source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
turn over rocks for something - what does that expression mean? What a time for a book about computers! Machines are faster than ever, with some systems clocking in at more than three gigahertz. Yet, amazingly, they cost less than ever before, too. You can buy a new personal computer for less than $300—at least if you turn over rocks for the best prices and look for a free operating system (which is sort of like buying a car and curb-surfing for tires). Source: The Winn L. Rosch Hardware Bible I don't understand what that means. <Q> This is a reference to “leave no stone unturned.” <S> leave no stone unturned to do everything you can to achieve a good result, especially when looking for something: He left no stone unturned in his search for his natural mother. <S> Source: <S> Definition of “leave no stone unturned” from Cambridge Dictionaries Online <S> The idiom comes from Heraclidæ , a tragedy written by Euripides around the year 428 BC. <A> Previous answers have cited sources that define but do not explain the term "leave no stone unturned"; it may be easier to remember with a bit of visual background: <S> Imagine that you are looking for a valuable coin that was dropped in a field ten years ago. <S> You won't just look in every centimeter of the field, you will pick up every rock to look underneath it. <S> Once you've done that, you have, literally, left no stone unturned. <A> <A> It means it takes time, hard work patience and persistence to find something of value. <S> Strategic Leaders Turn Over Rocks to Find Gems
| To turn over rocks for something means to do a lot of hard work to achieve something.
|
What's the difference between "upright" and "awake" in this context? During the Doctor Who tour, these guys are experiencing a big jet lag So I was trying to translate (in French) "How are you all upright and awake at this point?", so I translated "awake" as "réveillés", but I don't know how to translate "upright", which is a synonym of "straight"/"vertical" (or even "honest", but this doesn't mean anything in this context), so I could translate it by "debout" (which is the french for "standing", and might be used to express the fact that somebody is awake), but the problem is that "debout" and "réveillé" are redundant, so to translate it I would need to understand what is the difference between "upright" and "awake" in this context ? <Q> I'm sorry, <S> I don't know French (hence, you may not precisely find what you are looking for) <S> but I'll try to answer the difference you asked. <S> Upright certainly means in vertical position. <S> Awake means they are not sleeping. <S> Putting these both words together merely emphasizes that they are not affected by their biological cycle of sleep i.e. Circadian Cycle <S> (that's why, the reply is 'time has lost its meaning) <S> and they are very much awake with no sign of even drowsiness. <S> For instance, we can use fully awake with the eyes wide open to emphasize their wakefulness . <A> The other answers are literally accurate, but there is also a connotation that one can be upright and moving around but metaphorically still asleep, such as someone who is very dependent on caffeine before they have their morning coffee, or someone who has not gotten enough sleep. <S> In my office, it is common in the mornings for someone to ask, "how are you this morning?" and the other person to respond, "Well, I'm up. <S> " <S> The implication is that they are awake enough to drag themselves to the office, but are neither fully awake nor happy about being out of bed. <S> Someone who is upright but not "awake" in this sense may have delayed responses, slur their speech, have difficulty focusing, and otherwise behave much like someone who is inebriated. <S> See also the idiomatic phrases "not firing on all cylinders" and "the lights are on but nobody's home". <A> "Upright" simply means "not lying down" or "not collapsed on the floor". <S> If you're sleeping in a chair, you could be (mostly) upright but not awake.
| You could be awake but not upright, if you're lying down but not sleeping.
|
Should I use "Stretching down to", or "down to"? Considering these sentences: The area stretching from Boston down to Baltimore is prone to storms. The area from Boston down to Baltimore is prone to storms. The east coast area stretching down to Baltimore is prone to storms. The east coast area down to Baltimore is prone to storms. Is sentence 2, obtained from sentence 1 by deleting " stretching ", okay? Is sentence 4, obtained from sentence 2 by deleting " stretching ", okay? <Q> From...to is fine when you specify both "from" and "to", as you have done in sentence 2. <S> When you do not specify a "from", as in sentence 3 or 4, <S> The east coast area all the way down to Baltimore sounds marginally better. <A> This seems to be more of an idiomatic usage question, so I'll answer this from the perspective of a native U.S. English speaker. <S> Your question asks if these sentences are okay . <S> However, the only grammatically correct sentences are sentence 1 and sentence 3 , so as an English learner, these are the only ones you should use: <S> The area stretching from Boston down to Baltimore is prone to storms. <S> The east coast area stretching down to Baltimore is prone to storms. <S> This is because, in the context of what you're trying to say, the word down is being used as an adverb . <S> Adverbs are used to modify verbs, so if you want to use one you should have a verb (in this case, stretch ) next to it. <S> If you look up the word down in the dictionary and look at definitions for the adverb form, you will see that in every example sentence, down is being used with a verb. <A> First of all, we use the phrase "down to" when referring to a "starting point" which is "higher" in degree than the "ending point". <S> In your example, you are referring to a "range" of places and the use of the word "stretching" here means "extending from". <S> Well, as I am not from the US of A <S> and I do not know if Boston is "higher" than Baltimore, here are my words on this: <S> The area stretching from Boston down to Baltimore is prone to storms. <S> The area from Boston down to Baltimore is prone to storms. <S> The east coast area stretching down to Baltimore is prone to storms. <S> The east coast area down to Baltimore is prone to storms. <S> Is sentence 2, obtained from sentence 1 by deleting "stretching", okay? <S> This is okay as long as Boston is "higher". <S> Is sentence 4, obtained from sentence 2 by deleting "stretching", <S> okay? <S> This is also correct as you are referring to the area extending from "east cost" to Baltimore. <S> But remember to review the use of the word "down". <S> It would be illogical to say "From the valley down to the top of the mountain". <A> Where is the from...to... pattern in sentence 3 and 4? :) <S> The transformation of sentence 2 from sentence 1 sounds okay <S> and it conveys the message that The area between Boston and Baltimore is prone to hit by storms. <S> Nevertheless, the sentence 4 without the word 'stretching' appears to me that Baltimore is the place showing the address of east cost area . <S> Something like Where the east cost area is? <S> Down to Baltimore! <S> I agree that putting commas make the sentence a bit more clear in this context <S> (The east cost area, down to Baltimore, is prone to storms) <S> but then I've read several structures without using commas. <S> For instance, "His shop down to Wall Street is quite far." <S> So, to answer your question, let the third sentence as it is. <S> It'll keep all confusion at bay.
| In everyday spoken English, all 4 sentences are okay and would be understood by most people.
|
Difference between "much, many, a lot of and lots of" Difference between "much, many, a lot of and lots of" What is the difference between them? Are they synonyms or not? <Q> They are all used to mean "a large quantity" but it depends on what you are talking about. <S> " <S> For example here's how I'd describe a fair <S> I went to last week: <S> There wasn't much to see at the fair. <S> Although there were many people there. <S> There were a lot of kids and a lot of noise. <S> Also lots of fun rides but nothing interested me. <A> Use "much" to describe a relative amount of a noun that can't be easily counted or quantified. <S> If you can't put a number before the noun, use "much." <S> Also, if you replace the object with a pronoun, it should be singular (it). <S> Consider "collective nouns" that are singular but describe an unquantifiable volume. <S> "Much" is often combined with a modifier like "too," "not," or "very." <S> There is not much snow on the ski slopes this year. <S> It's a small amount. <S> There's much work ahead before the end of the project. <S> It's a big one! <S> There's too much sand on the beach to count it all. <S> It's everywhere! <S> "Many" describes a quantifiable, countable noun. <S> If you can put a number before the noun you should probably use "many." <S> Here if you replace the object with a pronoun, it will be plural (them, they). <S> Many ski-lift operators will be looking for jobs. <S> Who will employ 30 of them? <S> This project has many complex parts to consider. <S> They are all critical - all 1000 parts. <S> There are too many grains of sand on the beach to count them all. <S> At least a million of them are in my left shoe. <S> Using "a lot of" or "lots of" is sort of personal preference. <S> In most cases the 2 are interchangeable. <S> There is a lot of ice on the road, so drive carefully! <S> Also, there's lots of snow! <S> We still have a lot of work to do - lots of separate tasks to complete. <S> I found a lot of sand in my right shoe, and lots more in places I didn't know existed. <S> A lot of people make the mistake of writing " alot ," so don't do that! <S> In most cases either one works fine, but you should be careful about replacing "a lot" or "lots" with "many" or "much." <S> Note that in the examples below "many" works in place of "lots/a lot", but "much" doesn't work at all. <S> At first there was just one monkey, but then the banana truck exploded and there were lots of monkeys running all over the place! <S> A lot of the monkeys ran off to the beach afterward. <S> Lots of bananas still litter the road though. <S> The town will need to hire a lot of people to clean them up. <S> Lots of people need jobs now anyway. <A> Both of these sentences are possible: We drank much fine wine at his house. <S> We drank many fine wines at his house. <S> They don't have identical meaning, though. <S> The first sentence is about the quantity of wine drunk (uncountable). <S> It could've been all the same type of wine. <S> The second sentence is about how many different types were drunk. <S> There could've been five or six different varieties (countable). <S> The first sentence could be modified to make it countable . <S> We drank many gallons of fine wine at his house. <A> "Much, many lots of and a lot of -- though covered very well in other answers are actually VERY relative. <S> Example: "Not much beer left..." <S> (in my glass) could mean only a few sips, while "Not much beer left..." (for a large brewing firm) could mean hundreds of thousands of litres. <S> "...not much point..." seems rather , to be referring to the degree , or some unknown sort of (uncountable) measure , than to the actual noun "point or points" which (theoretically) would, indeed , be countable. <S> As a ship has ballast, it is also helpful for English speakers and teachers (as well as learners) to have a ballast of reading from authors from different places and periods and to have had the opportunity to have "tasted" different recipes of language and conversed with people from all over. <S> Our language is spoken, heard, read and thought in by SO many people. <S> They come from different places, have different histories, and each has a somewhat similar (in a way) but different background. <S> Also, each has experienced the use of language under different teachers, read different books and even is apt even to THINK in slightly different contexts, so that occasionally, qualified teachers can "hoot down as wrong" something that is well accepted as well as standard teaching and tradition in another place, or in another time. <S> While English certainly has "standards" and "rules", "poetry" is allowed to have "license": <S> a qualified "bending" of the rules for expression's sake. <S> I would submit that the same license be tolerated in other uses of language as well, for the sake of variety, discovery, humor, broadening of understanding, indeed, freedom of thought and finally, the introduction of other (yet) unknown varieties of your own mother tongue. <S> Wouldn't you also (possibly, in the right context) agree? <A> A simple answer to that question is as it goes- 1. <S> Many and much are used in negative sentences and questions. <S> or as they say, "common". 2. <S> A lot of and lots of, on the other hand, is used in affirmative sentences commonly. <S> it is not common in negative sentences and questions.
| Much" is used for uncountable nouns, "Many" is used for countable nouns, whereas "a lot of" and "lots of" are used in both cases.
|
Why are 'proper nouns' of body enzymes and things the like not capitalized? Proper nouns are usually capitalized - a primary-school lesson that all of us have learned. Let's look at a substance found in a human body. Arginine (/ˈɑrɡɪniːn/, abbreviated as Arg or R) 1 is an α-amino acid. It was first isolated in 1886 Another one, this time a kind of poison Solanine - Solanine is a glycoalkaloid poison found in species of the nightshade family (Solanaceae), such as the potato (Solanum tuberosum) and the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Being a healthcare provider, I read several research papers, documents and webpages on enzymes or those sort of substances. They all have name, a proper name but none of those written content ever capitalize them. Why? I also see some exceptions . Hemp seeds are high in Arginine, an essential amino acid known to improve heart health and protect from heart disease. But is it due to the comma there? As the following sentence is introducing what 'Arginine' is? But then, is there any rule that if you define a proper noun in the middle of the sentence, you capitalize its first letter and if you don't, you don't! I don't think so. :) <Q> A proper noun is one that is used to refer to a unique entity; "arginine" is used to refer to any sample of that particular chemical. <S> It's no more a proper noun than "water". <A> This is not an issue regarding enzymes as such, it is common to all chemistry. <S> It is unusual for compounds to be written with capital letters. <S> You do not see Sodium Chloride or Toluene but sodium chloride and toluene. <S> Complex organic compounds such as enzymes are no different. <S> The presence of a comma in your example should make no difference. <S> Where you see capital letters used, I would expect this to be either a feature of the writing style of the journal or an error. <S> The only time I would expect to see capitalization is for branded compounds such as proprietary drugs. <S> Perhaps the writer has just continued using an initial capital out of habit. <A> These names are usually formed according to some kind of system. <S> Especially in chemistry "new" compounds are often named like that. <S> Even a common word like alcohol gives rise to -ol <S> compounds (like methanol ) to indicate to a scientist that the two have certain chemical properties. <S> The compounds they name may or may not be in common use as nouns, and as such have lost their "name"-feeling. <S> If you want to capitalize arginine, you should, by rights, also capitalize alcohol, methanol and polypropylene. <S> These are "names" given to substances, but they do not function like proper names. <S> In extremis, if you want to capitalize them, you should capitalize Water as well. <S> It is, after all, the "proper name" given to dihydrogenoxide. <S> Of course, when a compound is given a trade mark name , it does get capitalized, even if the name seems to be systematically derived. <S> However, if the name becomes very commonly used, it is possible that the trade mark name loses its "proper name" feel again, and we stop capitalizing it again. <S> Examples of that are Aspirin and Heroin (trademarks of Bayer), which are now written as aspirin and heroin. <S> Something similar happened with nylon and rayon (trademark of duPont) - their Teflon seems to be going the same way.
| They're not capitalized because they're not proper nouns.
|
What is the difference between “remote” and “distant”? We have these adjective meanings: Remote 1. far apart; far distant in space. 2. out-of-the-way; secluded: a remote village. 3. distant in time, relationship, connection, etc.: remote antiquity; a remote ancestor. 4. far off; abstracted; removed: principles remote from actions. 5. not direct or primary; not directly involved or influential: the remote causes of the war. 6. slight or faint; unlikely: a remote chance. 7. reserved and distant in manner. 8. operating or controlled from a distance, as by remote control. Distant 1. far off or apart in space; remote. 2. apart or far off in time. 3. remote in any respect: a distant relative. 4. reserved or aloof; not familiar or cordial. 5. arriving from or going to a distance. I can't understand the difference between “remote” and “distant“? When do I use remote and distant? For me they are identical. Next examples don't give a grasp for me (I took them from my self-education): Remote [rɪˈməʊt] 1. He might know a remote capability of lying but that was useless. 2. I'm not sorry to be as remote from these things as I am. Distant [ˈdɪst(ə)nt] 1. The hobbits looked anxiously at the distant hills. ( Why? Can I say "remote"? ) 2. He looked north across a line of rocks, studying a distant escarpment. 3. Light clouds came up out of the sea in the distant South and were blown away upon the breeze. 4. Soon he was beyond the reach of the last rays from the faint and distant Sun. I think these examples aren't the best. <Q> Yes, they are similar & would be largely interchangeable. <S> A small distinction I can think of: <S> Remote: <S> A defining characteristic of isolation from the perspective of the thing being described. <S> It's far away from absolutely everything. <S> The village is remote, with nothing else around for hundreds of miles. <S> There's only a remote chance of this thing happening, regardless what other things happen. <S> Distant: relative to a particular point of reference. <S> Distant from what? <S> It's only a distant memory (as of now, compared to all my other memories) <S> It's in the distant past (measuring from this point in time). <S> She seemed distant, like she was thinking about somewhere else (compared to how she usually acts) <S> But in general, you could probably use either in most cases. <A> Let's use the example of an island. <S> "He landed on a remote island" <S> Remote carries with it <S> the understanding the thing (in this case an island) is not just far away, it's alone, separated, or isolated. <S> It is far away from everything. <S> The sentence "He had landed on a distant island" means the island is far away from something specific, usually this is the current location of the speaker. <S> It is far away from where we are now. <S> Another example: <S> "A remote mountain peak" It is a mountain peak that is far away from everything. <S> It is far away from civilization, people, maybe even other mountains. <S> "A distant mountain peak" Compared to your present location, the mountain peak is far away. <S> There could be a city around it and lots of people or a giant mountain range so it can be distant but not remote. <A> The hobbits looked anxiously at the distant hills. <S> (Why? <S> Can I say "remote"?) <S> Maybe. <S> Distant hills are far away. <S> Remote hills are isolated and secluded. <S> What kind of hills are the hobbits looking at> <S> That said, I can understand how dictionaries might confuse you on this; after all, they indicate remote can mean "far off." <S> It wouldn't be misusing the word.
| Distant, however, just means that it is far away from a specific point.
|
"Only a finite number" or "only finite number" The question is contained in the title. I think that the noun "number" is countable, therefore "only a finite number" is correct. However, on mathoverflow the expression "only finite number" is also used, although less often that "only a finite number": https://mathoverflow.net/search?q=%22only+finite+number%22 https://mathoverflow.net/search?q=%22only+a+finite+number%22 So, which of the following patterns can I use? "There is only a finite number of $f$ such that...", or "There are only finite number of $f$ such that...",or maybe something else? <Q> Whether or not you use the article a depends on what exactly you want to say. <S> But, only finite number is not correct. <S> I took a peek at a few of the only finite number posts from your link, and every one I looked at (which was not anywhere close to all of them, mind) should have been a finite number . <S> The fact that the search which includes a is ten times more common than the one without hints that a finite number is correct. <S> If you want to say something along the lines of the available or eligible amount or quantity of X is limited or has an upper bound , then use only a finite number of X . <S> This phrase means, essentially, a limited quantity of something and is by far the most commonly used version of this construction. <S> If you want to say something along the lines of there are only so many groups or categories of Y or unbounded or infinite Y values are not eligible for consideration , then use only finite numbers of Y . <S> Note that numbers is plural. <S> This phrase is quite uncommon. <S> If you're unsure which to use, it's more likely that a finite number is correct. <S> Examples: <S> There's only a finite number of options. <S> Only a finite number of equations model the data. <S> There are only finite numbers of animals belonging to endangered species alive today. <S> The function produces only finite numbers; infinite values are never returned. <A> Number is a singular noun, so you should use <S> a before it. <S> Don't go by connotation; number here is a collective noun but still singular. <A> Ya, what they said... <S> "Only a finite number of oranges..." is the grammatical one. <S> However, from a mathematical perspective it is more polished to say "(there are) finitely many (oranges)....", because "only" is redundant when talking about finite-ness.
| A finite number is the right construction.
|
in presence of vs in the presence of "in presence of" vs "in the presence of" Should we use "in presence of" or "in the presence of" in the following sentence? "We should show more respect in the presence of the elders." "We should show more respect in presence of the elders." <Q> Both are possible. <S> The sentence without <S> the would imply to elders in general. <S> Putting the would specify those elders. <S> So, if you are talking about the manners , we should show respect in presence of any elder . <S> In that way, I'd not use the definite articles at both the places . <S> Consider these example: <S> Bala, after her marriage to a shopkeeper in 1983, had never lifted her "purdah" in presence of elders till this Wednesday. <S> - <S> The Times of India <S> But... <S> I found a couple of examples that did not use the definite article though they talk about a specific person's presence . <S> The results are from the COCA. <S> Margaret Garrish, a 72 year-old Detroit woman, commits suicide in the presence of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. <S> -- <S> Associated Press <S> Just yesterday, I think, Mr. Shevardnadze in the presence of Mr. Baker said again and stressed again that use of force is entirely ruled out. <S> -- <S> PBS_Newshour <S> [Note: <S> The first example is from the Indian newspaper. <S> Native speakers might have different approach on that though]. <A> English has few unbreakable rules. <S> But there are general common usages. <S> "We should show more respect in the presence of the elders. <S> ""We should show more respect in presence of the elders." <S> If one wishes to say that more respect for elders should be shown in general, this could be the way: We should show more respect in presence of elders. <S> or We should show more respect in the presence of elders. <S> If the intent is to apply to specific elders, then: We should show more respect in the presence of the elders. <S> or We should show more respect in presence of the elders. <S> The choice of construction used would be based on the actual intent of the sentence. <S> If "the elders" would be thought to mean "all elders" by the readers due to an understanding within a readership, then "the elders" could be used to mean elders in general. <S> I do not know of such a readership, but there may be one. <S> Otherwise the construction could safely be one of those indicated above. <A> Although Google Ngram Viewer shows that both "in presence of" and "in the presence of" can be found in texts, the use of the latter is noticeably more frequent. <S> Besides, in the only one reliable online dictionary where I could find the whole expression <S> , it is "in the presence of (someone)" without mentioning of the possible usage of "presence" without the article. <S> You may also compare the use of the article in "in the presence of" with that in the expressions like in the middle of the day, at the beginning of the war, in the end of times , etc. <A> Merriam-Webster gives the following article. <S> Definition of "in the presence of (someone) ": <S> when (someone) is present : around Their daughter is shy in the presence of strangers. <S> And there is no alternative.
| I think that the article (or a pronoun) with "presence" would be, so to speak, more correct, and the reason for that is that the word "presence" very rarely, if not ever, goes without mentioning the person being present.
|
Does -wich suffix have a meaning? Does -wich suffix (as in Greenwich, sandwich, etc.) have a meaning? <Q> Yes. <S> Citation: <S> The "Gamgee" entry at the end of Appendix F of The Lord of the Rings . <S> The word "sandwich" takes its name from the "Earl of Sandwich". <S> Thus, "sandwich" is derived from a placename, not from food or animal names. <A> According to Wikipedia , -wich derives from an Anglo-Saxon suffix meaning roughly "a dwelling or fortified place" with extensive trading activity, usually on a coast. <S> It is ultimately of Latin origin, where the meaning can be more varied and vague: <S> dwelling, dwelling-place; village, hamlet, town; street in a town; farm, esp. <S> a dairy-farm. <A> The suffix -wich is leftover from the Anglo-Saxon language. <S> It meant farm and only exists now in place names such as Greenwich, Ipswich, Norwich, etc. <S> Other such Anglo-Saxon hold overs used in place names are <S> -ham (village) <S> , -leigh/-lee/-lea (forest clearing), -dun (lake), and -bury (fortified place). <S> They are not used in modern language, they have simply survived since the Anglo-Saxons named them.
| The suffix "wich" means "village".
|
Term for someone who cannot keep something to themselves We have them everywhere. And I'm looking for the term to refer to them. These are the people who cannot keep any matter to themselves. Irrespective of the degree of seriousness of the matter, they'll simply spit it out in front of others. In short, they are not eligible to say the idiom I'll carry this to my grave! In my school/college days, we had a very informal term for them. We used to call such people 'the BBC'! That's because if you have told anything to them, they'll spread the word for sure. There could be more than one word. I'll be happy to have the closest term for it though. <Q> Probably the word that closest fits your description is "blabbermouth". <S> The dictionary definition of blabbermouth is "one who talks too much or indiscreetly" so it seems to be perfect for your needs. <S> Otherwise you could call them a gossip or an idiomatic expression <S> would be that they "have a big mouth" <A> a big mouth - <S> if you have a big mouth, you talk too much, especially about things that should be secret loose lip - <S> The practice or characteristic of being overly talkative, especially with respect to inadvertently revealing information which is private or confidential. <A> If you're at the school age ( that doesn't seem so ;) ), I think the word "tattletale" would be the most proper word, <S> However as an adult, I think the word that best fits your descriptions is "big-mouth" as mentioned in the other post. <A> Generally in a social and office environment the term "Gossip" can be used to describe the act and the person. <S> From The OxfordDictionaries : <S> A conversation about other people; an instance of gossiping: <S> she just comes round here for a gossip. <S> A person who likes talking about other people’s private lives*. <S> (*) <S> It is marked as <S> chiefly derogatory in the dictionaries. <A> I was once accused of being a "sieve" when I blabbed a secret, and when I've subsequently used it to describe others, everyone seemed to understand what I meant. <S> Oxford Dictionaries doesn't seem to carry this definition but dictionary.reference.com <S> has a person who cannot keep a secret. <S> (The primary definition, of course, is that kitchen utensil with the mesh bottom for separating finer powders from coarser ones, like flour, etc.) <A> A more formal word would be to say that the person is "indiscreet". <S> If you ask someone to keep a secret and they don't, you can say they are "untrustworthy". <S> But this word can also be used to describe someone who breaks promises or cheats or steals, so you may have to make clear what you mean in context. <S> If a child tells about minor misdeeds of other children, he's a "tattletale". <S> If someone tells the authorities about actual crimes committed by his friends or associates, he's a "stool pigeon" or a "stoolie". <S> Those might not be quite what you had in mind. <A> Someone accused of possessing this trait, especially in relation to a specific, could be considered a grass or (colloquially, if not already) a grasser . <S> Common to Scotland and UK, it is often preceded by a standard expletive and tends to refer to an event where someone squealed . <S> To 'tell on someone' is to grass, though someone who is a blabbermouth (+1), or a gossip may not necessarily be a grass - but will likely to be known (and labelled as) a grasser. <S> The word renders someone definitely not eligible to carry the idiom <S> i'll carry this to my grave .
| As Peramia says, the informal term is "blabbermouth". If they talk about other people's personal lives they are a "gossip".
|
Ambiguity of what the Gerund "taking" refers to in Sentence Sentence in question: "The committee requested that there be input from all the staff before taking a vote". Isn't "taking a vote" ambiguous because "taking" could also refer to the committee instead of referring to the staff? I think the sentence should be corrected as the following "The committee requested that there be input from all the staff who would take a vote". Is my correction correct? <Q> The committee requested that there be input from all the staff before taking a vote. <S> The "committee" here is a decision making body for some orginization that also has a staff doing the regular work. <S> Before making a decision (voting) on some issue, the committe wants to know what the staff, that handles the daily business, thinks regarding that issue. <S> But ultimately the committee votes. <S> Also, if you leave out the prepositional phrase from all the staff , you get: <S> The committee requested that there be input before taking a vote. <S> Then it is clear that the committee is voting. <A> I answer this question as an AI person, because this is a real problem of natural langues (like English, French, Persian, ...). <S> It's indeed intrinsic to so called natural langues. <S> And let me don't agree with the other answer, cause I think the right answer should be given according to the context from which the sentence is taken. <S> e.g.: "Ok, Let's play football before watching TV". <S> Who wants to watch TV? <S> Look at these sentences that me appear prior to it. <S> 1.B) <S> "I want to watch TV" <S> -> B wants to watch TV and A <S> asks him/her to play 2.A) <S> "I want to watch TV, but" -> <S> A wants to watch TV but accepts to play 3.C) <S> "Let's watch TV" <S> -> C invites them all to watch TV, and the accept but after playing. <S> I didn't try to create the sentences very carefully <S> but I think they're enough to achieve my purpose. <A> I'm a competent native speaker, and having found the source of this text (a SATS test), I'm not sure even I can be sure which answer is "best"... <S> The committee requested that there be input from all the staff before taking a vote. <S> A ...from all the staff before taking a vote. <S> B ...from all the staff taking a vote. <S> C ... <S> before the staff took a vote on the input. <S> D ...from all the staff before having taken a vote. <S> E ...from all the staff who would take a vote. <S> (The implication being you could select A if you think the original is "better" than any alternatives.) <S> Personally, I would immediately dismiss D as ungrammatical, and C as far too stylistically ungainly. <S> And I don't like B or E because they both simultaneously use staff to reference... <S> individuals - who can provide input ... <S> and... <S> a collective group - who can take a vote <S> It's possible not all native speakers object to this "zeugma" . <S> But all would agree that individuals cast votes, and groups (the electorate) take votes - never the other way around. <S> TL;DR: <S> Yes, the original is in principle ambiguous. <S> But pragmatically that's not really a problem, since if the vote in question was a staff vote, one would expect more elegant phrasing to avoid the awkwardness of using staff in two different senses... <S> The committee requested that there be input from each staff member before taking a [staff] vote.
