source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Past action but present perfect? I know all about that film because I have seen it twice. In this sentence the person says they saw the same film twice in the past. Then why is the present perfect used instead of past perfect? Can someone please tell me? <Q> This is a parade example of the resultative present perfect , in which a past event is introduced into a present-tense discourse because it gave rise to a present state. <S> Specifically, you mention your seeing the film twice in the past as an explanation of how it comes about that you now, at the time of speaking, know about the film. <S> You are trying to tell me about Citizen Kane <S> and I have to tell you that I know all about that film <S> because I have seen it twice before. <S> You would employ the past perfect in a past-tense discourse to explain how a state at that past time came about. <S> Jack was trying to tell me about Citizen Kane <S> and I had to tell him that I knew <S> all about that film <S> because I had seen it twice before. <A> Among other uses, the present perfect tense is used to talk about actions that are finished in the past but whose results are felt in the present . <S> It is important that a time expression is not given because that would fix the action in the past, you cannot repeat an action that you did two months ago. <S> However you can repeat an action more than once, at any time and in this case there is nothing to stop you from seeing the same film three, four, or even ten times. <S> I know all about this film because I have seen it twice/three times/ten times etc. <S> the speaker does not say when he saw the film, the focus of his statement is his knowledge about the film as a consequence of seeing it. <S> We do not have any information when he saw the film, perhaps he saw it twice in a row, or maybe there was an interval of a year. <S> It is irrelevant because NOW (in the present) he knows how the film ends. <S> If the speaker mentioned the time, place or date he could say <S> I saw X-Men twice last July. <S> (simple past) <S> I saw X-Men once at the local cinema and <S> once at my friend's house (simple past) Note that in second example there is no specific time reference, it is clear in the speaker's mind or memory when he saw the film. <S> To use the past perfect <S> you should write/ <S> say <S> I had already seen X-Men twice last July when Tony invited me to the cinema. <S> I had seen X-Men once at the local cinema, and once at my friend's when Tony invited me to watch the DVD. <A> Here is a way to remember when to use the past perfect. <S> If your sentence refers to two different points in time, whether explicitly or implicitly, and both times are in the past, one earlier than the other, then use past perfect. <S> With September approaching , I had hoped to quit my summer job in order to relax a little before the semester began; but Mr Jones said he really needed my help in the shop and offered to give me a generous bonus if I would stay on for a few more weeks. <S> I know how this movie ends because I have seen it already. <S> In the first sentence, the person speaking is talking about a time in the past (September) and the hope he had before September arrived. <S> There is an implicit reference to a time when he gave up that hope. <S> He is explaining to someone why he worked all the way through the summer without taking any time off. <S> In the second sentence, the person is speaking in the present about his present knowledge ("I know") which he acquired by seeing the movie in the past ("have seen"). <S> I entered the room where Bill was sitting. <S> He invited me to sit down and watch the movie with him. <S> I told him that I knew how the movie ended because I had seen it already. <A> When the perfect is used as in "I have seen the film twice" the time when it was is irrelevant. <S> Important is the fact and consequently the result that the speaker can talk about the film or has good knowledge of it.
| If one of the times referred to is the present, then use the present perfect.
|
Explanation of “sway” vs. “influence” “Sway”, which basically means to influence, differs from the latter word [(“influence”)] in implying both the pressure or control of some force that is either not resisted or is in itself irresistible, and resulting change or fluctuation in character, opinions, or decisions of the person concerned. the notion . . . of capricious deities, swayed by human passions and desires, was incompatible with the idea of fixed law —Dickinson other conditions than those of classroom have swayed him for good or evil —Suzzallo he is swayed by fashion, by suggestion, by transient moods —Mencken Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms I don’t get what the difference is between “sway” and “influence”, even with the explanation above. <Q> In some contexts, they are interchangeable. <S> In other contexts, they are not. <S> For example: The lawyer tried to sway the jury. <S> The lawyer tried to influence the jury. <S> My initial reaction is that sway has a neutral or slightly positive connotation (the lawyer tried to persuade the jury); while influence has a neutral or slightly negative connotation, and suggests a range of possibilities from persuasion to unethical conduct. <S> But my initial perception could easily be swayed or influenced with more context. <A> One can ask, Were you swayed by his argument? , and the question would mean "Were you convinced?" <S> One could also ask, Were you at all swayed by his argument? <S> and the question would be " <S> Has he succeed in bringing you any closer to his opinion on the matter?" <S> Ideas can "hold sway", that is, they can be the prevailing view. <S> A country can be under the sway of another country, which would mean that the elected officials of the first country were obedient puppets of those running the more powerful country. <S> To be under someone's influence is the same as being under their sway, but in that case the operative word is under . <S> Usually, the ability to influence another is not the same thing as having them under one's sway. <S> To influence means to have some impact upon events or people, but not to control them. <A> The verbs sway and influence are synonyms. <S> synonyms have the same meaning but all synonyms are not necessarily interchangeable. <S> So is with these verbs. <S> The objective of these verbs is the same i.e. to cause a change in somebody else's behaviour, feeling, purpose or a course of action, but the way how the change is caused is different. <S> The verb sway is usually used when effects or changes are caused in a direct way such as persuading or convincing the other person by our speech, arguments, actions, etc. <S> On the other hand, we normally use the verb influence when the changes are caused in an indirect way or by means of outside factors such as wealth, high position, fame of somebody or hig quality of something, etc. <S> The following are some examples that will clear the use of these verbs: <S> 1- Don't be swayed by his false promises. <S> 2- <S> His clever talk swayed her. <S> 3- <S> The decision to appoint this accountant was influenced by the chairman. <S> 4- <S> His writings are influenced by Shakespeare's. <S> 5- His riches influenced his selection as a parliamentarian.
| As verbs, sway and influence are remarkably similar in meaning. A person can be under someone's sway , which would mean that the person was so heavily influenced by the other person that he had no volition of his own.
|
What does "Let's face it, xxxx" mean? I have a curiosity about "let's face it".What does "Let's face it, xxxx" mean? <Q> It is something that you say before you say something that is unpleasant but true <S> Let's face it, we both know why I stopped working there. <S> It is also used to mean " face facts. <S> " <S> For example, Let's face it, he was a big hunk of a man and a good-looking guy. <A> If there is an uncomfortable fact that you knew was true <S> but you tried to avoid it, but can't avoid it anymore <S> , you'd say <S> Let's face it, [fact] . <S> For example, you and someone else were driving a car, and then the car broke down in the middle of nowhere. <S> You're trying to get the car to start, but it obviously isn't working. <S> After a while, you give up and say: <S> Let's face it, this car isn't going to start. <S> It comes from "facing the facts". <S> There are facts that you know are true, but you're trying to ignore them, so you've "turned your back against the facts". <S> When you admit the facts, you're "turning around to face the facts". " <A> It means to be honest about something that you might otherwise ignore and pretend isn't true. <S> If you turn your face towards something you can look at it. <S> You are then confronting that 'something' and can deal with it. <S> The opposite of turning away from something.
| Let's face it" means "Let's admit that these facts are true(even though we both knew it already)".
|
"Who is Lisa friends with?" or "Who are Lisa friends with?" Is it correct to ask Who is Lisa friends with? or should it be Who are Lisa friends with? <Q> The subject of the sentence is Lisa . <S> Since that is singular, there is no reason to have a plural verb. <S> So the correct version is: <S> Who is Lisa friends with? <S> You can see the logic in this in the answer to the question: <S> Lisa is friends with Alice and Bob. <S> Note that you can also be friends with <S> one person: <S> Lisa is friends with Bob. <S> Although you can put that also as: <S> Lisa and Bob are friends. <S> Not that in that last sentence, the subject is Lisa and Bob , which is plural. <A> So here we have a question with 'is' being the working verb. <S> This is a transitive verb with both a subject and an object. <S> The subject is the thing that is doing the verb. <S> In this question, Lisa 'is'. <S> Lisa is the one being something, she is doing the verb, and is thus the subject. <S> On the other hand, 'friends' is the object. <S> 'Friends' is what Lisa is being. <S> In English, the verb is conjugated for the subject, so here because the subject (Lisa) is singular, third person, we use the singular third person verb conjugation: 'is'. <S> 'Are' is the plural third person as in 'They are'. <S> So the correct form is "Who is Lisa friends with?". <A> Who is Lisa friends with? <S> is the correct one. <A> "Who is Lisa friends with?" <S> is the correct form. <S> Look at this question from its answer... <S> Lisa is friends with Jack and Jill. <S> "Who are Lisa friends with?" <S> is incorrect. <S> The answer to this question cannot be... <S> Lisa are friends with Jack and Jill. <S> Let us change your question slightly:"Who are the English friends <S> with?"Now we have a different situation and <S> the question is correct because we can say... <S> The English are friends with the French people. <A> Who are Lisa's friends? <S> The pronoun who substitutes the names of her friends. <S> The possessive apostrophe indicates who is the possessor, and the noun friends tells us what or who is possessed. <S> Hence you would have the following affirmative sentence. <S> Darren, Mark, Judy and Maria are friends of Lisa or Darren, Mark, Judy and Maria are Lisa's friends <S> Who is Lisa friends with? <S> This structure is different from the above, here be <S> friends with is an idiom or a fixed phrase. <S> To be friends with someone means to have a person as a friend. <S> You can also make friends with someone. <S> Lisa is singular and the verb must agree with the subject. <S> Therefore, if we modify the earlier affirmative sentence we obtain Lisa is <S> friends with Darren, Mark, Judy and Maria and Darren, Mark, Judy and Maria are friends with Lisa <S> When Darren, Mark, Judy and Maria is the subject, the verb is in plural. <S> The Free Dictionary says 'be friends with' <S> You used to be good friends with him, didn't you? <S> I also became friends with Melanie.
| If someone is your friend, you can say that you are friends with them.
|
Usage of the word "gratis" in English As Spanish native speaker, I cannot find the context or usage of word "gratis" in English Language, as example: All apples are gratis. I know (maybe I'm wrong) that it would be better to use: All apples are free. Is there any difference in how these words are used? Please provide examples. <Q> FREE APPLES <S> One rarely hears gratis used in everyday speech in the US, although it is hardly unknown or unused. <S> Gratis is above the grade-reading-level for most daily newspapers in the US. <S> A publisher might send a teacher a gratis copy of a book. <S> EDIT: <S> As CarSmack reminds us, it can also be used as an adverb, so that the publisher could send a teacher a copy of the book gratis. <A> It means "free as in beer", not "free as in speech". <A> Both are English words. <S> Free is much more common. <S> Gratis is a synonym for free. <S> You can find examples in the Oxford Dictionary here . <S> Click on "More Example Sentences. <S> " It can be used as either an adjective or an adverb. <S> But it still sounds "Latin" and "borrowed" and sometimes it is used as a novelty word to appear "educated" or to attract attention. <S> But the average American or above average educated American can go her whole life and never find a need to write the word "gratis. <S> " <S> Read it? <S> Rarely.
| In my experience, gratis is not used on signs in the way that free often is. Gratis is a Latin word.
|
I need a proverb or idiom which can roughly mean "He has taken up more jobs than he can handle" Something like "His head is in ten different places". <Q> There's quite a few that would fit. <S> He's bitten off more than he can chew. <S> to try to do more than you are able to do <S> Don't bite off more than you can chew. <S> Let someone else organize the party. <S> bite off more than can chew. <S> (n.d.) <S> Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed.. (2006). <S> Retrieved October 10 2014 from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/bite+off+more+than+can+chew <S> Fig. <S> to be too busy. <S> I'm sorry, I just have too much on my plate right now. <S> If you have too much on your plate, can I help? <S> McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. <S> S.v. "have too much on plate. <S> " <S> Retrieved October 10 2014 from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+too+much+on+plate <S> He's got too many irons in the fire. <S> Fig. <S> to be doing too many things at once. <S> Tom had too many irons in the fire and missed some important deadlines. <S> It's better if you don't have too many irons in the fire. <S> McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. <S> S.v. "have too many irons in the fire. <S> " <S> Retrieved October 10 2014 from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+too+many+irons+in+the+fire <A> One idiom relates to hats. <S> When I'm wearing my programmer hat, I'm a programmer. <S> When I'm wearing my musician hat, I'm a musician. <S> Macmillan Dictionary defines it this way and gives the following examples: <S> (informal) one particular aspect of someone's duties or responsibilities <S> She has to wear several different hats (=have various responsibilities) in her position. <S> Of course, when I say this, I'm wearing my teaching hat. <S> So you could say he's wearing too many hats . <A> He has too many balls in the air, see: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/too_many_balls_in_the_air <A> Another for you: <S> "He's in over his head." <A> You could also say that somebody is " spinning too many plates " or "trying to spin too many plates at once". <A> If you can imagine someone trying to put up wallpaper with only one arm/hand, you'd say "Busier than a one-armed paper hanger". <S> Or there's always "Busier than a one-legged man in an a**-kickin' contest!" <S> Or that old-time favorite "Busier than a cheap whore when the fleet's in!" <S> Share and enjoy.
| He's got too much on his plate. When someone has two jobs, we sometimes say they have two hats:
|
Usage of the word "not"? I want to know how can I put the word "not" in these sentences : Would you open the door? ** I know that I can say:"Would you close the door?" but I want to use the word "not". I wonder if you would mind open the door ? I want you to open the door. <Q> Would you not open the door? <S> I wonder if you would mind not opening the door? <S> I want you to not open the door. <S> You can also add please . <S> ;-) <S> And you can use <S> I would like instead of <S> I want . <S> These are a bit more polite: <S> Would you please not open the door? <S> I wonder if you would mind not opening the door, please? <S> I would prefer that you not open the door, please. <A> If you want minimal changes to the sentences this is tough. <S> Please do not open the door. <S> [Note that the original is wrong. <S> It should be " <S> I wonder if you would mind opening the door. <S> " The question mark is optional; the present participle is not.] <S> I wonder if you would mind not opening the door? <S> But no well-educated Englishman would ever say 3. <S> He would say something like "I would prefer you not to open the door." <A> It depends on the intention of the question and what you want to express, remember that sometimes we can neither translate literaly from our original language to English nor viceversa. <S> Following the rules I consider that the phrase coulb be this "Wouldn't you open the door?"
| I want you not to open the door.
|
Can we use E-mails instead of E-mail addresses? Is it correct to abbreviate E-mail addresses to E-mails ? Is one more formal than the other? <Q> There seems to be some debate on this one, but I'd say that no, they are not the same thing, except sometimes. <S> An email, as CarSmack suggests , generally refers to an email message , whereas an email address is a specific, well, email address. <S> That said, people very frequently refer to email addresses as emails. <S> Yes, I have your email. <S> That, in almost every case, would mean I have your email address. <S> I think I actually hear that more than I even hear <S> "I have your email address. <S> " They're at least 50/50. <S> If I wanted to convey that I have an email message, I would say either of these: <S> Yes, I got your email. <S> Yes, I have your email open. <S> In those cases, most if not all of the time, people will know you're talking about messages. <S> That said, just to add some extra confusion: <S> You wrote down my email, right? <S> Yeah, I got it. <S> In that case, it could really mean either one. <S> Either the asker is frivolously suggesting the recipient to copy an email down to paper, or they want to confirm that the other person wrote down their email address. <S> This is also present on many forms. <S> Take Outlook, even. <S> Outlook is probably the most popular email client out there, and its contact management portion refers to addresses only as "email." <S> Nobody would read that and expect to copy in a full email message from someone. <S> So really, like many other caveats of the English language, it's just a matter of context. <S> People virtually never say "email message" <S> (I don't think I've ever heard that, actually), and call those "emails," but people can, based on context, refer either to addresses as "email addresses" or "emails. <S> " <S> And I don't think it really has anything to do directly with formality. <S> It might be more formal in some circumstances to make sure you're clear and avoid ambiguity, in which case "email address" might make more sense, but it's certainly nothing directly related to formality like, for instance, "y'all" versus "you all." <A> I would like to know if it is correct to abbreviate E-mail <S> addresses to E-mails . <S> Is one more formal than the other? <S> E-mail addresses and E-mails are two different things. <S> E-mails refer to the individual mail messages that are written and sent via electronic means. <S> Your inbox probably has e-mails in it. <S> This is different from e-mail addresses, which are the "electronic" addresses I need to send people one or more e-mails. <S> Your address book probably has e-mail addresses in it. <S> Therefore, E-mails is not an abbreviation for E-mail addresses. <A> You would never tell a group of people to "Give me your emails" if you wanted addresses. <S> In the singular it is ambiguous. <S> If you were telling them to fill ina form you might well say "include your email" <S> but then it's clear from the context that address is what you want. <A> I would recommend using emails in all circumstances; using email addresses , while technically also correct, will come across as excessively precise. <S> That said, it is fine to use email addresses when you want to explicitly distinguish between those and email messages . <A> Referring to an email address as an "email" is wrong in exactly the same way that referring to a telephone number as a "telephone" is wrong.
| Nothing is 100% (there are people that don't know better) but "Emails" in the plural is almost always referring to messages.
|
Shouldn't "by the thousands" be "in the thousands"? I have this question about " in the thousands " and " by the thousands " here : On Friday night, crowds swelled by the thousands in downtown Hong Kong to listen to speeches from organizers, signaling the pro-democracy movement still has momentum after calls for a big rally. Shouldn't " by the thousands " be " in the thousands "? Like, " people came in the thousands "? If both " by the thousands " and " in the thousands " are valid English, how are they different? <Q> "People came by the thousands" means the same thing, and is equally valid English. <S> "Crowds swelled by the thousands" means that the size of the crowd increased by thousands of people. <S> The word by is used to compare the size of the crowd before-versus-after the crowd "swelled". <S> "Crowds swelled in the thousands" is not correct English. <A> In English one of the uses of "by" is to describe the quantities of batches. <S> It has two general forms. <S> First, in the most literal way, we would say that you can buy eggs by the dozen (dozen == 12); eggs come in cartons of 12 eggs each, you cannot buy arbitrary numbers of eggs <S> , you can only buy them in cartons, each of which has twelve. <S> So at any given time, you can buy 12, 24, 36, etc. <S> We express this idea by saying that they are sold by the dozen . <S> Second, that locution has come to be used to indicate scale . <S> It is as if it implies, "these are the units you would find most convenient to count them in. <S> " <S> If someone says of a terrible famine, "people died by the score" (score == 20) <S> , they do not mean that people literally died in groups of twenty, but that approximately several or many twenties of people died. <S> As a native speaker, I would understand that to mean approximately 80 +/- <S> 40. <S> Or, for another example, "he smoked cigarettes by the pack <S> " does not mean the smoker in question stuck twenty cigarettes in his mouth at once, but that he went through at least one, and possibly several, packs each day, or at least at a fast enough clip to recommend buying them more than one at a time. <S> If someone says "within weeks, they were selling the new flavor of jam by the ton", it doesn't usually mean the jam was sold in one ton increments, but that the total amount of orders would most naturally be indicated in tons. <S> With that explained, the passage you're asking about: <S> On Friday night, crowds swelled by the thousands in downtown Hong Kong to listen to speeches from organizers is using the latter sense. <S> It was not the case that batches of one thousand people were showing up together, but rather some unspecified quantity of people showed up, which was some amount best represented by an approximation of a smallish integer and three zeros. <A> Crowds swelled by the thousands suggests that if you were counting the people coming in , you'd have to count them in groups of a thousand or more at a time to have an easy-to-count number of groups. <S> This is a rather inexact measurement. <S> Crowds swelled in the thousands does not sound right, I'd guess it's non-standard English. <S> Sometimes grew in the thousands is used, but means grew to the thousands , which is the same meaning as: Crowds numbered in [or grew to] the thousands <S> means that the total number of people in the crowd would be measured in the thousands. <S> It does not suggest whether the crowd grew quickly or slowly. <S> To be more concise: by [unit]s suggests growth , in <S> [unit]s suggests an end count .
| "People came in the thousands" means that thousands of people came.
|
What is the meaning of 'virtual'? Dictionaries confuse me! What is the meaning of the word 'virtual' is it real? Fake? Created? Real looking like? What? While virtual world means created by computer, if something is created as virtual device , is it for real? I mean tangible? Can you touch it? If so, why is it virtual? Another concept that I came across is virtual reality . Now again, if it's touchable, in this real world, why is it virtual? Collins describe that as 'having the essence or effect but not the appearance or form of' - again is it for real, touchable, or imaginary? It gives an example of a virtual revolution! what's that now? Revolution happens for sure and you and I witness it, don't we? What's virtual in that again? Finally, kindly tell me, if something is virtual is it visible, touchable, in real world or it's imaginary? If everything is imaginary, why do we have virtual assistant - an answering machine; Why do we have virtual devices? if they are imaginary? Sorry, if this all looks silly to natives! :) <Q> A virtual {x} means an emulated version of {x} or a simulacrum, not an actual {x}. <S> A virtual hard drive is not a mechanical device with moving and spinning parts but a RAM-resident data-structure that can be addressed by a computer program as if it were a physical hard drive. <S> Virtual reality consists of images and sounds and possibly other sensations, such as shaking or vibration, that are meant to give the person experiencing them the impression of being in an actual world. <S> A virtual assistant is not a flesh-and-blood secretary but a device that emulates some of the behaviors of the secretary or performs some of the functions of the secretary. <S> In the movie where the man falls in love with the voice on his smart-phone, the "entity" that speaks from the phone could be said to be his "virtual lover". <A> It is a word to refer to a thing that is not real, but is supposed to be real and/or is imagined. <S> For example:'I will give you a virtual hug.' <S> would mean that you are pretending, imagining, to give that person a hug. <S> However, if you say 'I have a virtual house' then that means that you have a house existing in a computer simulation (or otherwise semi-realistic medium). <A> - That would be my attempt to explain the term virtual reality. <S> Mostly used in connection with computer games.
| Virtual reality is a term referring to an artificially created reality by means that are possible with computer technology.
