good to talk to you! At this very moment, I felt a little awkward reaction from her. It seems like my comment " Good to talk to you " at that moment was not appropriate. And then at last she said, " Look forward to seeing you Saturday! " and I said " Same here! " How about this response? Is this also awkward? <Q> There are a lot of nonsense lines in English-language conversation. <A> It seems to me that in the context of your conversational exchange, the utterance " <S> Hi. <S> How are you? <S> Thanks for calling me back!" <S> was probably anticipating a response along the lines of " <S> Thanks, I'm fine, and you're welcome. <S> What can I do for you?" <S> As Malvolio observed earlier, "Good talking to you" customarily comes at the end of a call, where it functions as a phatic closer to the conversation. <S> So I suspect that your interlocutor may have felt that your response violated two unwritten rules of telephone etiquette. <S> However, nowadays native speakers of English often find themselves talking to non-natives, especially in a business setting, so they are accustomed to making allowances for such verbal lapses. <S> This one, which is pretty minor, probably isn't worth losing any sleep over -- that is, unless you have other reasons to believe it cost you a multi-million-dollar contract, your job, and the respect of your bosses, your spouse and your dog... <S> To answer the last part of your question -- I think your contribution to the exchange about seeing each other on Saturday was fine in terms of its tone, despite the fact that it does not stand scrutiny regarding its logic. <S> This is because it is in effect saying that you too are looking forward to seeing yourself on Saturday. <S> It therefore has something in common with another formulaic but logically incoherent conversational exchange: <S> "I love you, darling!" <S> "Me too!" <A> I was thoroughly indoctrinated by both of my grandmothers, that the only appropriate response to a "Thank you" was "you're welcome", and that's what I'd have used instead of " <S> Yeah. <S> " I'm coming to accept "no problem" as an alternative to "you're welcome", only because I interpret it (perhaps wrongly) as a borrowing from the Mexican Spanish " de nada " in the same situation. <S> I would not be likely to use it myself, though; both my Grandmothers were very fond of me, but still, you would have had to know them to know how formidable those women were. <S> "Same here" at the conclusion of a conversation seems a little awkward to me, too, but not enough for it to be unacceptable to me. <A> There are many possible responses to someone thanking you: <S> You're welcome (as mentioned by brasshat) <S> Not at all <S> My pleasure (or 'The pleasure is mine') Not a problem (or 'No problem', or 'No worries, mate' if you're Australian) <S> (Say nothing) <S> I wasn't quite brought up to say 'You're welcome' and for a long time that sounded very 'American' to me, and I was more accustomed to (2) or (3). <S> I think saying nothing is fine particularly if it was a minor thanking point, and you can go straight to the business of the call. <A> In the situation at hand the correct way to reply would be: <S> Me: Good [Morning/afternoon]. <S> I'm <S> ** <S> from [company name] <S> and I'm returning the phone call from Ms. ##### Lady (on the phone): <S> Hi. <S> How are you? <S> Thanks for calling me back! <S> Me: I'm good thank you, yourself? <S> And you're welcome, what can I do for you? <S> The opening greeting always needs to be professional, after that it can drop formailities depending on the caller. <S> Hope this helps :)
| For some reason, "Good talking to you" tends to go at the end (" Glad to talk to you" at the beginning), but really, anything you say that isn't outright babble is probably fine.
|
Meaning of "thickly accented" Does Villani speak English like an Englishman or like a Frenchman? "Villani told OZY from his office in Paris. “I can recall a cartoon about Donald Duck in the land of mathematics, and I liked this,” he recalls in rapid, thickly accented English." <Q> Everyone has an accent. <S> An accent = a pronunciation pattern = a speech pattern. <S> If we speak, we have an accent. <S> A "thick" accent is one whereby the sounds are pronounced in such a non-standard way that most people have difficulty understanding the speaker's message. <S> Source website <A> Based on his Ted talks and given that Villani is a Frenchman, his accent is "french" while he speaks English. <S> And when the text refers to it as "thickly", it means it is very pronounced. <S> Easy to distinguish as coming from Frenchman. <S> Which also makes it harder to understand for English speakers. <A> It means two very similar things. <S> 1) a person who isn't a native speaker still has the accent of their native language. <S> In this case the French man is speaking English but you can hear that they are French through how they pronounce words. <S> 2) <S> Someone from the same country has a certain dialect, for instance I'm from the South of England <S> so if I went up to Newcastle they'd think I have a thick southern accent and vice versa. <S> Hope <S> this helps :)
| So to answer your question, he speaks English like a Frenchman.