| First of all your answer is : Yes, the sentence is ambiguous, like many other sentences which we use in our every day conversations.
|
It's broken or it has been broken What is the difference between it is broken and it has been broken please? Thanks. <Q> When I say something is broken, broken is used as an adjective. <S> I'm describing the state of the thing <S> and I'm not interested in the action that led to this state. <S> For all I know it could have got broken without human intervention through decomposition, old age, etc. <S> And it does not say how long it's been in that state, it could be minutes, hours, years, etc. <S> My CD player is broken. <S> It's a plain statement. <S> If I say something "has been broken" (present perfect, passive), I focus on the action and not on the object. <S> It helps me specify one or several aspects of this action. <S> My CD player has been broken for a week now. <S> This last sentence focuses on how long it has been in that state. <S> I love this vase, unfortunately it has been broken twice and next time <S> I don't know if I'll be able to mend it. <S> This last sentence focuses on the repetition of the action. <S> I can't listen to my CDs now that my CD player has been broken. <S> When I say this last sentence, although I do not name anyone I imply that the CD player got broken through human intervention . <S> I could even be more specific and add who caused this to happen. <S> I can't listen to my CDs now that my CD player has been broken by my brother. <S> So your choice of one or the other will entirely depend on context, on what you want to say. <A> First of all, the sentence "it is broken" is in the "Present passive voice" and the second one is in the "Present perfect passive voice". <S> And the main difference is that you may use the first sentence if the action is happening at the moment or not a long time ago. <S> Whereas when you use the second one, the range of time in which the action may have happened seems longer. <S> e.g.: "-Oh, you dropped the glass! <S> -Oh, no. <S> It's broken. " <S> (It is broken) "-We've not lived here for ages. <S> - Look at this glass. <S> It's been broken ." <S> (You have no idea when the glass has been broken) <S> (It has been broken) BTW, as usual, there are many ways to say a single sentence in English, so sometimes you can use either of the sentences interchangeably. <A> You can use both. <S> (it is a present perfect tense )
| But "it has been broken" especially refers to the recent time period i.e. a finished action with a result in the present (focus on result)
|
How to understand "and treat food nicely" in this sentence We should respect food and think about the people who don’t have what we have here and treat food nicely . How should I understand "and treat food nicely"? Does it modify "the people"? <Q> The subject of treat food nicely <S> isn't the people (in bold in your sentence) <S> but "we" (not representing the people in bold in your sentence). <S> In other words <S> A (representing the people in your sentence) do not have enough food to survive. <S> B (representing "we" in your sentence) have so much food that they often waste it. <S> B should behave in such a way that they should not waste, implying that instead of wasting food, they could give some to B . <S> If we treat our food nicely, we'll also treat those who do not have enough food nicely. <A> Pretend for a moment that we're starting with these three sentences: <S> We should respect food. <S> We should think about the people who don’t have what we have here. <S> We should treat food nicely. <S> We can combine these into one sentence using and : <S> We should respect food <S> and we should think about the people who don’t have what we have here <S> and we should treat food nicely. <S> Now we have one long sentence with three parts, but we're repeating <S> we should in each part, and this is unnecessary. <S> Let's remove it from the last two: <S> We should respect food <S> and we should think about the people who don’t have what we have here <S> and we should treat food nicely. <S> Now we've got the original sentence. <A> As mentioned earlier, "we" the speaker are the ones who are performing the action of "treat food nicely." <S> However, since you are asking this question that means the sentence is not worded very clearly. <S> I would re-write it as a list: <S> We should respect food, think about the people who don’t have what we have here, and treat food nicely. <S> This also removes an extra "and. <S> " If possible, you should avoid having more than one "and" in a sentence since you can likely make it clearer by simply listing your topics.
| The adverb nicely modifies the verb treat, it describes the way we should treat our food.
|
Is any difference between "speak English" and "speak in English"? Is any difference between "speak English" and "speak in English"? <Q> "speak in English" refers to a language choice. <S> Can/do you speak English? <S> Meaning <S> : Do you know English well enough to use it verbally? <S> Can/could you speak in English? <S> Meaning: I'd like to request that you speak English instead of some other language. <S> Do you speak in English? <S> That sentence doesn't make much sense, because "do" is asking about a habitual/continuous situation, whereas "in English" refers to a language choice rather than ability. <A> In American usage, anyway, "speak English" also has a sarcastic meaning. <S> When someone is speaking English but is very unclear -- perhaps because they are using technical or legal terms -- you can say "speak English" to mean "say that more clearly. <S> " <S> It would be very odd to say "speak in English" for this purpose. <A> Both are correct. <S> And it depends on the context. <S> If I am telling or instructing (As I do that with my daughter), I'd use... <S> "Speak in English." <S> If I'm asking someone whether they speak that language, I'd prefer <S> " Do you speak English?" <S> BBC video of the latter is here. <S> Worth mentioning a joke that we play here in India. <S> I'm writing this because it's related to this question! <S> In my mother-tongue, speak (without in) in this context refers to the word which means say . <S> So, if someone forgets putting the word in , they get a funny reply <S> I can speak Spanish <S> ~ I don't believe. <S> Speak it 'Spanish'! <S> But if I tell that I speak 'in' Spanish, it means I have to speak sentences in Spanish <S> and not the word 'Spanish' that otherwise happens without 'in' . <A> "Do you speak in English?" does make sense in situations when the questioner KNOWS that the people are polyglots. <S> For example, in a family with a German mother, a Spanish father can be asked "Do you speak in German to your children?" <S> Or, as another example, in some international company, new employees might require what the office language is.
| "speak English" refers to an ability.
|
Is the phrase "was being" an excessive use of the verb "to be" and wrong? Sentence in question: The Santa Catalina mountains were formed 12 million years ago during a period when the Western North American Continent was being stretched. I think the sentence should be corrected as The Santa Catalina Mountains had been formed during a period 12 million years ago when the Western North American Continent was stretching . Is my correction correct or better? <Q> No, the original is better. " <S> Was being stretched" implies that something (plate tectonics) was stretching North America; "was stretching" implies that it was stretching itself. <A> Stretch has three distinct senses. <S> As an intransitive verb it may have either a stative sense, meaning “have physical extension”, or an eventive sense, meaning to “increase one’s own physical extension”. <S> INTR. <S> STATIVE: <S> The Northeast Megalopolis stretches from Boston in the north to Washington in the south. <S> INTR. <S> EVENTIVE: <S> John rose, stretched, and set about making breakfast. <S> As a transitive verb it has the eventive sense “cause the physical extension of [Direct Object] to increase”. <S> TR. <S> : John stretched a sheet over the body. <S> Stretch is used transitively here, and was being stetched is a passive construction. <S> That makes good sense: the continent is represented as being stretched by external geological forces as opposed to ‘stretching’ by its own efforts or volition. <S> With an inanimate subject intransitive ‘stretch’ ordinarily has a the stative sense: <S> The North American continent stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific. <S> But a stative does not usually accommodate the progressive construction was stretching . <S> Moreover, stative stretch requires that the extension be defined, usually with preposition phrases from X to Y ; that is absent here. <S> That leaves stretch in an eventive sense. <S> That sense is very unusual with an inanimate subject: we say that a person or cat ‘stretches’ (intransitive) upon waking up, but to say that a continent ‘was stretching’ falls very odd on the ear. <S> I think Was being stretched , meaning “was being caused to increase in physical extension”, is the only likely construction here. <A> It's used colloquially often. <S> "I should have given you the money back, I was being stupid." <S> "She wasn't flirting with you, she was just being friendly." <S> The meanings are different - "was being stretched [by something]" v. "was stretching [on its own]". <S> In particular in the first case it's the transitive verb, and in the second case it's the intransitive . <S> In general, "was being" is a normal construct.
| In your case "was being" is correct. Was stretching is an active construction, and in the absence of a Direct Object must have an intransitive sense.
|
Two questions about meaning of "settle" and "home" Now that you have officially arrived in Canada, it's time to settle into your new home . Does the word home refer to flat and apartments or new envirenment in a new country? I have always had difficulty understanding of meaning settle into . Could you help me with its meaning in simple English? <Q> In this context, the emphasis is on "new environment in a new country". <S> The Canadians are inviting you to think of Canada as your home; they hope you will choose to think of yourself as a Canadian. <A> This is an excellent set of examples of the many usages of the word home. <S> As for "settle in", it has the meaning of "get used to". <S> For example, one may also settle into a new job or new routine or even a theater seat. <A> home generally refers to the structure and land where you live. <S> It could be a house, apartment, etc. <S> but we still call them a home. <S> Related to environment, you can say home country , hometown etc. <S> settle in refers to the process of moving in to a new location/place, including physically moving yourself, your furniture, etc. <S> and becoming familiar with the area (stores, schools, services, etc.). You were moving and now you are settled .
| For question 1, the word "home" refers to both "flat and apartments" and "new environment in a new country".
|
"Status" meaning in this sentence Permanent resident card is the official proof of your status in Canada. Does the word refer to condition and circumstances? <Q> status sense 1. <S> Used here its a legal term referring to the reason you can reside in Canada. <S> Everyone has such an official status in their home country or if they go to a foreign country. <A> In the entry for status in the Oxford Dictionaries Online, it is meaning 1.2, " The official classification given to a person, country, or organization, determining their rights or responsibilities. " <S> In your example, your permanent resident card is your official proof that you are a legal permanent resident of Canada, and have all the rights and responsibilities that permanent residents are guaranteed under Canadian law. <S> Since your question suggests that you are reading up on permanent residency in Canada, here are some potentially helpful links: Government of Canada page on permanent residency Wikipedia page on Canadian permanent residency <A> I suppose you could say it's circumstances. <S> Someone's legal status in a country is referring to if they are there legally, illegally, a permanent citizen, there on work visa, have a student visa, etc.
| Status , in this case, refers to your immigration status , or the legal definition of your right to live in Canada.
|
What is the term that describes someone who is not interested in sex? He or she is not infertile. They have normal sex hormones but just they don't find it interesting. To clarify, For instance, compared to a man (who is not this) who'd stare at a blonde in a swimsuit, this guy will simply turn his face. Any term (including slang) would work. <Q> Such a person would be asexual or nonsexual , their condition would be called asexuality or nonsexuality : <S> There is also a website about it (it seems google takes its definition from there), but I cannot reach it to check from behind my current firewall. <S> If google does take it from there, this page says: An asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction. <S> Unlike celibacy, which people choose, asexuality is an intrinsic part of who we are. <S> There is considerable diversity among the asexual community; each asexual person experiences things like relationships, attraction, and arousal somewhat differently. <A> The term "frigid" means "uninterested in sex". <S> I just checked dictionary definitions and they don't say this, but it seems to me that I have only heard this term used to describe a woman who is uninterested in sex, not a man. <S> A man who is incapable of having sex is called "impotent", but I don't think that's quite what you're looking for. <S> That's "can't", not "doesn't want to". <A> Depending on the person's reasons for not being interested in sex, one or more of the following terms might apply: Chaste -- Many people choose to only be interested in sex with their spouse(s). <S> Pious -- <S> Chastity is a virtue in many religions. <S> Jesus taught that looking at a woman (other than one's wife) lustfully is a serious sin. <S> Celibate -- Some people choose not to be interested in sex. <S> Oblivious <S> -- Some people don't notice people (or aspects of people) that others consider sexually attractive. <S> Aspie -- People with Asperger's syndrome (or related syndromes) do not react "normally" to many stimuli. <S> Polite -- In many cultures, it is not polite to stare at a woman, even if she is "a blonde in a swimsuit".
| Asexuality (or nonsexuality) is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity.
|
Does the term 'rebirth' restrict to taking birth again in the same form? Say human then again human? Most of the dictionaries define that rebirth is a second or new birth . I have observed that this word is used for a soul that takes birth as the same species. For instance, looking at a kid who dances, walks, talks exactly like the great terpsichorean might be called the rebirth of MJ or MJ reborn . My question is does the term 'rebirth' restricts to taking birth again as the same species? Or rebirth of the soul could be anything? The last birth, the soul took birth as a human and now could be an insect? Or we refer rebirth only if that soul is again human? We judge rebirth of a person by looking whether his/er characteristics match with that of the dead person but here, if I use the word 'rebirth' it's merely the next birth of that soul and it has nothing no resemblance, similarity or 'character-matching' with the previous birth. <Q> I think that depends entirely on what your religious expert of leader of your choice has to say about it. <S> At least when it comes to idea of rebirth of souls. <S> But in that instance, the rebirth would very likely be into a similar body as the one that was left behind). <S> In general, rebirth is, as you own link also says, often used in a figurative way. <S> When related to a human, the person does not physically die first, but he finds new energy. <S> More often, there are no humans directly involved in the rebirth at all, when we talk about the rebirth of a style, a custom or even a civilisation. <S> Sure, in all those cases, whatever is "reborn" is usually reborn in a similar form! <A> The link you included says that in (Hinduism) repeated rebirth in new forms . <S> Besides a figurative way, basically the world is familiar with the concept of reincarnation trough Hinduism and Buddhism, mostly, as two biggest religions containing this concept as one of the fundamental attributes. <S> Dictionaries most unlikely should go so deep to cite or explain what kind of forms there could be. <S> On the other hand, if an author who writes, say, a fantastic book was needed to describe a situation, when a man is reborn as an animal (or other way round), (s)he would normally put rebirth for this. <S> So nowadays the word rebirth is normally used to describe a situation with new life forms. <A> In English, the term "rebirth" can be used in any situation where "birth" is a valid term, but one wishes to draw attention to the idea that that thing existed before. <S> One may talk of the "rebirth" of a political movement, indicating that the movement existed before (and probably fell apart), but it has experienced a sudden revival of interest. <S> In one sense, it's the same movement, but the new interest feels like a "birth" of a new movement in its own right. <S> Because the term is so open, religions may use it in a great variety of forms. <S> For example, in Buddhism, it is well recognized that reincarnation is not always into a human form, but it is still considered a reincarnation or a rebirth. <S> Generally speaking, every religion has its own lexicon of terms that it uses, and they provide a more exacting definition of the word for their uses than a dictionary might provide.
| In general English, rebirth more often then not is not meant literally at all, since the Judeo-Christian tradition does not believe in any kind of rebirth, except maybe at the end of days (and there is still debate on whether animals are included in that, if they have souls or not, etcetera.
|
What is the meaning of "before getting behind the wheel"? UVA rays are constantly present, no matter the season or the weather. If you think you can't get sun damage on a cloudy day, tell that to the UVA rays. They are so powerful that they also penetrate some clothing and even glass. (When was the last time you applied sunscreen before getting behind the wheel? ) Source: about.com article, UVA and UVB Rays Does it mean When was the last time you applied sunscreen before getting into the sun? <Q> As Lascivious Grace states, getting behind the wheel is driving a vehicle. <S> That's because it's actually getting behind the (steering) wheel. <S> Note the previous sentence of your paragraph. <S> They are so powerful that they also penetrate some clothing and even glass. <S> The author wants to convey that no matter what, these rays are everywhere. <S> If you think that you are merely driving a car and thus safe, it's not so. <S> The rays penetrate the glass and affect your skin. <S> The author is asking and indirectly advising that applying sun screen is better even though your plan is just to drive. <A> Behind the wheel is an idiom that implies driving a car . <S> behind the wheel ( also at the wheel ) <S> driving a vehicle <S> Mia was behind the wheel, and Kim was studying the map. <S> Source: <S> thefreedictionary.com <S> Thus, in your paragraph: <A> "Behind the wheel" means "driving a car. <S> " The wheel in that saying refers to the steering wheel, which the drivers sits behind. <S> The label is saying that you can still get sunburn even when inside of a car.
| the last time you applied sunscreen before getting behind the wheel simply means the last time you applied sunscreen before you went on a drive.
|
What are the meanings of “get to” and “objectify” in the phrase “you still don't get to objectify her”? I read a news article here: http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1048319/blue-ivy-at-the-vmas See the headline: “Blue Ivy at the VMAs is adorable, but you still don't get to objectify her” What are the meanings of “get to” and “objectify” in this sentence? <Q> It generally has a positive connotation. <S> get verb (used without object) 21. <S> to succeed, become enabled, or be permitted: You get to meet a lot of interesting people. <S> Source: <S> Definition of “get” on dictionary.com <S> When someone says “you don’t get to do that”, they mean to disallow that opportunity and suggest you are not able (or should not be able) to do something you want to do. <S> objectify transitive verb to treat (someone) as an object rather than as a person She says beauty pageants objectify women. <S> Source: <S> Definition of “objectify” on merriam-webster.com <S> Objectifying someone means relating to them as if they were anything but an independent consciousness, complete with a unique identity, thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, etc. <S> In the case of this headline, the author is suggesting that we have a tendency to relate to this infant as a phenomenon rather than a nascent being. <S> Vawter seems the be saying that when we pin our own expectations on a famous baby we take away Blue Ivy’s freedom to define herself on her own terms as she grows up. <A> Get to VERB means get an opportunity to VERB or, by extension, be allowed to VERB . <S> I got to go to Jamaica last year and had a phenomenal time. <S> My grades were so good <S> I got to skip the final exam. <S> Objectify means treat as an object , where object may have a variety of senses; in this context it means treat as a legitimate object of public attention, treat as a celebrity . <S> The author's meaning may be paraphrased Blue Ivy at the VMAs is adorable, but she should be treated as an ordinary baby, not some media fetish. <A> It means that the author thinks she is politically correct, and is verbally punishing her readers for what she thinks they think. <S> She is accusing her readers of thoughtcrime. <S> In particular: "objectify" means "treat a person as an object". <S> It can also means "treat an animal as an object", or "treat a plant as an object", or "treat an important person as an unimportant person". <S> For example, "After the Super Bowl, the Most Valuable Player gets to visit Disneyland." <S> In the context of the original example, "get to <verb>" is a derogatory turn-of-phrase meaning "was unfairly given (by the system that controls things) <S> the chance to do something unfair" or "just because they thought it was easy <S> /convenient/fun/nice, decided to unfairly <verb>". <S> "Objectify" is most commonly used by feminists complaining about people who think about girls or women in ways that the feminists do not approve of. <S> "Objectify" is also used by people who do not like that the military trains soldiers to maim and kill people. <S> In this case, the author thinks that each baby is unique, and should be given the chance to appreciate things from a baby's perspective, and do all the normal things that a baby does. <S> She does not want people to forever think of the baby as a perfect doll in a photo, because the baby will grow up to lead her own life. <S> She does not like some of the positive things that people think about "beautiful black babies" -- she implies that the positive thoughts reach the point of "fetishization". <S> In summary, the author thinks the baby "deserves to just be a baby without everyone gawking at her", and complains about people who think differently. <A> It means you are not allowed to objectify her, with the assumption that you previously wanted to treat her like an object (as opposed to a person). <A> "Blue Ivy is an attractive woman, but you are not allowed to (don't get to) think of her as an anonymous sexual object who exists merely for your gratification (objectify her)"
| The key part of this word’s meaning is that objectifying someone means not treating them as a person. Getting to do something means taking an available opportunity to do something. The general idea is that something important (like a person who matters, especially to herself) is being thought of as part of a category that includes less important things. "get to <verb>" can be used neutrally to mean "be given the chance to <verb>" or "get the chance to <verb>".
|
scissors cut/cuts paper, which is correct? First I'd apologize for I can't describe it clearly.I've heard that "scissors cut paper" is correct, but I found Sheldon said "scissors cuts paper" in The Big Bang Theory .Which is correct, or both of them? <Q> In this case you are talking about the option you choose in a game. <S> You could read the sentence as The option scissors cuts the option paper or, <S> abbreviated, Scissors cuts paper <S> So while "scissors" is plural and you would always say "scissors cut paper", in this case the word refers to an option within the game (singular) rather then the actual item. <S> Compare with "scissors are better than ..... <S> " if you are a fan of sharp metal things, but if you are talking about the game you'd get "(the choice of) scissors IS better than ..." <A> The reference is to the US tv show 'The Big Bang Theory', and to one of its main characters Dr Sheldon Cooper. <S> He speaks excellent if highly idiosyncratic English. <S> I listened carefully to a video and he does say 'cuts'. <S> While grammatically 'scissors cut paper' is correct, explanations on the internet of the standard game 'rock-paper-scissors' and the Big Bang Theory game 'rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock' (which Sheldon attributes to 'the internet pioneer Sam Kass') vary between 'scissors cut paper' and 'scissors <S> cuts paper'. <S> Possibly the use of 'cuts' is influenced by the fact that all the other choices in the game are singular, and therefore use 'cuts' eg 'paper covers rock'. <A> A few words, though singular in nature, are made of paired items and generally treated as plural: scissors, pants, trousers, glasses, pliers, tongs, tweezers, and the like. <S> Many are often used with the word pair as in pair of pants or pair of scissors. <S> (Tricky Plurals) <A> I think, the reason for confusion is: scissors cut paper, whereas, a pair of scissors cuts paper. <A> I agree with Esoteric. <S> In the game "scissors" is a choice in the game - a title, if you will. <S> So, you might say "the choice of scissors" cuts the choice of paper. <S> "Choice" is singular, so you use "cuts" Maybe more clear if you enclose scissors in quotes, as such:"Scissors" cuts "paper." <S> If you are talking about the tool made up of 2 scissors, you would say "scissors cut paper" because "scissors" is plural. <S> I know this because I never say "This scissors is sharp. <S> " I always say "These scissors are sharp." <S> So the tool is made up of two things, two scissors, and they cut. <S> They don't cuts. <S> I have seen the same question come up with bands such as "The Ramones" and "The Replacements" and "The Bare Naked Ladies" The Ramones rock ! <S> Or "The Ramones" rocks ! <S> Depends on if you are talking about a singular band called "The Ramones" or multiple Ramones. <S> Multiple Ramones definitely rock. <S> But the band called "The Ramones" rocks. <S> SoThe Ramones rock. <S> But"The Ramones" rocks. <S> There is no doubt, however about The Cure, which is a singular name. <S> With or without quotes, The Cure sucks. <A> I think the correct point in this is that scissors do cut paper. <S> But when describing the action happening now a way of saying scissors are cutting the paper is 'scissors cuts paper'. <S> When you play the game and scissor and paper comes up then then the scissors cuts (the) paper.
| So the correct version in your case would be "scissors cut paper".
|
More polite forms of "you" In French, "vous" can be used instead of "toi" for this purpose. A seemingly rude example in English is when someone wants to instruct a lawyer, and writes 'I would like to instruct you.' I recognise the legal definition of 'to instruct', but this still sounds too forceful. What are pleasant, but formal alternatives? <Q> I would like to instruct you is both polite and formal. <S> Modern English has no alternate pronoun forms to denote politeness, formality or etiquette; it's correct to translate both tu and vous (and their nominative forms as well; you serves both functions) as you . <S> Instead, in English we can use different verb constructions to show politeness, similar to using vous + future tense for polite requests in French. <S> This is not strictly analogous to the differences between tu and vous , but it's the closest thing we have. <S> And you've constructed your sentence in the polite register already. <S> go hand in hand. <S> Here are two translations for comparison. <S> Apologies for any errors in the French; mine is extremely rusty. <S> I also suspect my translation of instruct (meaning to issue a formal set of instructions ) is quite poor, since I'd be much more likely to translate ordonner as order rather than instruct , but my French vocabulary isn't so hot. <S> Please feel free to edit and change ordonner to the correct verb. <S> Je veux vous ordonner. <S> I would like to instruct you. <S> Je veux toi ordonner. <S> I want to instruct you. <S> Additionally, instruct is quite formal, but not forceful. <S> Synonyms in this case include direct , order and command . <S> The latter two are decidedly less polite than instruct , because these are the forceful verbs in English. <S> Direct is just as formal as instruct and a touch more polite, but it's also slightly vaguer. <S> If you say I would like to direct you , it might be taken to mean something like <S> I want to guide you in a general direction as opposed to <S> I want to give you instructions ; an instruction is more specific than a direction . <S> If you provide a bit more context on exactly what type of instructions are being given to the attorney, I can suggest more nuanced synonyms. <S> For example, brief may (or may not) be an appropriate choice here. <A> "You" is the polite form (equivalent to "vous"). <S> The more familiar form (equivalent to "toi") is or was "thou", which is now archaic/obsolete. <A> "You" is already the polite and formal form. <S> Simply putYou= <S> VousTu <S> =Thou, a term no longer existing and replaced by "you".
| Would like is the more polite and formal version of want , and generally in English politeness and formality
|
what you should have accomplished What you should have accomplished is ... I cannot say if this is talking about future , perfect future for instance, or it is about past tense , making guess about past events or third conditional. Very confusing. <Q> Depending on context it may have either future, present or past reference. <S> FUTURE: <S> What you should have accomplished by this time tomorrow is what is on this list. <S> PRESENT: <S> What you should have accomplished by now is what is on this list—is it all finished? <S> What you should have accomplished by now is what is on this list, but in fact you haven't even done half of it. <S> What you should have accomplished by now is what is on this list, and I see that you have done so—congratulations! <S> PAST: <S> What you should have accomplished yesterday is what is on this list—did you finish it? <S> What you should have accomplished yesterday is what is on this list, but you didn't, you slacker! <S> What you should have accomplished yesterday is what is on this list, and there it all is—well done! <S> With the past-referent versions we would ordinarily say that what you should have accomplished was such-and-such; but when the specification is in some sense “present”, it is not ungrammatical to use is . <A> What you should have accomplished is ... <S> This is talking about activities (accomplishments) that started at some point in the past, and continuing up to the present time. <S> For example: I know you have been working very hard, but you should have accomplished more compared with the other workers. <S> meaning that you have not advanced your skills as much as others did. <S> This example would be what you might hear in a performance review. <S> Future actions are not discussed or implied at all. <A> The accomplishment is not necessarily continuing up to present time. <S> For example, You should have accomplished a higher score on your test. <S> This is talking about a test you already took, and did not get the score that you should.
| It is a statement about what is or was or will be required, and is neutral with respect to factuality: with present or past reference it can be used either if the speaker does not know whether you accomplished what is called for or if the speaker knows that you in fact did or did not accomplish what is called for; with future reference, of course your actual accomplishment cannot of course be known at present.