|
What are the adjectives for fruits that contain sugar and don’t contain sugar? How can I properly say “lemons are _______ fruits” to mean that they are sour? Is that the right word? I don't mean that they taste bad, they just naturally are ________. Also, what word can I use in saying “melons and bananas are _______ fruits” to mean that you can taste sugar in them? <Q> Other words that can be used to describe fruits would be tart – this would be not quite as acidic as sour , but still something that might cause your mouth to pucker a little bit. <S> Some apples would be described as tart . <S> Bananas have more of a gentle, mild, or mellow flavor, I think, although sweet wouldn't be wrong. <S> The word mellow has this definition at Collins, which seems fitting for bananas: <S> mellow ( adj. ) <S> (esp of fruits) <S> full-flavoured; sweet; ripe <A> You've got it right. <S> "Sour" is an accurate and appropriate description for a lemon. <S> The opposite of that would be "sweet," although I'm not sure anyone would generally describe a banana as "sweet." <S> That word is used for more extreme items, like chocolate cake. <S> A banana could comfortably be described as "not sour." <S> That said, you're also right that there's a bit of ambiguity. <S> "Sour" is a connotatively bad word in English, so it just depends on context. <S> If you want to be clear, I would probably say. <S> The lemon is very sour. <S> It's not bad, it's just very sour. <S> I know that's not a particularly elegant solution, but it seems like the best one I can think of. <S> Although in most cases, I don't think that ambiguity would be much of an issue. <S> People will know when you're talking about the taste, and "sour" is a pretty uncommon word to use to describe something as "bad." <A> There are four (or maybe five) kinds of taste buds: <S> Sweet (These taste buds detect sugars, but can be faked out by "artificial sweeteners", fried onions, and stevia extracts.) <S> Sour (These taste buds detect acids, such as the citric acid in lemons.) <S> Bitter (These taste buds detect potassium and many complex chemicals, especially in old plant stems and leaves. <S> Many drugs and poisons are bitter. <S> The bitter taste of many asthma drugs apparently makes them work better.) <S> Salty (These taste buds detect salts. <S> Salt also makes sweet food seem even sweeter.) <S> Some people believe that there are also "savory" taste buds. <S> Savoriness is associated with Asian spices, and with protein. <S> Most edible fruits are both sweet and sour. <S> Some edible fruits are also bitter and/or salty. <S> In the original post's examples: Lemons are sweet, and very sour. <S> Melons are sweet, slightly sour, and sometimes bitter. <S> Bananas are sweet, and also bitter (because they are high in potassium). <S> As discussed in Section 4 of Malcolm Gladwell's " The Ketchup Conundrum ", Heinz ketchup "[pushes] all five of these primal buttons. <S> The taste of Heinz’s <S> ketchup [begins] at the tip of the tongue, where our receptors for sweet and salty first appear, [moves] along the sides, where sour notes seem the strongest, then hit the back of the tongue, for umami and bitter, in one long crescendo." <A> If you say citrus fruits , it is understood that you are talking about the fruits that have sour taste. <S> The obvious reason (and also from where the term has come) is the presence of citric acid in them. <S> On the other hand, I agree that we can call bananas etc. <S> sweet fruits
| Sweet is a good word for some fruits – like cherries – and sour is a good word to describe fruits such as lemons and limes.
|
How to use the word CART/KART? How to use the word CART/KART, whose meanings are below: (KART)a heavy vehicle, usually having four wheels, which is driven by some racers in the race ground. (CART)a light open horse-drawn vehicle having two wheels and springs, for business or pleasure. (CART)any small vehicle drawn or pushed by hand, such as a trolley. So while having a conversation with my friend I said we'll go to cart race (vehicle driven by horse in India), but unfortunately he thought we're going to kart race (four wheeler vehicle driven by racer). When texting I knew there won't be a problem, but while speaking these words how can I ensure there is no confusion for him? As: should I pronounce those words differently to make myself clear or should I explain? What is better when using other words with the same pronunciation? <Q> From Wikipedia , "the term 'cart' has come to mean nearly any small conveyance, from shopping carts to golf carts, without regard to number of wheels, load carried, or means of propulsion." <S> In American English, "kart" refers to a very small race car, often called a "go-kart". <S> "Cart" is used for everything else. <S> Because "cart" and "kart" are pronounced the same, the context has to provide the meaning in conversation. <S> "Cart" has so many possible meanings that it is usually preceded by another word to describe the type of cart. <S> Examples include golf cart, shopping cart, hand cart, horse cart, go-kart, utility cart, tool cart, computer cart, luggage cart, ice cream cart, food cart, and beverage cart. <A> Down here in Australia, at least, we'd disambiguate with 'horse and cart race' and 'Go-Kart race'. <A> You might consider using the word chariot in place of cart if you intend to describe a race between horse-drawn carriages, though it's admittedly a bit archaic. <S> In the US, if you asked me if I wanted to go to a kart/cart race (in conversation), I would assume you meant the four-wheeled vehicle driven by a driver. <S> In fact, due in part to the popularity of Nintendo's "Mario Kart" franchise, I think most of the English-speaking world, if not all of it, would assume this. <S> However, if you asked me if I wanted to go to a chariot race, I would definitely think it was a bit strange, but I would certainly know you were talking about a race between horse-drawn vehicles. <A> As far as I know, "kart" is just a cutesified version of "cart" used in brand and product names. <A> In English many words sound exactly the same. <S> The difference is the context. <S> (like in Japanese) <S> CART : <S> Is a Middle English's word, a bit French, a bit Latin, a bit Anglo-Norman. <S> It means the word was used to talk about the common transport in <S> THAT <S> time. <S> KART : <S> Is 1950s' word and a SHORTENING of go-kart . <S> Maybe CART is an old fashion word, but in Bitish English country is common nowadays. <S> We're not British, we don't have their habits. <S> You can improve your English using their own meanings. <S> When you go to a Cart race, you should use Cart race. <S> Maybe it could help you avoing misunderstandings.
| When you go to a Kart race, you should use go-kart.
|
Interpretation of 'That case goes far beyond the mere assertion'? 75% down the page, para above Point 7 : Again, philosophy and theology aren’t even in Dawkins’s book. Gray’s captious remarks simply reflect his irritation at his having a hair up his fundament about Dawkins and atheism. Yes, religion is a supernatural belief that is irrational, and Dawkins, in his other writings, makes a good case that we’d be better off without it. That case goes far beyond the mere assertion that religion is irrational and dangerous. As for the “crudity” of The God Delusion, had Dawkins written a dry tome contesting the arcane claims of people like David Bentley Hart, Alvin Plantinga, and Karen Armstrong, it would have been neither successful nor effective. The writer, Prof Jerry Coyne, is defending Richard Dawkins, yet how do you determine/deduce if Coyne writes that Dawkin's case improves or worsens the mere assertion... ? Beyond implies either direction? <Q> In his other writings he "makes a good case.... <S> that case goes far beyond the mere assertion....". <S> Making a case <S> is a much more extensive undertaking than making a "mere assertion". <S> So he neither improves nor worsens the assertion. <S> Rather, he explains why he thinks we would be better off without religion. <S> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/make+a+case+for <A> Beyond means "further than". <S> It does not inherently mean "improve" or "worsen". <S> If the reader thinks that "making an even more extreme anti-religion argument" is good, the reader might think that "going beyond" is an "improvement". <S> If the reader thinks that "making an even more extreme anti-religion argument" is bad, the reader might think that "going beyond" is a "worsening". <S> So the word "beyond" is uni-directional. <S> The moral implications (if any) of the word "beyond" are up to the reader, based on how the reader interprets the morality of the ideas being talked about. <A> The sentence means that Dawkins doesn't only assert that religion is irrational and dangerous, he gives reasoning to justify that assertion. <S> Case here means an argument, that is, reasoning. <S> Goes beyond here means "includes, and has more". <S> That is, Dawkins makes the assertion and gives reasoning for it. <S> The preceding paragraph quotes a passage from John Gray, in which he says that Dawkins' argument is only this: "Religion is a type of supernatural belief, which is irrational, and we will all be better off without it. <S> " <S> In other words, Gray says (approximately) that Dawkins takes "Religion is irrational and dangerous" as a premise without justifying it, and Gray thinks that premise needs justification. <S> Coyne says that Gray's summary misrepresents Dawkins, since Dawkins has provided such justification in his other writings—"made a good case".
| Mere here means that an assertion alone, without reasoning to justify it, would indeed be so little as to be nearly worthless.
|
Expressing "Every person has a season in which the person thrives" in another form How do I express the sentence "Every person has a season in which the person thrives" in the form "For every person there is a season ..." without changing the intended meaning? Mathematically, the second sentence would be written as "For every person there is a season such that the person thrives in the season", or,formally, "For every person p there is a season s such that p thrives in s ". Nevertheless, since I am not an English native speaker, out of curiosity, I wonder how could that sentence be written in plain English, rather than mathematical English? <Q> As the saying goes, every dog has his day. <S> But it sounds too infomal. <S> I think We can say every person has his/her day or every person is in his/her heyday one day. <S> I think the word season does not fit here. <S> Maybe we can say every person has his/her day(s) <S> in which he/she thrives. <A> For every person, there is a season in which they thrive. <S> Also, it's beyond the scope of your question, but some will argue that you should not use <S> they to refer to a singular noun (as I have above). <S> This is a matter of debate, and if you're interested, you can read more here: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/06/he-or-she-versus-they/ . <A> If you're trying to avoid formal predication and if, by "plain English", you mean that you are looking for a casual way of saying it... <S> Everyone has their heyday or Everyone has his|her heyday. <S> (with the same caveat that nmar offered, about the use of <S> their instead of the singular <S> his or her ). <S> You can get around that contentious issue (at least among copy editors) with: <S> We all have our heyday. <A> If the OP means "season" literally (e.g. some people have Seasonal Affective Disorder when the sun leaves in the winter), then it would be something like: <S> Every person has a season in which they feel at their most energetic. <S> or Everyone has a season in which they feel at their best. <S> or Everyone has a favorite season.
| For every person, there is a season in which he or she thrives.
|
What's the difference between "an operation" and "a surgery" What is the difference between "an operation" and "a surgery"? <Q> An operation: a specific surgical procedure carried out on a patient. <S> A surgery (British): <S> A doctor's office or practice. <S> A surgery (American & Canadian): <S> A place where surgeries are performed, also called an operating room or operating theater. <S> Reference . <A> In American English, we would say: I had an operation. <S> or I had surgery. <S> Not "a surgery". <S> They mean the same. <A> In British English, as spoken by the medical profession, the word operation is obsolescent. <S> Anything that the doctor does to the patient is a procedure . <S> This covers both non-invasive and invasive treatments. <S> It also covers both investigations and treatments. <S> Most non-medical people however will still use the term operation to refer to an invasive procedure where a surgeon treats a patient in a theatre. <S> Again, the term operating theatre is now less commonly used.
| A surgery is both a place where a discussion with a patient takes place and the discussion itself.
|
Pick Up The Chant Suppose at a sporting event, some people chanted something. Then other fans that were not chanting started chanting the same thing: Fans picked up the chant. Sentences similar to this are definitely on google. Yet, I cannot find a dictionary definition for " pick up " fitting this usage. Even some native-speaker members of this forum said they never seen this usage of " pick up " before. Could this usage be slang or regional? <Q> Not sure if it's regional, but 'picked up' in that context means to join in with whatever is being done (usually, as you've found, a chant or a song). <S> An alternative is 'take up'. <S> It's metaphorically casting the activity as a physical object, which each of the participants are grasping and raising in a show of support. <A> I read it as "picked up" meaning learnt. <S> Maybe because I'm British and used to football fans having to pick up a "humourous" song that someone has made up (often changed lyrics to a popular song, such as <S> That's Amore with "When the ball hits your head, and you sit in row Z <S> , that's Zamora"). <S> If it's just a chant though, the "take up" interpretation sounds right to me. <A> It might be regional, because it sounded odd to me when I read it. <S> Honestly, my first thought seeing the subject in the list of new questions was, " <S> Yeah, keeping plainchant on tempo is hard, especially in amateur ensembles", and my second thought was, "... <S> wait, this is ELL.SE, not Music. <S> SE". <A> "Pick up" has the meaning in this case of beginning to do something that others are doing, particularly if it is stopping. <S> Macmillan dictionary includes this in its definition #11 of "pick up" : to start something again, from the point where you stopped <S> This is basically the same usage; it refers to the concept of beginning to do something, but not starting at the beginning. <S> In the case of "pick up the chant", it is not you who earlier were doing the thing, but others. <S> I would suggest a subtle difference from some of the other answers here in my definition; it is fairly commonly used when the chant is dying down , more so than when it is gaining momentum. <S> I would say "join in the chant" if it were still gaining, but "pick up the chant" or "take up the chant" if it were starting to die down. <S> "Pick up" a girl means to ask her out (on a date); "Pick up" a language means to learn it, but in a more informal way than taking classes; "Pick up" a radio station means to acquire a signal. <S> The definition I linked above has 15 different usages, plus more sub-usages.
| 'Pick up' is a very generic phrase in English, used for a very large number of different ideas all centered around (re)starting or gaining something or someone. A more common usage along these lines is "Pick up where I left off", which is something you might say when beginning to read a book in the middle where you had stopped reading the other day.
|
Is saying "I figured it out!" (past tense) correct usage? Could a native English speaker use the phrase "I figured it out!" in an internet forum if he/she has suddenly understood something? Or would he/she say something like " I've got it! " The matter is, one fellow (Russian native) translator said that an English speaker wouldn't use a phrase in the past tense to say that he/she has understood something just now, but will employ the present tense. That made me curious. <Q> I think this is entirely normal usage. <S> I figured it out! <S> is similar to <S> I solved the puzzle or <S> I ran a mile <S> You could also say <S> I understand it which places emphasis on the fact that you presently understand it, while I figured it out places more emphasis on the solving of the problem - if it was particularly hard to grasp, this might be important. <S> They often could be used in the same place, and neither would be wrong, and often would come down to personal preference. <A> I think you can use: I figured it out! <S> as a set phrase. <S> Especially as an exclamation, I think you can say it this way. <S> I can't believe it, but I figured it out! <S> But for the picky, one could say: I've figured it out! <S> though in my opinion the "figured out" part did happen in the past. <A> Could a native English speaker use the phrase "I figured it out!" <S> in an internet forum if he/she has suddenly understood something? <S> Yes, absolutely. <S> Whether it's correct is a more difficult question, and of course, language "correctness" itself is a difficult concept. <S> As a native speaker, I wouldn't blink at that at all and might well say it. <S> I've figured it out now. <S> I've got it. <S> I've got it now. <S> Curiously, though, I would never say <S> "I've figured it out now" in the context you gave, but I would in a different context, for instance if someone asked me if I still needed help: <S> "No, thanks, I've figured it out now." <A> Regarding "I've figured it out!" <S> versus <S> "I figured it out!" <S> : generally I'd prefer the former as an exclamation. <S> The latter is more what you might say if somebody else was trying to take credit for figuring it out, and you wished to correct them. <S> There's nothing technically wrong with either of the above in terms of their meaning or grammar, but a native English speaker would be unlikely to use them as an exclamation, simply because they're each too long. <S> Aim for two or three syllables for a typical exclamation. <S> It would be strange to exclaim <S> "I formed a hypothesis, and have confirmed it as valid through experiment!" <S> That may be what you did, but "I've done it!" <S> would convey the same meaning, and would sound better. <A> Your sentence says it all - a native who understood it just now. <S> The word understood is the past tense word! :) <S> I'm not a native <S> but I am pretty sure <S> using past tense is not incorrect in such contexts. <S> I have noticed this in may Hollywood movies <S> wherein someone advices/instructs someone and the other fellow immediately nods <S> , "Got it!" <S> I think it's quite similar to the context where I ask informally , 'Understand?' <S> and you reply, <S> "Yep! Understood."
| Other ways I might say it: I've figured it out.
|
"Doesn't talk please VS Don't talk please" Why can't we use "doesn't talk" instead of "don't talk"?when referring to he/she why is "doesn't talk" wrong? e.g. When you are talking in class and your teacher said: "don't talk please." Why didn't she use "doesn't talk" in that case? <Q> When someone gives a command like this, it is called an "imperative sentence". <S> The subject of the sentence is an implied "you", and so you use the form of the verb that goes with "you". <S> In this case, "[You] do not talk." <S> "Doesn't" is used with the third person singular, such as "he". <S> But you can't give a command to a third person, that is, you can't give orders to someone other than the person you are talking to. <S> So we don't use the third person for imperatives, always the second. <A> The phrase you are using is called an 'imperative'. <S> We use the imperative when we command other people to do something. <S> For example, Be quiet, Lisa! <S> or Eat your breakfast, Timmy! <S> In English, the imperative is mostly the same as the bare infinitive form, but can be contracted. <S> This because 'don't' is the contraction of 'do not', and 'doesn't' is the contraction of 'does not'. <A> Ice Girl, according to situation given in your question the teacher is telling the students to do something or NOT do something. <S> This type os sentence is called a command or an order - it is also described as an imperative sentence form (as pointed out by sanchises and others). <S> This type of sentence (command/order/imperative) requires the verb to be in the BARE infinitive form (INFINITIVE FORM: to talk; BARE INFINITIVE: talk). <S> So the teacher says: <S> Talk, please! <S> Write, please! <S> Stop that! <S> Get out! <S> Be quiet! <S> When the teacher tells you NOT to do something that is called the NEGATIVE form of the sentence. <S> The negative form needs an auxiliary (helping) verb. <S> The helping verb is the PRESENT INDICATIVE form of the verb to do. <S> As correctly pointed out by oerkelens this must be the second person singular/plural - that is, DO. <S> So for the negative forms of commands the teacher says: Don't talk, please! - or - Do not talk, please! <S> Don't write! <S> Don't stop! <S> Don't be quiet! <S> Hope that helps! <A> Simply put. <S> Words like "Doesn't, Don't, Can't, Won't" are all contractions .The reason they are used <S> is to shorten the sentence speaking/writing length. <S> Therefore when wondering why a specific contraction is preferred over the other I'd suggest you look at the full form and then ask. <S> For example. <S> Don't talk Thomas! = <S> Do not talk Thomas! <S> While Doesn't talk Lisa! = <S> Does not talk Lisa! <S> So it means that the second contraction is actually incorrect as saying "Does not talk Lisa" is not an Imperative form which is used to command others to do something. <A> Because it is in imperative mood, which does not have tenses. <S> Especially it does not have present tense, in which we add "-s" in third person singularis. <S> Imperative is made in form:[Infinitive without 'to'] <S> + [rest of sentence (objects &c.)] <A> Answers here tend to mix up two different aspects: one being imperative/indicative, another being 2nd person/3rd person. <S> I'm not versed well enough in Early Modern English to know whether it sported a 3rd person imperative like Kaiserzeit German, but if it did, it would have been somewhat like "Talk he not to me, commoner!" <S> in analogy to the German "Spreche Er mich nicht an, Gemeiner!". <S> Of course, neither modern English nor German use anything but the second person in their imperative nowadays, but the difference in ending between "doesn't" and "don't" cannot be mainly attributed to 2nd/3rd person difference since "does" never worked as an imperative even for 2nd person.
| Since the infinitive in question is 'to do', you should use " don't talk " and not " doesn't talk ".
|
Using 'anyone' in affirmative contexts - Is "he just wanted to kill anyone" grammatical? I've just stumbled across this article in the Japan Times : SAITAMA – Police, who are interrogating a 20-year-old college student from Saitama Prefecture on suspicion of stabbing to death a 21-year-old woman in the city of Iruma, in the same prefecture, revealed Friday that the suspect said that he “ just wanted to kill anyone .” And I'm wondering if "wanted to kill anyone" is correct (I'm not a native speaker, but "anyone" in place of "someone" feels odd to me). <Q> Without further context, a native speaker would also expect "wanted to kill someone", rather than "wanted to kill anyone". <S> The article also quotes the confessed killer as saying "I was thinking about killing someone". <S> "wanted to kill anyone" is grammatically correct. <S> In this example, the difference between "someone" and "anyone" might be the result of poor translation, or it might reflect a difference in meaning. <S> "Someone" implies that the perpetrator was being slightly choosier than if he sought "to kill anyone". <S> In my opinion, the article has excellent translation. <S> Most Japanese crime stories (that I have read in English) have much worse translations. <A> In context, the writer is trying to make the point that this person didn't care who he killed, it wasn't that he believed his victim had wronged him in some way <S> and he was trying to get revenge or some such. <S> He just wanted to pick a random person and kill them. <S> So if the writer had said, "He wanted to kill someone", that could be understood to mean a specific someone, this particular person. <S> But "he wanted to kill anyone" makes clear that he didn't care who he killed. <S> It's an unusual phrasing, but then, the desire to kill a random person for no apparent reason is an unusual event. <S> At least, I hope so. <A> If the stress is placed on "anyone," as in "just wanted to kill anyone ," then it would be correct and immediately comprehensible to a native speaker. <S> Even so, it's not a particularly desirable translation. <S> The emphasis on "anyone" shifts the meaning to "anyone at all, as opposed to someone in particular." <S> [Edit 1: this is a very fine point] <S> Oddly, something of the same effect happens if you put the stress on "someone." <S> If the suspect said he "just wanted to kill someone ," it would suggest that he wanted to kill someone, as opposed to killing no one, in which case it also wouldn't make that much difference who the someone was. <S> Ah English. <S> Gotta love it! <S> Unless you hate it.
| The phrase "just wanted to kill anyone" does sound odd to a native speaker if the intonation is exactly the same as "just wanted to kill someone," which would involve relatively even stress.
|
What is the meaning of detour in the following sentences? Other than a longer route than usual i couldn't find any other figurative meaning to this word in most dictionaries. So can someone explain the meaning to me - Sentences There’s plenty of time, life has so many detours. Do you see this job as a detour from your ambition? Could you take me on a detour in American history? I kind of half-understood this thing. Could someone please elaborate ? <Q> Detour means (from Cambridge Dictionary): <S> But in your sentences the word is being used in the figurative sense. <S> In sentence one it means: <S> There’s plenty of time in life because there are many twists and turns in one's life. <S> In second one it means: <S> Do you see this job as a separate thing from your interests and ambitions? <S> In third it means: Could you explain me the American history by taking a long or a roundabout route. <A> The original poster is correct that the literal meaning of "detour" usually means "a longer route than usual, because the usual route is impractical or unavailable". <S> Sometimes the literal meaning of detour will involve a shorter route. <S> For example, suppose a highway follows a river around a mountain chain. <S> Suppose the river is flooded, so the highway cannot be used. <S> A detour might go through the mountains, and so be shorter. <S> Each of the original poster's examples are mostly correct. <S> The first example would be better with a semi-colon, instead of a comma. <S> Also, this usage of "so many" is informal, whereas this example is formal. <S> This usage of "detour" is common: <S> There’s plenty of time; life has many detours. <S> The second example is also a common usage of "detour". <S> I would expect a different word or phrase instead of "ambition". <S> In the third example, I would expect the word "tour" instead of "detour". <S> But if you were already on a figurative "tour" (of English history, or of origami, et cetera ) and the discussion of American history would be a "side-trip", then the word "detour" makes sense. <S> I expect a phrase like "tour of" or "detour through" or "detour into" instead of "detour in". <S> Could you take me on a detour into American history ? <A> Okay, let's assume that the person saying these sentences is named Mary, and that she is talking to John. <S> There’s plenty of time, life has so many detours. <S> Mary is saying that it is okay for John to not follow life's path in a straight line. <S> For example, if John plans on going to college right after high school, but he ends up meeting a girl and having a baby with her, he may be disappointed that he never continued his education. <S> Mary remarks that life is like that; life is unplanned and unexpected "detours" happen. <S> John could go to college later in life if he wanted to. <S> Do you see this job as a detour from your ambition? <S> Let's say that John wants to be an actor <S> (his ambition is to be an actor), but he instead takes a job as a music teacher. <S> Mary is worried that John could be wasting his time on this music job (like a long detour on a road would) instead of following his ambitions of becoming an actor. <S> Could you take me on a detour in American history? <S> Let's say John is a world history teacher, and Mary is his student asking this question. <S> While John normally teaches the history of many countries, Mary would like to talk about American history for a little bit. <S> The class would be going on a "detour" and talk about American history, and then they could "get back on track" and resume talking about major world-wide historic events.