|
'A decapitated head' from the Huffington Post sounds strange to me The headlines on the Huffington Post reads Grandfather Of Australian Boy Pictured Holding 'DECAPITATED' Head In Syria Tells Of Shock Decapitated? It's used as an adjective here. That seems strange usage to me. How? This way... decapitate (verb) - Cut off the head of (someone) The sentence could be - A cruel militant decapitates a soldier. This means he cuts off the head of the soldier. So, once this brutal procedure is done, the head is separated from the body and then we can use the adjective decapitated. But then, it is the body that takes the adjective and not the head. That's how OxfordDictionaries defines the adjective decapitated in its example: a decapitated body So, it is decapitated body and not the head. What do we write a beheaded body or a beheaded head? I would not have any problem with this headline (hypothetical) A shocking image of boy holding severed head with decapitated body lying nearby in the pool of blood To prove my point further, I would cite here something authentic that I as a doctor have read and used. Let's take the word ' amputate '. It means to remove an organ from the body. It's a surgical procedure to save someone's life. For instance, if you have a diabetic foot, to prevent it spreading further, surgeons amputate that foot and the patient is saved. In this case, after surgery, we have amputated foot and not amputated patient! The latter simply means dead patient! Because you amputate a limb from the patient's body. In the same way, we may have amputated limbs and not amputated body . If the surgery has been recently performed, we say, "That's the patient of diabetic foot, operated amputated. " Yes, looking at the cut foot we say, "That's the foot, amputated." That is because the surgeon did not amputate the patient, but his foot. :) Again, back to the question, if you cut off the head, the process is decapitating. After decapitating, you have severed head and decapitated body not decapitated head. So, would you confirm that the usage of the word is incorrect. Or am I missing something? Thanks for reading! :) <Q> 'Decapitated head' is actually more common than 'decapitated body' ( Google Ngram ), but 'body <S> [be] decapitated' is more common than 'head <S> [be] decapitated' ( Google Ngram ) <S> I saw headlines like this and didn't think twice about it. <S> (Linguistically, that is; emotionally I am deeply worried about decapitated bodies (or heads).) <S> I think the meaning has extended beyond 'Cut off the head of (someone)' <S> (but not as far an any other body part - there were no hits for 'hand/foot decapitated', ' <S> decapitated hand/foot'). <A> As said in the comments, you are correct in doubting the usage of decapitated in that sentence. <S> The head is de-bodyfied. <S> Somehow that sounds really gruesome though. <A> There is no reason at all to feel ill at ease with that headline - at least from a linguistic point of view! <S> Although the head itself can hardly be said to be decapitated, neither is a pair of scissors left-handed. <S> What happens is a common construction called a transferred epithet or hypallage . <S> Some examples include: <S> A left-handed pair of scissors: <S> the user is left-handed <S> Those were happy days: the people living those days were happy <S> I had a restless night: <S> I was restless, not the night <A> Maulik, you are correct to be ill-at-ease with the article title. <S> Vincent is correct. <S> The Latin basis for the word is: de- (expressing removal) + <S> caput, capit- ‘head'. <S> The correct usage should be "severed head", not "decapitated head". <S> The second, which I see all the time in the middle- to low-rank media outlets, is grammatically redundant. <S> This is the same reason why "... he killed him dead..." is incorrect. <S> Note some of the responses here defending the error with the two most popular defenses: that the error is common in everyday usage and that language changes. <S> However I am willing to bet that the people who use it incorrectly are not thinking in either of those two modes when making the error. <S> You always hear people state that the purpose of language is communication. <S> However another even more important purpose is as a tool to articulate the world in which we live. <S> The word "decapitation" is one articulation level higher than "sever". <S> When both are used as exact synonyms, language loses articulation and becomes less nuanced. <S> This is an increasing problem with poor state of language education and the propagation of language errors through mass media. <S> As an English Language Learner, continue to use the same level of rigor in your use of the English language. <S> It is wholly appropriate. <S> Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. <A> I think the word you are looking for is disembodied. <S> The head without the body is disembodied. <S> The body without the head is decapitated.