|
Launch A New Building Dictionary entries for "launch" say that these are okay: "launch a missile/boat" "launch a campaign" "launch a new product" Would it be standard English to write: to launch a new building ? <Q> It would be odd. <S> To launch a boat, a campaign, a product, a project means basically to 'set it in motion', literally or figuratively; and buildings do not ordinarily move. <S> But it would be unremarkable to speak of 'launching' the construction of a building. <A> "Launch" implies setting something in motion, so it's not the right word. <S> When discussing the completion of a building, open would be a fine word. <S> Inaugurate would be even more appropriate, if there is an opening ceremony involved. <S> To mark the beginning of construction, a good term to use is breaking ground . <A> No, buildings really don't get launched. <S> Launching is about starting something in motion. <S> You could open a new building, though. <A> You can launch a missile, a product and even a campaign. <S> I think you are looking for the term when the building is opened up for public. <S> Because then it comes into action and people start visiting the building. <S> One such word is inauguration. <S> Once the building is inaugurated it is then available for use. <S> However, I'm not sure whether you can inaugurate your own building! <S> We often see headlines of buildings being inaugurated by ministers or celebs. <S> In fact, inauguration is the word used to officially open a building with a special ceremony.
| To launch means to put something into market or activity/action.
|
Houses, Flats, Shops comes in which category? I'm building an application for managing Rent for houses, flats and shops and I came to point where I wanted to give the Main Menu a name. I named it "residentials" at first, but it seemed to me "residentials" are only places where people live, shops are for work, so shops might not come into the category of "Residentials". So next thing I thought about was "Property", but I am not sure about that too. I am not good with English, what name should I give to this category and the website name also depends on it. <Q> You could also name your category "Property for Lease " <A> I work with an IT company that makes mobile apps. <S> I often suggest 'menu names' for applications. <S> I agree with the term property . <S> Another option for the menu button's text is - assets . <S> The dropdown menu can then contain all your titles Shop, flats, penthouses and the like. <S> Though the term extends its meaning to other things (machinery, for instance) as well <S> but when used in a mobile app for managing rent is concerned, it'll convey the message. <S> Simply Choose your asset/property and then listing down those entities would serve the purpose. <S> I don't think the website's name has to match with the main menu on the app. <S> Both are entirely different. <S> What matters is the name of the app and the name of the website . <A> If the house, flat, shop or whatever is a person's property you could name the category " Property " <S> You could call it " Rentals " in North America <S> it means "a rented house or car" <S> You can say <S> "Rental Property" or "Property for Rent" " Assets " as @MaulikV suggested is a good choice too. <S> " Holdings " is almost like asset and can also be what you're looking for.
| You could name it "Property for Rent", or simply "Property" would do.
|
Is "I cannot see obviously" right? I like to say I cannot see thing sharp because my eyes are weak and I dont have my glasses on. How should I put it? Can I say "I cannot see obviously." or " I see in a blur way". <Q> "Obviously" means "there can be no other logical conclusion," and is the wrong word to use here. <S> Sometimes "clearly" and "obviously" appear to be used interchangeably, because seeing is used as a metaphor for insight. <S> However, the metaphor doesn't apply in the other direction. <A> I cannot see obviously. <S> This sentence doesn't bring out the fact that you have a weak vision. <S> The usage of obviously doesn't sit well here, and doesn't imply the desired meaning. <S> The simplest word to use would be "clearly": <S> I cannot see clearly . <S> In sentences like these, clearly is very often used to describe a vision problem, as is indicated by several articles available online, like this one here : <S> Can't See Clearly? <S> Get Your Eyes Checked <S> By CDC Published: <S> June 4, 2012 <S> To make sure you keep seeing clearly, get a comprehensive dilated eye exam. <A> In my case I might say one of the following: I can't see clearly without my glasses. <S> I forgot my glasses <S> so could you tell me what this says? <S> (This is usually in a store where I can't read the receipt or the label on a shelf)
| "I cannot see clearly" is the usual way to indicate that your eyes are unable to focus properly.
|
Difference between, "claimed as" and "claimed to be" What is the difference between: "She claimed the child as her own" and: "She claimed the child to be her own" <Q> Claim has two meanings. <S> In the first use it means that she is saying that the object (now) belongs to her. <S> (Example: "The explorer planted the flag and claimed the country for the Queen of England") <S> In the second use, it means that she is stating that she believes something is the case <S> (Example: "John claimed he knew nothing about the missing money"). <S> In the above example they could mean the same thing (except in some edge cases such as 'claiming' the child by kidnapping him for the first case) <A> This can be as simple as answering "yes" to the question "is this your child?" <S> "Claimed ... as" is broader and stronger than just making a verbal statement. <S> It often has the connotation of taking some action based on her belief about her parental rights. <S> It may include making a statement like in " <S> claimed to be", but I think it often means taking action that demonstrates a commitment to the fact being true. <S> An example might be filing court papers to assert custody. <A> She claimed the child as her own <S> In this example the child wasn't the woman's, but she is now taking it to be. <S> She claimed the child to be her own <S> In this example the child is the woman's and she is attempting to make that known. <S> Sometimes, as shown in your examples, "claimed as" means "is since" and "claimed to be" means "is". <S> Other times "claimed to be" can be used to infer uncertainty regarding claim validity while "claimed as" yields no opposition to a claim. <S> This land is claimed as part of Uivinio territory. <S> It is since claim. <S> This land is claimed to be Uivinio territory. <S> It may be.
| The meanings of "claimed as" and "claimed to be" will vary depending on circumstance. "Claimed ... to be" involves making a verbal statement, for example, by speaking or writing the statement in order to communicate her belief that she has a parental rights over the child.
|
has a flu or had a flu Also, Niko texted that he will be absent today because he has a flu. which one is correct ? has a flu or had a flu ?also i have search about the flu and flu is different thing. <Q> I would say: Also, Niko texted that he will be absent today because he has the flu. <S> the is used specifically with flu . <S> flu is a general term used for influenza and sometimes other common illnesses. <S> If you use influenza , no article is used. <S> I suppose that is because it is a specific disease name: <S> Also, Niko texted that he will be absent today because he has influenza . <A> Regardless of the a/the issue which user3169 has answered, had is past tense, while has is present tense. <S> "Niko cannot come to work today as he has a cold." <S> "Niko cannot come to work today as he has the flu." <S> "Niko could not come to work yesterday as he had a cold." <S> "Niko could not come to work yesterday as he had the flu." <A> but now he is not sick. <S> You can also say "he caught the flu" to mean that he became sick earlier (and is still sick now). <A> The original question contains reported speech ("Niko texted that").In reported speech, you have to change the tense (present becomes past, simple past becomes past perfect, etc). <S> Scott's and Tanner Swett's answer did not consider this. <S> Because of the backshift, 'will be' normally becomes 'would be'. <S> There are cases when backshift is optional: <S> If a situation is still true, backshift is optional. <S> For a general truth there is no need for backshift. <S> Therefore I would say (if Niko is still ill): "Also, Niko texted that he will be absent today because he has the flu." <S> Edit: according to the above rule, the will->would backshift is optional here, too.
| Use "has a flu" or "has the flu" if he is sick right now, and use "had a flu" or "had the flu" if he was sick earlier
|
Is there any alternative way to say something you 'used to [infinitive]'? I'm talking about the use of 'used to' to mean something you did (regularly?) in your past. English has alternative ways to say something in most of the cases but here, I'm finding it very difficult. I seek your help to find an alternative way to say this (without adding any ambiguity) I used to play golf. I used to love her. I used to live in Australia. I'm keeping these sentences short with no further detail because I want an alternate sentence for such construction only. You may understand that I need an alternative for 'I used to ...infinitive'. <Q> When I was young, I used to play football/soccer once a week. <S> When I was young, I would play football/soccer once a week. <S> This is not the case of state verbs (such as love, live, like, feel): <S> When I was a young, <S> I used to live in London <S> When I was a young, I would live in London <A> But it's somewhat old-fashioned sounding. <A> You can use did + infinitive and optionally add, "but now I don't." <S> I did play golf, ( <S> but now I don't). <S> I did love her, ( <S> but now I don't). <S> I did live in Australia, ( <S> but now I don't). <A> I used to play golf. <S> I've come up with a couple substitues: <S> Playing golf was my regular pastime for a period. <S> I played golf regularly for some time. <A> Some ideas: <S> I formerly played golf. <S> I loved her, once. <S> I lived in Australia before. <S> But I'm not sure there's a universal substitute that would apply to all of these sentences.
| If you want to talk about a past habit (action), you can use the would + action . If you are desperate to keep the I ... golf construction, I would suggest I formerly played golf .
|
"Uprooting plants IS/ARE/HAD BEEN/WAS like uprooting your life." Suppose we have to fill in the blank with a correct verb form: Uprooting plants ________ like uprooting your life. Options: a) is b) are c) had been d) was I think that the answer ought to be a) since the verb will refer to the act of uprooting but the answer is given as b). Where am I going wrong? <Q> In OP's context, uprooting is a gerund - a verb form functioning as a noun (so in this case, it denotes the action of "to uproot" ). <S> Although uprooting can be used transitively (so it can take an object, such as plants , or your life here), this doesn't change the fact that syntactically , the gerund uprooting is a singular noun. <S> If we take a slightly different example we see that sometimes it's possible to use a pluralised -ing form ( <S> but I suspect the <S> -ings <S> forms are probably not gerunds, since they can't be used with a direct object)... <S> 1: <S> Beating children is barbaric 2: <S> Beating the Prince is barbaric <S> 3: <S> Beating is barbaric 4: <S> Beatings are barbaric 5 <S> : <S> * Beatings children are barbaric (not valid English) <S> From this it should be clear that regardless of whether a direct object ( children, the Prince , here) is present, and regardless of whether the object is singular or plural, the -ing form is always singular unless explicitly pluralised by appending <S> -s . <S> TL;DR: <S> The plural verb form ( are ) can never be valid in OP's context. <S> The others are all syntactically valid, but mean different things. <S> In practice, contexts where you might use past ( was ) or past perfect ( had been ) are contrived and unlikely, so if a single "best" choice must be made, the answer is is . <A> (B) is definitely wrong. <S> The subject of the sentence, Uprooting , is singular. <S> (C) is also wrong, due to the improper tense progression. <S> Past perfect should be used for an action preceding another action in the past, and I don't see any other past tense verb here. <S> (D) is grammatically possible, but doesn't make much sense. <A> IMO, the answer should be is . <S> That said, I'm with you. <S> The reason is the verb is referring to a verb 'uproot'. <S> I think in construction like this, to have are , we must put noun at the first place of the sentence. <S> Little kids are like little devils <S> Little kids - adj+noun is possible taking the verb are but in no case, a verb at the first place of such sentence can have the verb is. <S> verb-ing will be followed by is . <S> In that sense, was <S> is also grammatically correct but having is in the options, this becomes no choice.
| Uprooting, the verb is at the first place which is singular and thus, the answer should be is. (A) is correct: this is a simile, in simple present tense, agreeing with a third-person singular subject.
|
I will have it done by tomorrow I will have it done by tomorrow Would you please by some example describe what does the bold part mean? I think the bold part is passive, isn't it? Thanks in advance <Q> This sentence is ambiguous: it may represent either of two related but syntactically distinct constructions. <S> this is the sort of construction which HostileFork describes. <S> In this construction HAVE means <S> cause <S> and it takes a bare-infinitive clause as its complement; when the clause is cast in the passive voice, the infinitive be is deleted: <S> ACTIVE: I will have John paint the house. <S> PASSIVE: I will have the house be painted (by John). <S> (The by phrase is optional.) <S> Alternatively, it may be read as employing resultative HAVE , in which HAVE has its ordinary sense of ‘possess, hold’ and <S> the constituent following the direct object is a secondary complement describing the direct object. <S> That constituent may be any construction which can act as a noun modifier: an adjective phrase, a preposition phrase, or a present or past participle phrase: <S> We have the system <S> AdjPhr ready to go. <S> We have the system PrepPhr on stand-by. <S> We have the system PrePplPhr running smoothly. <S> We have the system PaPplPhr completely fixed. <S> I think your example is more likely to represent the resultative sense than the causative, but without more context it is impossible to be sure. <S> In either case, you are correct in thinking of <S> done as some sort of passive <S> : when the past participle of a transitive verb is employed as an adjective it has a passive sense, it describes the noun it modifies as ‘acted upon’. <S> This is why some grammarians prefer to call this verbform a ‘passive participle’ in these situations. <A> Most of the time a sentence that looks like this is used, it means the same thing as: <S> I will finish it by tomorrow. <S> For instance: imagine your teacher asks when you are going to turn in an essay. <S> If you say "I will have it done by tomorrow. <S> " , he will not think you are hiring someone else to do your homework! <S> This is a bit strange. <S> Because usually when you speak about "having something done" , you mean someone else will be doing it at your direction. <S> For some reason, "I will have it done by (time)" came to mean "I will finish it by (time)" anyway. <S> It may have originally developed from wanting to emphasize "one way or another, it will be finished--no matter what it takes!" <S> Not identifying who will be doing something makes things sound otherworldly and firm, think of: <S> "It will be done." <S> So perhaps wanting to sound firm is why it's the response to being asked about something you alone are responsible for (like homework). <S> Still, in certain contexts it actually does mean: It will be done--by someone <S> who is not me--and I will ensure this happens before tomorrow. <S> For instance: <S> "I told you to hire some workers to come in here and fix the hole in the wall. <S> When is that going to happen?" <S> "I will have it done by tomorrow." <S> So you have to look at context to know what the meaning is supposed to be. <S> Notice that if you say "I will have it done by April" that could either mean you will be doing it by the month of April, or you will be hiring someone named April to do it. :-) <A> Hello just saw this post wanted to ask something. <S> I will get done by Tomorrow. <S> I will be done by Tomorrow. <S> Do they both mean the same and can they be used interchangeably please explain.
| It may be read as employing causative HAVE —
|
"My aunt is coming to tea tomorrow." (idiom "to come to tea"?) My mother has decided to make a cake today since my aunt is coming to tea tomorrow. Source: my English grammar book. Google gives little results involving the given expression "to come to tea". Is it some kind of an idiom (I understand the meaning, so don't explain it)? Or is it just something that follows a particular grammar rule? It really does look unusual when it is looked at from the grammar point of view (no one just "goes directly to tea"; they "go somewhere for tea" instead, i.e. they "go somewhere to get some tea"). So how could you explain the grammar of this? As I said in my last paragraph, the grammar looks unusual, and I want to understand the grammar aspects of this. I've posted the question “ My aunt is coming to dinner tomorrow” (grammar of 'to dinner') on EL&U because I would like to have an answer that show some sources that explain the grammar of this sort of phrase. <Q> So the form is the same as lunch. <S> You would not say the lunch, if used in place of tea, in your example. <S> I don't believe it is an idiom. <S> It's no different than saying: My aunt is coming to dinner tomorrow. <A> To in the sentence: my aunt is coming to tea tomorrow. <S> expresses purpose, it serves to introduce the reason for the action. <S> We must view it as an elliptical sentence where the verb expressing the action is not expressed but implied and it could be expanded in the following ways: <S> my aunt is coming to have tea (with us) tomorrow. <S> my aunt is coming in order to have tea (with us) tomorrow. <S> Another example: We're going to a movie tonight. <S> means we're going to see a movie. <S> Consider the sentence <S> : We're going to 1 the cinema to 2 see a movie tonight. <S> to 1 is a preposition and introduces the place, to 2 is a conjunction that introduces the purpose of the trip. <S> The sentence you propose: My aunt is coming for tea tomorrow is perfectly correct as well. <S> In this case "tea" is a single noun unit. <A> "Come to tea" is not an idiom. <S> Here 'tea' is a noun which means 'an early evening light meal' in which tea and snacks are usually served. <S> In that sense, your sentence 'My aunt is coming to tea tomorrow' is fine (similar to the sentence, "She is coming to dinner <S> tomorrow").It means : <S> My aunt is coming to take part in the early evening meal. <S> Similarly, 'I took her to tea" is also ok. <A> Tea is a social event that takes place between three and five o'clock in the afternoon. <S> It is not exactly a meal, but more like a "snack" for getting together. <S> At such events, yes, tea is served. <S> So are cakes. <S> Maybe small sandwiches. <S> But not "meat and potatoes." <S> "Let's get together for tea" is a bit like "let's get together for coffee," except that "tea" is more formal and circumscribed than "coffee."
| As used in your example, tea is like a meal (such as lunch or dinner) where you only have tea and whatever goes with it.
|
evaluates to be false vs evaluates to false "The guard condition evaluates to be false" vs "The guard condition evaluates to false" Which one is grammatical? <Q> Programmers say evaluates to X . <S> They generally do not say *evaluates to be X . <S> This is a technical phrase used by programmers, and in this phrase to is a preposition and not an infinitive marker, <S> so inserting be <S> would be inappropriate. <A> If you want to sound like a natural speaker then neither is correct. <S> Most people would use, 'The guard condition is false'. <S> Except in situations where the evaluation itself is under question; which even in programming is uncommon. <S> If you are writing a compiler and speaking to someone about a situation where a line should be evaluated a certain way <S> but, for whatever reason, it isn't then you would be careful about the distinction between the evaluation of the line and the result itself. <S> In that case, either of your examples is very common. <S> Otherwise, it is assumed that the evaluation of the line itself is always correct and the distinction which your versions make between what is written and what is calculated need not be made. <A> "The guard condition evaluates to false." <S> That's the more correct phrasing in the two choices given; and the grammar explanation has already been provided. <S> But I want to mention that the word choices here enter into fine points of programming semantics. <S> A guard condition is controlled by an expression to be evaluated. <S> For instance, in C++ you might say: if (1 - 1) { std::cout << "guard condition satisfied\n";} else { std::cout << "guard condition not satisfied\n";} 1 - 1 will evaluate to zero. <S> Although zero isn't the same thing as false ...for purposes of the if statement choosing which branch to take...it will go through to the else branch here. <S> So you would only be truly correct in saying "the guard condition evaluates to false" if it produced an actual false value . <S> A great deal of the time you are actually more interested in expressing which branch the conditional takes. <S> In those cases you would just say a condition "is" either satisfied or not satisfied . <S> I've mentioned this mostly as response to the answer that said you could write "the guard condition is false". <S> If the conditional expression itself actually is false ... literally written as if (false) ... <S> it's only then you really technically should say "the guard condition is false". <S> But even under the general usage that assumes you mean there is an evaluation taking place, you should be careful to distinguish whether you actually meant to emphasize that the condition was "not satisfied" . <S> If that is what you meant, it is the safer language to use. <A> The variant with "to be false" seems grammatically incorrect. <S> The variant with "evaluates to false" would be correct in a programming context (although I would be tempted to typeset it as "evaluates to false "), where " true " and " false " are taken to be names of the two values of the Boolean type. <S> One might say "evaluates to a false value", but I would personally avoid that; another alternative would be "evaluates to falsity". <A> Think of saying "23rd June" or "23rd of June". <S> What you should say is "the 23rd day of June", but we use shorthand versions of these phrases where you miss out the bits that are obvious. <S> The 'be' is similarly dropped in many cases, especially when something is assigned or otherwise becomes something else, and I'd say is a shorthand itself for the word 'becomes'. <S> In this case though, the condition is being compared to false and so there is no 'becoming', <S> if the guard condition was set then it'd be a different matter, though the 'be' tends to be dropped regardless. <A> To me the second option ( evaluates to be false ) has always sounded a little silly. <S> But I do I think that if the speaker is imagining some kind of flow in time/future tense involved in the evaluation then it isn't necessarily wrong. <S> It's a slight difference in perception perhaps.
| The phrase "The guard condition evaluates to false" does look slightly wrong from a grammatical point of view, since "false" is an adjective whereas it here designates the value resulting from the evaluation.
|
He is one of the men who do/does the work Let us say, I have been given two sentences in an MCQ test and I need to pick up the correct one. He is one of the men who do the work. He is one of the men who does the work. Somehow, I lean towards the second one ("It is I who am to blame", the one sentence memorized to take care of cases like this), but I have found some grammar books supporting the first one. <Q> Here, men is the target of the preposition of . <S> The phrase of the men serves to qualify one ; it is not the subject of the clause. <S> If you remove of the men , you can see that does is correct (though one then needs a specifier; I add <S> the to fulfil this requirement): <S> He is the one who does the work. <S> The emphasis here is on a single man. <S> Though he is not the only one who does the work , he is the subject of discussion. <S> The sentence isn't talking about a group of men; it's talking about one man who also happens to be part of a group. <S> Thus, do should be conjugated to agree with one . <A> The object of a preposition can NEVER be the subject of the sentence. <S> One is the subject; men is the object of the preposition of. <A> I know that it sounds wrong, but option 1 is the correct answer. <S> The antecedent of "who," the subject of the relative clause, is "men." <S> To achieve subject-verb agreement, the situation calls for the plural verb "do" to agree with "men" (as in "men do," not "men does").
| The second one is the better choice, because does agrees with one .
|
what's the part of speech of "nothing but"? I am curious what the part of speech of "nothing but" is. I have some examples: We could see nothing but fog. nothing but the best will do. In my opinion, there's no difference between "nothing but" and "only". So I think the part of speech of "nothing but" is adv. <Q> Nothing is a pronoun meaning "no thing". <S> But is a preposition meaning "except", and taking fog as its object; the preposition phrase but fog modifies nothing . <S> Note that the PP can be separated from its host: <S> There was nothing we could see but fog. <S> Nothing will do but the best. <A> "but" also replaces "except" in grammar. <S> A preposition. <S> e.g., Visibility was down to zero, there was nothing but fog. <A> In your sentence, NOTHING BUT is an adverbial phrase. <S> Nothing (pronoun) <S> + but (except, preposition) = <S> Nothing but ( only <S> ) -----> <S> > Adverbial Phrase.
| Nothing but is not a part of speech.
|
Difference between "fast food" and "junk food" What is the difference between "fast food" and "junk food"? Are they the same or not? "Are they used in the same way?" <Q> Fast food is served at a fast food restaurant, such as Mcdonalds, &c; while junk food a specific type of food such as chips, pop, &c. <S> Obviously, junk food could be served as fast food. <S> Essentially, the adjective: "fast" modifies the noun "food" in describing how long it takes the consumer to get the food ready to be eaten, that is the food will be ready very soon. <S> The adjective: "junk" describes the quality and nutritional value of the food. <S> Here "junk" is considered as that which is not usable, i.e. garbage. <S> Therefore to answer your question, different aspects of the food are being described. <S> preparation time <S> quality <A> Fast food refers to the assembly process. <S> Usually, fast food is obtained at a restaurant, where the entire restaurant is designed to get customers their food in matter of a few minutes. <S> The classic example is the McDonald's hamburger. <S> Junk food refers to the food's nutritional value. <S> Junk food is typically processed, containing high amounts of sodium, calories, and/or fat, with little nutritional value, such as bag of Doritos chips, or a candy bar. <S> There is some overlap between the two terms. <S> If a hamburger is put together at a fast food restaurant using, say, 70% lean beef, a lot of salt, and a cheap bun made from bleached flour, that burger could be regarded as both fast food and junk food. <S> However, not all fast food is junk food, and not all junk food is fast food. <S> Many fast food restaurants, responding to criticism about health concerns and obesity issues, have put healthier choices on their menus in recent years. <S> A related term is convenience food , which is not generally sold in restaurants, but in supermarkets. <S> It's designed to be easily prepared or consumed. <S> Again, there's a lot of overlap between junk food and convenience food, but the two are not necessarily synonymous. <S> For example, baby carrots that are sold prepeeled and prewashed could be considered a convenience food, but they wouldn't be considered junk food. <A> They may refer to the same thing, but I think the distinction is that fast food refers to the way the food is prepared/served, whereas junk food refers to the kind of food. <S> Fast food was introduced as opposed to traditionally cooked (slow) food: instead of someone preparing a large quantity of food in advance before serving it to people, or people ordering a meal and having to wait for the whole meal to be prepared in a traditional way, fast food was prepared in a quick way (all the ingredients being ready at hand and the classic burger being fried the moment you ordered it. <S> So I could very well prepare “slow” junk food. <A> Fast food may be thought of as convenience food . <S> It is quick. <S> It can be, but is not always, junk food . <S> Junk food is food that is not nutritionally-dense, or, put another way, is calorie-dense for the nutrient content. <S> The confusion comes thus: these terms are sometimes used as synonyms, while they are not. <S> This is because there is not complete overlap between the two sets: the set of fast food can include a quick green leafy salad with a light oil-and-vinegar home-made dressing, while the set of junk food does not contain the same salad. <S> Expanded in full, with respect to these two sets: <S> There are foods that are only fast food: a quick salad made with dark-green vegetables; There are foods that are only junk food: a corn-starch custard topped with meringue; <S> And there are foods that are both: a store-bought hamburger topped with wilted, nearly-white lettuce; <S> Finally, there are foods that are neither: a duck confit served with a side-salad topped with candied walnuts. <S> Therefore, we see that these two terms do not describe the same item , although they are mistakenly often used as synonyms. <A> A freshly made salad from top quality in season locally produced products can be fast food served in less than 5 minutes. <S> Junk food is food that people “look down” on, e.g. it has lots of fat, or is low quality etc. <S> It is often but not always served quickly. <S> So you can have a “take a way” that takes 1 hour to arrive, but is just a ready made source added to cheap cuts of meat, cooked badly in lots of fat.
| Junk food can be prepared as fast food , but it simply means food that is not adding any really healthy nutrients to one's diet.
|
Quitting a job - email subject "I'm moving on" I have resigned and I'm now looking for a suitable email subject. The email is intended for a working group I was part of. I have already written an email to my collegues. This one needs to be a bit more formal. Be aware that many recipients are non-native English speakers, so it needs to be clear without ambiguity. Current version: I'm moving on - thank you While I'm quite fine with I'm moving on according to the second definition in Wiktionary , I just want to know if there is a similar/better word to describe the same thing. I wonder whether I'm moving on would primariliy be considered as a relocation, which isn't the fact. I still live at the same place, I'm just changing the company. I also don't like to say I'm leaving , because that sounds to negative. I'm advancing or I'm progressing makes me think of a standstill in the old company, which I don't want to be understood. <Q> "Moving on" by itself is a very good choice, though, especially as it sounds a tad more positive than plain "Leaving", as user8543 mentioned. <A> "Moving on" is a term used to tell a boyfriend or girlfriend that you are no longer interested. <S> A phrase like, "A new direction for me -- thank you all" might be better. <S> More formal for native English speakers would be something like, " <S> Stepping down, December 7" -- I don't know if "stepping down" is as clear to a non-native speaker as "moving on" <S> but it definitely will sound more formal and polite to native speakers. <S> Perhaps the really important part for formality and grace is in the second half I propose, "thank you all": <S> "thank you" says that something has been completed; "thank you all" says that something has really ended. <A> If you want to be completely unambiguous, you could simply say Subject: <S> My last day here will be 2019-mm-dd Body: <S> It has been a pleasure working with all of you, but my final day will be 2019-mm-dd. <S> If you have any questions about projects I was working on, please direct them to my manager, Susan Sarandon. <S> If you want to stay in touch, please connect with me on LinkedIn. <S> Thank you.