| A different or less direct route to a place that is used to avoid a problem or to visit somewhere or do something on the way.
|
'Alternative', 'choice' and 'option' I was wondering if someone could tell me whether the following sentences mean the same or they have slight nuances: The train was cancelled, so I had no alternative but to take a taxi. The train was cancelled, so I had no choice but to take a taxi. The train was cancelled, so I had no option but to take a taxi. For me they all mean the same (in this context) and in this sense can be used interchangeably. <Q> The last two sentences, with "choice" and "option", are perfectly fine and equivalent to each other. <S> I would interpret the first sentence, with "alternative", as equivalent as well. <S> However, it would not be my first choice of wording. <S> An alternative usually refers to a secondary choice — something less conventional or less preferred. <S> Since your intention was to catch a train, the taxi was your one and only alternative. <S> In contrast, taking the taxi was one of two choices / options, so <S> "no choice / option <S> but…" feels more justifiable. <A> <A> In reading the sentences, I was surprised to hear myself prefer "no alternative except", and "no choice <S> but" and "no option but". <S> Go figure.
| As a native English speaker, I would rate all three as equivalent and appropriate.
|
Production of (the) so-called "green tires": is article necessary? I am translating this (Russian) news article. The article says that a new rubber plant is slated for construction. The plant itself will produce only rubber, not tires. I have a question about my translation of the final sentence: This grade of rubber is used in the production of ( the ) so-called "green tires". The sentence is the last in the news report, added to enlighten the reader on the nature of that particular grade of rubber. Is the definite article necessary here? I guess not, because although the tires are named, this name could relate to a wide variety of environmentally friendly tires (produced in vast amounts). This is the only mention of any kind of tires in the article. The meaning is: "the plant will produce this grade of rubber, sell the rubber on the market, where those companies that produce green tires could buy it as feedstock". <Q> The definite article changes the meaning so much that I had trouble interpreting the sentence correctly until you added information about the context! <S> Including the definite article is the wrong wording. <S> Let's contrast… <S> This grade of rubber is used in the production of so-called "green tires". <S> Without the definite article, the sentence could interpreted two ways: It is a generalized statement about all tires that claim to be environmentally friendly. <S> In other words, every environmentally friendly technology known to exist uses this grade of rubber. <S> That is probably a broader claim than the author intends to make. <S> It is a statement about some environmentally friendly tires that will eventually be produced from the rubber made at the new plant. <S> From the context you gave, the second interpretation appears to be correct. <S> This grade of rubber is used in the production of the so-called "green tires". <S> "The" implies that there are some specific tires being referred to. <S> If the article had previously described some tire technology or tire model, then those are the tires being referred to. <S> In the absence of any specific mention of tires, I would assume that we are talking about the tires to be produced by the soon-to-be-constructed rubber plant. <S> Since you have now indicated in the question that neither case is true (the new rubber plant will be selling its output on the open market), I would conclude that including the definite article changes the meaning of the sentence in a catastrophic way. <A> In the context you have supplied, the is best omitted. <S> This is because the zero-article allows for an indefinite reference to "green tires. <S> " It appears that no particular type of "green tires" is meant, just "green tires" in general. <S> In addition, if I read the "green tires," I would expect further mention, discussion, or definition of the referent ("green tires") in the news article. <A> This grade of rubber is used in the production of so-called "green tires". <S> This grade of rubber is used in the production of "green tires". <S> The scenario given above by 200_success, to show where "the" would be used, is not entirely implausible, but that answer would really be in response to a question like: When the factory is finished, where will the "green tires" be made?When the factory is finished, where will the so-called "green tires" be produced? <S> But it is unlikely that the response to that question would include the phrase so-called because the questioner already understands that "green-tires" refers to a special kind. <S> If you leave out so-called then one could use "the" before "green tires" when responding to those questions. <S> One needs a prior (implicit or explicit) reference to "green tires" in order to use "the". <S> In the case of the questioner using "the", When the factory is finished, where will the so-called "green tires" be made? <S> the prior reference is implicit, i.e. "the green tires that we have been hearing about in the news". <S> EDIT:(Taking your clarification into account) <S> The news article, when speaking of the particular grade of rubber and its potential for use in eco-friendly products, should say This grade of rubber is used in the production of so-called "green tires" OR ...is used in the production of the so-called "green tire". <S> (singular). <S> The singular establishes an implicit prior reference ("the tire we've all been hearing about"). <S> OR <S> ...is used in the production of a so-called "green tire" (that is, a kind of eco-tire that you're about to describe for the reader.)
| No, one does not normally include the definite article before "so-called".
|
What is the difference between width and breadth? I have looked this in dictionaries and they both mean: a distance from side to side. I looked in google and the links say that they have a similar meaning with a slight difference but none pf them clearly explains what is that difference. I understand that they are synonyms so please don't tell me that again. I'm specifically looking for the slight difference in their usage. Please explain that to me with some examples. <Q> Since width and breadth derive from wide and broad <S> we can look at these words for more clarification. <S> From Merriam Webster : <S> Synonym Discussion of BROAD broad, wide, deep mean having horizontal extent. <S> Broad and wide apply to a surface measured or viewed from side to side < a broad avenue <S> >. <S> Wide is more common when units of measurement are mentioned <S> < rugs eight feet wide <S> > or applied to unfilled space between limits < a wide doorway <S> >. <S> Broad is preferred when full horizontal extent is considered < broad shoulders <S> >. <S> Deep may indicate horizontal extent away from the observer or from a front or peripheral point < a deep cupboard > < deep woods <S> >. <A> Since they both indicate some form of measurement, let us first contrast both words with length. <S> So imagine a square. <S> In this case, width, breadth and length are all equal and are pretty interchangeable (i.e. synonymous). <S> Now imagine a rectangle. <S> Typically length is used to describe the "longest" side and the "shorter side" can be described as the breadth as in in "the length and breadth of …". <S> So where does that leave width? <S> Well if I had to say "the breadth and width of …" then I would assume breadth still stands for the shorter side and width for the longer side. <S> However, if someone were to say "the length and width of " then of course width then becomes synonymous to breadth. <S> Now in everyday use… imagine you are standing next to and facing a road (waiting for, say, a bus). <S> The "length" of the road is the distance measured along its curb, and would in all likelihood, be measured in kilometers. <S> The distance from one curb to the other, this distance you cover crossing the road, is typically referred to as the width of the road and rarely as the breadth of the road — unless you are standing in the middle of the road with your arms outstretched towards the curbs… you could poetically say the breadth of the road. <S> So when to use breadth in common everyday language… well imagine a cube instead of a square. <S> One can easily say the box is x centimeters wide (width), y centimeters long (length) and z centimeters high (height). <S> Try to use "broad" to mean "breadth" in that sentence and you will sound archaic. <S> But then again most people in measuring a cuboid would say width, height and breadth, eschewing length altogether. <S> So go on. <S> Enjoy the quirks of the English language. <A> One is about practical physical measurement, as in: 'the tailor would measure the width of a piece of cloth'. <S> And the breadth is a figurative speech meaning like: ' <S> I searched the length and breadth of this place for that missing pen'. <A> Width referring to the 'wide'Breadth referring to the 'broad' <A> we used to call it breadth in my Native country Nepal. <S> But here in United States, people call it Width. <S> I didn’t know about this before I moved here. <S> They are same.... <S> Take this as an example: Rectangle has Length 10 cm, Breadth 5cm, and the Height 6 cm. <S> The area of rectangle in this case is equals to Length <S> * Breadth <S> * Height thus, 10*5*6 = 300cm. <S> Similarly, Area of rectangle is also refers to Length <S> * Width <S> * Height 10 <S> *5 <S> *6 <S> =300cm. <S> Therefore, depending on what part of the world you live in, name varies. <S> Breadth and Width are same. <S> I think it’s probably because in Nepal, we follow British English (old), and USA likes to make it more fancy. <S> So, whichever ways teacher taught u, use that while taking test or quiz.
| I've always understood width and breadth to be synonymous with breadth just being an older English word.
|
Is there a better word than "Likewise"? All five newspapers rely the same data source, so all are _______ subject to the same filtering. Is it really "likewise" I have to stick with? It sounds odd... <Q> To me likewise is redundant with same , unless your context clearly indicates that one given filtering can be applied in different ways. <S> As a result, I would simply skip likewise and write: All five newspapers rely on the same data source, so all are subject to the same filtering. <A> I would use "inherently" in this case. <S> This would help to convey that, due simply to the fact that they use the same data source, it is expected and usual that they are subject to the same filtering. <A> Just a different thought. <S> With the subject being the data source, there are a lot of adverbs that can be injected into the sentence. <S> The word "likewise" does not fit in the blank spot in the sentence. <S> However, maybe you could write the sentence as All five newspapers rely (on) the same data source. <S> Likewise, all newspapers are subject to the same filtering. <A> You can skip repeating "same" and still mean the same: All five newspapers rely on the same data source, so they are subject to similar filtering. <S> Since all five newspapers rely on the same data source, they are subject to similar filtering. <A> The sentence is understandable with likewise , but I have some reservations about using it that way. <S> "Likewise" emphasizes how the other four are the same as the first. <S> That image is slightly incongruous with "All", which treats all five newspapers as a unified group. <S> You don't really need any adverb there, but if you want to one for emphasis, I would say All five newspapers rely on the same data source, so all are equally subject to the same filtering. <S> (Your original sentence was missing a preposition. <S> "Rely" is an intransitive verb.) <A> If the objective is to emphasize the fluidity of the entire enterprise, then using the alliteration of similarly and same could be useful. <S> Otherwise, the subsequent @Spare1Rib4me is probably the most correct in that it is simpler: <S> All newspapers rely on the same data, hence they are all subject to the same filtering. <S> In terms of the most informative answer regarding grammar, @200_success provided a good summary except equally may be too general: <S> All five newspapers rely on the same data source, so all are equally subject to the same filtering. <S> Since we are talking about specific newspapers which are subject to filtering, we could reword as: Newspapers are similar subjects to the filter (not the same or equal from the filters perspective). <S> In the context of the sentence this could be changed to "similarly subject." <S> There is a nice table of Conjunctive Adverbs and the Relation <S> They Indicate here http://englishmistakeswelcome.com/conjunctions.htm
| All five newspapers rely on the same data source, so all are similarly subject to the same filtering. Arguably, "equally" and "same" are somewhat redundant.
|
When to use "drank" and "drunk" I am a bit confused in using drank and drunk . I know we use it with past tense but not when to use drank and when to use drunk . What are the better ways to use these? I visited this , too, but it does not explain when to use which form. What scenarios best suit each form? <Q> This is a tense question, (but should not cause anxiety!) <S> drink is the simple present tense: <S> "I drink the wine." <S> drank is the simple past tense: <S> "I drank the wine yesterday." <S> drunk is the past participle, used in the perfect and pluperfect tenses of the verb. <S> "I had drunk the wine before you arrived. <S> " <S> See: <S> Drink drank drunk <A> Drink - drank - drunk Drink is the present <S> - I like to drink coffee. <S> Drank is the simple past - <S> I drank coffee yesterday. <A> So Is it right to say , How much water you drank today ? <S> or how much water you drunk today ? <S> – <S> ARG yesterday <S> No. <S> The question-form of the present and past simple tenses is constructed with DO: <S> He drinks - does he drink? <S> They drink - do they drink? <S> She drank - did she drink? <S> If you ask your question during the course of the day, you ask "How much water have you drunk today?" <S> The present perfect suggests that 'today' is not yet over and that 'you' may drink some more water. <S> If you ask your question after the day is effectively over, for example, when you are in bed, you could ask "How much water did you drink today?" <S> The drinking is seen as past. <A> If you are unsure about how to use the three stem forms, also called basic forms, of irregular verbs you should try to get a basic grammar of English where such things are explained. <S> This topic is really one of the important things of grammar. <S> The three stem forms of to do are: do/did/done. <S> And there are two special forms: does and don't (mostly not mentioned in lists of irregular verbs). <S> With the second stem form "did" you can only form the past tense: I did not know it. <S> You use the third stem form "done" for the so-called perfect tenses: I have/had/will have <S> /would have + done. <S> The third stem form is also used in all passive tenses: <S> tense forms of to be + done: <S> Tenses <S> I: <S> The work is/was/will be/would be + done Tenses II: The work has been/had been/will have been/would have been + done. <S> The third stem form is a participle meaning it has a double function. <S> It can have verbal character and it can be used as an adjective. <S> PS <S> I say "stem forms" because all verbal forms "stem" from these three forms. <S> It is up to you which term you use. <S> English grammars mostly use basic forms.
| Drunk is the past participle, used for the present perfect and past perfect - I have never drunk coffee, I had never drunk coffee.
|
Using 'may' and 'might' in AmE Do the following sentences sound natural in formal AmE speech: You may go now if you want to. You might go now if you want to. I think both of them are correct, but the latter is far more formal or rather literal. Though I doubt about this opinion. <Q> might is the simple past of mayand <S> I think it's used to express Subjunctive Mood, like <S> would , could or should . <A> May and Might both suggest uncertainty, but they offer different degree/perspective/perception. <S> There might/may be situations where they can be interchangeable. <S> (like this very sentence :-)) <S> may and might - one suggests something that is less likely to happen and the other suggests something that is more likely to happen. <S> Consider the following sentences - The CEO might resign. <S> The CEO may resign. <S> In both sentences above the uncertainty about his resignation is looming. <S> But there is a difference in register. <S> Sentence #1, possibility and sentence #2, probability . <S> In sentence #2, the resignation is likely to happen, but not certain. <S> In sentence #1, there are more chance of resignation, yet uncertain. <S> Even saying so, in both these sentences the difference is effectively very subtle. <S> OP's sentence - You ____ <S> (may/might) <S> go now if you want to. <S> We need either may or might to feel that blank. <S> That blank should contain a word that will suggest uncertainty. <S> If you use may , it's a plain statement of uncertainty. <S> But if you use might , you are suggesting there is more chance of your going, though uncertain. <S> So both are possible depending on context. <A> The first sentence implies some sort of permission is needed. <S> For example, after a required wait period, someone in charge will then say "You may go now" <S> The second sentence implies that an opinion is being offered that it is "ok" now to go or "seems like a good time to go". <A> Might sounds very weird. <S> Almost universally now <S> the word <S> can is substituted, even though purists may still consider it sub-standard.
| While might suggests possibility , may suggests probability . As for may , I was taught in the old school where the word may expressed permission.
|
Past perfect or simple past? Which sentence is correct: If she hadn’t been so bad-tempered, I could have married her. If she wasn't so bad-tempered, I could have married her. In my textbook #1 is the sentence has been written, but I think there is nothing wrong with #2 as well. <Q> Both of the sentences are grammatically correct, without much difference in meaning. <S> If-clause in the past perfect in the first sentence indicates an unreal or imaginary thing in the past, which means that she was really bad-tempeted. <S> On the other hand, if-clause in the past simple in the second sentence expresses the same thing but in the present, which means that she is really bad-tempeted. <S> We can use either of the two if-clauses in such sentences depending on whether we mean a past action in if-clause or an action in the present. <S> Please look at a couple of sentences from Oxford Practice Grammar chapter 146 conditionals 3 by John Eastwood. <S> 1- <S> If Mathew was more sensible, he would have worn a suit to the interview. <S> 2- <S> If I didn't have all the work to do, I would have gone out for the day. <A> Both sentences are grammatically correct, but the first would imply the choice being further in the past than the second sentence would imply. <A> I think the second phrase should be: <S> If she wasn't so bad-tempered, I might have married her. <S> This seems to point to a more specific point of time in the past, compared to the first one, since simple past tense was is used. <A> I say sentence 1 convey the reason you did not marry her in the past. <S> You can use it, if you are trying to convey that she was bad tempered then and she she is still bad tempered now.
| Sentence two is grammatically correct.
|
memories of Cold War fact and fiction -- what is "fact and fiction"? an adverbial phrase or a noun? Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-10-21/the-rest-is-mystery-as-swedes-chase-possible-russian-sub Is it a submarine? Is it Russian? And what’s it doing off the coast of Sweden? The swirling nautical whodunit in the Baltic Sea brought back memories of Cold War fact and fiction , fueling the hypothesis among jittery neighbors that President Vladimir Putin’s Russia is making more regional trouble. That is, if the vessel is one of his. How do you grammatically understand that phrase? <Q> The phrase "Cold War fact and fiction" is an abstract noun. <S> If you had lived through the Cold War, it might evoke a feeling or memory of uncertainty and fear. <S> An abstract noun is a noun that you cannot sense, it is the name we give to an emotion, ideal or idea. <S> They have no physical existence, you can't see, hear, touch, smell or taste them. <S> The opposite of an abstract noun is a concrete noun. <S> - See more at: http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/nounabstract.html <A> So "fact and fiction" is a compound noun. " <S> Cold War" is a acting as an adjective (more precisely, "noun adjunct") modifying that compound noun. <A> Fact & fiction: Fact is defined as a piece of information about a circumstance that existed or events that have occurred. <S> Fiction, on the other hand, is defined as “an imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented”. <S> And when they co-exist, the events and their outcomes become ambiguous.
| "fact" and "fiction" are both nouns.
|
which vs what usage Which determiner, which or what , to use for some situations, like these: What month is it? What school are you attending now? or Which month is it? Which school are you attending now? I understand that which" expresses the idea that in the context of the sentence there is a list of possibilities to chose from. "what" is more open-ended. However, can there be a better distinction? <Q> In interrogative usage: What <S> Identifies and which Choses . <S> As you understand it, what is open-ended in the sense that a large number of possibilities can be the answer. <S> What kind of pen do you usually use? <S> When the possibilities are a smaller number/quite known, consider using " which ". <S> Which pen do you prefer? <S> (a black pen/a blue pen) <S> Generally, they are not interchangeable, in some instances you can replace "which" with "what". <S> There needs to be a context of choice . <S> For example: Which/What flavor of ice cream would you like? <S> •Either is fine, but "which" is better. <A> The explanations that have been given are similar to those that you'll find in many style guides. <S> However, many native speakers do not seem to be aware of what has been prescribed. <S> You'll often see and hear 'what' when the rules demand ' <S> which'. <S> I tell learners that it's not very important. <S> If they choose the 'wrong' word, few people will notice. <A> From what I understand, "which" is supposed to be used to denote informative clauses that may or may not be necessary; at least, in a statement, not a question. <S> For instance: I've got a hold of the fire extinguisher in order to control this fire, which has already become a raging inferno. <S> Which flavor of ice cream would you like? <S> "What" is normally used when the choices are infinite, or the speaker is trying to ask for some kind of information. <S> What's the fourth Wonder of the World? <S> Both of the sentences you mentioned in the original post should most likely use "which."
| As far as questions go, "which" is normally used when there's a choice that needs to be made.
|
What's this kind of more advanced, analytical reading called? My previous posts, especially those concerning Mastering the National Admissions Test for Law by Mark Shepherd, reveal flaws, lapses regarding English questions 'of comprehension, analysis and, to some extent, logical reasoning' and 'reasoning skills ... critical necessity for a legal career.' . I ask about English, and not law; that test involves everyday knowledge topics; no specialist knowledge of law is required' . To help me find other resources to correct my miscues and oversights, what's this type of reading called? (There are only a limited number of mock LNAT questions.) It's surpassingly trickier and more nuanced than regular 'reading comprehension'. I can comfortably read English and even those passages in the LNAT questions, but I couldn't discriminate or infer the hidden, indirect, intricate, subtle, and thorny. Would something like http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Intelligent-Touchstone/dp/0671212095 help with my weaknesses? Is it apt? <Q> I really do believe it is " reading comprehension " you are asking about, and working through a good book or study guide on that topic would allow you to answer every question I've seen you ask here and on EL&U. <S> With that said, to answer the question as asked (which I'm obliged to do), if you want to go "one level down", you'd have to engage in " critical analysis ", and beyond that, " literary criticism " (which, to be honest, sometimes gets <S> so deep, it wraps back around to shallow and vapid). <S> But be warned: these are serious, deep fields, and in certain ways endless. <S> Developing an expertise in critical analysis will take at least as long as you're intending to expend on obtaining your law degree, and even dipping your toe in it is probably significant overkill for studying for an entry-level exam like the LNAT. <S> I say this in part because the fields are focused externally , on the work being analyzed, as much as internally , on improving your reasoning skills and reflecting on your own processes of thought. <S> My advice: look into " reading comprehension " again; do a more detailed search for study guides or introductory works on that topic. <S> If you still feel un- or under-equipped for the LNAT, you may try looking into " critical thinking " (but again, that's a deep field, and you only have limited time for study). <A> The term you are looking for is "close reading". <S> I know nothing about the text you linked to, so couldn't say how well it would meet your needs. <S> Camile Paglia has a fantastic book called Break, Blow, Burn which teaches how to do a close reading of poetry. <S> I realize that your goal is not to read poetry, but the book is very informative, and you might find it helpful. <A> I notice the following things about your LNAT practice questions: They were about the passages that made the least sense to you. <S> The passages that did not make sense to you were often making fallacious arguments. <S> They were arguing for things that were not true, or only seem true if you agree with certain ideologies -- so they made illogical arguments. <S> I would describe many of the passages as "rhetoric masquerading as analysis". <S> Here are some ways to learn the strengths and weaknesses of rhetoric: <S> how to write rhetoric logical argument how to detect fallacies; a catalog of fallacies how to write case studies (especially for business) how to write pattern languages (especially for architecture and computer programming) How to Lie with Statistics close reading (as suggested by Michelle) learn to identify "hidden assumptions" recognize some common approaches to searching for truth. <S> For example: The scientific method -- deductive reasoning -- Catholic theology -- Calvinist theology -- "original intent" legal interpretation become familiar with some common clumps of hidden assumptions. <S> Recognize what kinds of problems each philosophy ignores or denies.
| A close reading is a careful examination of a text to understand all of its connotations, beyond just deciphering the text on the page.