| It should be "severed head" since the act of "decapitation" is done to the body and not the head, the head is removed from the body (the head is not removed from the head).
|
Difference between "nice to see you" and "nice to meet you" What is the difference between "nice to see you" and "nice to meet you"? Are they the same or not? <Q> They are different, "nice to see you" implies that you have already met or seen the person before. " <S> Nice to meet you" means that it is your first time being introduced to that person. <S> " <S> Nice to see you, it's been a while since we last met. <S> " <S> "Nice to meet you, what's your name?" <S> Another phrase that is commonly used is "Nice to see you again". <S> It is interchangeable with "Nice to see you". <S> " <S> Nice to see you again, it's been a while since we last met." <A> You normally only say "Nice to meet you" the first time you encounter someone. <S> You might reasonably say something like <S> "It was nice to meet [up with] my brother again, after not having seen him for years" , but you certainly wouldn't have greeted him with "Nice to meet you [again]" . <S> But <S> "Nice to see <S> you" has no such "first time" connotations. <S> In fact I'd go so far as to say that because meet has such strong associations as given above, discarding it in favour of <S> see actually carries the implicature that you've met the person before. <A> I really don't know why <S> but it indicates you grew up in an upper class family. <A> Others have explained the difference between the two greetings and pointed out how they are normally used. <S> Nice to meet you <S> There are at least a couple situations when someone might say this, even though it is not the first time they have encountered or met the person. <S> 1 <S> The speaker is on his way to a meeting where he will meet some new people. <S> Before he gets there, he has an encounter with some unknown person on the street, say the two literary bump into each other, and one spills San Pell all over the shirt of the other. <S> When the speaker arrives at the meeting, guess who is one of the new people he is supposed to meet there? <S> Yes, the guy he encountered earlier. <S> Whether or not the two introduced themselves to each other in their actual first encounter, when they are introduced to each other at the meeting, they could say Nice to meet you , Nice to meet you--again , Nice to meet you, for real , etc. <S> One sees this situation depicted at times in a novel, movie or play. <S> However, such a situation of 'meeting' someone twice in a short time period does not have to be that dramatic. <S> The two could be introduced to each other more than once within a time period and say Nice to meet you each time. <S> There is the option, of course, to say to the host <S> We've already met . <S> 2 <S> it can also be used when the speaker has not seen or met with the hearer in a very long time (or what feels like a very long time). <S> This usage acknowledges that it has been so long a time since the two people last saw each other that it is similar to meeting for the first time. <S> This would be a humorous but sincere usage. <S> There might be much catching up to do between the two. <S> Nice meeting you. <S> Nice seeing you. <S> In some dialects, at least, one can also use these 'ing' phrases rather than the infinitive phrase. <S> They seem less formal than the infinitive phrases, but are natural to use in a less formal or informal setting. <S> What describes 'formal', 'less formal', 'informal' is local usage. <S> One city or locale may differ from another, and even one business from another in the same city or locale. <A> In polite society the technical use for a greeting that is first time is "nice to see you." <S> It does sound a bit funny <S> but this is the correct way to respond when you meet someone for first time. <S> It sort of reminds me of the "come again" vs "call again". <S> Though I don't think it would matter that much and doubt most people would pick up on this.