| "I'm moving on" is very clear about what you are doing (quitting) but if you wish to convey a positive attitude towards the job you are leaving or the workers there, there may be a better phrasing. Considering the audience aren't native english speakers, one or two people not too firm in the language might be irritated by "moving on", so make sure you express what's going on in the email's content, I suppose.
|
interested in/to: what's the difference? As title suggests..what's the difference?I heard that the difference is that with "in" you are talking about something that will or is lasting in the time, while "to" is something you do just one time. So, the sentence "I am interested in starting my career in your company" is correct?Or maybe "I am interested to start my career in your company"? <Q> Whether you use "in" or "to" depends on how you are using word that comes after it. <S> Interested in <S> When you use "interested in", you are usually talking about being interested in something (generally, a noun). <S> For example, you can be interested in wine, or interested in cheese. <S> Therefore, this sentence usually takes the form "[Someone] is interested in [something]. <S> " <S> There are times, however where the something <S> you are interested in <S> can be a verb. <S> For example, you can be interested in swimming, or reading, or sleeping. <S> In this case, the verb is acting like a noun. <S> When a verb acts like a noun, it is called a gerund and almost always will end in "-ing". <S> Interested to "Interested to" is a bit more complicated, because by itself it doesn't really make sense. <S> The "to" is actually part of the verb that comes after it, like in "to read", "to see", or "to hear". <S> This "to form" of the verb is known as the infinitive , and is used to add detail to (or modify) <S> the word that comes before it. <S> This type of sentence usually takes the form of "[Someone] <S> is interested [to do something]. <S> " <S> To really answer your question... <S> "Interested to" is used when what comes after it is a verb in its "to form" (known as an infinitive). <S> While "I am interested to start my career in your company" may be technically correct, you should not use it because people generally don't use "interested" with "to start". <S> A more commonly accepted way to say it while still using the "to" would be " <S> I am excited to start my career in your company". <S> Hope this helps, and good luck with your new career! :) <A> Here's how it goes: You' re interested in.. .. buying a house = <S> you're seriously considering whether to buy a house. <S> .. <S> collecting stamps = <S> your hobby is collecting stamps. <S> (be) interested to (do) has the meaning of "learn" I was interested to.... hear what he had to say <S> ... see what they would do next... read the report... find out what happened. <S> or when an event holds your attention: <S> I was interested to watch him tune the piano. <S> * <S> I'm interested in football. <S> I'll be interested to see if City can win their next game. <S> So. <S> You're interested in learning better English. <S> Nice! <S> But, were you interested to read this? <S> * <A> Broadly, 'We are interested in something,' and 'We are interested to do something.' <S> True that interested in starting... <S> is quite common that interested to start... <S> Out of those two sentences, I'd prefer this: I am interested in starting my career in your company <S> Good to note mc01's suggestion. <S> ...starting with your company... or also, ...starting at your company... if you want to emphasize the place. <A> I think this sounds a perfect explanation: with "in" you are talking about something that will or is lasting in the time, while "to" is something you do just one time.
| "Interested in" is used when what comes after it is a noun, or a verb acting like a noun (known as a gerund). "I am interested in starting my career in your company" is the preferred construction.
|
Difference between data and information I'm reading a book and in the terms-definition section, there is a phrase that I can't understand! Card Content: Code and Application information (but not Application data ) contained in the card that is under the responsibility of the OPEN e.g. Executable Load Files, Application instances, etc I want to know, what is the difference between data and information ? Would you please explain with examples? Q2: Does code and application information mean "information of code and information of application" or mean "code + information of application"? Source of the text that is quoted: GPCardSpec_v2.2.pdf (page 5) <Q> I have learned a long time ago (when PC's where still a rumour) <S> that information is data that is usable (the definition was a bit longer). <S> It came down to the idea that a phonebook contains a lot of data, but only the number I look up in it is considered information. <S> This definition can still be used in a strict sense, but in practice, I notice that information often describes something, whereas data refers to "stuff" that belongs to and is used by or in an application. <S> So Code and Application information could be two things (your Q2 <S> — it can mean both): <S> The code that makes up the application and information about the application. <S> Information about both the code that makes up the application and about the application itself. <S> The explicit exclusion of Application data refers to the data that is used inside the application, such as user generated content, default data, screen layouts, up to a complete database. <S> The difference is mainly in the fact that application data can be a lot of data, and it is normally only accessible by the application itself. <S> The information in your "card content" is the information that is needed to execute the application, but it does not contains the data that is used by the application. <A> I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a dictionary definition that clearly distinguishes "data" from "information". <S> But in practice, the words do have slightly different connotations. <S> Like, you might say that instructions on how to bake a meatloaf are "information", but you wouldn't normally call that "data". <S> Also, the word "data" comes from the computer world, and so is most specifically used to describe information going into or coming out of a computer. <S> People use it in non-computer context mostly when they want to sound very clinical and precise. <S> Like a politician might say, "I can't give an opinion on the proposed bill until I have collected more data. <S> " People in casual conversation would be unlikely to say, "We can't decide where to go on vacation until we have collected more data." <A> Chambers (link) gives the meaning of data as pieces of information or facts, esp. <S> obtained by scientific observation <S> OR <S> a collection of information processed by a computer. <S> For information , it says knowledge gained or given; facts; news <S> OR the communicating or receiving of knowledge OR especially telecomm, computing a signal or character which represents data. <S> It seems like there is a huge overlap. <S> When we look at the derivations, the nuanced differences become a little clearer. <S> data is from the latin meaning 'things given', and information is from the latin meaning 'conception of an idea'. <S> So data is really a whole bunch of observations and facts. <S> Information is when the meaning (possibly about a collection of little facts) is conveyed into the mind of a person. <S> Except when it means exactly the same as data. <S> However, in the instance you raise, it seems that they are meaning information about the application and its configuration, as opposed to the data processed by the application.
| I think "data" is generally understood to meet distinct, specific, measurable facts, like the population of each country in the world or the credit card number of each customer. "Information" is used more generally to refer to all sorts of facts and ideas.
|
Streets have no name or nameS? Which is correct, "Streets have no name" or "Streets have no names"? I thought an "S" was needed but when I googled the two, the singular has a lot more hits. <Q> Prisoners in this gulag have no name. <S> They are assigned a number. <S> Let's talk about the new J17 Phantom fighter jet. <S> These jets have no instrument panel. <S> instead, the pilot's brain is directly connected to the central computer. <S> The plural noun (prisoners, jets) in the context of the statement, refers to a class or a type -- a set of things that have something in common. <S> A singular attribute (name, number, panel) is called for when describing the (singular) class. <S> In the question, "the streets" means "the streets in this place " -- that is the particular class. <A> "Where the Streets Have No Name" is the title of a song by U2. <S> The Wall Street Journal reports a rumor that the title refers to Managua. <S> Other cities in Nicaragua and Costa Rica also have this issue: <S> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304870304577489094121477570 "Where the streets lack names" or "Where the streets are unnamed" sound more natural to my (American) ear -- perhaps because I was already a teenager by the time this song came out. <S> I assume that U2 chose "have no name" for poetic reasons. <S> They rhymed "name" with "flame". <S> "[Having] no name" sounds like a (possibly desirable) <S> finished state. <S> On the other hand, "lack names" or "are unnamed" imply that the streets should have names, and are temporarily unnamed. <A> If it's a song, then minor questionable grammar like that is understandable. <S> Songs and poems often vary from standard grammar to get a desired rhyme or rhythm. <S> If it was said as an ordinary statement in conversation, I would understand "The streets have no name" to mean that the speaker expected there to be one name for all the streets. <S> Without any other context, I'd probably think he meant that they don't have a word in their language that means "street" or that the people do not use that word to refer to these particular streets. <S> Or more likely I'd think that he meant <S> "The streets have no names", that is, he expects each street to have a name -- "Main Street", "Elm Street", whatever -- <S> but they don't. <A> I found this page while suddenly thinking the same thing after knowing the song for decades. <S> I think it's grammatically-correct because it didn't stand out as wrong all this time. <S> When you think of "streets" as a group of streets that ALL lack a name, "streets" can be seen as a singular entity, not one street in particular. <S> Therefore, a singular description of their namelessness seems valid. <A> Yes, there is more than one street, so "streets" is plural, but each street only has one name each . <S> Interestingly, this wouldn't matter if you didn't bring numbers into it. <S> It would be correct to say: <S> "The street s have name s " or "None of the street s have name s ". <S> But because you have said " no name", you are talking about how many names they have ("no" is substituting as the number zero in this context). <S> To be fair, most native speakers would equally accept "the streets have no names" and possibly even say it, but it is technically wrong because it is ambiguous. <S> It allows for the meaning that streets could have more than one name. <S> But this would almost never be questioned because everybody knows that streets only have one name. <S> There would be no such issue saying... <S> The women here have no children. <S> ... <S> because it is reasonable that a woman could have more than one child.
| "The streets have no name" is correct.
|
The name of a house Obviously some houses bear their names from characteristic features one is supposed to grasp presently. I have just run into this one: "Barrow Elm House". I do know what a barrow is and what an elm is. What I do not understand here is the logical or semantic link between the two. As a barrow can also be an "ancient burial mound" ( Webster International Dictionary ), does "Barrow Elm" mean the house sits on such a mound covered or ornamented with elms? Or am I missing something more elementary? <Q> The elm tree has a symbolic connection with death and the Underworld. <S> See this information from the Woodland Trust : <S> Elms used to be associated with melancholy and death, perhaps because the trees can drop dead branches without warning. <S> Elm wood was also the preferred choice for coffins. <S> Given that symbolism, I think it's likely that elms have long been associated with burial mounds ("barrows"), and that the house is (or used to be) located near a barrow with elms nearby. <S> (Extra notes: <S> a Google search indicates that this placename is not at all unusual in the UK. <S> Also, a glance at an Ordnance Survey map for the UK countryside shows a lot of barrows - they're marked as "tumulus" - <S> so it's not a stretch to say that a lot of houses have been near these at some point.) <A> I don't know where that house is, but Wikipedia tells us there is a Barrow Elm near Hatherop: <S> Barrow Elm, about 0.75 miles (1.21 km) southeast of the village, is a prehistoric tumulus. <S> A house placed at, near, or on the road to, that place could well be named after it. <S> The singular elm seems to indicate that there was a single elm. <S> You don't need many trees to give a place a name :) <A> It doesn't need to make analytical sense, any more than "London" needs to make sense. <A> As others have said -- and probably beaten to death -- a name does not have to make sense. <S> Specifically, a name is not a sentence or even necessarily a grammatically correct fragment of a sentence. <S> "Elm" of course is a kind of tree. <S> In the context of a place name I assume "barrow" refers to a dirt mound. <S> This one strikes me as a little bit odd because of the ordering of the words. <S> If someone called a place "Elm Barrow", I'd take that to mean that it was on or near a barrow that was covered or surrounded by elm trees, or <S> at least that had one or two prominent elm trees in the vicinity. <S> That is, "barrow" is a noun and "elm" is used as an adjective describing something about the barrow. <S> But "Barrow Elm" is backwards. <S> There can't be a barrow sitting on an elm tree. <S> But as it's a name, maybe whoever made it up just liked the sound better if you switched the two around. <S> Or maybe they are intended to be unrelated: there is a barrow and there are some elms. <S> I don't know how you could know without asking the person. <S> I just checked a dictionary <S> and I see that "Barrow" is also the name of a river in Ireland. <S> Perhaps the person who named this place was thinking of that river and of an elm tree that grows along that river -- a "Barrow elm". <S> I see that "barrow" can also mean a castrated pig. <S> The tree belonging to this pig, or where this pig lives? <S> "My pig's tree" seems a funny thing to want to call a place, but as I'd never heard that definition of the word before, I don't know the connotations. <A> As has already been said, there is no guarantee that the name chosen makes any sense. <S> However, there is a plausible etymology if the name did arise organically. <S> It has not been uncommon in England for names to be given to significant trees. <S> For example, this Google Books link: http://books.google.com/books?id=0g49AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA125&dq=%22barrow+elm%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rG4QVOn7As2ZyATGo4D4Aw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22barrow%20elm%22&f=false <S> discusses trees called the Gibbet Tree, the Court Tree, and the Barrow Elm. <S> These were notable trees used for public purposes. <S> In the case discussed, the Barrow Elm appears to have been on or near a barrow, but that may not always have been the case; "barrow" could have arisen from the name of a settlement, or a corruption of a similar word such as "borough." <S> Then, once the tree gained that name in the neighborhood, it would be natural to name the new property after the older and more widely known tree. <S> In other words: I think everyone who is trying to work out a semantic meaning such as: <S> The house that is by the elm that is near the barrow is missing the mark. <S> The meaning of the name when it was applied to the property--again, assuming there was one at all--was more likely something closer to: <S> The property on which the tree everyone calls the "Barrow Elm" is located.
| Barrow Elm is the name of a place.
|
What is the difference in meaning between “cost” and “price”? When should we use cost and when price? Is there any difference between these words? <Q> The short answer: when used as a noun, the "price" is the amount charged for something, and the "cost" is the amount paid for something. <S> When a person is discussing buying something at retail, the most common noun used for the amount charged by the seller is "price." <S> I wanted to buy a white cotton jumpsuit, but the price was too high, so I didn't. <S> It is most often used in an accounting or business context. <S> Our cost per item is three dollars and our gross revenue per item is sixty dollars. <S> That's a fifty-seven dollar profit on each jumpsuit sold! <S> It is not exactly wrong to use "cost" as a noun in the same way you would "price": I wanted to buy a white cotton jumpsuit, but the cost was too high. <S> However, this is not as idiomatic, at least in American English; it sounds a bit melodramatic. <S> You would be more likely to use "cost" as a noun where it is understood that you are discussing the impact on your finances, rather than the amount the store asked for the item: <S> Sure, it was expensive, but the cost isn't what's important <S> : it's how the jumpsuit makes you feel. <S> Confusingly, you can use "cost" as a verb to describe the amount charged for an item: <S> That's a lovely jumpsuit; how much does it cost? <S> "Price" as a verb is used only for the act of setting a price: <S> Why would you price these jumpsuits so high? <S> We poor students need jumpsuits, too! <A> "Cost" refers to an expense, a hole in your pocket, or a liability for meeting a business goal for item being referred to. " <S> Price" is objectively viewed money equivalent tagged for goods. <A> When you purchase an item, you pay the "price", that is the amount of money that the seller receives. <S> However, you may have additional expenses, like taxes, payment for transport, payment for having the item installed. <S> All these add up to the "cost". <S> Or ordering things online: <S> Cost = Price + Packaging + Postage.
| When used as a noun, "cost" refers specifically to the amount paid by someone for something.
|
Some issues with the word quite I know the meaning of the word quite and how to use it in most of the cases. Yet, when it comes to negatives I am in a state of uncertainty. For example: I’m not quite right. And I’m completely wrong. Are they equivalent? Do they mean exactly the same thing? I don’t think so. I’d say that 1. implies that I’m wrong but not completely while 2. leaves no room for any rightness, but I’m not sure if I’m getting it right. The dictionaries don’t explain about its usage with negatives, they simply say in definition #2 and #4:(not used with a negative) However, I have tried to use with a negative: Ngram viewer and it returned a lot of hits which I don’t know to interpret. Would you enlighten me please? <Q> If you are "quite wrong" about something, you are very wrong (dead wrong) about it. <S> He was "quite sick <S> " means he was very ill. <S> In those senses, "quite" is an emphatic. <S> If there's something "not quite right" about a piece of pie, say, it has a slightly bad taste or a weird texture, perhaps. <S> It is difficult to say exactly what is wrong with it. <S> Maybe there was some dish soap residue on the pie pan. <S> In those senses, "not quite" qualifies the assertion, that is, it limits it in some way or makes it less emphatic. <A> "Quite" is a confusing word - it has several distinct meanings, some of which contradict. <S> You're right that definition #2 can't be used with a negative. <S> For reference, that's this one: 2. <S> (not used with a negative) to a noticeable or partial extent; <S> somewhat: she's quite pretty . <S> That implies that if we are using "quite" with a negative, as in your first example, we must be using a different definition. <S> In this case, it's #1: 1. to the greatest extent; completely or absolutely: <S> you're quite right ; quite the opposite . <S> So, to conclude: your first example means "I'm not completely right" - in other words, " <S> I'm mostly right, but not entirely". <S> That's very different from your second example, "I'm completely wrong" - <S> so no, they're not equivalent, and in fact they're not far off being complete opposites! <A> They are not exactly equivalent. <S> Your interpretation is correct. <S> While I'm not quite right leaves some margin for one being right, <S> I'm completely wrong <S> denies any such possibility outright. <S> In short, yes, quite quantifies negative qualities just as it quantifies positive ones.
| But if you are "not quite right" about something, you are not entirely correct about it, although there may be some truth in what you have said or in what you think. To say "I'm quite content" means, "I'm very satisfied with how things are going".
|
Meaning of "doesn't even begin to cover it" I saw the movie Ice Age 4 , in which there was the quote "Okay doesn't even begin to cover it". After searching on the internet, I couldn't find the meaning of the sentence at all. Is that "Begin to cover" an idiom? What's the meaning of the sentence? <Q> Here, "Okay doesn't even begin to cover it" means <S> "The word <S> okay <S> is so inadequate that it does not even have the slightest chance of describing [topic]. <S> " <S> From Oxford Dictionaries <S> Online <S> : <S> begin <S> [no object with negative] <S> informal <S> Not have any chance or likelihood of doing a specified thing <S> cover Deal with (a subject) by describing or analyzing its most important aspects or events More generally <S> , "doesn't even begin to..." is used when you want say that something is extremely lacking; that it does not have any chance of accomplishing the goal that it intends to. <S> Some examples of proper ways to use "doesn't even begin to...", from the above source: Indeed, even today, one cannot begin to comprehend the appalling fate suffered by these two young girls. <S> He concluded by saying that we couldn't even begin to comprehend what one day in his shoes would be like. <S> Clearly this too is an honour that most of you have little chance of even beginning to aspire to. <A> Look at this definition of begin from TheFreeDictionary.com : <S> To do or accomplish in the least degree <S> Those measures do not even begin to address the problem. <S> It talks about an action/thing being so hugely dramatic that something else said or done in return almost pales in comparison to it, so it doesn't even begin to solve the problem. <S> For instance, if you have done a grave mistake, or a terrible sin, and upon realizing your mistake, you say "I'm sorry", you might get a reply: <S> Sorry doesn't even begin to cover it or <S> Sorry doesn't cut it <S> I cannot give you an exact answer on your quote without the context, but "Okay doesn't even begin to cover it" <S> is also used in a similar sense here. <S> The key point to focus on is " doesn't even begin" . <A> I haven't seen the cartoon <S> but I got the following from the script: <S> Peaches: <S> "Do I look okay? <S> Louis? <S> Louis: Okay doesn't even begin tocover it." <S> So Louis is having fun with her by saying that Peaches looks fantastic and beautiful. <S> ('begin to cut' from freedictionary.com ) <A> To cover something in this sense is to describe it in an adequate amount of detail: for example, "The professor covered Shakespeare's sonnets in his lecture."
| So, to not even begin to cover something means to not even come close to describing it adequately.
|
"sometimes" is adjective or adverb In this sentence: The sometimes patronizing, often demeaning portrayal of women—even supposedly liberated women—remained, though often clandestine or packaged in the language of liberation. I think the sometimes is in the position of adjective, but in dictionary I couldn't find sometimes as adjective. what is the meaning of sometimes in this sentence as adjective? or An adverb can emerge in the noun phrase as same as this sentence? The downloadable document is here. (page 51, first paragaraph) <Q> Actually, in this example, patronizing is the adjective. <S> Sometimes is (and always will be) an adverb . <S> Allow me to explain. <S> Patronizing is the present participle <S> form of the verb patronize . <S> Using the present participle turns a verb into an adjective . <S> In this case, patronizing is being used as an adjective to describe the portrayal of women . <S> Sometimes is being used to modify patronizing . <S> So what part of speech is it? <S> Well, it is being used to modify patronizing , which, even though it serves the function of an adjective, is still a verb by nature. <S> A word that modifies a verb is an adverb . <S> So we can come to this conclusion from two directions: <S> By definition, sometimes is an adverb. <S> Therefore it is an adverb. <A> Are you sure that sentence is punctuated as in the original source? <S> I would have expected it to be written as: <S> The sometimes-patronizing, often-demeaning portrayal... <S> Sometimes is being used as an adverb here, <S> because it's modifying "patronizing" ( <S> which is itself being used as a modifier: it describes the type of portrayal). <S> I am used to seeing this with a hyphen when used in series with another adverb-of-frequency like "often", but it isn't required when used individually. <S> ( Here 's some examples). <A> As other answers have noted, "sometimes" is used as an adverb in the cited text. <S> It may be worth noting, however, that many because many nouns are sometimes used as adjectives and not all uses are noted, "sometimes" may be sometimes be used to modify things which look like nouns but really aren't. <S> For example, one may refer to a cafeteria's "sometimes-beef, sometimes-pork, mystery-meat pies" [both "beef" and "pork" would be adjectives in that sentence, modifying "pies", so "sometimes" would be an adverb even though it would appear to be modifying nouns. <S> Additionally, it's worth noting that "sometime" may be legitimately used as an adjective, and that use of "sometimes" in the same fashion, whether legitimate or not, is hardly unknown.
| Sometimes is being used to modify a verb, patronizing .
|
What does "don't turn this back on me" mean? I want to know what does "don't turn this back on me" mean in conversations? Does its meaning is always "don't blame me" or it also have another usages? I see this in a movie and with the help of subtitle I knew that it's about blaming someone. but one of my friends told that it could also mean "don't change the subject". So this caused I ask this question. However, maybe it's better I ask which meaning is more general or in which situations we may use that? <Q> One person will assert that someone (but not them) is to blame. <S> Then someone else proposes that the first person could be or is to blame (this could be the accused, or just a cohort of the first person with sympathies for the accused). <S> The first person retorts with "Don't turn this back on me!". <S> So you could say it means "I refuse to talk about how I might be to blame. <S> " <S> This phrase is really only used in that situation. <S> It can't be used as a substitute for "Don't blame me!" <S> or "Don't change the subject!". <A> Such a phrase might be used in this context: Person <S> A asks for a favour from Person B , and the request would require B to violate some rules. <S> (Example: "Could you get me a gun?") <S> When agreeing to the task, B says to A , "Don't turn this back on me!", reminding A that B assumed some risk to perform the task, and that B expects A to return the favour by being discreet, accepting liability and not blaming B if something goes wrong. <S> Above all, A should not harm B . <S> (Example: Don't shoot me with the gun. <S> If you get caught with the gun, please make up a story about how you acquired it.) <A> It can be used as a replacement for "don't blame me!", but it has slightly broader possibilities. <S> It would be used when either blame, responsibility, or attention, is getting re-directed on to the speaker, and away from existing, or appropriate, focus of the conversation. <S> That focus was someone, or something, other than the speaker. <S> To better understand how it might be used, one could replace it by saying: "Don't redirect the focus to me!" <S> or "Don't let the focus get redirected towards me!" . <S> These are pretty much a literal rephrasing for meaning, although it would rarely be said like that. <S> However, saying it this way, you can see how "Don't turn this back on me!" <S> could be used. <S> E.g. Joe says to Mary: <S> "Yes, I know, I was late! <S> But you were supposed to pick me up!" <S> You can see how Joe attempted to re-frame the argument to deflect blame from himself, and on to Mary. <S> Mary might respond <S> "Don't turn this back on me!" <S> as an objection to that redirection of the argument. <S> The re-framing could be implied, rather than direct. <S> This could be the situation where two (or more) people are involved in a risky undertaking (either legitimate, or illegitimate), and one person is assisting, rather than directing the action. <S> The assisting person may not want the consequences to be directed at them, rather than the active participant, when the active participant might be able to redirect the consequences on to the assister. <S> E.g. Joe and Mary are sitting in a car outside a store. <S> Joe says to Mary: "Give me your gun." <S> And then proceeds to rob the store. <S> Joe gets back in the car. <S> The police arrive before they can leave. <S> Joe gives the gun back to Mary, and tells the police the gun is Mary's. <S> Mary then objects: <S> "Don't turn this back on me!" , as Joe is attempting to redirect the attention of the police from Joe to Mary.
| In general, this phrase is used when people (usually the villains or antagonists of some piece of fiction) are attempting to access who is at fault or the cause of a problem.