|
Difference between "I'm in the school" and "I'm in school" What is the difference between these two sentences?? I'm in the school. I'm in school. Do they have the same meaning or not? <Q> I'm in the school. <S> Means <S> I am in the building ( <S> but I may not be a student). <S> I'm in school. <S> Means I am attending school <S> (I'm a student). <A> The is used to refer to someone or something that has already been mentioned, or a context that has previously been established or easily understood. <S> I'm in the school <S> This sentence is generally understood to refer to a physical location at a particular school . <S> "In the school" means you are inside the building, "at the school" means you are on school grounds. <S> "The school" makes sense if the school's identity is clearly known or obvious. <S> "The school" difficult to understand (or plain nonsense) if the school's identity is unknown or unclear. <S> I'm in school <S> This sentence is not specific to any school, therefore the is not used. <S> In this sense, "school" is understood to mean schooling , or the process of receiving an education, rather than a physical school. <S> To be "in school" is to be in attendance at a non-specific school. <S> One would specify a school this way: I'm in school at ___________ <S> Which is an informal way of saying: I attend school at ___________ <A> We do not use the definite article "the" with the words church, bed, college, court, hospital, prison, school, <S> university when we refer to the purpose for which they exist . <S> e.g. Sally went to school" <S> (She's a student.) <S> But: "Her father went to the school to see her teacher yesterday." <S> (He went to the school as a visitor.) <A> I am in the school and I am in school are different in meaning. <S> When I talk about being in the school (school building), it means I am not a student there. <S> Maybe I am in the school to look around the school building or to see my father who is a teacher there. <A> As others perfectly explained the differences between the two sentences, I'd like to state when to use which sentence. <S> When someone asks you, Where are you? <S> You could say, I'm in the school. <S> and if someone asks you, What do you do? <S> You could say, I'm in school.
| When I talk about being in school, it means I am a student there.
|
What is the difference between "cannot" and "can not" in these examples? Can you explain the difference between these two sentences? I cannot go to school. I can not go to school. <Q> I cannot go to school <S> This would mean that, for whatever reason (e.g. ill health), you were unable to attend school due to circumstances outside your control. <S> I can not go to school <S> Your girlfriend just got a day off and wants to hang with you. <S> It is well within your abilities to NOT go to school.. <S> you are making a decision to purposefully avoid it. <A> I cannot (often contracted to <S> I can't especially in speech) <S> go to school almost certainly means I am unable to got to school <S> / <S> It is not possible for me to go to school . <S> It could also mean <S> I may not <S> (= am not allowed to) go to school , though this would need to be made clear by the context. <S> The 'ability/possibility' meaning is shown in: <S> I cannot (can't) go to school) because we are snowed in . <S> The 'permission' meaning is shown in: <S> My father says I cannot (can't) go to school. <S> He says that education is only for boys . <S> I can not go to school <S> is more problematic. <S> It could be that the person who wrote this has simply not written the two words as one. <S> This is a very common 'mistake', because 'not' is not written together with the verb that precedes it with any other verb. <S> Indeed, some people would not consider this to be a mistake. <S> Note that we cannot tell in speech the difference between 'can not' and 'cannot'. <S> Both forms can be contracted to 'can't'. <S> A second, less common, possibility for 'can not' is that it means 'have the ability not to'. <S> In this sense, the two words are always written separately. <S> In speech,, there is a slight but discernible pause between them, and the 'not' is stressed. <S> An example of this is: A: You have to go to school tomorrow. <S> You can't not go. <S> B: I can not go. <S> Nobody can make me. <S> Note that, as we see from A's words, this form can have a 'double negative <S> ; You can't not go <S> (It is not possible/permissible for you not to go) does not mean the same as You can go. <A> They are interchangeable, although "cannot" is the more common and preferred spelling. <S> "Can <S> not" can be used for emphasis as in: <S> No, I can not go to school. <S> or when it is followed by another construction: I can not only walk, I can also run.
| In British English, the accept negative form of 'can' is cannot (one word).
|
Why do two sentences have different structures? Now I study about relative clauses. But I have found something wrong. I met a woman. She can speak six languages.-> I met a woman who can speak six languages. A man phoned. He didn't give his name.-> A man who phoned didn't give his name. (Book's answer) But I think it should be like this: -> A man phoned who didn't give his name. My questions are: 1. Why is there a difference in structure between (1) and (2)? 2. Is my sentence (2) correct? Why do the two sentences have different structures? <Q> Well - I am not into grammar much. <S> So i wouldn't understand your question in grammatical sense. <S> But i'll try to correct your second sentence. <S> A man who phoned didn't give his name. <S> - <S> Here the article A is incorrect because you are talking about a particular man and not any random person. <S> So the sentence should be <S> The man who phoned didn't give his name. <S> More examples <S> I met a woman who was extremely beautiful. <S> (not is) <S> The guy who we ran into in the mall earlier is my friend. <S> (note here 'is' and was both are possible) <S> The guy who we ran into the mall earlier was my friend. <S> Is and was is possibe because sentences can be rephrased in a question using is and was both See <S> Who is that guy we ran into in the mall earlier ? <S> Who was that guy we ran into in the mall earlier ? <A> It is a matter of subjects <S> Both sentences have two verbs, but in the first case their subject is different <S> (I met, the woman can), while in the second case the subject is the same (the man phoned, the man didn't give). <S> So, when making the relative clause, you have the following: I (subject) met (verb) <S> a woman (object) who can speak six languages (qualifier of the object) <S> A man (subject) who phoned (qualifier of the subject) didn't give (verb) <S> his name (object) <S> You could also say: A man (subject) who didn't give his name (qualifier of the subject) phoned (intransitive verb, thus no object) <S> Note: " <S> Qualifier" is not a proper grammar word, it's just to have you understand. <A> There is no 'basic position' as such for relative clause, as least in terms of its position in the sentence being governed by some property of the sentence. <S> Assuming we are talking about bound clause (which most are) <S> the principle is nice and simple: the relative clause follows the noun it modifies, for the very good reason that it improves the clarity of meaning. <S> In your first example, the relative clause follows woman because it gives more information about the woman, and in the second it follows man for the same reason. <S> This resulting in one clause being at the end of the sentence, and the other being in mid-sentence, is entirely incidental. <S> You can also use a relative clause to modify a noun phrase, but this can lead to confusion. <S> Consider <S> The man ate the chicken, which annoyed the cat <S> What annoyed the cat? <S> The chicken when it was alive, or the act of it being eaten? <A> Both your sentences are different in the way they are structured using words, phrases, and clauses. <S> Both of your sentences are correct. <S> In English grammar, we have the Eight Parts of Speech that are words, and then we put those into phrases, and finally, we use them in clauses. <S> There is much to say about all this. <S> And your sentences can be explained with these ideas in mind. <S> Now I study about relative clauses. <S> But I have found something wrong. <S> Again, there's nothing wrong. <S> In your first sentence you took to two separate sentences and combined them. <S> This is called sentence combining . <S> You took the second sentence and made it an adjective dependent clause: "...who can speak six languages. <S> " This sentence structure is called a Complex Sentence. <S> Your two original sentences are called Simple Sentence. <S> It is diagrammed like this: I | met | a woman | who can speak six languages <S> Subject | verb | article +direct object | adjective dependent clause that modifies "woman" to say something about the woman. <S> The relative pronoun "who" refers to its antecedent (the word the pronoun refers to), which is "woman" = ".... <S> woman can speak six languages." <S> In the second problem, you took the first sentence and put it into another adjective dependent clause, a short one: who phoned = <S> man phoned. <S> This too is a complex sentence. <S> I'll give you a link to show you the four kinds or types of sentence we mostly use in the English language. <S> Main clause <S> : A man did not give his name <S> Dependent clause: who phoned Main clause + dependent clause = <S> Complex Sentence <S> A | man | who phoned | did give | not | his | name. <S> https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/573/02/ <S> Here is an excellent page to help you understand what a clause is and how it is used. <S> http://www.k12reader.com/term/clause-overview/
| They have to do with clauses; that's what makes them different, the different clauses used.
|
Am I making jokes when I speak "please don't miss me" Last time I expressed the idea "don't pass me" I used the phrase: Please don't miss me. I want to use the meaning of "miss" in this sentence: It would be just his luck to miss the last boat. It seems that I made a big mistake. Still I felt awkward. So what are the possible meanings of "miss" in different situations? <Q> A person is not an event. <S> The default meaning of miss when applied to a person is to have longing for reuniting with , that is, to an emotional response. <S> The sense of miss <S> you mention when describing a boat, is not the boat itself, but the window of time when it was possible to board the boat. <S> When we say we missed the last boat home, we mean that we missed the occasion of the last boat home boarding; when we arrived at the boat launch, the boat was no longer there or admitting passengers <S> so we missed the opportunity to take the boat. <S> In other words, an event, a happening localized in time. <S> It is possible to use this latter sense of miss to refer in the same way to people as to your example boat. <S> E.g. <S> I tried to get here before he left for the day, but I missed him. <S> But note that to invoke this secondary meaning, there has to be some event that is pretty clearly alluded to. <S> The deliberate absence of such allusion is actually a means by which wordplay is conducted on this pair of meaning, e.g.: <S> "I missed you!" <S> "Aw, I didn't know you felt that way about me." <S> "No, I mean, I tried to beat traffic to your office to give you a ride, but by the time I got there, you were gone." <S> One way to disambiguate the terms is to use the idiom miss out on and which must always be followed by the opportunity in question: <S> "I missed out on the the opportunity to go to law school." <S> Are you perhaps trying to tell someone not to miss out on some opportunity to do something with you? <S> In which case you might say something like, <S> "Don't miss out on this opportunity to work with me." <S> That would be well constructed English that will be understood in the way intended, <S> though whether it is effective rhetorically among English speakers is a separate question. <A> If you tell somebody "Don't miss me", you are commanding him or her to stop missing, or desiring, your company. <S> Here are some easy and clear examples: <S> *I overslept and missed the train today. <S> (self explanatory) <S> * <S> The laptop's power cable is missing. <S> *The missing child was found wandering not far from home. <S> *Don't miss your old neighborhood, the people there did not appreciate you. <A> i.e. <S> I missed you when I tossed the ball <S> I missed you while you were away Telling someone not to "miss" <S> you only makes sense if they are throwing/launching/shooting something to/at you, or if you do not want them to feel sad about you being gone. <S> If you didn't mean either of those things, then your comment will be misinterpreted. <S> Depending on the situation, either or both meanings could be embarrassing.
| "Miss" can mean two things here: to fail to hit a target, or an emotional response to loss.
|
Meaning of "you should be all set up to do so." I read the git document here: http://git-scm.com/book/en/Getting-Started What is the meaning of "all set up" in the sentence below: you should be all set up to do so. Does this sentence mean "You should ready to do so"? <Q> The sentence means that after working through the chapter you should have the software installed and the knowledge to let you use it correctly. <S> In this context "all set up" implies you will have everything you need ready to go. <A> Set up or setup <S> I think refers to some form of work that needed to be done beforehand. <S> Once its done, you all set up to do so, whatever "so" might mean. <S> Setup is a commonly used computer term but <S> not all English dictionaries accept it and rather use set up. <S> The meaning of the whole sentence is: <S> "you should make a plan to do so." <S> or: "you should be prepared to do so." <S> Reference: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/159236/to-set-up-for-to-arrange-prepare-or-to-organize-in-colloquial-ame <S> https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/21507/is-the-use-of-all-set-exclusive-to-certain-regions <S> https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/117599/setup-or-set-up <A>
| It simply means, "everything is inclusive in the upcoming chapters or lessons to make you prepare relatively for what you are going to learn ahead".
|
I am better than you or I am better than you are Which one of these two is correct? Is it necessary to write 'you are' instead of only 'you'? <Q> If you write 'you are' then you are emphasizing it and nothing else. <S> So grammatically both are correct. <S> More examples Virat is a better batsman than Suresh. <S> Virat is a way better batsman than Suresh is. <S> I got more brains than you. <S> I got more brains than you do. <A> and you can see the structure better. <S> I am better than you. <S> I dance better than you. <S> I am better than you are . <S> I dance better than you <S> dance . <A> In a sentence with "I" vs. "you," I can see where adding or subtracting the "do" is a matter of style choice. <S> But in the sentence "Nobody knows your life better than you" there is room for ambiguity. <S> Without adding the "do," the meaning might also become "Nobody knows your life better than (they know) you." <S> Adding the "do," it becomes clearer that the meaning is "Nobody knows your life better than you (know your life) do."
| Both are correct, replace the verb 'am' (which is current tense version of the verb 'be' as in 'to be')
|
What is the difference between a secluded beach and a deserted beach? Does the meaning of word “deserted” include a sense of being dangerous? Does “secluded” imply that a place is peaceful and not so dangerous? Can you give me examples from which I would be able to differentiate between the connotations of these two words? I’m specifically interested in the movie Eden Lake (2008). Would you call the lake in that movie a secluded place or a deserted place? Nursery teacher Jenny and her boyfriend Steve, escape for a romantic weekend away. Steve, planning to propose, has found an idyllic setting: a remote lake enclosed by woodlands and seemingly deserted . Source: IMDb, Eden Lake (2008) – Storyline <Q> That's a nice question. <S> The two are pretty similar, in that they describe an unoccupied location, but they are not quite the same. <S> I don't think peace or danger has anything to do with it. <S> For example, when you hear about crime stories, you often hear that the murderer hid the evidence in a secluded location. <S> But from a tourism perspective, where many tourists don't want to be surrounded by other tourists, finding a secluded spot is a positive. <S> When we say that a place is "deserted," we literally mean that the place used to be occupied, but that it no longer is occupied. <S> A synonym for this literal meaning is "abandoned." <S> However, "deserted" can sometimes be used metaphorically to mean that there aren't very many people somewhere. <S> In this case it is a synonym for "unoccupied" and need not be negative. <S> From a tourism perspective, it could be negative or positive, but is usually negative. <S> For example, "we were excited to go to the state fair, but when we got there, it was deserted"-- <S> this suggests there was nobody there <S> and it was no fun. <S> A tourist agency may emphasize that a beach is secluded to tell you that it will be a nice place to go. <S> In this case, "secluded" will be used more often than deserted, because deserted implies that people are leaving the beach for some reason, and the tourist agency might not want you to ask why! <S> But again "deserted" doesn't have to be negative here, and I can see a tourist agency using either to describe a beach. <A> A deserted beach is one with no people on it now. <S> The beach might have had people earlier in the day, but who have gone. <S> They might return again tomorrow. <S> They might not. <S> We cannot say why it is deserted. <S> The word alone does not give us any clue. <S> "Abandoned" (in the sense left for good, forever) is too strong a word. <S> There are no undertones of "danger" (unless supplied by other adjacent phrases). <S> A secluded beach, as the other answers have said, means "somewhat hidden, not easy to reach, sheltered, not readily accessible from the road", and thus one that is never (over)crowded with people.... <S> unless your idea of (over)crowded is "anyone else". <A> This is an old question, but I don't think anyone truly answered it. <S> People gave good definitions but the real question was about the usage in the Eden Lake storyline. <S> "Secluded" definitely has a positive tone. <S> It means that you rarely run into people somewhere. <S> It indicates that the speaker likes the privacy. <S> "Deserted" means that no one is there now <S> (usually it means everyone left). <S> It can have a neutral or negative tone. <S> The key is that the author writes "seemingly deserted". <S> The author is saying that appearances were wrong. <S> The word "seemingly" is effectively reversing the meaning of the word after it. <S> the opposite of secluded would be "no privacy because lots of people constantly go there". <S> Steve planned a romantic trip. <S> The lake is usually deserted. <S> Steve would have called the lake secluded because he desired romantic privacy. <S> Then Steve and Jenny went to the lake. <S> At this point the author tells us the lake was "seemingly deserted", and tells us the lake was not actually deserted on that day. <S> The gang was there. <S> It would make no sense if the author said "seemingly secluded" because there is no doubt that it was secluded. <S> The lake is always secluded, even after Steve met the gang. <S> There was still little chance that anyone else would go there. <S> The gang still valued the secluded privacy, they could attack Steve&Jenny without interference. <S> (Although at this point it would be weird for Steve or Jenny to use the word secluded, you only use the word when you view the privacy as desirable.) <A> Secluded means (of a place) not seen or visited by many people; sheltered and private. <S> It also means keep (someone) away from other people. <S> Synonyms: sheltered, private, concealed, hidden, unfrequented , sequestered, tucked away However <S> Deserted means abandon (a person, cause, or organization) in a way considered disloyal or treacherous (of a number of people) <S> leave (a place), causing it to appear empty. <S> Synonyms: <S> empty, uninhabited , unoccupied, unpeopled, abandoned <S> So a secluded beach is a uncommon place, but a deserted beach is intentionally left due to some reasons. <S> So this makes clear the thing clear.
| When we say a place is "secluded," we mean that that place is not often occupied because it is "out of the way," or hard to get to, or sometimes just not well-known. The opposite of deserted is "there's at least one person there now",
|
Literal meaning of splitting hairs To split hairs is a known idiom that means to argue about petty things. I looked into the etymology of the idiom but could not get to grips with the literal meaning. The comments assume the reader knows the literal meaning. So does split hairs mean: Arrange hair to make visible lines on the head? Cut individual hairs? Split one hair into two pieces either horizontally or vertically! Edit: split hairs to argue about very small differences or unimportant details It's splitting hairs to tell people that they cannot lie but it is all right if they exaggerate. Split hairs : Make small and overfine distinctions: - one of those medieval disputes which split hairs endlessly - Yes, I do see the distinction and am perhaps splitting hairs over the delivery of the message. - One sentence in the manual required that lawyers participating in the recount should ‘have the courage to voice disagreement and must split hairs trying to find faults.’ - I'm perhaps splitting hairs, here, but there has got to be a difference between drawing influence from various sources and plagiarizing. <Q> The image which the expression invokes is that of splitting a single hair along its length. <S> If actually carried out, that would be a very tedious task, if not downright impossible, and would serve no obvious purpose. <S> The expression thus characterises someone's very fine logical distinctions as a pointless waste of time. <A> If you literally split hairs, you split them from end to end. <S> As a hair is already fine, it is difficult to split one, and the two halves of a split hair are very fine indeed. <S> This is why the metaphorical splitting of hairs refers to spending time on making very fine, and possibly unnecessary, differences. <A> 18th century examples combine it with other idioms all of which relate to the idea of impossibly fine work: ...making Chains for Fleas, Nets for Flies, and Instruments to unravel Cobwebs, and split Hairs. <S> See page 78 here: <S> https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=qwsUAAAAQAAJ&rdid=book-qwsUAAAAQAAJ&rdot=1 <A> My guess is that expression is derived from a hairline distinction ; as we are dividing a very fine line. <S> https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hairline+distinction <S> The expression is not meant to be taken literally but, as others have said, the implication must be that of splitting hairs lengthwise. <A> I see the saying as being more accurate in the form of 'filleting hair'. <S> When someone takes an argument, isolates one hair sized piece of it, fillets a sliver from it, and argues against it instead of anything important to the overall body of the argument, they are splitting hairs.
| I believe the idiom is based on the idea that the strand of hair is so fine that it would be difficult to create a blade with an edge sharp and fine enough to divide it lengthwise, as others have noted.
|
Do commas go after a word or before the next word? If I write 2-3 examples: maggi, soup, bread or maggi ,soup, bread. Should commas be placed after the word or before the next word? <Q> Comma comes right after the word. <S> A space follows the comma and then the next word begins. <S> So, it's maggi, soup, bread . <S> For further reading, this Oxford Dictionaries article on the usage of comma would be helpful. <A> The proper order is: word-comma-space <S> So the list you used as an example would be: maggi, soup, bread <S> If you need to add a conjunction to the list, you have two options. <S> The first option is to include a comma after every word in the list: <S> I need to buy maggi, soup, and bread. <S> Note that the spacing is still word-comma-space. <S> The second option is to leave off the comma before the conjunction: I need to buy maggi, soup and bread. <S> Either is correct. <A> This is called the 'Oxford comma' Note the difference between <S> I need to buy maggi, soup and bread Things you will buy: maggi soup and bread <S> But is soup and bread two things, or just one nasty mush in a tin? <S> Or with an Oxford comma <S> : I need to buy maggi, soup, and bread Things <S> you will buy maggi <S> soup <S> bread <S> In some sentences you don't need to us this, eg <S> The boys at the party were <S> Tom, Harry and Pete Harry and Pete are clearly two different people, so the comma is unnecessary, Using the above, however, consider the difference between the following <S> At the party were the two strippers, Harry and Pete <S> And At the party were the two strippers, Harry, and Pete. <S> The second sentence is clearly 4 people: Harry, Pete and two strippers <S> The first sentence could be 4 people, or could just be two: Harry and Pete, who are strippers. <S> The Oxford comma should be used to avoid potential confusion
| A comma is placed immediately after each word in a list.
|
Is "Did you not tell me..." proper English? Is "Did you not tell me..." proper English, as opposed to "Didn't you tell me?" <Q> Did you not tell me/Didn't you tell me? <S> The first negative question, which is uncontracted type, is usually used in formal English. <S> On the other hand, the second negative question, which is contracted type, is very much common in both spoken and written English. <S> They are almost similar in meaning, <A> Consider the following: <S> Did you not tell me to eat the apple? <S> Didn't you tell me to eat the apple? <S> Did not you tell me to eat the apple? <S> The first two sentences are proper and equivalent. <S> The third form is not a currently used colloquial interrogative form. <S> As a declarative sentence: I did not tell you to eat the apple. <S> The phrase "did not" can be used and is colloquial. <A> In both questions you are placing the auxiliary verb did ( <S> which puts the sentence in the past tense) <S> BEFORE the actual subject/noun, <S> Did you not = <S> Ok. <S> Didn't you = <S> Perhaps <S> "Didn't you?" would be more appropriate in Tag Questions, e.g., "You did tell me to do that, didn't you?" <S> or "You haven't done it, have you?". <A> 'Did you not tell me?' <S> is rather formal, but I would not say that that makes it 'proper' English. ' <S> Didn't you tell me?' <S> is fine in everyday speech and less formal writing.
| The contraction between Did + Not still doesn'tchange the Verb-before-Subject/Noun rule, so it should beacceptable, although the previous sentence is definitely more formal. Grammatically, both of the sentences are correct.
|
What is the difference between “home” and “house”? Can you explain more? I do not know when we can use them in the sentence. Can we use them instead of each other? They have a beautiful home. They have a beautiful house. <Q> A home is a metaphysical concept of where you live. <S> My home is in an apartment building, on the second floor. <S> I can welcome people into my home. <S> A house is generally used to mean a single-family dwelling, or at least a building used exclusively for a small number of people, perhaps to include a duplex house. <S> In your case, "They have a beautiful home," probably more implies that they decorate well and keep it up nicely. <S> A "beautiful house" would probably mean the building itself is fancy, without saying anything about the decorations or people or their taste. <A> Your house is the physical structure made of stone/wood/brick in which you live <S> Your home is the place where you belong . <S> It can be a house, an apartment, or even a society. <S> It is more personal than a house <S> They have a beautiful house <S> could mean that the house looks nice, perhaps because it's expensive or is well decorated <S> They have a beautiful home <S> could mean that it feels nice at their place, maybe because the people living there are a nice family or it's a peaceful neighborhood <A> The term home typically refers to a more intimate description of a dwelling. <S> A quote about this is "It takes hands to build a house, but only hearts can build a home" <S> (I cannot find an author for that quote). <S> In your example question, either use is acceptable in my opinion. <A> From Google Search: house noun A building for human habitation, especially one that is lived in by a family or small group of people. <S> home <S> noun <S> The place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household. <S> A house is a singluar building - it can hold many or one (Or none if unowned or unoccupied) people. <S> A home can be a house, but it can also refer to any place that a person lives in a permanent manner (An apartment/flat, a duplex, a trailer, or even more abstractly a "home" city or a "home" country). <S> Relationally, a house can be a home, but a home is not always a house. <A> Home is just anything which you can consider to be your place: for example, a tree, an iceberg, etc., whereas a house is a physical structure which is built by us: a treehouse, an igloo, etc. <A> Home:Generally used as a term to describe a HOUSE with a family or people living in it: <S> The family sits around the fire in their home. <S> It also generally describes the contents for example in this sentence <S> a home would not be cozy without its contents or people, yet we would still say : The home was very cozy. <S> House:Generally used to describe the building itself: <S> The house was up for sale on the market. <S> Thanks, hope this helps!