| Upper class people say "Nice to see you" even if it is the first time meeting someone.
|
Do the sentences sound natural and have the same meaning? 1a: Nobody knows what will happen next. 1b: Nobody knows things that will happen next. 1c: Nobody knows that which will happen next. 2a: I asked her what kind of music she liked. 2b: I asked her the kind of music that she liked. Do the above sentences sound natural? Do 1a, 1b and 1c have the same meaning?Do 2a and 2b have the same meaning? Thank you very much! <Q> Do the [below] sentences sound natural? <S> 1a <S> : Nobody knows what will happen next. <S> This sounds unequivocally natural. <S> 1b <S> : Nobody knows things that will happen next. <S> This does not sound natural; to sound natural, add the definite article "the" before the word "things". <S> 1c <S> : Nobody knows that which will happen next. <S> Although this sentence may be grammatically correct, the use of the demonstrative word "that" along with the definitive word "which" is redundant and thus overqualifies the object of the sentence. <S> As a result, this sentence sounds rather unnatural. <S> 2a <S> : I asked her what kind of music she liked. <S> This sentence genuinely sounds natural. <S> 2b <S> : I asked her the kind of music that she liked. <S> Do [1(a/b/c)] have the same meaning? <S> No, none of the sentences above (1a/b/c) have the same meaning as another: <S> each sentence uses slightly different grammar upon introducing the object of the sentence. <S> Do [2(a/b)] have the same meaning? <S> Yes, semantically, both of the sentences above (2a/b) have the same meaning, likely because of their grammatical similarities. <A> 1a. <S> Sounds natural. <S> 1b. <S> Does not sound natural. <S> 1c. <S> Definitely not! <S> 2a. <S> Sounds alright. <S> 2b. <S> doesn't sound right. <S> The first three may have the same reason however, grammatically speaking, only 1a suffices. <S> for the last two, again only the first one makes sense grammatically so only use 1a and 2a. <A> This answer is specifically about examples 2a and 2b: <S> It is conventional in conversational English pair the phrase "ask [direct object]" with a preposition, such as "about": <S> I asked her about the kind of music that she liked. <S> However, this subtly changes the meaning of the sentence. <S> To make the sentence sound more natural without changing its meaning, remove the direct object ("her"). <S> I asked the kind of music that she liked. <S> The biggest exception is when a question word ( <S> who, what, when, where, why, how) is used immediately after "ask," as in example 2a: <S> I asked her what kind of music she liked. <S> That question word is a clue that what follows is not simply the topic of the question, but a restatement of the question itself. <S> Example 2a could be rewritten as: <S> I asked her: "What kind of music do you like?" <S> Your original phrasing is more flexible, though, because it doesn't have to specify the exact words that were used. <S> You could also use the same trick that I mentioned before by removing the direct object: <S> I asked what kind of music she liked. <S> Removing the direct object might remove some context, but additional context will be required no matter what construction you use. <S> Despite having a direct object, example 2a could mean I asked (a woman) <S> what kind of music (that same woman) liked. <S> or I asked (a woman) what kind of music (a different woman) liked.
| Sounds exceedingly unnatural, due to the lack of a question word "what", which should preeced the word "kind", and replace the word "the", instead.