|
What is the difference between "me neither" and "me either"? I want to know the difference between "me neither" and "me either", are both correct? <Q> In colloquial spoken language some people use me neither in place of neither do I. A- <S> I don't like getting up in the morning. <S> B- <S> Neither do I. /Me <S> neither. <S> In the US some people will also use me either in that case: <S> A- <S> I don't like getting up in the morning. <S> B- Me either. <S> But this is very informal and not to be used in a learning environment where I would stick to <S> neither do I . <S> You could find "me either" used in a sequence in a sentence like: <S> A- <S> This does not seem very clear. <S> B- <S> It doesn't seem clear to me either. <S> To answer subsidiary question asked in comment about the pronunciation of either and neither: <S> The letters [ei] in both words can either be pronounced /aɪ/ or /i/ . <S> And to my knowledge this is not a UK vs US difference, although I think <S> /i/ <S> is more frequent in the US, /ˈaɪðə/ <S> and /ˈnaɪðə/ <S> can both be heard in the UK. <S> The question was asked a few years ago on ELU with lots of detailed answers. <A> As stated in the other answers, “Me neither” can be used instead of “ <S> Neither do I” or “ <S> Nor I”. <S> It's the equivalent of “Me too” or <S> “So do I”, but used after a negative sentence. <S> It's used to change the subject of a sentence to the speaker. <S> In most cases, “Me either” isn't a phrase in its own right. <S> Usually, the two words are separated by a comma or pause. <S> “either” works like “also” and “too”, but again is used with negative sentences. <S> It's a discursive marker. <S> Here are some examples: <S> A <S> : I don't like her. <S> B: Me neither. <S> and A <S> : She doesn't like me. <S> B <S> : She doesn't like me, either. <S> If B says “Me neither.” <S> in the last example, they are at risk of sounding as if they are saying “I don't like you, either.”. <S> Probably, the sentences that use “I” to replace the subject (“neither do I”, “I don't either”) are safer to use for an English learner than those that use “me” to replace the subject (“me neither”). <S> The opposite rule goes for replacing the object. <A> Either and neither are very similar and very different at the same time. <S> Either and neither both give option between two choices (ie. <S> I can take either this cookie or that cookie. <S> Neither of the cookies look tasty). <S> The big difference is that neither is the negative form of either . <S> Where either is inclusive, neither is exclusive. <S> Imagine it like this <S> (I will borrow from one of the other comments for the examples): <S> A- <S> I don't like getting up in the morning. <S> B- <S> Neither do I. /Me <S> neither. <S> In this case the statement is negative for the narrative <S> (No I don't like getting up in the morning). <S> Additionally you can look at it as exclusive. <S> You are excluding yourself from the group of people who like getting up in the morning. <S> A- <S> I don't like getting up in the morning. <S> B- Me either. <S> In this case me either is colloquially correct but technically wrong because the statement is negative A- <S> This does not seem very clear. <S> B- <S> It doesn't seem clear to me either. <S> Statement A here is positive because you can agree (yes, it does seem to be not clear) <S> In this case either is correct because you are including yourself in the people who think "this" does not seem very clear. <A> There's not a huge difference – they both mean about the same thing and can be used interchangeably in most circumstances. <S> A look at the Google Ngram results for them <S> I think shows that their history is closely tied together between they <S> pretty much mean the same thing. <S> While usage varies between speakers and regions, of course, generally if the statement being agreed with is a response to a question or request, me <S> neither is used: <S> Question: <S> Terry <S> : Would you like coke or pepsi? <S> Alex: <S> Neither, thank you. <S> Kris: Me neither. <S> However, if the response is in agreement to a negative statement, then me either is more common, generally. <S> Negative statement: <S> Terry <S> : I didn't like the movie last night. <S> Alex: Me either. <A> I am English and prefer to say "me neither" because it is much more logical than me either. <S> The N in neither indicates "No". <S> I think it sounds better <S> but this is what I have been used to living in England for 57 years. <A> The response "Me either" seems incorrect to me. <S> It's makes no sense as a negative response. <S> For example, in this scenario: <S> Terry <S> : Would you like coke or pepsi? <S> Alex: <S> Neither, thanks. <S> Kris: Me either. <S> If I were Terry I would be serving Kris either a coke or pepsi before they could say anything about it! <S> ;-)) <A> "Me either" should be slapped out of someone's mouth, if using the same way as "me neither". <S> It may be more common in some places than in others, but that doesn't make it correct, OR acceptable! <S> The comma example would be an acceptable exception; even though it would still sound weird. <S> I.E. <S> "Would you like a Coke or a Pepsi?" <S> "Me, either." <S> Still seems it should be separated into <S> "Me? <S> Either." <A> I have learned that you should use "either" when there is already a negation in sentence. <S> E.g. "I don’t like it either. <S> " Don’t is a negation so either would be used. <S> On the other hand if I want to say a shorter version. "... me neither. <S> " You convey negation with the word "neither" as there are no other elements in your sentence with the negation of your statement. <S> That is the one simple and logic explanation in grammar that always stuck to me.
| “Me neither” can also be considered equivalent to “I don't, either”.
|
Paraphrase "Her cooking is not so good." Let's assume following situation. You've been invited to a dinner by friend of yours. He told you that his wife is a great cook. After you got home, you say (in a private conversation) to your partner: Frankly speaking, her cooking is not so good. This isn't worded well. How could I rephrase the sentence to sound more natural? <Q> I'm not clear exactly why OP thinks his version "isn't worded well". <S> It's perfectly natural English - though it may be worth noting that most native speakers would change at least the first two words... <S> Other possible changes would be isn't rather than is not , and hot rather than good . <S> But these are just slightly more informal versions of OP's original - since we know the context is very informal, they're obviously "acceptable", but I see no reason to actually prefer either of these changes. <S> But I would also point out that (particularly in relaxed informal contexts), I'd be reasonably certain 1 <S> an even more common alternative to the first two words would be... <S> To be honest , her cooking was not so good ...wasn't all that hot ...wasn't up to much ... <S> was no great shakes etc., etc. <S> (there are any number of idiomatic alternatives here, but they're not "better") <S> Regarding the verb form, it's a very fine point. <S> Arguably you'd be more likely to use present tense <S> ( is not so good) if you think it's likely you <S> and/or your partner will have future encounters with the friend's wife's lacklustre cooking (in which case it's more of an ongoing, still relevant situation). <S> But since you're only referring to her lack of culinary skills because of that earlier meal, I think you'd actually be more likely to use past <S> tense <S> ( wasn't anything to write home about, was a bit of a letdown) . <S> 1 <S> This NGram strongly suggests my gut feeling re relative prevalence is correct. <A> I'd argue that it's actually slightly awkward to talk about someone's "cooking". <S> One would generally talk about her skill at the role of being "a cook". <S> And echoing @FumbleFingers, "frankness" is a bit of an awkward word. <S> It's best known from <S> Gone With The Wind and rarely used outside of that <S> ; and it also is used in jokes that play on the idea of someone being named Frank vs. speaking with candor. <S> (Candor is also an "infrequently used word" :-P) <S> So most natural <S> if you want to speak in broad strokes about someone's kitchen skills, you might say: To be honest, she isn't a very good cook. <S> Referring to a single meal you've had as someone's "cooking" is fine, but still probably better to talk about the precise dish. <S> Honestly, that chicken casserole she made tasted terrible. <S> Or something like that. <A> Tell you the truth , her cooking wasn't that good. <S> To be honest , I didn't like the food that much. <S> In all frankness , her cooking wasn't up to scratch. <S> Frankly , it (the meal) was rather disappointing in the last example, I would omit "speaking". <S> The term, frankly , expresses the desire to be truthful; brutally honest ; totally frank ; and to be blunt . <S> TFD defines frankly as frankly <S> (ˈfræŋklɪ) <S> adv <S> 1. <S> (sentence modifier) in truth; to be honest: frankly, I can't bear him . <S> 2. <S> in a frank manner <A> Frankly speaking, her cooking is not so good. <S> This is fine, just a little stilted. <S> Most people when speaking would say "isn't" rather than "is not", unless being emphatic (in which case, there'd be a strong stress on "not"). <S> "Frankly speaking" is somewhat redundant when you're speaking: it's obvious that you don't mean "frankly writing" or "frankly communicating telepathically" so just "frankly" would be more natural. <S> (Arguably, even "frankly" is redundant: why would you speak anything but frankly with your partner, in private, when it's your friend who disappointed you, rather than your partner's? <S> But that's probably taking things to extremes.) <A> Given baseline = "wife is a great cook" <S> Well, the above answers range in magnitude as such: <S> We see things such as "didn't live up to my expectations", which implies that while she may be a fine cook, it's not quite up to the "great" level. <S> And we also see things along the lines of "she isn't a very good cook", which implies that her cooking is far below great. <S> Not even 'acceptable'. <S> So keep in mind that since you want to convey that her cooking is not great, knowing where her cooking skills do fall is helpful in figuring out the wording.
| In all honesty , her cooking wasn't that great.
|
how can a gaze "whisper" What is the meaning of the verb "whisper" in the sentence below? Her gaze whispered down the white cotton spread tight over a sinewy chest and wide shoulder. Source C. C. Hunter, Reborn (2014) <Q> This is strictly poetic/literary usage. <S> The word does not literally fit at all, because people cannot actually make a sound (even a quiet one!) <S> just by looking at something with their eyes. <S> You have to be very close to whisper successfully. <S> The word choice is probably also influenced by the use of "whisper" to describe the sound made by rustling fabric. <S> It would be not uncommon to say that the white cotton "whispered" in the breeze, or something like that. <A> Personally, I don't like the use of whisper in this context. <S> Whisper should allow the reader to infer a form of subtle communication, not a rate of movement. <S> "Her gaze whispered her intentions as it lingered down the white cotton <S> spread tight over a sinewy chest and wide shoulder." <A> This kind of writing is known derogatorily as "purple prose". <S> Are you sure the original has singular "shoulder", BTW? <S> "Whisper" is meant to imply "moving gently", but it's a mixed metaphor, hardly the mot juste .
| In this context, "whisper" is used because it suggests quietness, softness, and intimacy.
|
Meaning of "to will a parking spot" A guy is bragging about a great parking spot he has gotten in front of the building. And he says: I am just willing these great parking spots. What does it mean? <Q> He probably means I am willing <S> these parking spots into existence . <S> i.e., I am creating these parking spots by the force of my will (volition). <S> which, of course, is not literally true. <A> It's a figure of speech. <S> He is essentially saying that he's wanting a good parking spot so badly that his desire alone is making the spots available, as if that is some sort of superpower. <S> It's intended to be a humorous way to express a feeling of triumph. <A> The context suggests that this wasn't the intended meaning in this case but, "to will a parking spot" could also mean "to bequeath a parking space to someone by the terms of a will" <S> In a densely populated city in which parking spaces are valuable, it would not be unheard of for someone to leave a parking space they owned to an heir when they died. <A> It is his way of emphasizing the intensity of his desire. <A> Scott nailed it unless you're not sure if he said 'willed it into the spot'. <S> You have to 'will' cars into tight parking spaces. <S> You must believe its going to fit, because it will fit. <S> Then you just have to (will it into place) make it fit. <A> He will never give the parking space up! <S> He will die before doing so. <S> Others acknowledge his asset enough to want it gifted in his will, so he might even be open to bribery and grovelling :). <S> This a macho-dominance thing, not a fantasy-wish thing, I'll bet. <S> Besides, he said this AFTER getting the parking spot, not before. <S> I agree with Blah. <S> I've used such language (albeit not over a parking spot!) <S> on occasion...
| He is wishing for a great parking spot just like one of these.
|
Glad or Nice to meet you? Is there any difference between both expressions? Nice to meet you. and Glad to meet you. If yes, when or why use each one? Also, there are some variations as Nice to see you or Nice to found you. This rule apply to this greetings too? <Q> Nice to meet you. <S> This is short for <S> it is nice to meet you . <S> Glad to meet you. <S> This is short for <S> I am glad to meet you . <S> When meeting someone (usually, for the first time), it is a positive experience. <S> As such, I am glad has a bit more of a personal touch, I think: you actually refer to a personal emotion of being glad, whereas it is nice <S> is more of a general observation. <S> The difference is subtle, though, and probably most people might not notice it. <S> Compare for instance these two sentences: <S> It's nice weather today. <S> I like the weather today. <S> They roughly mean the same thing, but the second one is more personal. <S> (And of course, if I like weather that is not usually considered nice, they may mean something different.) <S> Nice to see you. <S> Short for <S> it is nice to see you <S> , you use this when you meet someone you already know; as a rule of thumb, use meet when you meet someone for the first time, use see when you are acquainted with them. <S> Nice to found you. <S> This sentence is grammatical, but it means you enjoy creating someone. <S> If you mean you are happy about finding someone, make sure you use the verb find , not the verb found . <S> Nice to find you here! <S> Glad that I found you! <S> These are both correct uses of find , and express happiness about having encountered someone (at this specific location). <S> Glad to is followed by an infinitive , so glad to found you would refer to the verb found as we see it in the foundation of a company, the Founding Fathers and the founder of a city. <S> The man who founded a city is not the same as one that found it! <A> Nice and Glad in this context mean the same thing - meeting someone <S> , you are delightful, happy or feel happy/pleasure. <S> The expression Nice to see you is used when you see someone after a long time or out of your expectation. <S> Say, you meet Mike after 4 years or at party, you did not expect Mike to be there. <S> Also, nice/glad to meet <S> you talks about meeting someone and is generally used at the first encounter. <S> Nice to found you does not fit in this context <S> (and yes, to+found is weird here). <S> It may mean the person was missing! <A> There are very specific phrases which glad features in, where other words are less fitting. <S> For instance: <S> "I'm glad you enjoyed it." <S> But "I'm glad to meet you. <S> " <S> is--at least--in American English, a bit awkward. <S> "Nice to meet you. <S> " <S> or "Pleased to meet you. <S> " <S> or even simply "A pleasure." <S> (wink) <S> sound less stilted. <S> Trying to reverse-engineer a rule for why...I think that "glad" tends to feature more in a sense of expressing relief . <S> It's as if there was a bad outcome to be compared to. <S> "I'm glad you got here in time!" <S> In fact, the marketing campaign for Glad trashbags has used contrast explicitly in their marketing. <S> A poor quality trashbag would collapse, while a Glad trashbag would not, so they say "Don't get mad, get Glad(tm). <S> " <S> This would draw a subtle difference between <S> "I'm glad I met you." <S> (because of some good outcome that wouldn't have happend vs. not having met you), as opposed to this "Glad to meet you. <S> " <S> which isn't really clear what you'd be sad/mad about.
| On the other hand, nice/glad to see you is normally used when you are already acquainted with someone but feel a bit surprising (happy) looking at them at the place. Generally, they mean the same thing.
|
"reflect" vs "reflection on" or "reflection of" The bride's elegant dress reflected her good taste. The bride's elegant dress is a reflection on her good taste. The bride's elegant dress is a reflection of her good taste. Would you tell me if they mean the same thing? If they would mean the same thing, what about the following question--link--? or I mean how could we distinguish such a distinction between these functions? Similarly, what about these: A student's grades reflected her teacher A student's grades are a reflection on her teacher A student's grade are a reflection of her teacher When, where or in which situation don't they mean the same? How can we distinguish such a distinction? <Q> The bride's elegant dress reflected her good taste. <S> Here, we can see her good taste in her choice of dress. <S> Her good taste is the cause of her choice of dress. <S> Because she has good taste, she chose this dress. <S> The bride's elegant dress is a reflection on her good taste. <S> Here, her good taste gets augmented by her choice of dress. <S> Her good taste is a result of her choice of dress. <S> Because she chose this dress, she has good taste. <S> This does actually seem a strange thing to say. <S> The bride's elegant dress is a reflection of her good taste. <S> This is a perfectly fine was to express the first sentence. <S> Again, the good taste is the cause of her choice of dress. <S> A student's grades reflected her teacher. <S> Because the grades are good, we know her teacher is good -> <S> the teacher caused the good grades. <S> A student's grades are a reflection on her teacher. <S> Because the grades are good, we think of the teacher as a good teacher -> <S> the grades caused the teacher to look good. <S> A student's grade are a reflection of her teacher. <S> Again, the same meaning as the first option -> <S> because the teacher is good, the grades are good. <S> A is a refection of B means that we can explain that A is something (good or bad) because of B. A reflects <S> B means the same thing. <A> The bride's elegant dress reflected her good taste. <S> The bride's {some adjective} dress is a reflection on her good taste. <S> The bride's elegant dress is a reflection of her good taste. <S> In the second sentence, I would not include "good". <S> The idiom "is a reflection on" normally implies at least the potential for a negative association. <S> For example, if one substitutes "gaudy" as the adjective. <S> But usually the reflection is on a third party. <S> Your (drunken) behavior, deputy, is a reflection on me, the sheriff of Dodge. <S> Students, your behavior is a reflection on this school. <S> At the game this Saturday, I expect there to be no fighting or name-calling. <S> The mass exodus of American city-dwellers into the suburbs in the 1950s was a reflection of the growing popularity of the family automobile. <S> The traffic congestion on suburban roads today is a poor reflection on the regional planners who were responsible for striking a balance between highways and alternative forms of public transportation, such as street-cars and regional rail systems: most of the public funding went towards the building of new roads. <A> I would normally take "reflection on" as "somebody's thoughts on/about something" and "reflection of" as a structure implying something is a symptom of something else.
| A is a reflection on B means that because A is something (good or bad), B will appear to also be that (good or bad).
|
What is the best word for the wish to learn something? e.g. "Learnwish" (but it doesn't exist, right?) If you could tell me a word meaning "wish to learn something" then I would be really glad. <Q> Inquisitiveness , or thirst for knowledge . <S> As an aside, it's "wish to learn", not "wish to learning". <S> The latter is ungrammatical. <S> As a further aside, "`" is the grave accent . <S> It is a letter part, not a punctuation mark. <S> Do not misuse it as an apostrophe. <S> That's like replacing a b with a d. <S> They might look very similar, but they don't mean remotely the same thing. <A> I have been part of a group that has been once described as eager to learn <S> You can say we were interns and the working environment seemed relatively new to us. <S> We kept asking questions, reading documentation, reading books... <S> We did our best to rapidly integrate the team and the company as a whole. <S> So the person in charge described us as being eager to learn . <S> When trying to find some reference, the first google result was https://www.eagertolearn.org/ <S> And you can definitely apply that to a particular subject, as in eager to learn Spanish <A>
| The most concise representation would be the word "curiosity" .
|
We can say really big, and it makes the thing we're talking about bigger than the usual big. Is there a way of saying not so big? But I don't want to be saying "It is not that big" -> it is bigger, but smaller than the usual I want to know if there is a work of the same type as "really" that decreses the ammount of "bigness" (that's probably not a word). For example:That is a really big midget - almost normal sized. That is a ____ big person - a big person that is almost normal, but still bigger than the usual. Keep in mind that I just want to know if there is a word that we can put before the adjective "big" in order to make it more or less "intensive". I'm not looking for an alternative to what I'm trying to say. <Q> As others have pointed out, you can say "not so big" — as you just did. <S> As others still have pointed out, you can reword to say "slightly bigger than average", or "bigger than usual" — again, as you just did. <S> A thesaurus will offer additional synonyms, like a bit or what have you. <S> He is somewhat big. <S> He is a bit big. <S> He is somewhat stupid. <S> He is a bit stupid. <S> Oh, and big means "fat". <S> You're really looking for tall there. <A> So far as I can make out, the most suitable "qualifier/hedge" for OP's context is... <S> For a midget, he's relatively tall <S> Exactly what constitutes the "relative" context isn't necessarily explicitly stated. <S> For example, if I say "OP's English is relatively good" here on ELL, I probably mean good by comparison with most people who post on ELL (but probably not as good as a native speaker). <S> But if I say the same on ELU, I'm more likely to mean good by comparison with the average native speaker <S> (i.e. - better than most native speakers). <A> On the face of it, this is an easy question --a <S> modifier like <S> slightly or trifle should work. <S> However, we often hear such phrases used as humorous understatement. <S> If I said "Have you had the dessert there --it's a trifle big ," one might reasonable expect that the dessert is actually huge. <S> A lot of this comes down to context. <S> Usually we only point out things like size when they are exceptional, so that is the expectation unless context indicates otherwise. <S> " <S> My brother is only slightly taller than average." <S> In this case, the only cues us that the slightly is to be taken as literal and not as humorous understatement. <A> Maybe it's just where I've been (Michigan, Oregon, Alberta) <S> but I would consider "not-so-big" to be smaller than just "big". <S> He's rather big. <S> Some people might object to "kind of" on principle, but "rather" is a solid choice here. <A> somewhat big fairly big pretty big <S> moderately big IOW <S> , take <S> big and stick an adjective in front of it <S> that means a little bit or to a moderate degree . <A> Sure, it's "not so big" - as in your question title!
| He's kind of big. But to actually answer your underlying general question, the word you are looking for, the one that fills the blank as the antonym of really , is somewhat . Personally, I would use "rather" or perhaps "kind of".
|
Hit count or hits count What is the proper grammatical way, say, to name a table column: hit count or hits count ? I have a hard time choosing. <Q> The important thing to keep in mind here is the actual subject of the phrase or sentence you're stating. <S> "Hits count" would imply that count is a verb, and you're trying to say that "those hits count," perhaps in a fencing match or similar context. <S> "Hit count" means you're talking about the total count of hits. <A> Hit count (or count of hits ), not hits count . <A> It is definitely correct to say 'Hit Count', and wrong to say, 'Hits Count'. <S> I believe the reason is that you are counting each 'hit', not each 'hits'. <S> As mentioned above, if you want to refer to the collection as an object itself (the 'hits') <S> , then you could say, 'Count of Hits' since you are now referring to a property of the (collective) group of hits (which is now a single object), rather than counting the number of hits. <S> A tricky one, that I suspect most (but not all) <S> native English speakers would instinctively know, but would struggle to explain.
| "Hit count" is the proper way of saying it.
|
How to use the word inspired So my friend says, "I guess it was inspired from Y movie #X movie" I corrected him by making a small change to the sentence, "I guess it is inspired by Y movie #Xmovie" X movie is about to release. Am I correct ? <Q> Okay, so you have two points here: the tense of your sentence (was or is) and the phrasing of "inspired from." <S> As Arrowfar stated, "inspired by" is the correct phrase. <S> When it comes to tense in this case, though, it's a little ambiguous. <S> Referring to events in literature or film, I believe the rule is that you always speak in <S> past tense, i.e. Frodo THREW the ring into Mount Doom, instead of Frodo is throwing the ring into Mount Doom. <S> However, you're presumably talking about the creator of whatever work of art you're talking about, not the work of art itself. <S> Having said that, it's safe to assume past tense here, since artists are inspired to create their piece before they even start working on it. <A> For example, a song inspired by the novel xyz. <A> There are really three issues here: <S> Which preposition? <S> As others have noted, the correct preposition to use after inspired is by , not from . <S> I'm not sure that there is necessarily a logical reason; that's just how it is. <S> Which tense? <S> Unless you are talking about the very early stages of creating the movie, when the script is still being written, the inspiration is an event that happened in the past. <S> That's true even if the movie has not been released yet. <S> Therefore, you should use the past tense: was inspired by . <S> How to put the sentence together? <S> An example of a correct sentence would be: <S> I guess West Side Story was inspired by Romeo and Juliet .
| Yes the correct English is "inspired by".
|
Is the 's' or the 'c' silent on scent? Which of the first two letters on the word 'scent' is silent? if 's' is silent, the word cent is pronounced like we pronounce 'scent' if the 'c' is silent, the word is still pronounced the same, right? So, which one of the letters is silent? <Q> The "c" is silent when preceded by an "s" followed by an 'e' or an 'i' at the beginning of a word. <S> Found this on a site which had rules on silent letters. <S> Authenticity is not known, but it sounds correct. <A> "Sc" can be a digraph (two letters combined to make one sound) or a consonant blend (two letters combined that make two sounds). <S> This is why you hear one sound with the "sc" in "science" or "sent," and you hear two sounds with the "sc" in "scare. <S> " I would argue that neither is silent; it's used as a consonant digraph to make one sound. <A> According to the Online Etymology Dictionary : <S> late 14c., sent "to find the scent of," from Old French sentir "to feel, smell, touch, taste; realize, perceive; make love to," from Latin sentire " to feel, perceive,sense, discern, hear, see" (see sense (n.)). <S> Originally a hunting term. <S> The -c- appeared 17c., perhaps by influence of ascent, descent, etc., or by influence of science. <S> This was a tendency in early Modern English, also in scythe and for a time threatening to make scite and scituate. <S> This implies that the "c" is silent as the word was originally "sent". <S> The addition of the "c" was likely to normalize it with words such as "science"; however, in Anglo-Latin, "c" is pronounced as "s" before front vowels e, æ, œ, i, y (It's pronounced as "sh" when not initial, before semivowel i and e). <S> This would imply that it's actually the "s" that is silent as a result of palatalization. <S> In a way, both answers are correct, but a silent "c" is a better answer due to the origin of the word. <A> As you can see here , here and here , the words sent, cent, and scent are pronounced in exactly the same way, namely as [sent]. <S> However, if you leave out either "s" or "c", the other is of course not silent. <S> Edit: I just discovered a much older discussion of this question on ELU here .
| Hence, you may regard the "s" or the "c" as being silent in the sense that it does not modify the pronunciation.
|
What do they mean with "Hi, how are you doing"? When I was in New York the workers at the counter (in a shop) always said Hi, how are you doing? I was, and still am very confused if they just mean "hello", or actually want to know how I feel. Could someone please tell me if this is just an empty phrase or if the speaker is genuinely interested. <Q> It's just a hello, they don't actually care how you are doing. <S> Some appropriate response would be to say <S> Hello <S> How are you (without actually answering) Fine, and yourself? <S> (doesn't matter if you are doing fine or not) <A> It sounds as though you're not confused about the actual meaning of the question, but about whether the empathy it implies is sincere. <S> Most customer-facing establishments, like coffee shops, instruct their employees to welcome customers with a friendly greeting, instead of "what do you want?", which is what they really want to know. <S> Whether or not they personally care about how you are doing, it is almost universally true that they don't expect you to start into answering the question, beyond a 'fine, thanks.'. <S> And I can assure you the customers behind you don't expect that either. <A> There's an opportunity to get a little creative, and thus make the exchange a bit more interesting, without getting into health and other matters that the questioner is not really asking about. <S> For example, at a coffee shop, one might answer, "Much better, probably, after I've had my coffee." <S> Or, at the library, "Terribly bored, but a good book would solve the problem. <S> " <S> That's what I usually do. <S> Answer a cliche with something original. <A> It is just out of formality usually, nothing more. <S> You could respond with a simple "Good, and you? <A> When a person asks you, "How are you doing? <S> " It is really a greeting and not actually a question as to one's health. <S> I always respond with a simple, "Hello. <S> " Most people are fine with that.
| It is used to start some small talk or to show that someone notices that you're there.
|
Why is “so that” improper in “I was tired so that I couldn't sleep”? d) I was so tired that I couldn't sleep e) I was tired so that I couldn't sleep Of these two examples d) is perfect and e) simply doesn't work. d) is the correct form of e) or an alternative would be I was too tired to sleep. One of my friends has explained this to me. Nevertheless, I couldn't get why E is incorrect. there -- at the link-- has been written tow kinds of "so that", hasn't been written? if so, we could use them interchageably by the meaning both result and purpose. I have underlined what I mean: enter link description here <Q> The phrase " so that " means " for the purpose of ". <S> Correct: <S> I went to the market so that I could buy food. <S> (I went to the market for the purpose of buying food.) <S> Correct: <S> She put on a coat <S> so that she would not be cold. <S> (She put on a coat for the purpose of not being cold.) <S> The sentence " <S> I was tired so that I couldn't sleep" doesn't make sense. <S> Incorrect: <S> I was tired so that I couldn't sleep. <S> (I was tired for the purpose of not being able to sleep.) <S> This is difficult to read sensibly. <S> It might mean that you made yourself tired with the intention of not being able to sleep. <S> On the other hand, <S> so... <S> that... <S> is different from <S> so that . <S> It indicates that an extreme condition causes some consequence : <S> The desert was <S> so hot that many of the soldiers passed out. <S> (The desert was very hot, and the heat caused many soldiers to pass out.) <S> The rock was so big that we needed 10 people to move it. <S> I was <S> so tired <S> that I couldn't sleep. <A> In d) <S> so is modifying tired (how tired you are). <S> This is an adverb usage, sense 2 in the definition linked below. <S> In e) <S> so precedes a phrase explaining the result of being tired (I couldn't sleep). <S> But that is out of place. <S> Check the example in Collins <S> so sense 8. <S> Here it is a conjunction. <S> I would write sentence e) <S> this way: <S> e) <S> I was tired <S> so I couldn't sleep. <A> The two sentences work fine, but they have different meanings. <S> d means I was really tired resulting in not able to sleep. <S> e means I was a bit tired resulting in not able to sleep.
| It shows intent or purpose . This usage is correct.