| Home is some place special to you; a house is what the neighbors live in.
|
Definite article meaning some of a group There is a rule that when we use the definite article with plural, we imply all the things of that group. I am confused if it can also mean a subgroup of a group. There are 2 examples: 1) "I love the goods in this shop" - can it mean that I love some of the particular goods among all of them. 2) "I love the books in this library" - the same here, can it mean that I talk about some particular books in the library, not all of them? Or I should have shown it explicitly by mentioning those books with no article in a sentence before this one (like I describe in 3), otherwise it is understood as if I talk about all the books there? 3) As I understand, if I told something like: " In this shop nice tools (mentioning for the first time) are being sold. The tools (2nd mention) are really nice" , than it would imply those particular tools but not all of them, correct? I hope I made my question clear :)Thanks. <Q> Grammar rules do not get to define or force the "meaning" you wish to convey. <S> Otherwise, most poetry would be quite confusing. <S> Meaning is still derived by the context. <S> Maybe you are being sarcastic---you say "love the goods" but <S> you really mean "I hate the goods." <S> In your sentence, if you add "all", then we rightly assume your intended meaning is all the goods in the shop. <S> If you use "some", then you are emphasizing there are some goods you do not like. <S> You could probably name some items if asked for a list. <S> Without any further determiners in your sentence, a likely meaning is "most, maybe all." <S> As well, someone might reasonably ask, "do you like those items on that top shelf?" <S> And you can reasonably answer, " <S> No, I guess I don't like those items", or " <S> Yes, I even like those items." <S> http://www.grammaring.com/determiners-with-countable-and-uncountable-nouns-some-any-no-many-much-few-little-etc <A> "I love the goods in this shop." <S> - This strongly suggests that you love all of them. <S> "I love the books in this library." <S> - This strongly suggests that you love all of them. <S> "I love some of the particular goods among all of them." <S> - I regret to say that this means nothing at all to me. <A> Of course in practice I would doubt that you literally love every single item there. <S> If I pointed to one particularly ugly or useless item and said, "What about this one? <S> Do you love this one? <S> " and you said, "Well, no, not that one", it would be pedantic to call you a liar for implying you loved them all. <S> If your intent is to say that you love specific ones, you should say which ones. <S> Like, "I love the stuffed teddy bears in this shop." <S> (Even then you probably don't mean every single one.) <S> If you wanted to say that you loved many or most without specifying which ones -- perhaps there is no easy classification, or you just don't want to go into detail at this point <S> -- you'd have to reword the sentence. <S> Like, "There are many fine goods in this shop" or "I've found many goods in this shop that I love."
| Taken literally, just going by the grammar, "I love the goods in this shop" means that you love all of them.
|
Different solutions of citing preference between activities I am sure that all the following sentences mean the same and can be used interchangeably: a) - I prefer having a dog to a cat. b) - I'd prefer having a dog to a cat. c) - I prefer to have a dog rather than a cat. d) - I'd prefer to have a dog rather than a cat. e) - I’d rather have a dog than a cat. If you agree with me, then I would really appreciate it if somebody could tell me why #1 and #4 among the examples bellow that have used exactly the same structure, have awkward implications: 1 - I prefer being at home right now to here. ===> (Why does this sentence sound too awkward to the Americans?) 2 - I prefer to be at home right now rather than here. 3 - I’d prefer to be at home right now rather than here. 4 - I’d rather be at home right now than here. ===> (Why does this sentence sound too awkward to an American?) Added: Perhaps I should think twice about what @FumbleFingers had said in the link bellow: A comparison between the structures "would rather" and "would prefer" Comment #3 (specially about the structure " 'd rather "!) <Q> The first 5 sentences are not actually interchangeable. <S> A and C indicate that you do have a dog (and prefer that to having a cat), while the others simple say you would rather have a dog than a cat. <S> 1 - I prefer being at home right now to here. <S> This is awkward because: 1: <S> But "to here" indicates that you are here -- and that "here" is not "at home. <S> " You're essentially trying to be in two places at once, verbally. <S> 2 - I prefer to be at home right now rather than here. <S> Same problem. <S> "I prefer to be at home right now" verbally places you at home, while "than here" verbally places you "here" which isn't "at home. <S> " <S> Again, you are in two places at once, in this sentence. <S> 3 - I’d prefer to be at home right now rather than here. <S> This sentence is fine. <S> 4 - I’d rather be at home right now than here. <S> This sentence could work, but it's awkward. <S> (Using a comma to make it "I'd rather be at home right now, than here" makes it slightly better.) <S> It's because English doesn't like breaking up certain words, and "rather than" are words that usually want to stick together. <S> Really, the "than here" is redundant; you could end the sentence at "right now" and be fine. <A> Sentence #1 sounds slightly awkward to me, because on a first reading it sounds like "here" is compared to the whole phrase "being at home right now", instead of to "at home". <S> It could sound less awkward as: <S> I prefer being at home right now to being here. <S> or: I prefer my home to here. <S> so that it's easier to compare the two things being preferred. <S> Sentence <S> #4 is how I would say or write it. <S> Maybe you're confusing this with another type of sentence that Americans might find a little awkward: <S> I'd rather a cat than a dog. <S> As long as there's a verb after that initial "rather", like in your sentence #4, it doesn't sound awkward at all. <A> I would say that all four are incorrect for the reason that they do not maintain parallel structure . <S> Which is required when you have items in a series. <S> Try taking the sentence apart and using each one to directly finish the beginning statement to determine if it has parallel structure. <S> I prefer being at home right now. <S> --that's ok <S> I prefer being at here here right now. <S> --not <S> ok <S> Here is a word for a relative direction rather than a specific location. <S> You cannot be at a direction. <S> So both "I'm at here" and "I'm at there" are wrong. <S> In our example, we can certainly be at home, but we cannot be at here. <S> Because of this the two words should not not be used together in the predicate as a series. <S> If you do use them together, you must restate the beginning phrase with correct structure for each word. <S> "I prefer being at home right now to being here" <S> This works because now the beginning phrase is "I prefer being", and "at home" as well as "here" can complete the sentence. <S> That being said, in writing or speaking professionally with someone I would change the sentence to: I prefer being at home right now over being here in this place. <S> With that sentence there are two actions and we've removed any need for readers/listener to compare the items, which avoids any awkwardness caused by the two dissimilar words.
| "I prefer being at home right now" indicates that you are at home right now, and prefer it to being elsewhere.
|
Where ARE/DO you come from? Which one is correct: Where are you come from? or Where do you come from? As we know, the first question is grammatically incorrect, but my supervisor in Egypt insists that it's right! Could you please give me the right answer and explain why it's the right answer? <Q> The interrogative form of verbs in the present simple is formed with DO, not BE. " <S> Where do you come from? <S> " is therefore correct; "Where are you come from?" is not correct. <S> When BE is functioning as a main verb, DO is not used as an auxiliary for the interrogative: "Where are you from?" <S> When BE (or any other verb) is functioning as an auxiliary, the interrogative is formed by subject-verb inversion: "Where are you coming from?" <A> "Where do you come from? <S> " not "Where are you come from?" <S> You can say "Where are you?", that’s ok, but the word "come" takes "do". <A> Two possibilities: Where are you from? <S> Verb: to be + preposition + place <S> Where do you come from? <S> I come from Argentina. <S> Verb: come + preposition <S> Verb: <S> to come Interrogative: do you come, does he come <S> "are you come" is not a grammatical form in English.
| I am from Argentina .
|
Condescension is much appreciated [meaning] We have following dialog from the movie Inception (2010): Arthur: Eames, I am impressed. Eames: Your condescension, as always, is much appreciated, Arthur, thank you. I can't get the point of what Eames said. Of course, I was trying to find condescension and appreciated in a dictionary. So, there is the only one possible meaning for condescension . Now, I assume that appreciated means to recognize how good someone or something is and to value him, her, or it . But when I tried to couple these meanings I've found it perfectly nonsensical. Did Eames recognize that Arthur is good? ... Or what? What's that got to do with Artur telling Eames that he's impressed? <Q> You have two somewhat conflicting answers already: Wichita Steve, understanding condescension in its original sense, says that Eames acknowledges Arthur's "courtesy" in praising an inferior. <S> user3169, echoed by Toby Yuretich, understands condescension in its usual modern sense and says that Eames pointedly rebukes Arthur's "patronizing behavior". <S> I think both of these readings are true and pertinent. <S> Arthur and Eames have in fact the sort of friendly rivalry in which each regards himself as the other's superior in some respects but values the other's superiority in other respects. <S> This relationship is sustained by adopting a teasing tone toward each other, in which genuine regard is disguised as apparent mockery. <S> So Eames' response actually operates on two levels. <S> On the overt level, Eames' use of condescension subverts his appreciation and transforms it into irony: he dismisses Arthur's compliment as patronizing. <S> But on the covert level, both Arthur's "condescension" and Eames' rejection are part of the 'game' they play; in fact, both Arthur's compliment and Eames' appreciation are genuine. <A> It's hard to be completely sure without more context, but I strongly suspect that Eames' answer is intended as sarcasm. <S> That means that meaning of the sentence as a whole is the exact opposite of the literal meaning of the words used - in this case, it would be something like "That comment was condescending, and I don't appreciate it. <S> " <S> 'Condescension' carries fairly strong negative overtones - not just <S> 'I think I'm better than you', but 'I think I'm better than you because you're <S> stupid/incompetent/etc '. <S> If Eames really did appreciate Arthur's behaviour, I would expect him to choose a different word to describe it; in this case, possibly 'Your praise is much appreciated.' <S> The use of that negative term, and the addition of the unnecessary phrases 'as always' and 'thank you' to the sentence, all point to the intended meaning being something more complex than just a straightforward 'I appreciate that'-type comment. <S> In addition, this general construction is a common response to percieved insults in English - especially to insults with a condescending tone. <S> Sarcasm (and double-meanings in general) are often considered to be more sophisticated use of language than a straightforward say-what-you-mean response. <S> Making a sarcastic response to a percieved insult is therefore both to show that the insult was recognised (and not appreciated) and also a signal that the speaker can use advanced language skills (and therefore an attempt to raise their own status in response to the condescension). <A> Your condescension , as always, is much appreciated , Arthur, thank you. <S> appreciate <S> means to recognize or be thankful for . <S> condescension means a patronizing behavior. <S> Regarding patronize , see patronize sense 2, "to be kind or helpful to, but in a haughty or snobbish way, as if dealing with an inferior". <S> So you could rewrite your example: <S> Your patronizing behavior , as always, is really recognized/understood , Arthur, thank you. <A> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/condescension voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in intercourse with an inferior; courtesy toward inferiors. <S> Arthur considers himself the superior to Eames. <S> For Arthur to say to Eames that he is impressed is a great compliment. <S> Eames acknowledges the courtesy and he also expresses that he realizes Arthur does not normally give such compliments to the lower rank such as himself. <S> There may also be some sarcasm to Eames statement.
| Eames can also be implying that he isn't so inferior as Arthur might think.
|
Isn't there no difference between yeah, yes and yah “Are you coming with us?” “ Yeah , I'm coming.” ( Merriam-Webster's Learner's ) In my tongue, for saying ‘ yes ( Korean yes ),’ I could say ‘ye [j e̞] ’ or ‘ne [ne].’ Korean dictionaries say there’s no difference, not even some subtle nuance difference at all between the two - there’s my favourite but it would be just mine on the dictionaries. However if someone would say ‘yeah [jɛə]’ for Korean yes, it would be heard as a kind of contorted sound by gangsters or whatever. So whenever some of those who learned English from private English teaching classes make the sound for English yes, I flinch, even get sick: I don’t know if the native teachers really make the same sound. If the sound were ‘yah [yɑ:],’ - in fact, some Korean local accent uses [ya] for Korean yes, but if the users are not the accent users (we don't differentiate /yɑ/ from /ya/) - it would, I’m sorry, piss the hearers off. Do you use ‘ yeah ’ and ‘ yes ’ with no nuance difference at all? Can you tell me about these three: yeah , yes , yah ? (If any, I also want to hear about them other than aforementioned.) <Q> 'Yes' can be considered the baseline - I can't think of any context in which using it would be inappropriate. <S> (It might come across as slightly over-formal on some occasions, but more likely no-one would pay attention to it) <S> In casual conversation you are more likely to hear 'yeah' than 'yes' unless the speakers are making a deliberate effort to be precise with their speech (the reason that 'yes' can potentially sound overly-formal). <S> On the other hand, a written 'yeah' will generally only be used when writing dialogue. <S> 'Yah' would be 'yeah' <S> spoken in a different accent. <S> I would personally associate it either with a non-native speaker (the German accent in particular), or with native speakers who are uneducated/unsophisticated. <A> "Yes" is proper and correct, while "yeah" is slang. <S> When "yah" is spoken it is typically heard as an accented version of "yes." <S> Typically one will say "yes" to be concise, or to convey respect or formality, and acknowledge that the question is itself important. <S> "Yeah" is informal, and is an acceptable response when the speaker and listener are friends or peers, or the question asked does not require a precise answer. <A> Yes is a formal word. <S> Yeah and Yah are informal. <S> As an aside " <S> Yeah, yeah" said sarcastically, can mean "no".
| 'Yeah' is an informal equivalent to 'yes'. Any official/formal speech will most likely use 'yes', as will almost all written usage.
|
Why not 'heading' in "Where are you headed?" Why do people say: Where are you headed ? To me, it should be: Where are you heading ? because you usually say "We are heading out" or "I was heading north". The initial sentence looks to me like passive voice. <Q> The verb HEAD can be used transitively or intransitively. <S> In nautical terms, you can head ((transitive) = steer its head/bow) <S> a ship/ towards something; it has then been headed, and is headed, in that direction. <S> The ship heads ((intransitive) = moves with its head <S> /bow in a certain direction) towards something. <S> The people on the ship can say that they are headed (transitive, passive) or are heading (intransitive, active) towards something. <S> Both usages have come ashore, and people can speak of themselves heading or being headed towards something. <A> 'Where are you headed?' <S> The answer to this question demands the destination. <S> So the answer to this question could be 'I am headed to school'. <S> (It's another way of saying 'I am going to school'.) <S> If we make this in past tense then - I was headed to school. <S> (Again it means 'I was going to school'.) <S> So let's see what we can do about your doubt whether we can use this verb 'head' with 'ing' to it or not. <S> First of all - the formation of your question 'Where are you heading?' <S> sounds a bit unnatural to me and never heard of it before. <S> I am headed to school. <S> (means I am going to school) <S> But when I say I am heading towards school. <S> (It means I am going in the direction where the school is situated. <S> So that doesn't necessarily mean I am going to school.) <S> Let's refer to your another example of yours which is 'I am heading north'. <S> So in this example 'north' is not a destination <S> but it's just the direction. <S> So you can't say 'I am headed to north' or 'I am heading to north'. <S> If we make this second sentence into a question then it would be - <S> Which way you are heading? <S> If we want to ask for a ride then we would definitely want to know which way the person is going and not exactly where he is going. <S> So the above question is valid for this situation. <S> 'heading' is used in many figurative sentences. <S> For example Man is heading towards his own destruction. <S> China is heading towards becoming the most powerful nation on the Earth. <S> So in the above examples 'heading' just explains the direction and not the destination. <S> And also 'headed to' is not possible to use in these examples. <S> (I've tried my best to understand the difference myself and have come up with this explanation. <S> However I am not 100% sure if this explanation fits. <S> Others' opinion on this might be important and informative.) <A> I am a British native speaker. <S> I have seen the formulation with "being headed" in many American novels, but in British English, we always say "heading". <S> While oxforddictionaries.com simply lists them as synonymous and doesn't mention any regional variation, I am confident that I have never once in my life heard a British speaker say "headed" in this context. <S> I disagree with the poster who says that they differ in meaning (as does oxforddictionaries.com). <A> I am English, and every time I hear "headed" used this way, it wrangles. <S> The British tend to use this in past tense only. <S> To assign a final destination value to your course is open to interpretation. <S> At what point of your journey do you finally stop. <S> Unless it is to your home or the grave. <S> If you'r going to collect kids from school, then you may be going back home after. <S> So if some one asks you, just as your leaving your house, "Where you headed ?". <S> Then the definitive use of, & answer, "I'm headed HOME", will confuse. <S> So in generalised use, it is always better to keep your answer casual and open ended and use "heading".
| Because when we are using 'heading' in a question it suggests which way you are going rather where you are going.
|
Is "We decided to repeat the monologues in turn one after another" right? I was practicing English with a friend. The conversation we were working on was the monologues of a person on one end of the phone, we could not hear the voice of the other speaker. Therefore We decided to repeat the monologues in turn one after another .Is this sentence right? I mean to say the speaker in the audio said a sentence, we paused and one of us repeated. Then we resumed the track, the speaker said a sentence and this time the other of us repeated. How should I put this in a sentence? <Q> It looks okay to me. <S> However you can use the word 'both' in your sentence to make it more clear. <S> Also by using comma at the end of your sentence. <S> Therefore we both decided to repeat the monologues in turn , (one after another.) <S> Or Therefore both of us decided to repeat the monologues in turn, (one after another.) <S> You will not need 'one after another' if you use 'both' because that would be pretty clear from 'in turn'. <A> "We chose to take turns, repeating one sentence [of the monologue] each." <S> This clarifies that the two of you alternated while repeating sentences from the monologue. <A> How should I put this sentence? <S> It also depends on whether you want a higher or better style, or whether your goal is to use language that is close to your original <S> and you only want to make sure it is understandable. <S> Finally, it also depends on whether or not you want to change some of the other sentences. <S> For example, do you want to make it easy for your reader or listener to understand the whole situation? <S> I guess that the recording was made to help people learn or improve English. <S> Is that correct? <S> I also guess that you are talking about an exercise in which learners are supposed to give the missing responses (the missing side of the conversation), but your friend and you decided to use a different way to practice <S> : You listened to each sentence, paused the recording and then one of you would repeat what you heard. <S> Then you resumed the recording to play the next sentence, paused it again, then the other of you repeated that one. <S> And you continued taking turns in this way. <S> If this is all correct, then maybe one answer is something like:
| We decided that one of us would repeat one sentence, the other of us the next, and so on. It depends on how clear, precise, and complete you want to be.
|
The sense of movement in ( back out ) I have checked the learner's dictionaries of Cambridge, Longman and Macmillan but never found the sense of movement in the definition of the phrasal verb " back out ". I was pretty sure that I heard it used that way in some TV series or anime but I cannot remember. However, not until I checked The Dictionary website did I realize I was right about it. back out - Move or retreat backwards without turning; same as back away , def. 1. I would like to know whether: it is the same as the verb back up as in " I need everyone toback up about 10 paces " this sense is out dated or not , and what kinds of situations I coulduse it if I wanted to. Two usage examples are good, one will do justfine. <Q> It can be used to mean either 'reversing a vehicle' - eg reversing out of a driveway. <S> Similar to back up but with the extra detail of being 'in' something (a garage, street, parking space etc) <S> But more commonly it refers to reverting a decision, pulling out of a market or offer, contract etc. <S> eg <S> After years of losses, SuperCorp supermarket chain decided to back out of their contract with LocalMilk farms <A> There's nothing remotely "dated" about either back up or back out . <S> The difference in usage is mainly that you can back up without reference to anything else (it essentially just means move backwards ). <S> But back out requires either an explicitly-stated or contextually implied "place" that you were in (and can thus move out of). <S> There's also back away , which falls somewhere between the above. <S> There has to be an implicit or explicit thing/place <S> you're moving away from . <S> Here's an example that might clarify the exact difference. <S> 1 <S> : <S> ( Drill sergeant standing in front of soldiers on the parade ground, who are facing the sergeant ) <S> a: ? <S> " <S> Platoon! <S> Back out!" <S> (not credible; the men aren't in anything, so they can't follow the order) <S> b: "Platoon! <S> Back up!" <S> (the men move back one or more steps, away from the sergeant) <S> c: "Platoon! <S> Back away!" <S> (again, the men move back one or more steps, away from the sergeant) 2: <S> ( Drill sergeant standing behind the soldiers, who are facing away from him ) <S> a: ? <S> " <S> Platoon! <S> Back out!" <S> (again, not credible) <S> b: "Platoon! <S> Back up!" <S> (the men move back one or more steps, towards from the sergeant) <S> c: "Platoon! <S> Back away!" <S> (the men move forward one or more steps, away from the sergeant) <S> Note that I'm assuming there's nothing else on the parade ground that could serve as a "reference point". <S> The reason for the difference between 1c and 2c is that back away requires a reference point (that you can move away from), so if there's nothing else around, that can only be the sergeant. <S> But back up doesn't need an "external" reference point ( wherever you are right now will do fine if there's nothing else around). <A> You are correct that the motion itself is the same when you are backing up, backing away, or backing out; you remain facing some reference point while you move away from it. <S> The prepositional uses, however, are quite different: <S> when you back up , you don't need any preposition, but you may give a distance (as in your example, "about 10 paces"). <S> when you back away , you generally use from to indicate the reference point that you remain facing while you move away from it: <S> "he backed away from the door" when you back out , you generally use of to indicate the confined space that you are leaving; the reference point is inferred from context: "I backed my car out of the garage", "I kept my eyes and my gun on the evil mastermind as I slowly backed out of the room." <S> It may be worth noting that you can also back into something (often while you are backing out of something else!) <S> : <S> "While I was backing out of the parking spot, I backed into a stop sign."
| When used for literal movement, back out is more specific than back up or back away because it involves movement out of some confined space (such as a room or garage).