|
When does "quite" means 'rather' and when does it mean 'completely'? When does "quite" means 'rather' and when does it mean 'completely'? Here is its wordnet entry: quiteadverb1. to a degree (not used with a negative) (Freq. 57)- quite tasty- quite soon- quite ill- quite rich• Syn: ↑rather2. to the greatest extent; completely (Freq. 47)- you're quite right- she was quite alone- was quite mistaken- quite the opposite- not quite finished- did not quite make it3. of an unusually noticeable or exceptional or remarkable kind (not used with a negative) (Freq. 6)- her victory was quite something- she's quite a girl- quite a film- quite a walk- we've had quite an afternoon• Syn: ↑quite a, ↑quite an4. actually or truly or to an extreme- was quite a sudden change- it's quite the thing to do- quite the rage- Quite so! <Q> I doubt that there's a hard rule here, but I tend to think that "quite" dilutes or weakens a compliment or favourable adjective, but it reinforces a pejorative adjective. <S> Eg, "quite pretty" means something less than beautiful, and "quite funny" is less than hilarious, and "quite nice" is very mild, but "quite insane" means completely insane and "quite ugly" means really ugly. <S> Quite peculiar means really peculiar. <S> So, bad things are worse with "quite". <S> But it doesn't always work, and some "quite" expressions have worked their way into the language with their own rules, like "quite lovely" which really does mean beautiful. <A> Before I go into that, let's start with explaining some grammar terms - Adjectives can be gradable and non-gradable . <S> Gradable Adjectives - <S> These adjectives can be measured in various degrees. <S> Example - Hot, cold etc <S> Non-degradable Adjectives - <S> These adjectives don't have different degrees. <S> Example - Horrible, terrifying etc <S> Usually in AmE <S> quite means <S> very, completely , and in BrE quite means fairly . <S> But sometimes BrE uses <S> quite to mean very or completely , when they use quite before non-gradable adjectives/adverbs. <S> Quite + a/an + noun means impressive Example - quite a beauty. <S> quite + a <S> /an + adjective + noun means a little or a lot but <S> not completely Example - quite a big campus. <A> When does "quite" means 'rather' <S> and when does it mean 'completely'? <S> Intonation and body language are important for making the distinction. <S> For example, "This salad is actually quite tasty": with the right intonation, this could mean "not too bad" or "yum yum!" <A> Rather can substitute for quite in the first definition with no problems. <S> Rather can somewhat substitute for <S> quite in the second definition, <S> but it will sound a bit strange, at least to my AmE ears. <S> Quite is preferred here. <S> Not rather cannot be usually be gracefully substituted for <S> not quite - to me <S> it seems like you are trying to say rather 's other definition of prefer to or want to . <S> Rather cannot be gracefully substituted for the third and fourth definitions. <S> quite tasty - <S> rather tasty quite soon - <S> rather soon quite ill - rather ill quite rich - <S> rather rich <S> you're quite right <S> - you're rather right <S> (sounds a little weird) <S> she was quite alone <S> - she was rather alone was quite mistaken - was rather mistaken quite the opposite - rather the opposite not quite finished - not rather finished (doesn't sound right) <S> did not quite make it - did not rather make it (doesn't sound right)
| Used with adjectives of potentially infinite character, such as "expensive" or "strong", quite is a moderate enforcer.
|
usage of who vs whom Sentence that needs correction: "Angela was curious about the unopened letter on the table and wondered for whom it was meant." I think the whom should be replaced with who because the sentence can be rewritten as Angela was curious about the unopened letter on the table and wondered "who was it meant for?" Correct answer: the sentence contains no error. why am I wrong? <Q> When "who" is the object of a preposition it should be replace with "whom" . <S> Both of your sentences are correct. <S> For whom is it meant? <S> (Correct) <S> Who is it meant for? <S> (Correct) <S> For who is it meant? <S> (Incorrect) <A> If you rewrite the clause without ‘pied-piping’—with the preposition for ‘stranded’ at the and— whom is still called for in formal writing: <S> Angela was curious about the unopened letter on the table and wondered whom it was meant for? <S> There is thus no error in the sentence as originally written. <S> Spontaneous colloquial speech, however, is less demanding; objective whom is rare in conversation (unless the speaker is working from a prepared text or is deeply experienced in the strict style), and almost never occurs at the head of a clause. <S> Consequently, when you introduce the clause as direct quotation this properly reflects colloquial usage, not formal. <A> 'Who is it meant for ?' <S> is incorrect, both because of the mix up between direct object and subject and also because of the preposition at the end of the sentence. <S> Whereas most English speakers have lazily slipped into commonly putting prepositions at the end of sentences, it looks and sounds sloppy in the written form. <S> The correct versions would be 'For whom is it meant'. <S> Who is used when referring to the subject of the sentence and whom when referring to the direct object. <S> Thus: The man who stole my wallet is in jail. <S> The man whom the dog bit is in hospital.