|
I have and will I want to combine the following two statements into a single sentence... I have kept this thing between us. I will keep this thing between us. Which version is correct? 1: I have kept and will keep this thing between us. or 2: I have and will keep this thing between us. <Q> I'm not sure if OP's second "single sentence" version is technically a zeugma/syllepsis , but it's in that general area (the "deleted" main verb after <S> have <S> is kept , which doesn't match the "retained" form keep ). <S> In practice native speakers do sometimes use such forms, but as a rule they're avoided. <S> Probably for purely stylistic reasons even OP's first version sounds just a little strange. <S> Most native speakers would probably prefer to separate the two tenses even more explicitly... <S> I have kept this thing between us and will continue to do so To illustrate exactly why the construction is problematic, consider... <S> "I have and will give you money" ... <S> which could be interpreted as <S> "I have given you money [in the past] and will do so again [in the future] <S> " or "I have money, which I will give to you" (perhaps I never had money before, or never gave any to you). <A> I don't think the phrase "I have and will" works well in conjunction with a verb. <S> The contexts where I would consider it useful are those where the verbs are relate to verbs specified elsewhere. <S> In response to a question of "Have you done, and will you keep doing, some particular thing", it might be reasonable to respond " <S> I have and will"; even though "have" and "will" are both bound to forms of "to keep", they tie back to the different forms of the word in the question. <S> Note that the same "I have and will" answer could have followed " <S> Have you seen the ad for Acme Vacations, and will you be booking with them--a question with two different verbs that have a possible causal relationship; saying "I have and will" would imply that I am booking with Acme Vacations because I saw the ad. <S> If the response had been "I have, but I will anyway", that would indicate that I had seen the ad, and would be booking the vacation, but the the ad did not motivate the booking <S> ; indeed, it made me less inclined to book with Acme. <A> 'I have kept thing thing between us' does not mean that I got it! . <S> It means that till the sentence is spoken, the listener has kept that thing between them. <S> So, the sentence I have kept and will keep this thing between us will convey the message that the speaker have been keeping the matter to him till now <S> and then, in future, he'll continue to do so. <S> But if you are looking for something that confirms that the listener has understood the seriousness of the matter, the listener would probably say... <S> "Yes, I got it." <S> And considering this, I'll give my opinion here. <S> Not sure <S> but I have heard this idiom <S> that not only talks about the assurance of the listener but also the commitment. <S> It is the idiom carry a secret to the grave. <S> " <S> Well, I'll carry this truth/secret/talk/matter to the grave." <S> This says three things... <S> The listener has kept the matter in mind. <S> (The 'kept' part of your sentence) <S> The listener knows that this is not to be revealed to anyone, and finally (The seriousness of the matter) <S> The listener gives the commitment that s/he will not reveal this to anyone till death. <S> (The 'will-future' part of your sentence)
| OP should use the first version, explicitly retaining the two different (past and present/future) verb forms.
|
What's the meaning of "Once 'in,' " I do not understand the meaning of "in, " in the following text: Scammers will place a call to an older person and when the mark picks up, they will say something along the lines of: “Hi Grandma, do you know who this is?” When the unsuspecting grandparent guesses the name of the grandchild the scammer most sounds like, the scammer has established a fake identity without having done a lick of background research. Once “in,” the fake grandchild will usually ask for money to solve some unexpected financial problem (overdue rent, payment for car repairs, etc.), Any advice would be appreciated. <Q> This is actually a tricky piece to understand, because it's not only the slang language of criminals, it's a metaphor in the slang of criminals. <S> Some criminals specialize in stealing goods - goods that are usually protected, in a location that is believed to be secure, such as protected inside a locked safe, inside a bank vault. <S> To accomplish such a theft, obviously the first obstacle that must be solved is getting inside that secured location. <S> This is so common a problem that to have solved it <S> is just abbreviated to "[being] in", or just "in". <S> "Once we're in, I'll be the lookout, while you crack the safe." <S> "Once in, we'll only have twenty minutes before the security system resets and the alarm goes off. <S> " <S> In the passage you quoted, they use slang of con artists such as 'mark' (the intended victim of a con artist's scheme) but they don't put it in quotes. <S> They put "in" in quotes because it's being borrowed from a different slang, that of thieves, and used metaphorically. <S> A scammer who convinces Grandma that he is actually her grandson has overcome the first obstacle in his crime, just as a thief who has broken into a vault has overcome his first obstacle. <S> The thief is now in; metaphorically, the con artist is also "in". <A> To understand the meaning of once in better this could be rephrased: <S> After gaining grandma's confidence... <S> or <S> Once taken in... <S> meaning when the scammer has Grandma believing his story. <S> See the definition of take in sense 5, "to deceive or swindle". <A> The meaning was given in the previous sentence: "established a fake identity" but it is relying on the reader to make that connection themselves based on the context rather than stating it explicitly.
| The quotation marks are being used in this case to indicate that the word in is being used as con artist slang.
|
Of which, which... of, which, whose What is the best way to say what I am trying to say: Let’s decide the number of which we are going to change the sign. Let's decide the number whose sign is going to be changed. Let's decide the number which we are going to change the sign of. Why one is correct or not? What is the most natural one? <Q> Are you talking about changing a number from positive to negative? <S> 1 or -1? <S> Let's decide on the number whose sign we will change. <S> The sentence in bold above assumes you have a list of numbers, 4, 12, -789, 22, 540, whatever, and you're going to pick one of them and change it from positive to negative or negative to positive. <S> Decide on, decide upon.. . <S> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/decide+on <S> And if you are not obliged to use the verb "decide" you could also say it like this: Let's choose the number whose sign we will change. <S> or even Let's pick a number and change its sign. <A> I think these sentences have not been formed in a right way. <S> How come we use "decide" and "going to" together. <S> We use going to when we have a decision, intention, plan or are certain to do something in the future. <S> These sentences may be rewritten as follows: <S> 1- let's decide the number the sign of which we need to change. <S> 2- let's decide the number whose sign we need to change. <S> 3- let's decide the number which we need to change the sign of. <S> I think we should prefer the first or second sentence to the third one. <A> The example sentences are too complicated, so they are hard to understand. <S> Here are two options: <S> "We need to change the sign of a number. <S> Which number should we negate?" <S> "We need to change the sign of a number. <S> Let's choose a number, and negate it." <S> The first option asks for a decision. <S> The second option emphasizes the decision process.
| Let's settle on a number whose sign we will change.
|
Have I rewritten this correctly? I have 4 bags. In each bag, there is a same book. I tried to rewrite this as one sentence, but I don't know if it is grammatically correct and if it conveys the same meaning. I have 4 same books each in 4 bags. I have 4 same books each in bag A, bag B, bag C , bag D respectively. How would you normally say it? <Q> <A> Normally you would say: I have 4 bags, each containing the same book. <A> Maybe you could write, "I have four copies of the same book, each in a bag." <S> Of course, this only implies that you have four bags. <S> If you need to directly mention the fact that you have four bags, you might write something like, "I have four bags, and each has a copy of the same book. <S> " <S> In any case, using the word "copy" might help, since, as @ssdecontrol noted, the construction is pretty cumbersome. <S> Sorry you can't just leave them as two sentences! :-) <A> I have the same book in each of these four bags. <S> (subject) <S> I (verb) have (DO adjective) <S> the same (Direct Object) book (prepositional phrase) in each (prepositional phrase) of these four bags <A> Three notes: <S> First, your original sentence has the wrong article. <S> Second, your additional sentences aren't using same properly (it's a weird word). <S> Third, there are a couple ways to make this one sentence. <S> See below. <S> First, note that the constructions you're using use the definite determiner/article ( the ) on books . <S> So, instead of: I have 4 bags. <S> In each bag, there is a same book. <S> One would say I have 4 bags. <S> In each bag, there is the same book. <S> This is because the books have been mentioned before (in the first sentence of the example). <S> See the Wikipedia page on definiteness . <S> Secondly, with your second sentence, the syntax of counters in English can be weird. <S> For instance, the following is good : <S> I have 4 books. <S> But this is not good : <S> I have 4 same books. <S> This is because words preceding same require of the : <S> I have 4 books. <S> I have 4 of the same book. <S> I have ten dolls. <S> I have ten of the same doll. <S> Note also that nouns modified by of the are singular (book vs books) <S> Third, as you note, your original sentence sounds weird because it is strange to say something simple like it in two sentences. <S> As others have pointed out, you could say something like: <S> I have four bags, each with the same book <S> However, this is also somewhat weird because you're emphasizing bags without discussing the book much. <S> The bag sounds more important because it is first, but there isn't much about it. <S> So, if the book is more important, I would say something like: <S> I have four copies of the same book in each of these bags. <S> I have four of the same book with each in a bag. <S> I have a copy in each of these four bags. <S> I would expect to hear <S> I have four bags, each with the same book at a convention or something similar where people are getting free books in bags, and each bag might have a different book. <S> So, if you're emphasizing you have four bags, but complaining <S> you have the same books, then this sentence would be used. <A> As a native (UK) English speaker I would say that you have a number of choices: <S> I have four copies of the same book, each in a separate bag. <S> Places the emphasis on the 4 books and clarifies that they are stored in separate bags. <S> As does: Here are four copies of the book, bagged separately. <S> While: I have four bags each containing a copy of the book. <S> Emphasises the bags and assumes that the specific book is already defined in context. <S> This might be used at a book launch to describe the door prizes and does not preclude there being other bags that contain other things nor there being other things in each bag. <A> I would prefer <S> I have 4 same books each in bag A, bag B, bag C, bag D respectively. <S> or this can be written as <S> I have four same books each in four different bags. <A> I have 4 identical books in 4 bags. <S> I have 4 similar books in 4 bags. <S> I have 4 bags, each contains the same book. <S> I have 4 bags, each containing the same book.
| I would write this as: I have four identical books, each in its own bag.
|
Finding a pleasant-natured expression for a list of things you want to learn Imagine you write down a list of things you want to learn. For example: speaking Spanish playing piano cooking sushi, etc. What name you would give such a list? German has a single word for it, which is " Lernwunsch ". Directly translated into English it would be "learn wish", but this expression doesn`t exist. Is there a pleasant-natured expression? ( Curriculum , syllabus , and prerequisites sound too academic.) <Q> A list of things one desires are "desiderata". <S> (From the Latin, "desideratum", a desired thing. <S> "Desirderata" is the plural.) <S> Somewhat unfortunately, the one use of the term most people know is that it is the title of a famous poem. <S> That association is so strong, it may make this use unsuitable to you. <A> Do you mean: <S> "Request to learn"? <S> When you ask someone to teach you something, you are making a request to learn that thing. <S> "Wish to learn"? <S> A "wish" is something in your own thoughts. <S> "Desire to learn"? <S> A "desire to learn" is basically the same idea as a "wish to learn". <S> "A list of skills you want to learn" is pleasant and straight-forward. <S> A "bucket list" is an informal term that has become popular in the last few years. <S> People use it as a "list of things they want to do before they die". <S> It often includes things they want to learn. <S> The song " Live Like You Were Dying " and the movie The Bucket List popularized the idea. <A> Goals <S> Another option is Things I want to learn <S> And you know, pleasant is in the ears of the behearer...
| If you "wish to learn" something, you hope that you will understand that thing, and be able to use your understanding.
|
I'd better get a quart I' d better get a quart. ( daum.net ) There’s a had better usage in the above. I’m not trying to figure out what the original it would have been, but can this construction below be made? (When I , the main verb, is logically the object of the non-finite verb - get , it could be thought as a tough movement . But it's not the case.) I’d be better to get a quart. <Q> I'm afraid not. <S> This is actually a ‘fossilized’ expression with a long and complex history, summarized by OED 1 as follows: <S> In the idiomatic I, we, you, he, etc. <S> had better , the original construction was me, us, etc. <S> were betere (or bet ) = <S> it would be more advantageous for me, etc. <S> [...] <S> The dat. <S> pronoun was subsequently changed into the nominative, I, we, were better (perh. <S> because in sbs. <S> the two cases were no longer distinguished). <S> Finally this was given up for the current <S> I had better = <S> I should have or hold it better, to do, etc. <S> (Mr. F. Hall has shown that in these changes better followed in the main the analogy of liefer and rather .) <S> † <S> It is really pretty hopeless to try to force this idiom into the straitjacket of conventional syntax, much less try to rephrase it with conventional transformations. <S> It is what it is. <S> † <S> Mr. F. Hall is the 19th-century philologist Fitzedward Hall , an obsessive scholar of whom the OED ’s first editor wrote that ‘When the Dictionary is finished, no man will have contributed to its illustrative wealth so much as Fitzward Hall’. <S> His essay ‘ <S> On the Origin of “Had Rather Go” and Analogous or Apparently Analogous Locutions” , American Journal of Philology , II.7 (1881) is delightful reading, not merely for the substance and copious documentation but chiefly for its wickedly acid remarks on attempts by earlier grammarians to make sense of this construction. <A> Did you mean to change it to a question, or to ask if the following is sensible? <S> I'd be better to get a quart. <S> If you said that to me I could respond by making a quizzical face and say: <S> "I'd be better to get a quart?" <S> (...as a challenge to the fact that I didn't understand what you just said, because it sounds weird.) <S> Yet it could pass for old-timey pirate language, as a sort of short-hand for <S> "I'd be better off if I were to get a quart." <S> first mate: "Cap'N, <S> would you like me <S> fetch ye a gallon of skunk whiskey? <S> " <S> cap'n: "Arrr, nay! <S> I'd be better to get a quart of yonder Basil Hayden." <S> If you spoke like that people would know what you mean (and that you were a pirate). <S> But it's not normal speech, and you should go with <S> "I'd better get a quart." <S> ... <S> assuming you live in a place where people know what quarts are. <A> I agree with HostileFork, especially the pirate comment, but if you feel a burning desire to use "be better" you would say: It would be better to get a quart. <S> That is, it would be better {for me and all concerned} to get a quart. <S> Someone who knows how much your friends like to drink might say: You would do well to get a quart, not a pint. <A> "I'd be better off getting a quart" does sound natural to me. <S> In both of these examples, "I'd" is short for "I would". <A> There's a bit of difference in meaning between the 2, and I don't think the 2nd is something you'd be likely to hear. <S> I'd better get a quart. <S> It's preferable that I get a quart under the given circumstances (whatever they happen to be). <S> This may prevent some unforeseen negative consequence in the future that could affect anybody. <S> I’d be better to get a quart. <S> It would personally improve me and make me better if I got a quart. <S> This version doesn't really make sense and sounds incorrect. <S> I’d be better off getting a quart. <S> I'd do better to get a quart. <S> These are both equally acceptable options, though again the focus shifts from the situation to the speaker. <S> I'd be better off with a quart because of the positive outcome for me, or the aversion of a negative outcome for me personally.
| "I’d be better to get a quart" does not sound natural to my (American) ear.
|
Usage of "call" when arranging a phone call Imagine I'm one the phone with somebody and want to postpone the call. I know i can say I'll call you tomorrow or Call me tomorrow But what if I don't want to specify who is calling who? Can I use "call" too? Like Let's call tomorrow What would be the common term to express something like this? <Q> Note that "have a call" has a slight sense of this being a business call. <S> If you want to be less formal, you might use "let's talk tomorrow" instead. <A> Why would you EVER want to not specify who is making the call? <S> If you don't specify, then in all likelihood, you are going to wait for them to call <S> and they are going to wait for you to call, meaning the call will never happen. <S> I suggest, instead, ask this; We should talk about this tomorrow, what would be a good time for me to call? <A> "Let's talk tomorrow" is fine in a context where it's obvious that the talking will be over the phone. <S> For example, you're in Germany, I'm in the UK: if we agree to talk tomorrow, it's unlikely that either of us will travel however many hundred kilometres just to have that conversation. <S> Your suggestion of "let's call tomorrow" sounds a little unnatural to me but it would be understood perfectly.
| You can say "Let's have a call tomorrow" or "Let's call each other tomorrow".
|
Class-approved wet welding: the meaning of "Class" (and why capitalize?) A quote : With a dedicated staff situated globally, Subsea Global Solutions has revolutionized the methods of repair for ships; ship propellers, thrusters, ship seal, Class approved wet welding , and permanent shell plate repairs with cofferdams. "Class approved wet welding" - what could it mean precisely? Approved by a classification society or complying with specifications for the execution of work typified into a particular class (class A welding, or class B welding, say)? And why is the word class capitalized? P.S. A related question was asked by me at ELU. <Q> For welding, there are different well-defined classifications of welds based on what is being welded, so "Class" may be capitalized because it refers to a particular class from a specification. <S> For example: Quality assurance provisions for all weld classes are detailed in Section 7.0. <S> Weld classes shall be chosen on the basis of the following definitions: a. Class A (Flight or non flight) — <S> Process Specification for the Manual Arc Welding of Aluminum Alloy Hardware , NASA 2007 <A> In the case of "wet welding" the reference is specific to underwater welding in the water rather than in a dry environment submerged in water, i.e. a cofferdam or habitat. <S> Class approval speaks to classification societies and their repair approval specifications, Lloyds of London, American Bureau of Shipping, Det Norse, etc. <S> These societies, of which there are 80 plus worldwide have a global membership called IACS <S> (International Association of Classification Societies) and are responsible for the safety of life at sea and ship building practices. <A> I don't know what "Class approved" means here. <S> From the fact that "Class" is capitalized I'd guess there's some recognized organization that hands out these approvals, but I couldn't find anything in a brief search. <S> I'll leave that part of your question to anyone who, well, knows the answer.
| As you could probably guess from the context -- talking about repairing ships and ship parts -- and from the name, "wet welding" is a process for welding underwater. Applies to welds in critical load bearing elements that are not fail-safe.
|
"My wife and I have been living here since we have been married." is the tense correct? I want to make a sentence meaning that "we have been living here since the day of our marriage" but is the latter part of the sentence correct? "My wife and I have been living here since we have been married." Or should I write "since we married." Thank you so much. <Q> It's very common to use a get -passive with married : <S> My wife and I have been living here since we got married . <S> Most passives use be , but other verbs are possible as well: <S> Pullum lists come, get, go, have, hear, make, need, and see . <S> Most of these are relatively uncommon and each one has idiosyncratic rules for when it's appropriate. <S> In this case get is appropriate because of married . <S> Your active version ("since we married") sounds less common <S> but I think it's also acceptable. <S> Your perfect be -passive version (" <S> since we have been married") doesn't sound idiomatic to me, and I would avoid it in this case. <A> Traditionally in the English speaking world, marriages started when a official presiding at a wedding married a couple. <S> So most people, when referring to the state of being married say 'since we were married' (by the official) rather than any of the forms which imply they were the active party. <S> Here's <S> an n-gram showing a few variations, which points to 'were married' being the most common. <A> Yes, you should write " Since we married " because "Since" always followed by the past simple tense or the beginning time of the verb. <A> Since , when used to indicate a duration, must be followed by a point-in-time reference; something has happened from that point in time until now. <S> We have been married indicates a duration rather than a point in time, so it is not suitable for being used with since . <S> Idiomatically speaking, I would suggest the phrase "since the day we got married." <A> "Since" needs to be followed by an event (something you could describe by a single time and date). <S> "We have been married" is a period of time (which you'd describe by a range of times/dates). <S> You need to change the latter phrase to describe a point in time, not a period. " <A> The most natural sounding phrases to a native english speaker are: "My wife and I have been living here since we were married", and "My wife and I have been living here since we got married" The phrases with "since we have been married" and "since we have married" are grammatically incorrect. <S> The phrase with "since we married" is grammatically correct but awkward sounding. <A> Magooda's answer is the best here. <S> What I would have said is "since we were married". <S> "Since we got married" also sounds natural. <S> "Since we married" is quite unnatural. <S> It sounds like something only a non-native speaker would say. <S> The rest just sound wrong. <S> You could say "since we have been married" with some other kind of phrase, though, e.g."My wife and I have lived here since we've been married". <S> But not "My wife and I have been living here since we've been married".
| Since we got married" or "since we married" would both work.
|
Difference between Track and Trace What is the difference in meaning of Track and Trace. Are both similar in meaning? Please give some examples related with that. I have lots of confusion with this, like tracking mobile phone or tracing mobile phone, tracking location or tracing location etc. <Q> As verbs, both imply careful following or reconstruction in order to find or identify a path. <S> The difference is in direction & point in time: Verbs <S> To trace: follow the completed path backwards from its current point to where it began. <S> When you "trace" a cellphone call, you try to determine its origin. <S> This is the same whether done right now, or for a call made a month ago. <S> You go backward to the starting point. <S> When you "track" a cellphone, you monitor its current location, right now, and follow it wherever it goes in the future. <S> Nouns <S> You can also use "track" or "trace" as a noun, both of which basically mean the same thing: a sign that something was there. <S> A "trace" may be less obvious - a small/tiny amount or just a hint. <S> A track is more obvious, well-worn by repeated use. <A> A hunter tracks an animal, tracing its path. <S> A hunter might find fresh tracks when hot on an animal's trail, or a trace of tracks in mud or snow after a week or two. <S> The two terms are similar in meaning. <S> You should infer that while traces are smaller and less obvious than tracks, they too span the entire course. <S> Tracing implies careful examination and reproduction of the exact path. <S> Tracking requires less rigorous observation for you to move from step to step. <S> A trace on a mobile phone reveals the path the signal traverses through the various pieces of equipment (cellphone towers, PBXs, or branch offices). <S> The tracks in this scenario are the identifiers generated as the signal traces its path; ie data packets, log files, the ring of a phone. <A> trac·ing /ˈtrāsiNG/ <S> noun <S> noun: <S> tracing; plural noun: <S> tracings a copy of a drawing, map, or design made by tracing it. <S> a faint or delicate mark or pattern. <S> Oxford Dictionaries <S> When I got into the transportation business, tracing was the term used to provide a Proof of Delivery - a signed delivery receipt. <S> Copy machines were still new and expensive so many trucking offices did not have them yet. <S> the old practice was to "trace" on an onion skin paper the DR signature and any written notations on the DR. <S> So- tracking was to find the shipment enroute or even its prior path.
| To track: follow the emerging path forwards from your starting point to wherever the thing currently is. "Tracks" primarily refer to footprints, "traces" to less obvious signs of passing. Tracing was to "trace" a signature to provide a POD.
|
What is the difference between "I am done" and "I am through"? What is the difference between when we say "I am done" and "I am through"? Please give examples to make the difference clear. <Q> Done and through have been used in these sentences as an adjective. <S> Both adjectives are interchangeable, without any difference in meaning. <S> We use them when we have finished doing or using something. <S> A few examples are given below: <S> 1- I am done or I am through. <S> It means I have finished doing or using something. <S> 2- <S> He is through or done with his homework. <S> 3- Are you done or through with my pen? <S> Both of the adjectives are common in use. <S> We can also use finished in place of done or through. <A> " They are typically interchangeable. <S> "I am through" is more formal and a stronger statement. <S> Either statement can be made less formal by making "I am" into the contraction "I'm." <A> While, in most cases both phrases can be used interchangeably, there are cases where replacing one with the other won't make sense. <S> For example: Q. <S> Did you make it to the elite class? <S> A. I am through. <S> In this case, I am done as an answer won't make sense. <S> Specifically, through fits here because it indicates the conclusion of an event while there's still something relevant beyond it. <A> They are both correct if you want to say that something has been completed, or finished. <S> However, I think "through" can be used to imply a more accentuated meaning. <S> "I am through", to me, implies that the whole situation was a somewhat long process. <S> "I'm done" is more related to completing a task while "I'm through" is more related to overcoming a situation or maybe a series of tasks. <S> example: when you have gone "through" hardships, you ARE through.. not done. <S> If you were going through hardships but decided to quit, you are not through.. <S> you are done. <A> "I am done" usually means that the task you are currently engaged in is over and complied with fully. <S> "I am through" in most usages conveys the same thing. <S> However, it might depend largely on preferences. <S> In my days as a grade schooler living with an aunt who had a doctorate in English I almost always heard her say "Are you through?" <S> Context doesn't seem to influence the denotation. <S> Through a process or done with it seems to be the only specificity that needs to be dealt with. <S> Otherwise, I don't have issues of interchanging its usage. <S> I hope that helped disambiguate.
| "I am done" usually indicates that the speaker has completed the task they wanted to complete as does "I am through.
|
"Neither....nor" or just '..nor'? I have read both the styles... Neither I like you, nor do I like your family and I don't like you. Nor do I like your family. Is there any special cases where we use just 'nor' instead of 'neither...nor'? Has it to do anything with emphasis? <Q> It should come after the "negative(or positive)" statement. <S> Ex: <S> I <S> don't like you, nor them. <S> Neither you nor I will go to the party! <S> It would be awkward to say: You like him, nor I. <S> I will go to the party, nor you. <S> Bottomline? <S> We use nor as an additional reason/support/information to a preceding statement, usually a negative statement. <A> In some cases, we may use just "nor" which suffices to replace both neither and nor such as "He nor I was there", but it is not only archaic but also sounds awkward. <S> We may also use nor to replace the preceding neither such as "Nor he nor I was there". <S> That's also archaic. <S> I don't think such a use fits in the structure of modern English. <S> (Please refer to The Free Dictionary). <A> Neither I like you, nor do I like your family <S> I don't find that grammatically acceptable. <S> I don't like you. <S> Nor do I like your family. <S> Instead of looking for a special grammar rule about the usage of "nor", I would treat this as one sentence ( I don't like you, nor do I like your family. ) <S> that was somewhat improperly split into two. <S> Similar to the "rule" that says that sentences should not start with "and". <S> And similar to what I just did in this and in the previous sentence. <S> In practice, there is some leeway in informal English, since thoughts don't always come out fully formed. <S> Consider writing the thought as <S> I like neither you nor your family. <A> In my opinion, the sentence "Neither I like you, nor <S> do I like your family <S> " should begin with an inversion, like so: <S> Neither do <S> I like you, nor do I like your family. <S> This is the case when we link two clauses. <S> Alternatively you could write:"I <S> like neither you nor your family", <S> this time without a comma before nor.
| As far as I know, we use the word NOR as an additional "information/support/reason" to a preceding "negative(usually)" statement.
|
Choose: Fuels were formed underground (over - in - from - for) millions of years I got confused with this question: Choose: Fuels were formed underground (over - in - from - for) millions of years. I'm puzzled between (over) and (in). <Q> We have seen a rise in attacks over/in the last few months. <S> We hope to see a decrease in returns over/in the next few weeks. <S> So, with the basics established, we find that these don't really help us in this case! <S> The trick here is to decide which one means "during", as that is the meaning of the sentence (note that "during" is not grammatical in this sentence). <S> Fuels were forming underground "during" millions of years. <S> If you can decide which one is most synonymous with "during", your doubt should resolve itself. <A> The preposition "in" is used for periods of time such as in 6 days, in 2 weeks, in 1990, etc. <S> ,while in addition to this use, over is used also to mean above, more or to refer to an extended period of time such as over two hundred years ago. <S> So over millions of years is the most appropriate phrase. <A> You need to know that the formation of fuel takes a very, very long time, like millions of years. <S> Therefore: Fuels were formed over millions of years. <S> On the other hand: Elephants lived in Africa for millions of years. <S> Each of them doesn't live for a very long time, but there was a long time in which generation after generation lived. <S> "From" would require a point in time, like: Fuels were formed from the early Pleistocene onwards.