|
Do "nested" and "embedded" mean the same? When we have a loop and a second loop inside it, how do you refer tothe outer loop and the inner loop? Which one would you call the "embedded" loop, and which one the"nested" loop? Which one would you call the "embedding" loop, and which one the"nesting" loop? Is it correct to say that the outer loop nests the inner loop, andthe inner loop is embedded in the outer loop? Another example from a book in database A nested query is a query that has another query embedded within it. The embedded query can be a nested query itself; thus queries that have very deeply nested structures are possible. I guess the author means the outer query by the "nested" query, andthe inner query the "embedded" query. However, I feel both the"nested" query and the "embedded" query should refer to the innerquery wrt the outer query. why not call the outer query the "nesting" query, and the inner query both the "nested" query and the "embedded" query? Thanks. <Q> The main difference is that nested is much more likely to be used when one <S> X is contained within another, "higher-level" <S> X . <S> Whereas an embedded X simply means an X which is within something - <S> not necessarily another X <S> (and in fact probably not, since if it was, we'd probably have used nested ). <S> Thus in programming contexts we often refer to nested loops/queries (within higher-level loops/queries). <S> But a gif graphic image within an email (as opposed to an email attachment) is an embedded image. <S> I'm sure you'd be understood if you referred to the nesting loop/query, but outer is the standard term (or sometimes, containing ). <A> why not call the outer query the "nesting" query, and the inner query both the "nested" query and the "embedded" query? <S> The reason why the outer loop ( mutatis mutandis , outer query) is not called a nesting loop is that the verb nest is intransitive. <S> It does not mean "to enclose in a nest" but "to be in a nest". <S> The reason why the container is not called the embedding object is because "embed" is a transitive verb that means "to put something in something else". <S> The container does not put the object inside itself. <S> Rather, some other thing puts the object in the container. <A> Using the "ed" is the correct adjective form instead of <S> "nesting". <S> An example would be"Please use the nested function <S> getIt <S> ()" rather than saying "Use the nesting function getIt()". <S> Another example would be"You will probably need to write a nested loop here to implement that algorithm. <S> "Otherwise <S> it sounds a bit odd, like a bird "nesting" on a tree branch. <S> There is also the connotation that the function is "complete", so, the function is "already" nested, not just sitting there "nesting". <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesting_%28computing%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_function
| As a AmE programmer, I use the words "nested" and "embedded" as you describe in #2:"Nested functions contain embedded loops."
|
A steel glass Vs. A glass glass! In India, it is quite common to serve water in a glass made of steel. Here it is... But then, we also have a glass made of glass(!) to serve it better. Here it is... My colleague asked that if 'Give me a glass of water' is a common expression without any ambiguity, how do we ask someone (In India) if we want water in a glass' glass! I discussed this with my daughter and she came up with something thought-provoking. She said, we can say... Give me water in a crystal glass She argued that in India, when it comes to 'glass crockery', it's not just referred to as 'glass' but 'crystal glass'. Surprisingly, in Google Search, 'crystal glass' comes up with exactly what she said. But I need to confirm with you all. Before you answer, it's important for me to clarify that Indians don't call these as 'tumblers'. For us, they all are 'glass'. I'm tagging this question with 'Indian English'. <Q> Hmm. <S> In America, if you refer to water in a "glass" people will normally understand you to mean a container made of glass. <S> Drinking containers made of other materials are typically called "cups", or if they are tall, "tumblers". <S> Of course if you are at a friend's house and you ask for a "glass of water", he may give you the water in a plastic tumbler. <S> But I don't think that that's really because he thinks of the plastic tumbler as a "glass", but just because he thinks this is an acceptable substitution. <S> Like if you said, "Do you have another chair?", he might bring a stool or a bench if that's all he has. <S> When someone wants to make clear that they mean a real-live glass and not a metal or ceramic or plastic or whatever drinking vessel, it's not uncommon in America to say "a glass glass" or "a real glass". <S> Of course you specified "India", so this answer may be entirely irrelevant. :-( <A> He or she never understands it in a different manner, since the person asked for water, not for a glass, and obviously one has to give water in a vessel. <A> When we say a glass, it usually means a glass made of glass. <S> We don't need to say a glass glass. <S> However, if you want to distinguish it from the glasses made of any other material like plastic or steel, you can call it a plastic glass or a steel glass. <S> You can ask your friend, relative or someone close to you to give you water in a crystal glass if he is better off to have such crockery in his home. <S> But I think it'll be impolite of you if you ask someone, who is not close to you or he is too poor to afford crystal things,to give you water in a crystal glass because crystal isn't ordinary glass; it's very fine quality glass and, of course, is expensive. <S> Nevertheless, we can say he gave me water or bear in a crystal glass. <A> Sise or kanch (काच के ) glass is best way to say
| Here in India it is generally meant that if we ask someone for "a glass of water" the person for sure gets us water in a glass.
|
Could you explain phrase "vaguely annoying in an over-enthusiatic motivational speaker kind of way" Context is ( source ): Okay, that’s vaguely annoying in an over-enthusiatic motivational speaker kind of way, but I’ll permit it – because what this turns into is genuinely so joyful. Could you explain to me, what phrase ...vaguely annoying in an over-enthusiatic motivational speaker kind of way... mean? Update. It seems I don't understand what vaguely annoying means... <Q> Imagine a fly buzzing in your ear. <S> It is annoying. <S> Now imagine you are sitting in your room trying to read, and something is bothering you. <S> After some time, you notice your neighbor's stereo is on, and you realize the bass vibrations were bothering you. <S> It was vaguely annoying, but you couldn't pinpoint it. <S> Now imagine a speaker who is telling you all about how to fix your life. <S> Some of what they say makes sense. <S> Some of what they say is good advice. <S> Some of what they say is helpful. <S> But for some reason, you find them annoying, and you aren't quite certain why. <S> They are vaguely annoying. <A> "In a [x] kind of way": In a similar manner to [x]. <S> "Over-enthusiastic": enthusiastic to the point that it becomes annoying. <S> "Motivational speaker": someone who gives lectures about how to motivate yourself. <S> So they are comparing the the way the dancer talks to that of an over-enthusiastic motivational speaker. <A> "Vaguely annoying" would be understood to mean "annoying, but you cannot say exactly what qualities of the thing are irritating you". <S> Something about it rubs you the wrong way. <S> See 2b here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaguely <A> The sentence in concern has too many adjectives and that might have confused you. <S> Starting dancing this way could be vague and he invited everyone to join, that's even strange. <S> But try to group those adjectives and the sentence might look better. <S> Okay, that’s <S> [vaguely annoying] in an [over-enthusiatic motivational speaker] kind of way, but... <S> Let's not judge the event but <S> what it means is the dancing and invitation both was done in a way some over-enthusiastic motivational speaker would do. <S> Not exact <S> but this could be something like... <S> You dance in an MJ way. <S> means you dance the way MJ danced. <S> Said that, this is vaguely annoying. <S> How? <S> In a way some over-enthusiastic motivational speaker would speak. <S> Edit after OP's comment: Here, vaguely means slightly. <S> It was a bit strange and so slightly annoying that he was about to dance that way by inviting people. <A> It basically means that the person was annoying, but there was nothing specifically annoying about them. <S> Their character was generally annoying. <S> This is described as being a bit like a motivational speaker, who tend to be overly positive, hyperactive and use too many buzzwords etc. <S> These habits are tolerable when a person has one or two, but the whole package is often abrasive. <S> You can easily infer from the choice of words, "vaguely annoying", that it was still pretty minor. <S> People who're seriously upset, know exactly what they're upset about.
| "Vaguely annoying": annoying but only just noticeably so.
|
Better way of asking "What country can Mount Fuji be found?" I want to ask the question: What country can Mount Fuji be found? Is there a better way that I can ask this question using correct grammar? <Q> In what/which country is Mount Fuji? <A> Don't be afraid to end a sentence with a preposition if that's really the most natural way to construct the sentence. <S> You could certainly ask, "Where is Mount Fuji?", but if you're specifically wanting to know the country, "What country is Mount Fuji in?" sounds most natural. <A> Where is Mt. Fuji situated? <S> In what country is <S> Mt. Fuji situated? <A> Where is Mt. Fuji?In what country is Mt. Fuji? <S> "What country can Mount Fuji be found? <S> " Is missing the word "in." <A> In what country can Mount Fuji be found? <S> As Kim points out, the original question is explicitly asking for a country. <S> There is no context that implicitly asks for a country, so the question must use the word "country". <S> If the question were changed to "Where", someone could answer "Honshu" or "Asia" or "Earth", instead of "Japan". <S> It is usually possible to convert a full-sentence question into a full-sentence answer by changing the word order. <S> Note that the word in needs to be included in the sentence, in order to make the sentence be grammatically correct. <S> Changing the word order back to that of a question, we get: <S> In what country can Mount Fuji be found? <S> Because the list of countries is short enough that we could select the correct country from a list, it is also grammatically correct to use "which country" instead of "what country": <S> In which country can Mount Fuji be found? <A> To all who are using "Where is Mount Fuji?". <S> This is NOT correct. <S> Given that we do not know the circumstances given the question we must be authoritative to the original post. <S> Example: 2 people are examining a distant landscape painting, named "Mount Fuji Landscape". <S> If the questioner asks "Where is Mount Fuji?" <S> instead of "In which country is Mount Fuji?" <S> or "What country is Mount Fuji in? <S> ", then the answer is no longer guaranteed to match the original question. <S> I.e. <S> The responder could just point to Mount Fuji in the landscape painting and say "There!"
| The original post's question can be correctly answered by: Mount Fuji can be found in what country Japan.
|
Is it grammatically correct to say "ON the picture?" What is the difference between the above adverbial modifier of place and "IN the picture" if any? In "Games for Vocabulary Practice" by Felicity O'Dell and Katie Head (Cambridge,2003) I have come across this phrase more than once reading the guidelines for running activities, e.g. "Student B pretends to be the person ON the picture". <Q> When describing the people or things which appear in a picture, we use "in". <S> If you were to use the phrase "on the picture", it would most likely be to describe something that was not part of the picture originally, but is now on it. <S> " <S> Your coffee cup is sitting on the picture!""I left out the crayons, and my toddler drew on the picture you left. <S> So sorry!" <S> ETA: <S> In North American English, the example you gave would be ungrammatical. <S> I see the book was published in England, though. <S> Perhaps it is considered an acceptable construction there. <A> I have never heard the phrase "on the picture" to mean "among the things|persons captured by the camera here". <S> For that meaning, it is always "in the picture". <S> Who is this person in the picture? <S> Point to the strange growth of foliage, shown on this picture, which you believe to be the gangster's camouflaged hideout. <S> One can write an essay about a painting or photograph or movie, and say that one was writing an essay "on the picture", i.e. "about the picture". <A> This is the same in British English as in North American English, so the example sentence is ungrammatical - the explanation given by michelle applies equally to both. <S> As a native speaker, I would assume that this is not strictly a grammatical error (meaning the author believed it was correct), but a typographical one (meaning the author did not notice their mistake). <S> Since you mention seeing it more than once I would suspect a copy/pasting error. <S> (It may seem odd for this to be missed by the editor, but these things do happen.) <A> Unit 8 Describing people the instructions reads Warm-up 1 Give each pair of students an envelope containing a set of picture cards and ask them to spread them out in front of them. <S> Choose a picture and pretend to be the person on the picture . <S> Describe yourself in five sentences without mentioning your name. <S> E.g. I have fair hair, not dark hair. <S> I am a woman. <S> My hair is short, not long. <S> I am wearing __ , etc. <S> After five sentences, ask students to guess who the person is. <S> [...] <S> Main activity Give each student an envelope containing a set of picture cards . <S> Students then play in their pairs. <S> Student A puts all their pictures face up on the table. <S> Tell Student B to choose one picture from their own envelope and look at it without showing it to Student A. Student B pretends to be the person on the picture. <S> The phrase “... on the picture” as it is used is grammatical in its context. <S> It is short for on the picture card . <S> The author has omitted card from the sentence because it was mentioned in the instructions: a set of picture cards <S> There are other cases when using on with picture , or image would fit in a teaching environment. <S> Focus <S> students' attention on the picture. <S> Student B should focus on the image, and describe it to their partner. <S> Student A sticks the animals where they want on the picture. <S> Student B secretly draws a house on the image. <S> (Although " in the picture" would be more idiomatic) <A> The normal thing is "in the picture" as <S> In the picture we see Edinburgh Castle. <S> In English a picture is seen as a space; and a landscape, in fact, depicts a space and consequently you say: "In the picture we see a hilly countryside with a river and green meadows with sheep and in the background there is a little village. <S> " <S> In other languages a picture or painting may be seen not as space, but as an area, and "on the picture" is used in German. <A> In the picture could be an idiomatic phrase. <S> It simply means that someone/thing was/wasn't concerned at all. <S> Say... <S> Do you think I'm responsible for their break up? <S> It is not so. <S> I was not in the picture at all. <S> On the other hand, on the picture means someone has drawn or there's a photo of a person and Student B has to be that person.
| One can say " shown on the picture" to mean "which appears in this image".
|
The use of be form twice in one sentence Is it correct to write a phrase like "The guy that is responsible is David"? <Q> You can have two of the same form of 'be' in one sentence if they are in separate clauses . <S> In this sentence, the main clause is 'The guy is David', and subordinate clause is 'that is responsible'. <A> Well, it's OK if you're just chatting, but when writing more formally or academically repetition like that is not considered to be good style <S> so it would be better to change one of the verbs e.g. <S> "David is the person responsible." <A> If you're worried that you're producing two verbs for the sentence, let's take a look at what you're saying: <S> The guy that is responsible is David. <S> Here, that is used to mark a non-essential clause . <S> These phrases provide extra information, and can be removed from a sentence without compromising the grammatical structure of the sentence. <S> Let's do that. <S> The guy is David. <S> A rather simple sentence, and perhaps a bit awkward, but technically correct, nevertheless. <S> This shows that your non-essential clause wasn't making your sentence incorrect. <S> In proper context, it could even be usable: <S> "We need a guy who really knows his way around Oracle systems." "'That guy' is David." <S> Here, the first speaker desires an employee who's good at working with a specific piece of software. <S> The second employee points out that they already have someone hired with the proper qualifications. <S> I changed "the" to "that" because it is more idiomatically appropriate, and most likely how you'll see a sentence with that structure used.
| There isn't any rule analogous to the "double negative" rule for be verbs.
|
After the noon Vs Afternoon My question hails from this question here on ELL. I'd like to know the nuance of the noun 'afternoon' and the phrase 'after noon' . How do we say (in speech) and clearly distinguish their usage? I'm not here after noon I'm not here after the noon I'm not here afternoon The second seems correct but the first does not look bad. Also, do we need to give a big pause to differentiate the first and third sentence in speech? <Q> The confusion comes from the fact that 'after noon' and 'afternoon', while looking looking similar, do not refer to exactly the same thing. <S> For example, 11PM is technically 'after noon' - noon has passed. <S> But it isn't within the time period considered to be 'afternoon' (generally ~12:00PM-5:00PM). <S> I'm not here after noon <S> That states that you won't be around once the indicated time has passed. <S> Not in the evening, or at night. <S> I'm not here after the noon <S> After 'the' noon sounds odd, because there is only one noon every day - no need to specify which noon we're talking about. <S> I'm not here afternoon <S> This doesn't make any sense. <S> You should say "I'm not here in the afternoon", because you're talking about something within a designated time period. <S> Depending on the schedule you keep, this leaves the option open for you to be here in the evening or at night. <A> "I'm not here after noon." Here 'noon' is synonymous with midday "After noon" is not commonly used. <S> We prefer to say "in the afternoon", as this ngram shows. <S> These are not natural English: "I'm not here after the noon" / <S> "I'm not here afternoon" <A> "I am not here after the noon." does not sound natural, but "I am not here after the noon meal." is acceptable. <S> I would expect someone to say "I am not here after lunch.", but "the noon meal" is a reasonable synonym for "lunch". <S> "After noon"'s grammatical role is based on "after", whereas "afternoon" is a noun like "day", "night", or "morning". <S> The following options sound natural to my (American <S> ) ear: <S> I am not here after noon. <S> I am not here in the afternoon. <S> I won't be here this afternoon.
| As Damien explains, "after noon" means any time after "noon"; "afternoon" means the time between "noon" and "evening".
|
When to use Sorry and When to use forgive me, excuse me I'm confused using these words. a) Sorry b) Forgive me c) Excuse me Someone explaining with examples will be helpful. Also, how do we use these words differently> <Q> In everyday British English we say "Excuse me" before we inconvenience somebody and "(I am) sorry" after we have inconvenienced them. <S> We also use "(I am) sorry" as an apology for not being able to fit in with somebody's request: <S> " Could you look after my cat this weekend, please?" <S> " Sorry, I can't. <S> I am away myself. <S> " <S> "Forgive me" tends to be a polite formula when no real apology is expected or offered: " Forgive me if I get straight to the point, but I have very little time ". <A> I'm not sure whether the question is too broad to answer <S> but here is what I can come up to help you little. <S> Example (live?) could be you stepping on someone's feet and saying.... <S> Sorry, did I hurt you? <S> It can also be used to politely accept your mistake. <S> For instance... <S> Sorry, I don't remember your name <S> Apart from this, sorry is also used if you did not hear something properly. <S> Example could be of someone telling you their room number <S> but you did not get it... <S> My room number is XXX ~ <S> Sorry? <S> Then the person will repeat it again probably in a clearer way - My room number is 409 ' <S> Forgive me' is said if you have committed some sin or have done some wrongdoing to someone and you repent. <S> Example could be of you gave someone's vital information to the third party. <S> I know I sold that information. <S> I regret that. <S> Please forgive me. <S> It's a kind of asking for forgiving i.e. please forget what all happened and give me a chance. <S> ' <S> Excuse me' can be used for apology, drawing someone's attention and also to repeat what is said (just like sorry). <S> Examples could be... <S> Excuse me for my language. <S> I was a bit aggressive (apology) <S> Excuse me <S> , can you get me that pen? <S> (attention) Excuse me! <S> ~ <S> Oh, I said 38273 (asking to repeat) <S> Please mind that these are just common usages and there could be many more than what I mentioned. <S> Good practice is read or watch videos where such expressions are used. <A> "Sorry" and "forgive me" mean essentially the same thing and are largely interchangeable. <S> Either one means that you have done some wrong and wish to apologize. <S> Maybe, maybe, "forgive me" is a stronger expression of regret. <S> The wrong may be big or small. <S> One could say, "I'm sorry that I forgot your birthday" or "I'm sorry for killing your brother." <S> "Excuse me" is a very mild form of apology used when the offense is minor or accidental, or when you have not done anything wrong in any moral or ethical sense but are simply inconveniencing another person. <S> Like if you accidentally step on someone's foot in a crowded room, you might say, "Oh, excuse me". <S> ("Sorry" would also be appropriate here as you have caused the person some, albeit minor, injury.) <S> Or of someone is standing in your way <S> and you would like them to move aside, you might say, "Excuse me, can you step aside so I can get to the coffee maker?" or whatever.
| Broadly, we say 'sorry' if we have done some mistake and it is an expression of apology.
|
It has been a while since I watched you sleep It has been a while since I watched you sleep. Is watched or saw more correct in sentence above? What is the difference in meaning between the two choices? <Q> But beyond that, "watch" indicates a deliberate action, an intent to observe, while "see" does not. <S> You can "see" something accidentally. <S> You can not "watch" something accidentally. <S> Like, "I was walking past Sally's house <S> and I looked at the window and SAW her undress. <S> " The view is accidental. <S> The speaker may be as embarrassed about the incident as the subject. <S> Versus, "I was walking past Sally's house <S> and I looked at the window and WATCHED her undress. <S> " The view is deliberate. <S> He stood there and watched. <S> The speaker is a peeping Tom. <A> Both are correct, but they have different meanings. <S> Watched implies a longer time period - you pulled up a chair and spent an extended period of time watching the subject sleep. <S> Saw implies a shorter time. <S> You walked past the bedroom door and briefly saw the subject asleep. <A> The difference between " watch " and " see " in general is the attentiveness of the observer, not the duration of the observation or the activity of what's being observed. <S> "I watched you sleep, and saw you change position 16 times in half an hour." "I watched the quick motion of the magician's hands, but didn't see how the trick was done." <S> "There are stories that the painting is haunted, so I watched it carefully to see if it changed." <S> If you mean <S> "I haven't noticed you sleeping - are you getting enough rest?" <S> It has been a while since I've seen you sleep. <S> If you want to say, "I sometimes observe you while you're sleeping, and it's been a while since I've done that. <S> " <S> you would say: It has been a while since I've watched you sleep. <S> Our sleep study experiment is going to have gaps in the data.
| "Saw" can indicate a momentary observation while "watch" indicates prolonged viewing, as others have said.
|
Diffrence between is gone and has gone Which sentence is correct and why? Me and I were waiting on bus stand. I reached before my friend to the stop. He came to stop after 10 min and asked me about bus status. How Should I Say "The bus is not yet gone from our stop." current status (Indicates State of Being not gone) or "The bus has not yet gone from our stop." Action buy bus (Indicates relative time of Being not gone) One more exampleHe is gone out of the house.OrHe has gone out of the house <Q> The correct sentence is "the has not yet gone from our stop. <S> The destination is specified or understood. <S> It doesn't sound natural if we say he is gone out of the house or he is gone to school when there is a specified place of departure or destination. <S> Usually, we say he has gone out of the house. <S> However, it is common to say that he is gone or the bus is gone. <A> Both sentences can be correct as answers to simple questions. <S> Though I use bus stop more as a bus station. <S> Or, remove the "from our stop" ending phrase. <S> Leading to the simple: The bus is gone. <S> The bus has gone. <S> The bus is not yet gone. <S> The bus has not yet gone. <S> Late Friend: <S> "Where is the bus? <S> Is the bus <S> gone?"You : "Don't worry. <S> The bus is not yet gone from our stop. <S> It is being refueled around the corner." <S> Late Friend: <S> "I don't see the bus. <S> Has the bus gone already?"You : <S> "Don't worry. <S> The bus has not yet gone from our stop. <S> It has to complete a checkup." <A> In both your examples "is gone" version is not correct. <S> Because "He has gone out of the house" although grammatical, seems to mean that he probably doesn't return soon enough.
| You could simply say that: "The bus is still at the stop" or "The bus is still at our stop" And for the last example, the correct version would be: "He left the house" or "He has just left the house". Is gone means "is no longer here".has gone means "went somewhere.
|
What is the difference between "one" and "a"? Should I say: One feature of my work is ... Or A feature of my work is... What is the difference? <Q> They are very close semantically. <S> Phonetically, they are a little different. <S> We cannot put phonetic stress on the article a . <S> But we can put phonetic stress on the word one . <S> When we say "one feature of my work," there is therefore an emphasis on the one . <S> Most commonly, and is as exemplified by your sentence, this emphasis "emphasizes the indefiniteness of the article," i.e. it emphasizes that this is just one of many. <S> Perhaps you don't want the reader to think that this is the only feature of your work. <S> The "one" emphasizes that there could be more. <A> Both a/an and one mean one. <S> The difference is that "one" puts more emphasis on the number such as I have 4 computers and a printer <S> /I have 4 computers and only one printer. <S> Grammatically, you can use either of the two. <A> I'd like to disagree a bit here. <S> Though both of the sentences you provided are grammatically sound, such sentence formations are hard to come across, in conversation. <S> Instead the following sentence is spoken: <S> One of the features of my work is 'convenient office hours / timings'. <S> If you are having a conversation with someone regarding your work and you are telling someone this <S> then I'd suggest that the above sentence does work best.