| In strict registers, WHO acting as the object of a verb or a preposition is always cast in the objective case, whom .
|
Why is the correct phrase "to come on the trip" and not "to come to the trip"? I wrote the following: I was surprised Mary had agreed to come to the trip. A native English speaker told me I should write instead: I was surprised Mary had agreed to come on the trip. I admit it surprised me. I could have sworn it was to . Why is it on instead of to ? How can I avoid making this mistake in the future? <Q> The "Why" is easy: because we have held repeated elections and for several centuries on has always won. <S> As far as avoiding the mistake, it may help you to consider, first, that to generally indicates a trip's destination, not the trip itself; and second, that we use on in many constructions which designate presence or motion on (!) <S> a path: <S> Point A lies on the curve defined by ... <S> On the road again ... <S> —song by Willie Nelson <S> Soybean prices are on a downward trajectory. <S> She's on her way to the top. <S> The road goes ever on and on ... <S> —song by J.R.R. Tolkien <A> Check this definition, on sense 9: 9) engaged in ⇒ "on a trip" <S> Here trip refers to an activity, not a location, so on <S> is correct. <S> In the case of a location, you could say: I was surprised Mary had agreed to come to the beach . <A> To is used when referring to a specific point or location. <S> A trip is not either, rather being an activity involving places. <S> I go TO London. <S> I go ON a trip TO London. <S> I will be going TO London ON the trip. <A> "On" (in this context) refers to direction. <S> A trip has a direction, not a location. <S> Therefore you use "on."
| "To" refers to location.
|
inform of, come to know something or aware of You are informed of something You come to know something You are aware of something Would anyone explain the difference between those? And whether or not one can use them interchangeably ? If so, when ? <Q> You are informed of something. <S> In this case, you got information from someone or something, for example another person or a letter. <S> You come to know something. <S> In this case, you didn't know something, and now you do. <S> You are aware of something. <S> In this case, it is just something that you know. <A> Most parallel with the first two would be " <S> You are made aware of something. <S> This way they all are focused on the action of acquiring knowledge. <S> "To come to know" encompasses a broader range of possibilities- <S> you could come to know through observation or reflection or happenstance, as well as by being directly informed. <S> Note though that of the three, "to come to know" focuses least on the "how" and more on the transition from not knowing to knowing. <S> In other words, when you are informed, someone told you, when you come to know something, you didn't know something at some point <S> and then you did, <S> but it doesn't really specify how you came to know. <S> "To be made aware" is not much different than "to be informed" but it may lend itself to more easily include the idea of an agent imparting information rather than just the receiving of it. <S> For example I might say: Susan was informed of the rules. <S> Or Susan was made aware of the rules. <S> In the second, my mind much more easily pictures someone explicitly making her aware. <S> People may debate this and I certainly can see a person doing the informing as well. <S> Perhaps is the use of made . <S> Where it implies a level of assurance not present in "to be informed". <S> For example:If Susan was made aware of it, I know she knew about it. <S> If Susan was simply given a rules book one might be able to say she was informed even if we don't know if she actually read it. <S> One might say she was made aware of the existence of the rule book, but not the rules themselves. <A> Consider there's your colleague named Jack. <S> One bad day, he has been sacked. <S> In this context, I'll try to answer your questions. <S> You asked the differences. <S> Here are they. <S> You are informed (-sense#1) of something <S> ~ You are informed of Jack's sacking. <S> Either someone told you or you got this information from somewhere <S> (maybe, an email or something for example). <S> Point to note: You did not do any effort to know this piece of news. <S> You come to know something <S> ~ You come to know that Jack has been sacked <S> This is quite similar to the above one <S> but when you inform someone, it's official and when you come to know something, it could be through gossip, general talk or things <S> the like. <S> Point to note <S> : You may or may not do any effort for this. <S> This may come as your