| "Over" and "in" can both be used to talk about something that happens fairly continuously for a period of time.
|
Reading alone can improve listening? I’d like to ask if I have to give up my meagre listening practice and listening understanding. I put up a goal to understand what the actors in a radio drama, the Archers of BBC , talk. But I mainly use my time, a couple of hours, for reading, so I can’t spare much for listening. The latter is less than a half hour mostly. So for intensive practice for only a short time, I write down listening a sentence from an Aussie news a day. But now I begin to be skeptical if I could understand the program someday. For even a linguist, Stephen Krashen, who emphasizes reading very much, also doesn’t miss to mention listening. In his words, “We think that you acquire language in one way, not by studying grammar, not by doing flash cards, not by memorizing vocabulary, you get it by listening and understating, reading and understanding. And be interested in meaning.” ( fnn.co.kr ) Is my expectation that reading and understanding process, even though without listening much when the sounds between English and my language is quite different, would finally get me into the listening and understanding phase, reasonable?(FYI: Except for the reading and less than a half hour listening, there’s none input or output of English but for asking and getting replies on learning websites.) <Q> I wrote this as a comment, but decided to turn it into an answer. <S> Because I'm quite sure that I was once in your shoes myself. <S> I predict that two things will happen to you <S> if you keep continuing practicing mainly reading, based on a few things: that Korean sounds are quite different from English, that you said (implied) you can't understand the program, and that I'd been through the same thing, for a long while. <S> I believe that your English will become better, reading skill in particular, but not as fast as you could if you focus more on listening. <S> I also believe that your listening skill will also improve gradually, but it could take over a decade to get to the point that you don't have to try so hard to understand. <S> This might sound too assertive, but it took me a long while to realize that, and I don't want you to have to take such a long time I took. <S> Having said that, I believe that the most important thing of language learning is being happy learning it and being able to communicate. <S> Whichever way you choose, you have all my best wishes and support. <S> Good luck on your learning! <A> As a native English speaker who is learning Korean, I would agree with Damkerng T that listening quite helpful. <S> I would say especially so with English because it is so difficult to pronounce a new word correctly having only read it. <S> And also because the difference between the sounds of the languages are quite extreme. <S> It's hard not to be subjective in my answer, since learning a language is such a personal process. <S> However, I've had good improvement taking a dialogue exchange, and breaking up the recording into smaller pieces (with software) and studying it that way. <S> 열심히 겅부합니다! <S> (Study hard!) <S> -John <A> There is usually more vocabulary in written text than in oral speech. <S> If you read a lot, it is going to be easier for you to recognize new words in oral speech. <S> Grammar. <S> Usually more complex grammatical structures are used in written text than in oral speech. <S> Backing research: Quote from a paper titled "Can Second Language Acquirers Reach High Levels of Proficiency Through Self-Selected Reading? <S> An Attempt to Confirm Nation's (2014) Results" by Stephen Krashen and Beniko Mason: <S> Hours spent reading was shown to be an excellent predictor of gains on the TOEIC <S> Note: TOEIC==Test of English for International Communication <S> Later in the same paper: <S> Surprisingly, hours spent reading was more highly correlated with the listening subtest (r = .93) than with the reading subtest (r= .75), <S> Link to the full paper: http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/2015_krashen_mason_can_second_language_acquirers__..._.pdf <S> Practical advice: <S> Read easy texts: You should choose reading material that's easy to understand. <S> As a rule of thumb you should understand at least 98% of the words in any given page. <S> Comic books are OK. <S> The reading material should be interesting, even compelling. <S> Ideally you should forget you are reading in a foreign language. <S> If it's to complex or to boring, choose another book. <S> No shame in doing that. <S> Carry a book wherever you are. <S> Read while communting, standing in line, etc Don't look up the dictionary for new words. <S> Just guess the meaning of the word and continue reading. <S> Reading and listening should be complemented. <S> Listening is hands-free, whereas reading is not. <S> Listen to the radio or something else when walking and start reading when you can. <S> My rule: If you can read, read. <S> If not, listen. <S> Reading should be the priority.
| Reading can help your listening comprehension in several ways: Vocabulary acquisition.
|
Is it common for British English speakers to use "us" instead of "me"? If someone is keeping a secret, in the US one might say "tell me!" However, I was in the UK and I heard a person say "tell us!" although she did not appear to be with anyone. Am I misunderstanding or is this common? <Q> Yes, it's quite common. <S> It's non standard British English, akin to the "royal "we"" . <S> I use it sometimes myself, though I don't really know why. <S> A couple of examples for you that I can hear myself saying <S> : Excuse us <S> When making my way through a crowd of people. <S> (It's just me, though sometimes the "us" form sounds a bit nicer.) <S> Do us a favour! <S> Used in indignation similar to "Oh, please(!)". <S> Your example is also one where this is a common trait. <S> Give us a call Just me. <S> Nobody else. <A> "Us" for me is common in the north east (of England) particularly Co Durham Land of Prince Bishops. <S> It's just an old English way of speaking. <S> Many people say "us" but if they are writing will use the word "me". <S> I was born in Sunderland and I use it some times, depends who I am talking to. <S> If you listen carefully you may notice "us" meaning me sounds a bit like " uzzz " and "us" meaning you and me sounds like " uss ". <S> That's my family and friends anyway <S> or anyhow as we sometimes say too!:). <A> Alan Bleasdale's emotive series <S> "Boys from the black stuff" (1982) follows the unfortunate Jimmy (Yosser) Hughes as his life spirals downwards after he loses his job, working with a tarmac gang in Liverpool, to losing his wife and falling foul of the local authorities. <S> Towards the end of the series Yosser, driven to despair, is seen begging for work with his much used request: "Gi's a job" a phrase meaning <S> "Give us (me) a job." <S> Actor Bernard Hughes' use of the vernacular expression added so much to the atmosphere of the scene, of a man desperately hanging on to his dignity in a hopeless situation. <S> "Us" meaning me appeared in Northern English dialect, (now almost lost in time)"Tha'll tellus owt" (You will tell me anything) as a riposte to an outlandish statement or excuse, tone of voice adding to the weight of the phrase. <S> Here the 'us' often had a two-fold function interpreted as "you will tell me, and any other person in the room, anything, thus both singular and plural in one labour saving sentence, allying the speaker with others about him.
| This usage is even more common in Newcastle than the rest of the UK, often making its way into lots of everyday phrases.
|
I have only been able to borrow “I have only been able to borrow about RM100,000 from friends and relatives so far. I can’t get any more,” Chin said when contacted. What does "have only been" mean in the sentence above? <Q> It means that RM100,000 was the total amount he was able to borrow at some point in the past - he couldn't borrow any more. <A> In order to get the right sense of this sentence, we'll have to look at the following sentences: 1- <S> I was able to borrow about RM100,000. <S> (simple past) <S> 2- I have been able to borrow about RM100,000 so far. <S> (present perfect) <S> In the first case, the chances to borrow more money are over. <S> In the second case, the chances are not over. <S> I have been able to borrow RM100,000 from friends and relatives so far, but there is still a possibility that I'll be able to borrow more money. <A> Changing the word order and placing the word 'only' elsewhere in the sentence can subtly change the meaning, and convey more or less information about the ways in which Chin has tried to acquire money. <S> Chin could have said "I have been able to borrow only about RM100,000 ...". <S> but no more. <S> This sentence is about the limits of Chin's success at borrowing money, but gives no information about other ways of acquiring money. <S> By placing 'only' after 'I have', 'only' refers to the verb: the sentence means that Chin has been able to borrow money but has not been able to acquire money by other means; Chin has not been able to earn, beg, steal, or find money down the back of the sofa.
| By placing 'only' immediately before the amount, 'only' refers to the amount; Chin has borrowed RM100,000
|
How do I say if the portrait is made by humans not drawn by them? On Oct 2, more than 6000 participants (humans) are gathering to create the largest portrait of Mahatma Gandhi. Once created, how do we say this without bringing any ambiguity? Gandhi's largest portrait was created by humans? (But then, only humans create/draw a portrait) Human-made Gandhi's largest portrait in the world (But then, human made does not talk about what it is actually) Humans shaped in Gandhi's portrait? I'm clueless. What is the proper way to tell this? <Q> You could use "made up of people". <S> "X is made up of Y" is a way to show the material Y is used to create X. <A> You could say that people are coming together "to form the largest portrait...". <S> But a sentence or two explaining how that will happen (i.e. human pointillism) would be in order. <A> Do you mean that these people are going to stand in a way that each makes up one "dot" (pixel?) in the picture, and so when viewed from a height the 6000 people will form a portrait of Gandhi? <S> If that's what you're trying to say, this is a rare enough idea that there's no single English word to describe it, you'd have to explain it with a sentence or two. <S> If you're trying to write a few words that would convey EITHER the idea of people drawing a portrait or of people's bodies making up the image, you could just say "human-made". <S> Or you could leave out the word "human" completely and just say "the largest portrait of Gandhi ever made". <S> (If a monkey drew a portrait or we found a portrait on Mars made by aliens, you'd need to specify that.) <S> If you're writing a headline, headlines are expected to be brief. <S> You could make the headline ambiguous and then explain in the body of the article. <S> Like, "6000 people to form huge portrait of Gandhi", then explain in the article.
| As you say, we generally assume a portrait is made by humans unless otherwise specified.
|
How can a picture be naked? I have some questions about the following phrases: a picture of a naked woman a naked picture of a woman On first reading, the second phrase seems wrong. The second phrase seems to be more popular online than the first phrase, however. Do the two phrases have the same meaning? How is the second valid? <Q> Although "naked pictures" seems to have a misplaced modifier (the photographed subject is naked, not the picture), the phrase is actually an everyday term for a category of photographs in which subjects are shown unclothed and typically in salacious poses. <S> Compare "nudie pictures" or "nude pics". <A> The first phrase is OK. <S> We say a naked man, woman, body, etc. <S> On the other hand, the appropriate word for a picture, movie, scene, beach, etc. <S> involving naked people is nude. <S> So we can say a nude picture of a woman instead of a naked picture of a woman. <S> I don't think that the second phrase is more popular than the first one. <S> It sounds substandard if we say "a naked picture of a woman". <S> It is true that the adjective naked is a synonym of nude, but they are usually used in different senses. <A> Pictures of similar objects are often referred to as "[noun] pictures": Beach pictures: Pictures of beaches <S> Bird pictures: <S> Pictures of birds Vacation pictures <S> : Pictures of someone's vacation Sunset pictures: <S> Pictures of sunsets <S> Nude pictures: Pictures of nudes (naked people) <S> "Nude" is interesting -- it's a formal word for an informal concept. <S> Look at the examples in the Oxford Dictionary . <S> They're mostly about art. <S> The examples for naked are much more emotional and metaphorical. <S> "Naked" is an older word. <S> Older words tend to be stronger. <S> Pictures of naked people are usually exciting or scandalous. <S> In that context, a calm, respectable word like "nude" doesn't sound as good. <S> So "nude pictures" becomes "naked pictures". <S> It's grammatically wrong but artistically right.
| I think we can say a nude or naked man or woman, but we can not use naked for a picture, painting, model, etc. representing a human figure in art or any place or thing involving people who are wearing no clothes (beach, scene, movie, etc.)
|
“I have little money” vs. “I have a little money” What is the difference between “I have little money” and “I have a little money”? Are they the same? <Q> There is a difference in meaning between “a little” and “little”. <S> The meaning of “ a little” is positive . <S> It means some or a small amount, such as, “I have a little money.” <S> , “He made a little progress.”, etc. <S> On the other hand, “little” has a negative meaning. <S> It means an extremely small amount or an amount that is less than expected or wished for, as in, “I have little money.” <S> , “He made little progress.”, etc. <S> If we look at these sentences, the difference between “a little” and “little” will come across easily. <S> The former may be satisfactory for a particular purpose while the latter is not. <A> Quite different. <S> "I have little money" implies you have a very small amount of money, and usually less than you'd want to. <S> For example, when your kid asks you to buy him a toy, and you reply "Sorry, I have little money", it implies you can't afford the toy. <S> "I have a little money <S> " implies that while the sum in question might not be big (relatively speaking), it's good enough. <S> When you tell your kid "Well, I have a little money", you're affirming that you can, in fact, afford the toy. <A> I have little money = <S> I am not a rich man. <S> I have a little money <S> can mean: a. <S> I have some money on my person now (e.g. in my pocket) but not very much. <S> b. <S> I have a rather large sum of money available if I should need it (i.e. litotes/understatement) <A> "little money" means not much as in "I can't afford to buy a new dress. <S> I have little money." <S> "a little money" can be positive as in "What about going to the cinema? <S> I would invite you. <S> I have a little money I can spend." <A> Using the article a/an has a subtle effect on the meaning of the sentence. <S> Below are my thoughts on your question. <S> "I have a little money" - <S> It means you have some money. <A> The other answers are all correct, but they omit one detail that might clarify the usage: <S> "a little" is a shortened version of the full phrase "a little bit of." <S> Therefore, the phrase "I have a little money" is in fact an abbreviation of "I have a little bit of money." <S> Hopefully this will make it more clear as to why it is a positive amount: it means you may not have much, but you do in fact have some. <S> You have a bit (syn. <S> portion or amount) of money, you just have "a little bit." <A> So complicated! <S> a little =
| some little = not much "I have little money" - It means you hardly have money.
|
correct use of similar /to/with/like/ Is it correct to say similar with or similar to or similar like ? Consider the following sentences He has similar behavior with his friends (He has a behavior similar with his friend) He has similar behavior to his friends (He has a behavior similar to his friend) He has similar behavior like his friend <Q> We always say similar to . <S> In this definition of similar , it is expressly written that "As should not be used after similar". <S> Wilson held a similar position to Jones (not a similar position as Jones); <A> For me:He has similar behavior with his friends = "similar" here is just an adjective and is not connected with the word "with". <S> He has similar behavior like his friend = <S> I wouldn't use this as "similar" and "like" have the same kind of meaning here, it's repetition. <S> ("He has similar behaviour to his friends <S> " OR "his behaviour is like his friends' behaviour). <S> The structure is SIMILAR TO Hope this helps. <A> The deciding factor is whether the figure of speech is convergent or divergent. <S> Therefore, we have similar to and different from .
| Just because I say "he has similar behaviour when he is with me", it doesn't mean there is a structure "similar when" "He has similar behavior to his friends = "similar to" is correct (his behaviour and his friends' behaviour are similar)
|
Should I put "the" in the following sentence? Which one is correct? "She is in eighth grade." vs "She is in the eighth grade." <Q> "She is in the eighth grade" is correct and common. <S> You need an article because "grade" here is singular. <S> You need "the" and not "an" because you are specifying one particularly grade that she is in: the eighth one. <S> You must say "eighth" rather than "eight" because the noun here is "grade", and so you need an adjective, not another noun. <S> You could say, "She is in grade eight. <S> " This is a slightly out-of-date wording. <A> She is in (the) eighth grade is common. <S> The is optional; we can omit it. <S> Please refer to Oxford Learners Dictionary. <A> Please note that I assumed the eight in your first sentence was a typo and should've been eighth . <S> If it was deliberate, then the second sentence is the correct one.
| "she is in eighth grade." and "she is in the eighth grade." are both correct. The "the" is not necessary, though using it would not be wrong.
|
"given that", "if", "providing that", or "assuming"? Does "given that" mean just "assuming"? And, I am wondering what is the difference between "given" and "given that". Furthermore, would you please tell me what is the difference between "if" and "providing that"? Lastly, I have found the following explanations: "given that": although assuming that; in consideration of the fact that "given that": taking into account that, based on that (we can say that) ... "providing that": if something happens (we can say that) <Q> These three prepositions, given , assuming and providing mark different sorts of certainty ascribed to their objects, the facts or circumstances on which you base a conclusion. <S> Given designates a fact known to be true: you are not permitted to draw any conclusion which contradicts what is given . <S> But the inverse is not necessarily the case: if that fact is not true, this does not mean that your conclusion is false, for the conclusion may also be true in other circumstances. <S> The fact is sufficient but not necessary. <S> Provided <S> designates a fact which must be true in order for your conclusion to be true. <S> If it is not true, your conclusion is not true. <A> I find the definitions you found interesting. <S> More so the second one, which states: 2.assuming that; in consideration of the fact that I find this definition contradictory, because if you're assuming something, it's not definite fact. <S> "Given that" is a phrase most often used in academia, universities, schools, etc, especially mathematics and physics exercises. <S> It denotes actual evidence or facts provided to the reader or listener. <S> Ex. <S> " <S> Given that the acceleration of gravity is equal to 9.8 meters per second squared..." <S> This is not an assumption. <S> Assumptions can be based on facts (see also: inference, inferring) <S> but, as Merriam-Webster states, to assume something is to think something is true or probably true without knowing it is true . <S> Therefore, without knowing that it is true, it cannot be fact. <A> This page - given that, provided that, on condition that? <S> has some relevant examples: <S> Given that there are over 20 students in the class, and only one teacher, I think they have done a marvelous job! <S> Given that we had so many places to stop on the way, we made pretty good time on our trip! <S> which could be rewritten as: <S> Although there are over 20 students in the class, and only one teacher, I think they have done a marvelous job! <S> Although we had so many places to stop on the way, we made pretty good time on our trip!
| Assuming designates a fact which is not known to be true: the conclusion you are going to draw is true if that fact is true.
|
What does this mean? Especially the word “ahead” I had dates ahead that I disliked to cancel. If there were no “ahead”, I would assume it means there were dates the speaker wouldn’t like to cancel. With “ahead”, however, I can't clearly understand it. <Q> I had dates ahead that I disliked to cancel. <S> = <S> > <S> Future date: a particular day in the future that is specified as the time something will happen <S> Why not: <S> I had <S> ** <S> future dates <S> ** <S> that I disliked to cancel. <S> or simply, I had dates that I disliked to cancel. <S> (The usage of the adverb -ahead- appears redundant ) <S> The literal meaning of ahead is further forward in space; in the line of one's forward motion, higher in number, amount, or value than previously. <A> Yes, it is superfluous in this sentence as presumably one cannot cancel an appointment that is already past. <S> But redundant words are often included for emphasis. <S> The writer's intent here may be to say that they are very close ahead, i.e. dates in the near future. <S> Or he may simply be emphasizing that these are future appointments and not past appointments. <S> By the way, the wording of the sentence is rather awkward. <S> A fluent speaker would be more likely to say, "I had dates ahead that I did not want to cancel" or "I disliked cancelling the dates I had ahead. <S> " <S> As worded, the sentence is a little confusing because it sounds like he's saying that he dislikes the dates rather than cancelling the dates. <S> I can't quote a grammar rule that makes this wrong, but it sounds awkward to me. <S> I welcome comments from other posters on this point: Is there a rule being broken here, or is this just a whim of mine? <A> "ahead" refers to position and means in a position where your head is looking. <S> The Longman DCE says: in front: a short distance in front of someone or something. <S> And, of course, local adverbs can refer to time as well. <S> "dates ahead" means dates in the next time".
| As @MystiSinha says, "ahead" here means "in the future".
|
What do Americans call something when they cannot remember its name temporarily What do you call a thing that you temporarily cannot remember the name of in American English? Lets suppose the following scenario. What would you use to fill in the blank? Give me that. . . umm. . . you say its name. . . shoot. . . I cannot remember its name. . . __________. a) widget b) gadget c) thingy d) thing magic Is there any other common choice for this concept in AmE? I need to know the most common one. <Q> I don't know that there is a MOST common one. <S> There are several in common usage, and I suspect different regions of the country use different ones. <S> I've never heard "thing magic" before. <S> Gadget and widget are used, but I think they are more specific. <S> It can also be used to describe a collection of little tools, like "I have a whole drawer of kitchen gadgets", <S> that you know the names of, but don't want to list. <S> A widget would usually be used to refer to a piece that is used to build something. <S> Again, I think it is more likely to be used when you don't want to bother naming the thing, or want to talk about pieces of something in general terms. <A> Wikipedia has a list of such terms , of which I’d highlight the following: <S> “doohickey” “doodad” “thingy” “whatchamacallit” “whatsit” Note that some of these are only appropriate for particular types of things, like an electronic gizmo or shiny gewgaw . <S> I think the most common and broadly applicable term is “thing” or “thingy”: As others have commented, “ <S> thing magic” is not used, but sounds very similar to “thingamajig” which is quite common as a placeholder name for an object. <A> I'd say Thing <S> Thingy <S> That ... <S> That... (points excessively, swearing) Or, rarely Whatchamacallit Thing-a-ma-bob When referring to objects. <S> It should be mentioned that if referring to a person, I'd say What's-her-face What's-his-face <A> Nobody's mentioned whadayacallit, which is the word I'd be most likely to use. <S> Could be a regional difference. <A> I've often used gizmo <S> It has the benefit of being even more popular than thingy <S> Source: link <A> From my collection: business gizmo matter mess shebang stuff thing thingummy things.
| Where I live, you'd most likely hear: Thingy Thing-a-ma-bob Thing-a-ma-jig Doohickey Doodad Whatchamacalit Gadget would be used for a small machine or toy.
|
What should I use to show my anger not using curse and bad language to refer to someone in American English? Lets suppose you (Martin) park your car somewhere and leave it there. When you come back, out of the blue, you see a big scratch on your car’s surface. You have your friend with you who you stand on ceremony with him and cannot let off your steam by using bad language and swear words, but you would like to express your sentiments. I need to know what Americans use to describe the person who has scratched the car in the following scenario; (the only choice which comes to my mind is "so-and-so", but I doubt if I can use it in the following scenario in this way or not: Friend: Wow, look Martin! Someone has scratched your car Martin: Oh, no! Which so-and-so has done it? <Q> In this case, I wouldn’t use a name-placeholder at all. <S> I think the better constructions would be: <S> What [descriptive noun] could have done that? <S> What [descriptive noun] could have done such a thing? <S> Who could have done that? <S> Who could have done such a thing? <S> As for descriptive nouns, likely choices include: jerk S.O.B. <S> (say: ess-oh-bee) a-hole <S> M.F.-er (say: em-effer) <S> I attempted to list these from least offensive to most offensive. <S> There are many others. <A> "Oh no! <S> What so-and-so did this?" would be perfectly appropriate. <S> A native speaker of American English would interpret this as "Oh no! <S> What son-of-a-bitch did this?" <S> (In many contexts, "so-and-so" is neutral. <S> In this context, "so-and-so" gets a negative meaning.) <S> Any not-quite-cuss-word used in the Looney Tunes cartoons would be appropriate. <S> Although they are old-fashioned now, they are sure to be understood. <S> Rascal Tarnation (an interjection that shows "consternation") <S> Despicable (an adjective, as in "despicable person") <S> For example, "Who was the rascal who did this?" <A> I try to avoid the use of profanity, at least in the presence of others. <S> The problem with using a non-curse euphemism (as mentioned by Jim above) is that it makes you sound like you are pretending to be angry. <S> In my opinion, the clearest way to communicate your anger, is to simply state it.
| Some of them are: Dagnabbit (an interjection that is not as profane as "Damn it!") I think I would just go with "That really pisses me off."
|
"Flyers" vs. "Passengers of a flight" What's the difference? "The ___ were served two meals during the flight." a. flyers b.clients c.passengers d.travelers Correct Answer: c.passengers My question is why isn't option a. flyers correct, since a flyer is somebody who travels by plane ? When is it usually used ? <Q> A flyer (var. <S> flier) is someone who travels by plane from time to time . <S> Fliers are people who (usually) take planes when they travel. <S> A flier can be standing on terra firma . <S> To be a flier, all that is necessary is that one has taken a plane and remains willing to take a plane and plans to take planes in the future. <S> A flyer on a particular flight is a passenger on the flight. <S> A nervous flier is someone with a fear of flying. <S> You could ask a person sitting beside you on the train, "Are you a nervous flier?", and they could answer "Yes". <S> It means they get nervous whenever they fly in a plane. <S> You don't have to be in a plane to be a nervous flier. <S> And you don't have to be in a plane to be a flier. <A> It is possible because the word 'flyer' does mean a person who travels in a plane as a passenger . <S> A verdict from the High Court of India document reads - <S> The respondent before this Court was engaged in preparation and packaging of food for the various airlines, for being served to the flyers. <S> One of the airlines for which packed food used to be prepared by the appellant was British Airways. <S> But since the word flyer has other close meanings as well, the option passengers serves the purpose without any ambiguity. <S> Few of those meanings of a flyer include... <S> a person who flies an aircraft (usually a small one, not a passenger plane) a person who operates something such as a model aircraft or a kite from the ground. <S> a person, an animal or a vehicle that moves very quickly. <A> The answer to this question is quite simple. <S> When we talk about passengers we mean only passengers, not passengers + pilot + engineer + officers +other crew or staff working on the aircraft, which flyers mean. <S> Passengers is the most appropriate word to be used here. <S> Isn't it unnatural to say "The flyers were served two meals during the flight, especially when we have an appropriate word? <S> I know flyer is a synonym of passenger, but like other synonyms they are not necessarily interchangeable in all cases. <S> We have another synonym traveller. <S> I think it also does not properly fit in the sentence mentioned. <S> We often read frequent flyers instead of frequent passengers. <S> What I mean is that the use of synonyms depends very much on the situation or condition we are referring to.
| Passengers is the word that talks about nothing but the people on plane traveling from one place to another and is less ambiguous than the word flyers .
|
Manassas Ends Hope for a Short War Manassas Ends Hope for a Short War ( VOA Learning English ) What does ‘ Ends ’ mean? It seems not ‘ Manassas Ends ’ is a proper name. I guess it would rather be meaning: ‘ the last part of Manassas .’ But not having the geographical, historical background or proper lexical meaning, I’m wondering which meaning is right. <Q> This is headlinese , which is often so elliptical that it gives rise to ‘garden path’ sentences like this. <S> DamkerngT has a very good answer about headlinese here . <S> As oerkelens says, ends <S> is the verb, cast in the ‘historical present’ which is often found in journalism, and hope is a noun, its object. <S> The sentence could be expanded thus: The Confederate victory at Manassas ended Union <S> hopes for a short war. <A> It is a verb Sentences take the structure [Subject] <S> [Verb] [Object]: You have interpreted it like this (I cheated with "for" <S> but it's not relevant for this answer): <S> [Manassas Ends] <S> [Hope for] [a Short War] (i.e. "Manassas Ends" expect the war to be short) <S> But as you say, "Manassas Ends" is not a proper name, and does not make sense as a noun. <S> The correct interpretation here is: [Manassas] [Ends] <S> [Hope for a Short War] (i.e. "Manassas" does NOT expect the war to be short) <S> This actually has the opposite meaning! <S> It means that Manassas DID hope that the war would be short, but that it has ended that hope (i.e. now it expects a long war). <A> The words have been capitalized, but not as proper nouns, but instead to draw attention to them (often done in titles)."Ends" is here the verb "to end" in present time. <S> Could alternatively be read as: <S> Menassas stops hope for a short war. <A> To understand this sentence it's necessary to know from context that Manassas refers to an event , specifically, the first major battle of the American Civil War . <S> The article cited does make this clear if you keep reading, but the headline is sloppy for a learning-English site — it should not assume that readers already know this. <S> (A newspaper with a primarily-American audience can assume readers already know this, and that's probably why the mistake was made.) <S> Because "Manassas" is an event, the next word, "ends", should be understood as the main verb of the sentence, and it should be understood in the sense "causes the end of". <S> "Hope for a short war" is the direct object, the thing whose end was caused. <S> A less terse version: <S> [The [first] battle of] <S> Manassas ended hope [by the general public] for a short war [sp. <S> the American Civil War]. <S> (recast in the past tense because I am no longer describing this event as if it were current news) <S> ( Manassas is also the name of a place , and the battle has that name because it occurred close to that place. <S> However, the Civil War is covered in detail in US history courses and still has immense influence on our collective imaginations, so <S> "Manassas" without qualification or context refers only to the battle. <S> Adult native speakers of American English who don't live in that area would generally say "the city of Manassas" or "Manassas, Virginia" if they meant the place.)