| So when you say a feature of my work or one feature of my work, it means the same, with the only difference that "one" is emphatic compared to "a".
|
Offensive word for people, who offend others I wonder, is there an offensive English word (or phrase) for people who offend others? I mean a word that translates literally as "a guy who offends people" and can not be applied to other circumstances, and anyone would see more than this simple meaning in it and would not like to hear it about himself or herself. There is no such thing in my language, so I can not use translators here unfortunately. <Q> In American English, the concept you are trying to communicate is usually implied through context. <S> "Asshole" and "Jackass" both imply someone who is unpleasant to be around. <S> "Prick", "Dick", and "Tool" are all ways of saying someone is aggressively unpleasant to those around them. <S> "Don't be a dick" is a good way to tell people to knock it off when they are being offensive. <A> A "harasser" is someone "who makes others feel uncomfortable [by] using words", gestures, and touch. <S> A "stalker" is someone "who makes others feel uncomfortable" by persistently trying to interact with them, either by using information they thought was private, and/or after they had told the stalker to have no further contact with them. <S> As Arrowfar suggested, "lowlife" is an offensive term for a poor person who might have criminal intentions. <S> "Crook" is a mildly offensive term for a criminal. <S> For example, when Richard Nixon said, "I am not a crook", it immediately made many people think he was a "lowlife" and unworthy of being President. <S> "Mugger" is a factual (but still insulting) term for a criminal who robs people on the street or in alleys by force (or threat of force). <S> Many bodyguards and muggers are called thugs. <S> "Rapist" and "child molester" are factual terms for people who commit particular crimes. <S> Because these crimes are so abhorrent (especially to many imprisoned criminals), they are very insulting terms. <S> (Many criminals consider it honorable to harm or kill rapists and child molesters.) <A> You might be looking for the words: transgressor , offender , wrongdoer , or culprit . <A> The slang term for someone who deliberately tries to provoke confrontation by being rude, and doing so just for sake of their jollies is troll .
| "Thug" is an offensive term for an intimidating, possibly criminal, person.
|
"can't" versus "couldn't", what is the difference? That can't be Obama at the door, it's too early. That couldn't be Obama at the door, it's too early. What is the difference between them? Are they almost the same? <Q> These sentences are grammatically correct, with a little difference in meaning. <S> 1- <S> That can't be Obama at the door; it's too early. <S> When the speaker says so, he means that he is sure that the person at the door is not Obama as it's too early. <S> 2- <S> That couldn't be Obama at the door; it's too early. <S> Here the speaker means it's not <S> or it might not be possible that the person at the door is Obama as it's too early. <S> (Pls refer to Oxford LD to look up the use of can (7) and could (4). <A> That can't be Tom - he's in Japan. <S> That couldn't be Tom - he's in Japan. <S> (These are both used to mean that the speaker doesn't believe that.) <S> That can't have been Tom - he was in Japan. <S> That couldn't have been Tom - he was in Japan. <S> (These are used to mean that the speaker didn't believe that.) <S> Similarly, please take a look at the examples below: <S> Tom can't be moving the furniture upstairs - he's at work right now. <S> Tom couldn't be moving the furniture upstairs - he's at work right now. <S> Tom bumped into me. <S> He can't <S> /couldn't have been looking where he was going. <S> Could do means the same thing as may/might . <S> They all refer to uncertain possibility at present or in the future. <S> However, could in this sense can only be used in the positives and questions, not in the negatives. <S> It could/may/might rain tonight. <S> It may/might not rain tonight. <S> ( Could not is impossible in this case.) <S> (Someone is knocking at the door <S> and you're answering the door.) <S> Who could that be? <S> ( May/might are impossible in this case.) <S> "Have some more cake." <S> "No, I couldn't." <A> That can't be Tom, it's too early. <S> That couldn't be Tom, it's too early. <S> In the above two examples, both statements are set in the present tense, but the first one is a definite statement of fact, while the second statement is based on the implied impossibility of something, in other words, conjecture. <S> I think "couldn't" can refer to either future hypothetical scenarios, or past hypothetical scenarios, suggesting the likely impossibility of something. <S> For example: <S> Q: If they offered you a huge sum of money, would you be willing to do it? <S> A: <S> I couldn't do it; not even if they offered me all the money in the world. <S> This is an example of a type 2 future conditional , involving the use of a modal . <S> "I couldn't have done it" on the other hand, refers quite clearly to the past. <S> Sure thing! <S> Reference: https://www.ef.com/wwen/english-resources/english-grammar/type-2-conditional/
| In the above instance, "I couldn't do it" refers to an implied action that the person claims would be hypothetically impossible for them to carry out in the future. They are similar both grammatically and lexically.
|
Relative Pronoun - Whom / Why is "Whom" used in this sentence? If all these excuses are not enough, then I want to dedicate this book to the child whom this grown-up once was. This sentence is a part of the dedication of The Little Prince. As I know, relative pronoun 'whom' can only be used as an object. But in this case 'whom' is used as a complement. I don't know why 'whom' is used in the sentence instead of 'who' or 'that'. Please, help me. <Q> If all these excuses are not enough, then I want to dedicate this book to the child whom this grown-up once was. <S> If we look at the corresponding gap in the relative clause: I want to dedicate this book to the child (i) [ whom (i) <S> this grown-up once was __(i) ]. <S> we'll see that the gap " __(i) " is linked to the relative pronoun "whom", which is then linked to the antecedent "child". <S> Note that the relative clause (which is within the brackets and is in italics ) is modifying the noun "child". <S> And so, the relative clause could have the interpretation of: this grown-up once <S> was the child <S> The reason why the relative pronoun can be in accusative case (e.g. "whom") is because the gap itself could correspond to an accusative pronoun, such as "her". <S> For example: <S> this grown-up once was her <S> And so, the use of the relative pronoun "whom" is possible here in the original example sentence. <S> ASIDE <S> : Notice that in the original example, the relative pronoun "whom" is not the subject of the relative clause (the subject of the relative clause is "this grown-up"). <S> And so, usually, that word "whom" could possibly be "who" or "that" or nothing at all--it is up to the writer as to which word or nothing that they wish to use as the relative word/pronoun in the original sentence. <A> Strange. <S> In A Comprehensive Grammar by Quirk et al <S> . <S> , Topic 17.25, "Relative pronoun as complement", says that When the relative pronoun functions as nonprepositional complement in the relative clause, the choice is limited to <S> which for both personal and nonpersonal antecedents, in both restrictive clauses and nonrestrictive clauses <S> : <S> 1. <S> He is a teetotaller, which <S> I am not. <S> 2. <S> This is a powerful car, which <S> my last car was not. <S> But somehow your sentence seems okay to me. <S> Let's wait what others will add. <S> Let's try to remodel Quirk's sentence 1 into a sentence with a restrictive relative clause: <S> This book is dedicated to the teetotaller <S> which <S> I once was. <S> (The sentence look unnatural to me) <S> This book is dedicated to the teetotaller <S> whom <S> I once was. <S> (This sentence looks more natural) <S> Seems like for restrictive relative clauses it could be okay to use <S> whom <S> as subject complement. <S> I've found a similar structure at Google Books: <S> At the center of the book, thirtieth in a total of sixty texts, stands the child <S> whom <S> the author himself once was, under the title "Enlargements. <S> ( Walter Benjamin: An Intellectual Biography ) <S> And another one: <S> The child <S> whom <S> Fibich once was did not evolve into the adult Fibich, but was traumatically erased by the terrors of separation and refugee life. <S> (" Latecomers ") <S> The issue was also discussed at a site called "The Grammar Exchange", in the topic " Relative pronoun in complement use ". <A> Native speaker here. <S> I think this is a hypercorrection, where they keep in mind a common mistake and try to correct for it, but end up making the correction in situations where it's not appropriate. <S> The sentence sounds stuffy, like someone trying to make themselves look smarter than they are. <S> It's better just to use "who", or even better, omit the pronoun: <S> If all these excuses are not enough, then I want to dedicate this book to the child this grown-up once was.
| In the relative clause, "whom" is the predicate nominative, not the object, so you should actually use "who".
|
If 'Social Media' is uncountable and plural, why do we say 'Social media is...'? This all began when I saw Grammarly giving me a red line on the verb has . My sentence, as I remember roughly, was... Social media has all potential to make your products and services popular The Grammarly tool suggests 'have' and gives me a reason: The singular verb has does not appear to agree with the plural subject media. Consider changing the verb form for subject-verb agreement. It gave me surprise because I have, at many places, seen the usage of Social media is... I then explored on OALD which has an entry for this two-word word social media (uncountable, plural) ~ Social media is a big part of my life Kindly help me learn. <Q> There is no such a thing as a plural non-count noun. <S> If there can be a plural form, it can be counted. <S> Strictly speaking, media is the plural of medium, just as data is the plural of datum. <S> But with media and data we often use a singular verb. <S> Purists disagree and insist on a plural verb. <S> Media and data are often used as collective nouns , thus the choice between singular or plural verb form. <A> The term “social media” is both singular and plural in modern English usage. <S> The word “media” is traditionally a plural because “medium” is the singular. <S> However, in reference to things like the news media, social media, etc, the usage often becomes singular because the nuance (shade of meaning) is taking the whole world of ‘media’ as a single unit. <S> Many of the modern stylebooks and dictionaries have “news media” and “social media” as both singular and plural in context. <S> If you belong to the grammar camp, then it’s plural. <S> If you belong to the usage camp, then it’s both singular and plural <S> depending on context. <A> I think if somebody says otherwise, he is forcing his like or dislike on others. <S> We have to stick to what our authentic books say. <A> The Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries present the term as both uncountable and plural. <S> Technically, the word "media" is the plural of "medium", so "social media" should be plural. <S> However, I believe that the term "media" (in general, not just in this instance) has evolved and become uncountable when used to describe the conglomerate of communication outlets as its own entity, and not just as the sum of its parts. <S> So it looks like the answer is: <S> Whatever floats your boat!
| There is no denying the fact that almost all the dictionaries describe that social media is an uncountable plural noun, which takes either a singular verb or a plural verb.
|
What do we call letters/images in printouts with less ink? I'm looking for a term to describe the letters (or for that matter anything ) that are not dark though readable. Somewhat faded. As I just typed, I know ' faded letters' could be an option but is there any particular term for it? Another term that comes to my mind is ' hazy letters' but I don't think it fits. It might talk more about 'unclear' letters but not due to less ink! Here is the image of such a printout See the letters 'C' and 'E' in the printout. I want to build a sentence like... Don't take any copies from that printer. It has very little ink left. You'll get [ faded/hazy ] printout/letters/images. <Q> HP Printer Problem document suggests: The procedures in this document should help with streaked or faded printouts, color or black ink not printing, documents with blurred or fuzzy text, ink streaks or smears, and other print quality problems. <A> Those letters are "too faint to read" (i.e. not dark enough to be legible). <S> With so little ink|toner left, "you'll get a faint image". <A> <A> You might be better off approaching from the angle of “barely legible ” or “barely discernable ”. <S> You could also describe the letters as faint , which is a general enough word to apply to situations where ink is not involved (and/or not the source of the issue) and descriptive enough to use on its own. <S> You could even combine the two and call them faintly legible in order to not only describe the letters, but also reinforce the reason that their insubstantial state matters to you. <A> I would call them "streaked" and would phrase the sentence like this: <S> Don't take any copies from that printer. <S> It has very little ink left. <S> You'll get a streaked printout. <S> or You'll get streaks on your letters/images. <S> As a side note, many printers used to have a feature that would use less ink (some still do, but it is much less common than before). <S> That feature is called "draft mode," and was designed to not waste ink on an initial draft when changes would likely be made before reprinting the final copy. <S> The printing was lighter, but still legible. <S> I wouldn't have turned in a document printed in draft mode to my boss, but it was perfectly good for initial revisions or personal use.
| You will get a faded printout, as the term faded means that the intensity has reduced, either over time or in this case immediately from what was expected.
|
'I have nothing' vs. 'I don't have anything' What is the difference in meaning between the following sentences? I have nothing. I don't have anything. <Q> There is a discussion of something similar between the novelists Ford Madox Ford and Joseph Conrad. <S> Ford was trying to explain to Conrad the nuanced difference between "without a penny" and "penniless". <S> I have nothing <S> could mean "Everything has been taken from me." <S> (e.g. King Lear) <S> *I don't have anything" could mean " <S> At the moment, I don't have an answer, I don't have any money on me, I have no contraband on my person, etc etc" <A> To me, the difference is in the subject/verb agreement. <S> I have something. <S> I don't have something. <S> So, which to use depends on which direction the writer or speaker wants the verb to take the subject. <S> Above, the something the speaker has is nothing and the something the speaker doesn't have is anything. <S> A spiritual master could say, "Enlightenment has taught me no thing is Dharma. <S> I have Dharma. <S> Thus, I have nothing." <S> If the master instead says, "I don't have anything", it would ruin the syllogism and the "no thing" "nothing" (sort of) homonym. <S> On the other hand some insecure teen might complain to her friends, " <S> Boys like you <S> because... <S> You've got big hair. <S> You can dunk a basketball. <S> You can sing. <S> You're a science nerd. <S> But me, I don't have anything." <S> If instead she said, "I have nothing", it would work grammatically in the complaint, but it wouldn't be as large of a contrast to the listener/reader. <S> All the friends "have a thing" and the speaker emphasizes she "doesn't have a thing". <S> If that thought finishes with, "I have nothing", then her friends each "have a thing" and so does she, even though the "thing" she has is "nothing". <S> It's up to the writer (or the speaker themselves) to decide what the speaker wants to emphasize, positively possessive or negatively possessive <S> , I have or I don't have. <S> (Am I going down a rabbit hole here?) <S> Generally, any pair of "opposite words" will substitute for "nothing" and "anything" above, and the same "I have" versus "I don't have" pseudo-rule applies. <S> "I have love". <S> "I don't have hate". <S> Those two sentences only equate if there is no middle ground between love and hate, if in the absence of hate there is only love, if in the absence of anything there is only nothing. <S> (And you can get into juicy ontological discussions about the nature of reality like "if 'there is nothing', then nothing 'is' a thing and so in the absence of anything, nothing itself would also be absent. <S> No thing survives the absence of anything. <S> So, what do you call what's left when there is nothing left? <S> [Right!]") <A> It implies an absence. <S> "I have nothing" logically carries the same meaning, but it is actually stronger for most people. <S> It begins with an affirmative "I have" and then proceeds to the absolute "nothing".
| "I don't have anything' Is a straightforward negation of "I have something".
|
How to say that I'm using Linux? I want to say that I work using OS Linux. In Russia we say "I work UNDER Linux" or "I work IN Linux". What is the corresponding phrase in English? <Q> The most idiomatic and common way to phrase this would be “I use Linux.” <S> If you need to keep the “Work ... Linux” phrasing, you would say “I work with Linux.” <S> But without more context, this sounds like you are a programmer who modifies the Linux operating system. <S> It would be an unusual way to say that you just use Linux on a regular basis. <S> It could be understood that way if you are having a conversation about whether Windows or Linux is better, for example. <A> I want to say that i work using OS Linux. <S> The answer is in your question! <S> It's just a matter of phrasing: <S> "I work using bananas" would normally be said "I work with bananas" , or "my work involves bananas" . <S> I'm a sysadmin and would introduce myself with <S> "I'm a Linux sysadmin" , but if I want to draw attention to Linux, I say <S> "I work with Linux" , but it's important to note that's all <S> I do, 40 hours a week. <S> I also use Windows to support my Linux work. <S> At home, I use MacOSX. <S> And there's the distinction: what is your actual role? <S> I work with software and electronics engineers who work on Linux: their main claim is <S> "I'm an electronics engineer" or something like that. <S> They might add " <S> "I use Linux" . <S> Say what your role is, and it might be easier to answer your question! <A> Perhaps your intent is: I use Linux for work. <S> This would indicate that when working you use Linux. <S> It conveys the idea of a Linux user (not a system's programmer, etc.) and that the usage is work related. <S> You would likely say I use Linux at work if you work at a location (not from home). <A> "I work on Linux". <S> You run your applications ON top of the Linux kernel, so in-effect <S> you are working on Linux. <S> At the same time this might imply that you are working on developing the Linux kernel. <S> So the grammatically correct statement would be "I work with (the) Linux (OS)". <A> I think the most unambiguous and still ok for spoken English is: <S> I use Linux at work. <A> We would say work with when referring to a complete product, such as an operating system or application, for example: <S> I work with Linux <S> I work with Photoshop <S> This is comparable to someone saying they work with children, or work with animals. <S> But, idiomatically, we say work in (or write/program in) when referring to a programming language, for example: I work in Java <S> I work in SQL <S> This is comparable to an artist saying they paint in oils.
| I do my work on Linux" , or more simply
|
What does mean to "get to the nuts and balls of something"? just an expression I heard from a guy on a tutorial on derivatives in calculus. Edit: guys thanks all of you for replying, yeah the thing is that is misheard the phrase, somebody already corrected me, the right phrase was" to get to the nuts and bolts of something". <Q> You misheard. <S> Does that help? <S> If not, here is one definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nuts+and+bolts <A> You probably misheard, in which case the phrase should have been "nuts and bolts", as others have already said. <S> However, if the speaker is of a particular mindset, and especially if they are British, there is a chance that this was done deliberately. <S> It is not uncommon to take a well known phrase and vulgarize it by replacing prominent words with swear words, especially if they sound similar to the words replaced or form a pleasing rhyme. <S> If the original phrase is well known then the modified phrase will be understood, typically with the same meaning, even if the phrase created appears meaningless or off-topic. <S> One common substitution, unlikely to cause much offense today, is "odds and ends" -> "odds and sods" The first version brings to mind a drawerful of unpaired items and off-cuts, while the second version has little meaning. <S> The real value in the second form of the expression is in its vulgarity - something many Brits (and indeed, most non-American Anglophones) relish. <S> In your particular case, it is possible that the speaker intentionally made the substitution: <S> "nuts and bolts" -> "nuts and balls" expecting it to be understood as the former, but taking some satisfaction in the fact that both "nuts" and "balls" are slang terms for "testicles". <A> I'm going to assume that you have misheard the phrase. <S> A similar one is "the nuts-and-bolts". <S> This phrase is used when one wants to describe the inner workings of something. <S> Example: View the source code to see the nuts-and-bolts of the application. <A> It's entirely likely that the phrase "nut and balls" was deliberate and not (at least solely) vulgar. <S> The word " ball " has a very specific meaning to mathematicians, it describes the local neighborhood of a point. <S> In the context of calculus to get to the "nut and balls" would mean to really closely examine the local behavior, which is really what a derivative does. <S> Edit to clarify: It is plausible that a mathematician with a slightly off sense of humor combined the phrase "to get to the nuts and bolts" with the mathematical notion of a topological ball in a slightly off-color joke about what it really means to take a derivative. <S> This wasn't a great joke, since I'm sure the intended audience wasn't familiar with the notion of a ball, but it is sensical.
| It should be 'nuts and bolts'.
|
amble to a halt, amble to stop The brothers marched to the end of the lane, ambling to a halt on the corner where they met the wider road. Andrew reached into the hedge, groped around for a while, then drew out a half-full packet of Benson & Hedges and a slightly damp box of matches. After several false starts, the heads of the matches crumbling against the strike, he succeeded in lighting up. Two or three deep drags, and then the grumbling engine of the school bus broke the stillness. Andrew carefully knocked out the glowing head of his cigarette and stowed the rest back in the packet. (The Casual Vacancy, by J. K. Rowling) The phrase, to a halt , seems to be an adjunct or complement denoting that after having ambled they stopped. Here I got wondering if it were a to-infinitve, e.g. ‘ ambling to stop ,’ can this deliver the same meaning? I like to know, though in numerous cases to-infinitives denote purpose meaning, e.g. I went into ELL to ask a question , whether it could denote resultative meaning. In ‘ he ambled to stop ,’ there wouldn’t be any possibility that he ambled for the purpose of stop at least in the context. <Q> It's not an infinitive, it's a prepositional phrase. <S> They could have said, "ambling to the end of the lane/corner/door/house/other location." <S> Here "a halt" indicates a temporal location, the point in time at which their ambling ended. <S> "Ambling to stop" doesn't really make sense with the verb <S> amble <S> but it could work with another movement verb. <S> Something like <S> The student sprinted down the hall, turned the corner, and upon seeing his teacher, skidded to a stop . <S> and The student sprinted down the hall, turned the corner, and upon seeing his teacher, skidded to stop . <S> are both grammatically correct, but have different meanings. <S> The first means that he skidded (slid his feet across the floor) until he stopped. <S> The second means that he skidded rather than continued running for the purpose of stopping quickly. <A> I'm using "stop" in my answer, but the same applies with "halt." <S> People, vehicles, and animals (and by extension, things such as conversations) do not amble in order to stop . <S> So "amble to stop" would be unusual. <S> Just as unusual as: walk to stop stroll to stop saunter to stop march to stop creep to stop <S> If you want to stop, you slow down to stop. <S> Amble does not mean to slow down , it means to go slowly. <S> So, no I don't think amble to halt <S> is any more probable than walk to halt. <S> Now, one can certainly change speeds to stop. <S> And one can start to amble in order to finally stop . <S> But here the meaning, again, is to slow down from a faster pace to stop. <S> As an aside, one can come to stop. <S> But this is a special instance that means stop . <S> (Edit: skid to stop works because by definition skid means no further locomotive power is applied, and slowing down to stop is inevitable.) <A> Your alternative construction is possible. <S> In that case, I would change it to … ambling to stop at the corner… <S> However, I think that it doesn't work well with the primary clause of the sentence: <S> The brothers marched to the end of the lane, … <S> The idea being conveyed is that they walked purposefully, then gradually relaxed and slowed down, until the stop. <S> Having three verbs, marched , ambling , and stop , is excessive and confuses the picture, in my opinion. <S> Leaving stop or halt as a noun is stylistically better. <S> Incidentally, grinding to a halt is a more frequently used expression (describing a lot of friction involved in the deceleration).
| They amble because they wish to move slowly, or because they can go no faster.