efforts, coincidence (employees were talking about it and suddenly you came) or luck. <S> In other words, say, you enter into gossip that has been already going on <S> and there, the topic of Jack's sacking comes (with no effort, you came to know this news) <S> or you toss a topic of current sacking in the company and someone tells you that Jack has been sacked (you made some efforts to know who all are been sacked). <S> And lastly, You are aware of something <S> ~ You are aware of Jack's sacking <S> This means Jack's sacking is probably declared and well known. <S> You know or realize this news (sense #1, <S> sense #2 is also possible <S> but then it'll be in a different context) <S> and you are pretty well aware of it. <S> In this context , being aware means the person who's talking to you is probably confirmed that Jack's sacking is not a secret to you anymore. <S> And again, you are aware of it. <S> Now the second question: <S> No, they are not interchangeable all the time. <S> You cannot be aware of something unless that something is being informed to you. <S> Check the example there: <S> "I don't think people are really aware of just how much it costs." <S> True, you have to inform them to make them aware. <S> Likewise, if you come to know something, it does not necessarily mean that someone informed you . <S> The knowledge of that something has come to you because of your efforts, luck or coincidence . <S> Hope <S> this helps.
| The difference between them then becomes a matter of how the knowledge is acquired: "To be informed" means that you are told something. They are not really interchangeable, though its possible in some context.
|
when do you say "here you come"? I happened to see this expression "California, Here You Come" in the article below.But I don't know exactly what it means or under what situation you native English speakers say it. whole story: http://www.sunset.com/travel/california/california-here-you-come <Q> This is a difficult one because it is meant to convey the idea of "You" meaning "I" - " California here <S> I come " which is a through back to the Gold Rush days of the 1840's <S> In this situation the article does sound grammatically incorrect, but I think the point is that the idea is to push the object on "You" as someone visiting California and not "I". <A> " I think this goes back to the days of the gold rush, when people decided to head to California to make their fortune. <S> Al Jolson has a song with the same title. <S> I read your article, and I didn't really get the reversal in the title. <S> I guess she's referring to everything California has to offer her visitors. <A> This headline is not meant to be an example of good English. <S> The author is daring the reader to visit California. <S> As mentioned in the other answers, "California, here I come!" is an old saying. <S> The headline writer is making a pun on the old saying. <S> If you do visit California in the near future, the headline will become a prophesy.
| Usually, when someone goes on vacation, they express their excitement by stating "California, here I come!
|
Left my car key on/in the door? I'd like to make a sentence describing this image. So, I left my car key on the car door. OR I left my car key in the car door. OR I left my car key put in the car door. Which one is correct? Or is there a better way to say it? <Q> Key in the car door is the right use of it. <S> For reference check this result from google books. <S> There is absolutely no reference for the other use in any book there. <A> That's clearly not what is meant here. <S> IN the door is correct. <A> I would say: I left my car key in the car door (lock). <S> lock is implied since you can't put a key inside the door anywhere else. <A> HAHA I love that link to the stock photo <S> titled_Left <S> Key ON the car door <S> - now I understand why you asked. <S> But that is incorrect. <S> They are not 'on' the door, they're IN the door. <S> As user 3169 stated, people understand they are in the lock as a given. <S> So, definitely - IN the door. <S> I've actually never heard anyone say 'on' the door. <S> If you left it 'on' your door, I guess it would be laying on the window ledge or something. <S> HAHA <S> Saying ' <S> I left my car key put in the car door' is incorrect. <S> I thought about it and on a SEARCH for stock images I'm more specific. <S> I would start with: 'keys left in car door', then search: ' <S> car keys left in door' - You can cover 3 car key in door searches by using these search parameters: 'car-keys-left-in-car-door-lock-in-parking-lot-garage' :D
| ON the door would mean that the key is sitting on top of the door.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.