| I read it as:Manassas ends hope for a short war
|
Using the phrase "from X to X" versus using "between Xs" I want to say that physicians differ on the diagnosis of an illness for patient Joe. What is the difference between: The diagnosis differs between physicians The diagnosis differs from physician to physician Is the latter more informal (or simply incorrect)? <Q> Both are valid sentences, and both mean essentially the same thing. <S> Often in cases like this there are subtle differences in connotations -- one might be more emphatic, or carry some other implication -- but I'm hard pressed to think of any difference in meaning here. <A> IMO, both express a simple idea rather awkwardly by making diagnosis the grammatical subject. <S> One could restate the sentence: "Physicians do not concur on the diagnosis of Joe's illness." <S> That formulation makes clear that medical opinion is involved. <A> Both are interchangeable. <S> However, if I was to be really specific, the second sentence implies that every physician has a different diagnoses where the former sentence may imply that the physicians are split between two different diagnosis. <S> Despite that, no-one will ever be that picky when reading those sentences, so you don't have to worry about it. <S> Both are perfect for any situation.
| I would agree with Jay that there is little difference between those sentences.
|
The difference between "Older" and "Elder" What is the difference between "Older" and "Elder" ? And are they interchangeable ? <Q> The use of elder is restricted to compare human beings, mostly in family relationships. <S> The one who is elder is the one who was born first. <S> This is my elder sister Betty. <S> You cannot substitute <S> elder for <S> older at all times. <S> Elder can only be used for people, when used for things, it is meant as a special figure of speech involving personification, so to be used with extreme care. <S> You cannot use elder with "than" (even if it is implied, as in sentence b) ): <S> a) <S> This is my sister Betty, she's older than me. <S> (and not elder) <S> b) <S> This is my sister Betty, she's older. <S> (and not elder) <S> But: This is my sister Betty <S> she's the elder of us two. <S> We do not use elder after get or grow : <S> You'll understand when you get/grow older. <S> The restrictions in the use of the superlative eldest are the same. <S> It is not used for things. <S> The eldest/oldest of my six children has already left school. <S> My eldest/oldest son is in the fifth grade. <S> But: He's the oldest in the school. <S> Elder and eldest are considered formal and some people do not use them at all. <A> I generally agree with most of the quirky rules in the other answers. <S> However, I'd like to add: in American English, the adjective elder seems practically antiquated. <S> Eldest is still common, e.g. as in "the eldest son". <S> Even the noun elder , i.e. when referring to the older people in a person's life ("their elders"), is common. <S> The adjective elder , however, is generally left out of normal speech and writing in favor of the almost perfectly-synonymous older . <S> I only ever see or hear elder used as an adjective in fantasy <S> where the word's nature as a nearly-forgotten lingual relic makes it seem almost foreign and exotic, lending to a setting's mystery and age. <A> The elder member of a group may not always be the oldest member of that group. <S> Older and elder both imply having greater age than something or someone else. <A> As stated in the other answers, "elder" means "older" but is usually only used when comparing a group of people who are in some way related. <S> It also comes up in some idioms such as "elder statesman". <S> There is one slight subtlety: consider the siblings John (15), James (17) and Mary (19). <S> Mary might talk about "my elder brother, James" to mean "My brother James (by the way, I also have another brother who's younger than him)", whereas James might talk about "My older sister", meaning "My sister Mary who is older than me." <A> Used as an adjective, "elder" is used when comparing the age of two people. <S> The person who was born first is elder. <S> It's used often for siblings, as in, "I have two sons. <S> Charlie is the elder. <S> John is the younger." <S> While this is correct, in every day speech, most people use "older" instead of "elder". <S> "My older son, Charlie, is coming to visit today. <S> " <S> Older can be used to describe things as well as people. <S> "My house is older than yours. <S> " <S> Elder cannot be used in this way. <A> They are almost completely interchangeable. <S> They are basically synonyms. <S> However, 'elder' sounds more formal than 'older'. <S> The comparative and superlative forms of old are older and oldest. <S> E.g.: <S> My sister is older than me. <S> That's the oldest castle in the city. <S> I agree with @Michelle, elder generally should not be used to describe things. <A> "older" is the normal comparative, the use of the variant "elder" is limited to a few cases. <S> Oald has it very clearly: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/elder_1?q=elder
| Elder can be used to indicate someone or something of higher rank or greater influence.
|
to be to and if-clause The following sentence is given What would you do if I were to lose my job?? I would like to undestand the meaning of were to . Does it mean "upcoming event", that's I'll lost my job later in the future. <Q> The clause in question is "if I were to" - "to be to" by itself doesn't carry any meaning as far as I know. <S> It's basically the same as "What would you do if I lost my job", with an emphasis on the fact that it's a hypothetical, unlikely situation. <A> Here "were to" is a present unreal conditional. <S> We often use this like for example, If she were to be rich, she would be horribly obnoxious. <S> and, If Nathan were to be my boss, this job would be intolerable. <S> USE: <S> "Were to" can be used in the present to emphasize that the conditional form is very unlikely . <A> This is an example of the future subjunctive. <S> The subjunctive is a grammatical mood found in many languages. <S> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood#English
| Subjunctive forms of verbs are typically used to express various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or action that has not yet occurred – the precise situations in which they are used vary from language to language.
|
What is the difference between " from ～to～" and "from ～ through～"? What is the difference between " from ～to～" and "from ～ through～"?For example, are the following sentences same? I work from Monday to Friday. I work from Monday through Friday. <Q> There seems to be some regional variation on this topic, so I will report from my AmE perspective. <S> In your particular example, either option would be understood to mean the same thing: the speaker works at some point during the course of each weekday (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday). <S> “From” would probably be omitted in either case as it is not needed to indicate a day range. <S> Generally speaking, I was always taught to indicate inclusive ranges with the word “through”. <S> This generally has more application in studying mathematics, but could have an impact such as the following: Read up through chapter 3. <S> Read up to chapter 3. <S> Receiving instruction #1 with no further clarification, I would read chapters 1, 2, and 3. <S> Instruction #2, on the other hand, presents a quandary. <S> It seems most likely that I’m supposed to read chapters 1 and 2, stopping when I reach the start of chapter 3, and that’s indeed what I would think if I were given no other hint as to the instructor’s wishes. <S> As you can see there’s a lot of iffiness here <S> , so even among native speakers there is occasionally confusion and/or clarification. <S> A misunderstanding such as the following would not be unheard of: <S> A: <S> We’ll be on the boat Wednesday to Saturday next week. <S> B: <S> So you’ll be back on land that Saturday? <S> A: <S> No, we dock Sunday morning and we’re spending Sunday on the road. <S> As always, consider your audience and the context. <S> Working those five days is such a common occurrence that neither word is likely to confuse anyone as to what you mean. <S> In other cases, you may wish to add “inclusive” after the range to clarify that the whole of the end-limit you’ve named should be considered part of the deal. <A> If a friend, a native speaker of English, told me, a native speaker of English, that he worked "from Monday through Friday", I would know he meant that he worked every day of the work-week but not on the weekend, Saturday and Sunday. <S> If he said that he worked "Monday to Friday" I would at first assume the same, though he might possibly go on to say that he worked part-time and his schedule varied, some weeks Monday, Tuesday, Thursday while in other weeks Monday, Wednesday, Friday -- but again, never on the weekend. <A> "Xday through Yday" is a US English variant, an "Americanism".
| If a British English speaker said "I work Xday to Yday", it would normally be understood to mean that he or she worked on the first day named, and all the days following, up to and including the last day named.
|
Does the sentence " Sorry, I have no time." give a bad impression? When I want to stop chatting on computer, I said " Sorry, I have no time." Does this way of saying give a bad impression? Are there any better way of saying? <Q> Other options: <S> Sorry, I've got to go. <S> Sorry, I've got to run. <S> (Here, "run" isn't used in the literal sense, it just means you need to be somewhere else/doing something else, and you are in a hurry.) <A> If you want to : keep it polite and simple <S> why not: <S> Sorry, I have/got to rush. <A> It does sort of give a bad impression. <S> Some alternatives are: <S> Sorry, I have some _______ to do <S> or Sorry, I have a _______ appointment <S> or, if you just don't feel like chatting with the guy/girl, then you can say <S> Sorry, I've had a bad day. <S> Ill be back later. <S> Hope this helps. <A> If you want to use that construction, you might say, "Sorry, I've run out of time. <S> " <S> The implication was I had time for your earlier. <S> But "Sorry, I've got to go," is more common. <S> It implies, "I need to do something else." <S> In either case, you've taken the "no" out of the construction, and therefore made it less abrupt.
| Sorry, I need to do _______ soon
|
Why does Bane say "the fire rises"? In the very beginning of the movie, (the airplane scene) when Bane is about to leave the plane with the nuclear scientist, the following dialogue takes place between Bane and one of his men: Bane: No, they'll expect one of us in the wreckage, brother. Man: Have we started the fire? Bane: Yes, the fire rises . I wonder why Bane says it rather than the fire has risen or the fire rose or the fire is rising . Why use the simple present tense there? <Q> <A> The film's plot was inspired by the Charles Dickens novel "A Tale of Two Cities." <S> Several of the film's motifs (as well as part of its ending) are taken from the novel, and the novel is quoted at the end of the film. <S> One of the chapters in "A Tale of Two Cities" is titled "Fire Rises. <S> " My belief is that this line is an allusion to this chapter. <S> However, within the context of the film, the line merely sounds more dramatic and mysterious when he says it in this tense. <S> It is precisely because it does not sound natural that it has this effect. <A> The chapter plan Dickens filed in his book lists Fire Rises. <S> Also, Barsad, a character in A Tale Of Two Cities is the name of the big man's right hand man. <A> It's a reference to a chapter in A Tale of Two Cities upon which The Dark Knight Rises is loosely based.
| The villain Bane is pretentious and wishes to sound portentous. It is a reference to A Tale of Two Cities.
|
What's this back-and-forth, argumentative writing called? To improve my writing and engagement in back-and-forth emails and letters that involve argument, conflict, or dispute, I want to read such writing by conscionable, principled persons (in the past or present). I seek not diatribes fulminations, or esoterica since I'm lay at history. What's this kind of writing called? How do I find it? I question the term 'belles lettres'. ♦ I seek not only literary writers, but any person with the above virtues who write well. ♦ I prefer a longer chain of back-and-forth exchanges to see more actions and reactions. Example 1: letters between US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis and the 5th Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Roger B Taney. They're contentious, but still courteous and tactful. Example 2: User ColleenV beneficently suggested a mother lode previously unknown to me: Amazon.com > Category: Literature & Fiction > Subcategory: Essays & Correspondence > Subsubcategory: Letters . Example 3: A friend searched for --Correspondences and found another bonanza. <Q> Generally speaking the formal name for the field which you describe wishing to study is rhetoric . <S> One of the original Seven Liberal Arts and going back to antiquity, it is still taught in academic institutions to this day. <S> Here's MIT's Open CourseWare rhetoric class. <S> which is the adjectival form of "in letters". <S> For instance, an epistolary novel is one in the form of letters written by the characters to one another. <S> Epistolary examples are not typically used in the instruction of rhetoric — speeches are a more common sort of example text, and when letters are used (e.g. MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail) they are not usually studied in a context of back-and-forth. <S> Which is perhaps a failing. <S> Still you might find "the rhetoric of letters" or "epistolary rhetoric" useful search strings. <A> If the writing consists of "open letters" (which are meant to be read and thought about by a wider audience"), then the word "debate" can describe such a "back-and-forth, argumentative [correspondence]". <S> The Lincoln-Douglas debates are a famous example of such a debate. <S> My copy is titled Created Equal? <S> The Complete Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 , as edited by Paul M. Angle. <A> The term "dialectic" comes to mind. <S> Often associated w/the Socratic method & Greek philosophy <S> , it's a method of arguing a point logically back & forth, with parties offering arguments and counter-arguments with the goal of discerning truth . <S> This approach specifically aims to use reason, rather than emotion, to solve contentious questions. <S> Some standard Western European examples would be Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel... <S> This also brings to mind Zen Buddhist or Rabbinical practices of politely discussing philosophical questions in a back&forth manner, each participant offering questions, citations, and refutations. <S> Longer, detailed explanations of a position could be called a "discourse" . <S> Typically more one-sided, this describes how a person frames an argument using specific terminology and boundaries. <S> They might try to anticipate and preempt objections, but it's not quite the short & real-time back-and-forth you seem to be after. <S> An example of this might be something like the Federalist Papers . <S> This site offers shorter examples in English of common logical fallacies, which might help you to better recognize them in writing. <S> If you're looking for other specific (& accessible) texts, I'm afraid I don't have many examples to offer. <S> I tried Kant once - made it about 2 paragraphs. <S> My college philosophy class sadly took place at 7am on Mondays more than a decade ago. <S> I didn't retain much ;)
| Another word you may find useful in your search is epistolary
|
What is the term used when you debug by hand in software development? During school I was shown a "technique" that would be like a debug by hand, writing down the names of the variables, and changing it's values as we moved through the pseudo-code/algorithm. Is there a term in English for this kind of action? <Q> I don't think there is a well-established term for it, but from my experience of reading computer books, I think, I may have come across a couple of expressions that might suite your needs. <S> If memory serves me well, one of them is called hand tracing . <S> That's when you manually go over your code line by line. <S> Another term I've recently come across while reading a book on C programming that probably would fit your description ever better <S> is a hand simulation <S> ( A Book on C—Programming in C, <S> 4th Edition by Al Kelley and Ira Pohl (1998) , page 24). <S> The same thing as hand tracing, just different name. <S> And we don't really call it debugging. <S> When you're debugging your program, what you're doing is you're trying to find a problem in your code that causes your program to behave in an erratic way or a way that you had not expected it to behave. <S> In other words, you debug when your program does not work. <S> A hand simulation, on the other hand, is a process employed in situations where you want to get insight into how a piece of code really works. <A> As an AmE programmer, I use "debug by hand", or other similar permutations. <S> Such as, "I need to hand debug that piece of code." <S> Or, "I will debug by hand the algorithm." <S> An older term I used was "desk check", meaning, one sits at the desk at works it out on paper. <S> "Did you desk check that code first?" <A> Back in the bad-old-days, before IDEs were developed, we simply called that "tracing the code". <S> With paper and pencil we would traverse the program's flow and track the state changes. <S> Today, some compilers offer the option to capture trace information from a program, and some IDEs have an auto trace feature, letting you step through the executing source code line by line and watching the variables change. <S> Since there are now automated tools to support tracing the code, it makes sense to distinguish between an "auto trace" and a "manual trace". <S> This lets you utter sentences like "The debugger is blind to inline assembly code, so I'll have to manually trace that routine." <A> There is no such thing as a debugging process where the removal of bugs is done automatically, it all requires constant user interaction and supervision from the programmer. <S> The process of debugging is not constrained to one or two actions, in fact it's not constrained to just actions either. <S> Debugging is the process of using a multitude of supervised debugging tools, manual refactoring, reading through program output and stack traces, researching causes of error codes and more to understand and resolve the root of a software malfunction. <S> However, all that being said, the process that you seem to be describing is called refactoring. <S> Refactoring is the process of taking existing code and improving upon it, rewriting it to improve things such as source code cleanliness and standard compliance, security fixes, performance increases, etc.
| The term you are searching for is simply called debugging.
|
I need some new "clothes" for the summer “I need some new clothes for the summer.” ( Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s ) If the word, clothes , is plural, don’t you include a skirt into the clothes category? Can the speaker have in his mind for something singular, e.g.skirt; or just plural, e.g. pants, trousers? <Q> Clothes is plural because it includes plural items of clothing, which may be individually expressible as either singular or plural. <S> Whether your shopping list has a) <S> a skirt, a blouse, a hat and a raincoat, or b) <S> a pair of socks, a scarf and a pair of slacks, each set may be referred to as clothes . <S> But if all you are buying is a skirt you don't say you need new clothes <S> ; you say you need a new skirt. <A> If the speaker were thinking of purchasing only one single item, they would probably name that specific item instead of saying "some (new) clothes"; they might, for example, say "I need a new skirt for the summer". <S> With the given sentence, it's most likely the speaker has in mind purchasing multiple items in order to have either a complete outfit, or a variety of choices: they might buy 3 or 4 skirts, or a pair of pants, and a shirt or two, and some sandals; all of which would be probably lighter in both weight and color than "normal" clothes, in order to be appropriate for summer. <A> You could also say in singular form: "I need to buy a new piece of clothing " if you have not decided what type of clothing you want to buy. <S> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/piece_of_clothing
| So a skirt definitely falls into the "clothes" category, but I wouldn't think of just one skirt as "some clothes" in that situation.
|
Can the infinitive form of a verb be considered an object? This question was given to a friend of mine: "at the moment, I peered at the water and made the decision to plunge in"How many verbs are there? She said three (peered,made, plunge in) and I would agree with her, anyway the teacher said two. We don't know why the teacher said so, anyway I think it is because "to plunge in" is used as an object in this sentence:"I made the decision to plunge in " is that correct? Or the teacher is wrong? <Q> An infinitive is a verb form, no matter what function it has in a sentence. <S> So I would not agree with the view of the teacher. <S> Can the infinitive be considered an object? <S> Dictionaries mostly have verb + infinitive in the section transitive verb. <S> It would be better if dictionaries introduced a new category "infinitive verbs". <S> Simply because the structures vb + noun and vb + inf are two totally different structures as to sentence building and it would help to find infinitive verbs in dictionaries. <A> This verb phrase ( "decided" or "made the decision" ) requires an infinitive form to complete the predication. <S> I decided to leave. <S> I made the decision to leave. <S> Sometimes this part of the predication is known as the predicate object. <S> But that is simply the terminology used by someone somewhere whose job it was to describe language and to find apt language for describing language. <S> A "decision" refers to action one will take or not take. <S> That action is expressed in English using the infinitive form of the verb. <S> I decided {to take some action}.I decided {not to take some action}. <S> The actual phrase that goes inside the braces {} can be considered an object. <S> But that is just a label. <A> I think that I evaluate the sentence in the same way that the teacher does. <S> If so, then you have correctly identified which of those three options the teacher does not count as a verb. <S> However, my explanation is a little different than yours. <S> "To plunge in" is an infinitive phrase. <S> An infinitive is formed from a verb, but it doesn't count as a verb in use. <S> You called it an object. <S> Infinitive phrases can be objects. <S> This infinitive phrase is not an object in this sentence. <S> Instead, this infinitive phrase acts like an adjective. <S> It modifies the noun "decision". <S> So, anyway, I think it is because "to plunge in" is used as a modifier in this sentence. <S> Just as you understand that objects are not verbs, I understand that modifiers are not verbs. <S> You were certainly on the right track.
| Some grammars have the view that the structure verb + infinitive is a verb + an infinitive object.
|
The pronunciation of the article "a"? The word "a" has two pronunciations: (aa) when the mouth is widely opened and (ei) when the mouth is not wide open. I just want to know the difference between them. People have asked questions like this before but I have not studied "pronunciation symbols" like /ə/ so I did not understand the answers. <Q> The letter "a" , however, is pronounced eɪ - "ey" as in "day". <S> It's rare to hear the article-a pronounced as eɪ - it usually indicates emphasis, like in <S> "Sure, Samsung Galaxy is a (eɪ) smartphone, but iPhone is The Smartphone", when you want to emphasize that iPhone is somehow the iconic example of a smartphone. <A> Beyond the "Ay" being used in an analogous way as when we use "thee" for "the" it is used in other ways: It is used when it is the beginning of a title of a book, movie, play, poem or whatever: A Midsummer Night's Dream; A Christmas Carol, etc. <S> There are some <S> I don't understand the pattern of, but they sound right: <S> A dozen eggs <S> (I have heard that it is when you are emphasizing the "one" meaning) <S> A once great nation (could be because of the grouping of people that makes a nation, but it might be for reverence) <S> A Mrs. Reynolds called last evening. <S> (The speaker is relaying the message but does not know Mrs. Reynolds.) <S> I think it is more common in warnings or dangers when you are emphasizing the uniqueness of a situation or the adjective preceding the noun. <S> And it is used as a mild expletive or rather a subtle suggestion that one might easily have been inserted: <S> This is quite a predicament! <S> ; You are walking a very fine line buddy! <S> ; Watch yourself! <S> There is a very big dog on Harold's farm. <S> ; <S> We were on the path, when a frightening wombat lunged at Vivian. <S> ; Keep your eyes open! <S> There is a crack shot sniper that favors that hill. <A> In recent years the pronunciation of a as "ay" (as in day) has become almost commonplace among Tory politicians and has now spread like a contagious disease to other parties and to the broadcasting media. <S> I have even heard a politician using the word another and pronouncing it aynother. <S> As a consequence, the use of the ay pronunciation occasionally for emphasis is in danger of being lost.
| The usual pronunciation for the indefinite article "a" is ə (schwa), which is the "aa" sound (like the first letter in "adorable").
|
Idiom "to eat like a pig" Does it sound right to say: He is always eating like a pig, leaving crumbs all over the table. (Using Present Continuous, because of always + negative connotation) <Q> Like Matt Brennan in the comments above, I'd also consider a) <S> "He always eats like a pig." <S> more natural than your b) <S> "He is always eating like a pig." <S> In fact, these two expressions have a subtle difference in meaning. <S> Specifically, the word "always" generally means "every time" when applied to the simple present tense as in (a), but "all the time" when applied to the continuous tense in (b). <S> Thus, sentence (a) is simply a statement about the subject's consistently bad eating habits, whereas sentence (b) also implies that he spends a lot of his time eating, which may or may not be what you want to imply. <S> (In fact, you could even leave out the word "always" from sentence (a) entirely — a simple present sentence that does not, by itself or in context, refer to any specific time is generally understood to describe habitual behavior. <S> Thus, simply saying "he eats like a pig" is perfectly sufficient to describe someone's typical eating habits.) <S> Also, as noted by hunter and queeg, the idiom "eat like a pig" <S> carries connotations of both eating messily (which you seem to want) and eating a lot (which you apparently don't). <S> There is a related idiom, "eat like a horse" , which implies only the latter, but no common idiom that I'd know of that would only suggest messy eating habits without implying anything about the quantity eaten. <S> That said, you can certainly clarify the meaning with a subordinate clause, as you've done in your original sentence. <S> Thus, the following sentence would work perfectly well: a') <S> "He (always) eats like a pig, scattering crumbs all over the table." <S> A minor remaining dissonance is that, at least to my ear, "eating like a pig" would usually imply a somewhat higher degree of messiness than merely leaving crumbs on the table — the mental image I get is of someone eating as much and as fast as they can, making a lot of noise and splattering food (not just crumbs) all over the place. <S> Using such a strong idiom, and then implying that the real issue is just a few crumbs on the table, makes the speaker sound very fussy — which, of course, could be exactly the effect you're going for. <S> If not, though, you might want to go for something a bit less evocative, like, say, <S> simply "he always eats messily, [...]." <A> The verb tense is executed exactly correctly (for just the reason that you say); however, "Eat like a pig" might be understood to mean "eat a lot," as opposed to "eat in a sloppy fashion." <S> (But it's not wrong to use it the way you did either.) <S> You mean "crumbs," not "crumbles." <A> There are at least four distinct possibilities here: <S> "He always eats like a pig" means that, when he eats, he always does it messily and/or to excess; <S> "He is always eating, like a pig" means pigs eat all the time and so does he; <S> "He always eats, like a pig" means that pigs eat whenever they have the opportunity and so does he. <A> If you change 'crumbles' to 'crumbs' the sentence would be ok. <S> Crumbles is what happens, for example, to a dry biscuit that you break and crush. <S> Crumbs are the mess left behind after eating said biscuit, usually down the front of your clothes. <S> If, whilst eating, I'm gulping big mouthfuls of food, barely chewing, gasping for breath, eating all that is in front of me, focussing on little else (imagine smudges of food over my face), then saying I'm 'eating like a pig' would be apt. <S> Think of Mr Creosote from the Meaning of Life. <S> Pigs eat anything and everything (pigfarms in Snatch). <S> But if I'm making a mess with crumbs (crumbsies on his jacketsies - Gollum to Sam), I'm unlikely to be called a pig. <S> But I could be called mucky, careless, scruffy. <S> Another animal 'idiom' would be a muckypup. <S> I'd be quite offended <S> if someone called me a pig for getting digestives/elvin bread/wafer thin mint down my front. <S> But I'd probably smile (if I heard) <S> if I was compared to a pig whilst my face was buried into a mountain of food. <A> (I don't have high enough reputation to comment, otherwise this would be a comment.) <S> 'He is always eating like a pig...' does flow a little oddly, but I'd use a contraction, i.e. 'He's always eating like a pig...' :-) ' <S> He always eats like a pig' flows a little oddly to my ear, personally. <S> I'm a native Australian English speaker, though it's not my first. <A> Though not a native English, I was taught that always + continuous tense can express a strong dislike or aversion towards the act mentioned.
| "He is always eating like a pig" means that he eats all the time and, furthermore, he eats messily and/or to excess;
|
'Raise' or 'Rise' as NOUNS and not verbs This question rose from this question! I'm quite clear on using raise and rise as verbs . However, when it comes to using them as nouns, I am bit confused. Say, I'm talking about the increment in my salary. Would it be 'raise' or 'rise'? How much 'raise/rise' you are likely to get in this year's increment? ~ Not much, I guess 10%. <Q> As a matter of fact, we the people of the Sub-continent are sandwiched between American and British English. <S> Anyway, if the poster follows British English, he will use the noun "rise" for the said purpose. <S> On the contrary, if he follows American English, he will use "raise". <A> If we're talking salary increments, then 'raise' is the correct term for it. <S> How large a raise are you likely to get this year? <A> Very similar to the difference between verbs: <S> Raise of something else <S> Rise [of self] <S> I received a raise of my salary - my boss raised my salary. <S> My salary rise in this year was 5% - my salary rose by 5%.
| I don't think there is any difference between rise and raise when it means an increase in our pay or salary.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.