|
Does "Daddy is home" sound natural? "I am home." How to change "I" to "Daddy"? Daddy is home? <Q> You would only say this to a small child who called you Daddy. <S> I have daughters who are 7 and 9 who do call me Daddy, and when I come home and greet them I would say "I'm home." <S> They would know me from my voice, and at that age they would feel like I was treating them like babies if I referred to myself as Daddy. <S> That said, their mother might say to them, upon my arrival, "Daddy is home," and it would be perfectly natural. <S> It is referring to myself as "Daddy" that is unusual except with small children. <S> It would be similar to you <S> and I talking and <S> me saying, "Jason is having a nice conversation." <S> That might be a true statement, and if someone else said it, it would be perfectly natural, but referring to myself in the third person is strange in most situations. <A> "Daddy is home" is perfectly natural. <S> You may have heard about sentences like "Daddy misses you so much" "Daddy likes you so much" when talking to the kids, It looks lovely. <A> Daddy's home" would sound more natural to me (although I'd also prefer "I'm home" if a natural sound is the aim). <S> Examples where "Daddy is home" works better (in my opinion) would be things like: <S> "We'll leave when Daddy comes home" "Daddy is home!" <S> where there's emphasis on the "is"
| Although "Daddy is home" is correct English, I personally think it sounds a bit robotic and strange as a whole sentence, especially if being spoken. "
|
Shall I use "am" or "is" following a sentence prefixed "Me"? The sentence structure is a bit unusual, like this: me is tired this morning Is this proper use of the sentence structure? Shouldn't it be "Me am" instead? Considering sentences starting with "I" are in the form of "I am...". <Q> Your sentence should be <S> I am tired this morning or, for informal emphasis, Me, I am tired this morning. <A> What you are referring to is a bit odd since it is not really "English", per se. <S> As tunny states, you cannot use "me" as the subject of a verb. <S> However , the line of chat text you have quoted is actually: /me <S> is tired this morning <S> Note the leading slash. <S> This is not meant to be proper English, the "/me" is a common command in IRC chat rooms to represent an action , and is often used online by people familiar with that command outside that context to represent the same thing, with the expectation that it will be recognized as such (and sometimes, it's not). <S> In IRC , the /me would actually expand to the user's name, perhaps with a special color or indicator to indicate an "action". <S> So the above would have been seen by others as something like: <S> Frank is tired this morning As SE chat is not IRC, it does not recognize this as a command. <S> It can be confusing to look at if you read it as English <S> but really it is a form of chat-room "slang" for representing an action, and the original intent of "/me" was for interpretation by a computer, not a human. <A> 'Me' in this respect is considered ungrammatical by purist although it's most common in colloquial English. <S> You of course know the joke: <S> St. Peter (who has the key to heaven) asks the question: 'Who is the next?' <S> Somebody replies: 'I am.' <S> St. Peter: ' <S> Teachers of English, you just stay at the end of the queue.'
| The simple answer is that you cannot use 'me' as the subject of a verb, unless you are talking about the word, as in 'Me' is the first person singular object pronoun.
|
When to use 'the' in front of a country? Citizens of the Lithuania, sounds wrong. Citizens of the Russia too. However, citizens of the Ukraine, sounds right. Also of the United States (of America) as well as of the United Kingdom. What is the proper usage of 'the' to name a country? <Q> In very few cases. <S> I will expand my examples to sub-national entities. <S> Usually when the name of the country refers to a specific landform, such as "the Philippines" (the Philippine islands), "the Scottish Borders," "the United States," "the Netherlands" (the lowlands.) <S> "Ukraine" is an interesting case. <S> The name literally means border land, hence in Soviet era it was "the Ukraine", as it was the borderland between the Russians and the other East Slavs. <S> However, this reduced the country to being the frontier between two others. <S> ( reference ) <S> Therefore, one of the first acts of the independent country was to specify that their name is "Ukraine." <A> As with much of English, this is something you'll need to learn on a case by case basis. <S> However, there are two rules of thumb: 1) <S> For example: "State" and "Kingdom" are existing words, and using them in ordinary conversation, you'd use an article. <S> Therefore, you use an article with "The United States of America" and "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. <S> " The same is true of "Islands," which is why you use an article for "The Solomon Islands." <S> Think of it this way: if you could rephrase the name of the country with "which," you use an article. " <S> The Kingdom." <S> "Which Kingdom?" <S> "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." <S> 2) <S> If the country (or other subnational feature) is plural, use an article. <S> The Phillipines and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are the only countries I know of that <S> are plural (not counting countries included in rule one), but the rule also works for sub-national divisions, like "the Outer Banks." <S> Otherwise, English generally don't use an article--but there are exceptions. <S> "Ukraine" is a contested exception; many people say "the Ukraine," but many others object to this on grammatical and/or political grounds. <S> The Vatican is the other exception that springs to mind--but as with The Ukraine, often when you say "The Vatican" you're referring to something other than the political entity Vatican City--which, in an exception to the first rule, doesn't take an article. <A> The countries which comprise of more than one small parts of islands or states. <S> Refer to this <A> Your question is really about when to use "the" with nouns or proper nouns. <S> http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/when-to-use-articles-before-nouns Citizens is a plural noun, like "cats" and can have a determiner or not. <S> As a native speaker I would use "the" to refer to the group as a unique group. <S> The citizens of the United States voted today. <S> If I was addressing the citizens in a blog, I might say Dear Citizens of the United States, please vote today. <S> If I was talking about citizens in general, I might not use a "the." <S> No one was surprised when many citizens of Alderaan left before the attack. <A> "The" is used before a country when it is a modifier of something else. <S> The United States (of America). <S> " <S> United States" is a modifier of America, so it needs "the." <S> The Ukraine. <S> "Ukraine" means "borderland" (relative to Russia). <S> And for our purposes, it is a "modifier." <S> But "Russia" and "Lithuania" don't modify anything else.
| If the main portion of the country's name is a noun with an independent meaning, use an article.
|
What does "I need to rant" mean? Could you possibly explain to me what could "I need to (personally) rant" mean? Does it mean like "I have some problems and I feel nervous or down and I have to share my problems with other people so that I can relax and relieve." <Q> Take a look at the dictionary ( OED ) & you'll find that rant has a stronger connotation than simply sharing one's problems . <S> Speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way: <S> Normally, I'd use it to describe someone who's complaining rather than relieving whatever burden their problems have brought. <S> So, "I need to rant" could have a slight negative connotation depending on the context. <A> They do not want you to help them fix the problem. <S> They do not want you to come up with a solution. <S> They just want you to listen. <S> Sometimes we might stay that they want you to lend a sympathetic ear. <S> This means they are looking for someone to listen and understand their frustration. <A> More often than not, the speaker is saying, or rather, giving a warning that they are about to vent or blow off some steam <S> and it is not anything directed personally at you. <S> Yet, at the risk of otherwise appearing like the crazy man down on the street shouting at the sky, they will proceed to do the same with you as their captive audience.
| Often, I think when someone tells you that they need to rant, they are letting you know that they want to complain, and will feel better just by having complained.
|
difference between put your hand up and raise your hand? If I asked my teacher a question in a classroom, then which one of the following sentence would be correct ? I put my hand up to ask the teacher a question. I raised my hand up to ask the teacher a question. Is there any difference ? - If any, how to differentiate its usage ? <Q> I don't know if it's a British/American thing, but in my corner of Britain (Swansea), we tend to use "put your hand up" when you have a question for a teacher. <A> Another difference: If a policeman was arresting a bad guy, he'd be more likely to say, "Put your hands up" than "Raise your hands". <A> There is a strong "British-American difference". <S> The Corpus of Contemporary American English contains 196 citations of raise your hand, but only 7 of put up your hand. <S> If you want to follow "US" style, it would be <S> I raised my hand, <S> not raised my hand up . <S> If you want to follow "UK/British" style, it would be <S> I put my hand up.
| I can't really comment on the usage across the rest of Britain, but "raise your hand" is something that I've only really come across in American sitcoms and films.
|
Usage of the words 'too' and 'also' What are the rules regarding the use of too and also ? I have read some relevant answers, but none made it clear. If someone says "my phone is working", what should I reply? Mine is working too Mine is working also <Q> If someone says- <S> “My phone is working.” <S> What should I reply? <S> Mine is working too (or) <S> Mine is working also <S> Either of those are correct and natural-sounding. <S> " <S> As well" would work as well. :-) <S> I prefer "too" <S> but that's just me. <A> "Also" can also be used as a normal adverb. <S> Like in the first sentence of this paragraph: You can say, "The word can also be used ...", but you CAN'T say "The word can too be used ..." Finally, "also" can be used as a conjunction. <S> "We need to clean the house. <S> Also, we want to mow the lawn." <S> Use of "too" as a conjunction is archaic. <A> Mine is working too or mine is working also? <S> Grammatically and semantically, both sentences are correct. <S> The only difference between them is as follows: <S> 1- <S> It's common and natural to use "too" at the end of a sentence, whereas also is not much used so <S> and and is not considered natural if used at the end of the sentence. <S> Also is normally used before a verb, after an auxiliary verb and sometimes at the beginning of a sentence. <S> 2- <S> The use of "also" is a bit formal. <S> On the other hand, the use of "too" is much more natural and common in spoken and informal English.
| Both "too" and "also" can be used as adverbs at the end of a clause like that and have the same meaning.
|
Another phrase for "difficult task is set for somebody" All I can formulate is the phrase "difficult task is set for somebody". I feel it sounds clumsy. What is a natural phrase to convey the following meaning? A difficult task is set for the government in the near future, on the one hand - to keep the budget, on the other hand - to ensure support for businesses in entrepreneurial and investment activities. <Q> One phrase sometimes used is herculean task , a metaphor based on the labors of Hercules . <S> TFD defines herculian as: herculean ( adj. ) requiring tremendous effort, strength, etc: a herculean task . <S> Although Hercules accomplished his tasks long ago, the phrase is still in vogue. <S> You can find many instances of it in contemporary news articles , like this one: <S> As genotyping and companion diagnostics are used more widely in clinical care, determining the ‘best’ therapy for a given patient will become a massively complex task. <S> Considering all the combinations of genomic risk factors, drug interactions and phenotypic influences, selecting the most appropriate therapy will be a Herculean task . <S> ( Source ) <A> You can simply say it as: <S> In the future it will be difficult for the government to set the budget and to ensure support for businesses in entrepreneurial and investment activities. <S> Or, <S> In the near future it will be a difficult task/challenge for the government to set the budget and to ensure support for businesses in entrepreneurial and investment activities. <A> A difficult task is set for the government in the near future, on the one hand - to keep the budget, on the other hand - to ensure support for businesses in entrepreneurial and investment activities. <S> My two cents: <S> In the days ahead , the government will face the hard task of keeping the budget untouched on the one hand and ensuring support to businesses engaged in entrepreneurial and investment activities on the other. <S> Humbulani, it's good excercise to look in thesaura and idiom collections online for alternatives to particular words and expressions and then reformulate your sentence in several different ways. <S> Or, just type out related expression you know in a separate text editor window, a kind of brainstorm session: <S> "on the one \ other hand" Balancing act, tip the scales, double-edged sword, keep the balance, to balance one against the other, to combine one and the other, to blend, to walk the line, <S> It will be the hard balancing act to.. <S> The Government will be faced with..
| "In the near future" In the perspective, in the days ahead, in the weaks ahead, in the near-term perspective, The Government's near-term task will be tough: to keep the budget while ensuring that the businesses engaged in entrepreneurial and investment activities are provided with support.
|
Should reference numbers be located after the punctuation? I saw in a research article that reference numbers were located after the punctuation. E.g. in the screenshot below, there are a few reference numbers that I underlined in red: they are located after , and . . Is that correct? <Q> According to The Chicago Manual of Style † , section 14.21, this is the normal way to do it: <S> The number normally follows a quotation (whether it is run into the text or set as an extract). <S> Relative to other punctuation, the number follows any punctuation mark except for the dash , which it precedes. <S> (emphasis added) <S> In my experience (which is mostly from reading linguistics papers), this is the usual practice. <S> I decided to check my memory, so I opened ten papers at random on my hard drive by different authors. <S> I found that nine followed this practice, while the remaining paper placed the superscript reference number before any punctuation. <S> So it seems (at least from a sample of linguistics papers) that this practice isn't followed universally, but <S> I'd nonetheless recommend you follow common practice both for aesthetic reasons and to avoid distracting the reader. <S> † <S> Thanks to Jason Patterson for pointing this out in the comments section . <A> This is a matter of citation style, and different style guides may prescribe different formats. <S> All the ones I know of specify that reference numbers come after any punctuation. <S> When citing sources in Wikipedia, its manual of style says: ... <S> citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods (full stops) and commas. <S> ... <S> Note also that no space is added before the citation marker. <S> On a related page Wikipedia gives more detail: <S> The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space (except possibly a hair space, generated by {{hsp}}). <S> Any punctuation (see exceptions below) must precede the ref tags. <S> Adjacent ref tags should have no space between them. <S> This applies to all ref tags, including both explanatory notes and citation footnotes. <S> ... <S> Exceptions: <S> Ref tags are placed before dashes, not after. <S> Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis. <S> Note <S> The above rules apply only to formatting citations within Wikipedia articles on the English-language Wikipedia site, and do not prescribe the format for any other use, although the style is similar to that used elsewhere. <A> I don't know about footnotes or references numbers, but I do know that parenthetical citations are indeed always placed after punctuation. <S> (Like This p. 42) This would lead me to believe that reference numbers are also placed after punctuation. <S> Edit: Hmm, seems I don't remember my writing classes as well as I thought; only long quotations are cited after punctuation, short quotations are cited immediately. <S> Source: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/03/
| A note number should generally be placed at the end of a sentence or at the end of a clause.
|
What does "Swedish parents are entitled to 480 paid parental leave days for each child" mean? Swedish parents are entitled to 480 paid parental leave days for each child What does this mean? <Q> Sweden encourages parents to take a lot of time off when they have a baby. <S> I googled this sentence and the context indicates that this is a pooled amount of days <S> : i.e. both parents could take an equal 240 days off (adding up to 480), or it could be unequal (one parent taking 60 and another 420). <S> However, each parent is entitled to 60 days that can't be taken away from them by the other parent (unless they are a single parent). <A> It is not specified if it applies to both parents or just one, but I would presume only one of them. <A> This is referring to paternity leave. <S> It means that when a couple has a child, both parents are allowed to take paid time off from their jobs to care for the baby. <S> The total number of days the couple can take is 480. <S> They split these days between them, so both the mother and the father have time to bond with and care for the child before returning to work.
| It means Swedish people that have children can have 480 days off work starting from when their child is born (or possibly a bit earlier).
|
How to decline a help offer politely I was just wondering how can I decline a help offer politely from someone whom especially I don't know very well. For example, I am moving in a new house and a neighbor sees me carrying boxes and says Do you need help? or I can give you a hand if you want . Another example , you are alone and while you are strolling in public like shopping center or park, you feel dizzy and sit down in a collapsed manner and suddenly someone approaches you and says Are you ok? Would you want me to call one of your friends? but you feel better and want to decline the help offer. So can I say Thank you for your interest as the reply in the above 2 scenarios? <Q> You can almost always say "No thank you", which is polite enough on its own, but if you'd like to give a longer response, you could say something like: <S> No thank you. <S> I appreciate the offer, but I'll be fine on my own. <S> Sometimes making your reply a little bit longer like this can make you seem more gracious and less brusque. <S> If you appear to be hurt, it would also be good to say "I'm okay" <S> so they know not to worry. <A> I often say: <S> [It's] <S> Nice of you to offer, but I think I've got it. <S> or ... <S> but I think I can manage it. <S> [Thanks [though]] <S> or for your second scenario <S> : <S> Nice of you to offer, but I think I'm okay. <S> [Thanks [though]] <S> Adding " I think " also softens the response and makes it less brusque. <A> No, thanks! <S> If you say: No, thank you! <S> That's a little bit formal, so they might think you're being a very little bit unfriendly. <S> In the UK, we like to say things like bye , sorry or thanks <S> a few times not just once. <S> So we might say something like: <S> No thanks! <S> Thanks very much though! <S> The exclamation marks there <S> (!!) mean that you need to say it at a high pitch . <S> A high pitch makes you sound enthusiastic and friendly. <S> A low pitch will make you sound bored. <S> You'll sound as if it doesn't matter to you. <S> So, the more high pitched and friendly the better. <S> This is probably more important than what you actually say. <S> (Don't worry, you'll never do it at too high a pitch, trust me!) <S> Hope <S> this is helpful!
| It's good just to say:
|
How to use "What about ... ?" I have a problem about how to use the term "What about". Is the following question grammatically correct: " What about occupation of Wu Zetian ? " <Q> It is OK, with a minor correction: <S> What about <S> the occupation of Wu Zetian? <S> or you could say: How about the occupation of Wu Zetian? <S> These are informal usages and more likely in spoken conversation. <S> More correct and the actual meaning could be written as: <S> What do you think about the occupation of Wu Zetian? <A> Seeing that the other posts focused on how to grammatically tweak that sentence, I wanted to address when the term is used. <S> You ask a question about one noun and then you want to ask the same question about a second noun. <S> The phrase "What about..." is used to imply the prior question. <S> What is Todd's occupation? <S> What about Jim's? <S> What color is your room? <S> What about his room? <S> In fact, the question in the other answers: What about the occupation of Wu Zetian? <S> could be interpreted many different ways if it is the lead question. <S> If you're just looking for occupation name, it's quite likely you'll get more detail than you want. <A> Not really. <S> If you want to ask about the occupation, it would probably be: What about the occupation of Wu Zetian? <S> Perhaps followed by: <S> Do we know what it is? <S> (like in an investigation or something) <S> It would probably be better to ask: What is the occupation of Wu Zetian?
| In my experience, people use "What about" as a follow up question.
|
filling teeth and place a filling Her filling was dropped out and have to filling teeth . Her filling was dropped out and have to place a filling . Is "place a filling" the alternative way to say "filling teeth"? <Q> Neither is correct English. <S> You would instead say "Her filling has dropped out, and she needs a tooth filled." <A> All the sentences seem unnatural and incorrect. <S> I think it can be rephrasedas follows: <S> "Her filling came out and she had to have another filling". <S> " <S> Her filling came out and she had another filling". <S> " <S> Her filling came out and she had the tooth filled again". <S> I am not sure if we can use dropped out instead of came out. <A> Neither of the originals are correct. <S> I don't mind 'dropped out', but definitely not 'was dropped out' which is ungrammatical, however, <S> the form I'd prefer would be... <S> "Her filling came out, so she needed a replacement." <S> or perhaps "Her filling came out, so she needed a new one" <S> I prefer the second option, from J.R.'s comment, without the extra 'to get', but the first option would be my choice. <S> I don't like any of the constructions that link the two clauses with 'and' ' <S> So' implies causality - because her filling came out, she needed a new one. <S> 'And' merely strings the ideas together in the order they possibly happened. <S> Interestingly, you can 'replace a filling' but <S> you really can't 'place' one.
| You would 'have a tooth filled' or 'get a filling', or 'have a filling' [possibly, but that's very colloquial]
|
Do native speakers often use relative clauses? Do native speakers use "relative clauses" much when speaking? For example: "The bag he is carrying is very heavy." or "Have you seen the photos Ann took?" Do native speakers often talk like this? <Q> Yes. <S> See Frequency of Basic English Grammatical Structures: <S> A Corpus Analysis <S> (Roland et al. 2009): <S> In the Switchboard corpus, representing unscripted conversation , they found 25,440 relative clauses per million noun phrases. <S> In the Wall Street Journal corpus, representing formal written English , they found 46,788 relative clauses per million noun phrases. <S> So relative clauses are frequent in both informal conversation and formal written English, but they're more frequent in the latter. <S> Your examples are perfectly natural. <S> All native speakers use relative clauses, and they're quite common in daily speech. <A> I have italicised the defining relative clauses: "The bag (that) he is carrying is very heavy." <S> "Have you seen the photos (that) <S> Ann took ?" <S> They are perfectly natural. <S> The version with that omitted is more informal. <A> Slightly more common would be " <S> He is carrying a very heavy bag." or "Have you seen Ann's photos?" <S> However, the sentences have identical meanings and usages, with only a small difference in focus. <S> One draws our attention to the subject ("He" and "You") and the other to the object ("the bag" and "the photos.")
| Yes, these types of sentences are used daily in American English.
|
Which word describes a state of mind when you make unnecessary easy-to-avoid mistake? For example: A: When you add 1 to 45235, you will get 45235 B: You mean 45236 A: Oops, yes. It's 45236 What is the word describes that state of mind when you know what you intend to say, but cannot recall the exact word, or say it differently or wrongly? <Q> Jason is correct that "careless" and "sloppy" are possibilities. <S> If the person does not notice their mistake, or ignores the mistake if it is pointed out, the person is "blithe" or "oblivious". <S> For example, one might say that someone "blithely carried on" after making a mistake. <S> "Blithe" is a rare word; "blithely" and "oblivious" are fairly common. <S> "Reckless" is a legal term. <S> Someone who is "reckless" may be held legally liable for their carelessness. <S> "A slip" is a technical term for a mistake where you mean to do one thing, but accidentally "slip" into a routine that results in doing something else. <S> The Design of Everyday Things discusses common mistakes, and how the way things are made can make it easier or harder to make a mistake. <A> Would careless or sloppy work for you? <A> "Error-prone" is a good one, but I will also give some votes above. <A> I have noticed that, very informally. <S> to have a brainfart/brain fart" seems to be getting quite common. <S> Here is Wikipedia's explanation. <A> This is called a "slip of the tongue" or a "lapsus linguae". <S> The former expression is quite common; the latter very rare. <S> From http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/slip-of-the-tongue - something that you say by accident when you intended to say something else: which is almost exactly what you asked for. <S> I don't know whether there's any particular word for the mental state that leads to making such slips. <A> It is often referred to as a "senior moment". <S> see Urban Dictionary <S> Note it is not necessarily age-related <A> I don't know if it fits your question <S> but you should look up for "rookie mistake"
| "Absentminded" is another possibility.
|
Just now I know he is stingy Your friend telling that guy is stingy and now you know it. I just know that he is stingy. Just now I know he is stingy. Can we put the "just now" in the front? <Q> "I just learned that he is stingy." <S> That's how I'd say it. <S> The verb learn refers to a more precise moment in time than know , so just learned sounds more natural than just know . <S> There's no need to put the "now" with just in that sentence, because the phrase "just learned" means that this learning happened in the immediate past. <S> However, you could say: "Just now, I learned that he is stingy." <S> The two-word phrase <S> just now gets its own entry in some dictionaries . <S> NOAD defines it as: <S> just now 1 at this moment 2 a little time ago <A> I just know has nothing to do with time. <S> In that expression, just means "for reasons that cannot be stated". <S> An example of that usage would be <S> You're hiding something from me — I just know it! … meaning that I have a very strong guess, maybe from reading your facial expression. <S> (It's just an expression — technically, I don't really know for sure!) <S> You could say <S> Now I know… . <S> That implies that you recently discovered some evidence that made you form that opinion. <S> I saw how small a tip he left for the waiter. <S> Now I know he is stingy. <S> Just now I know… feels wrong. <S> Just now is not as open-ended as now . <S> Just now means "at this moment" (a very brief instant in the present) or "a little time ago" (in the past). <S> On the other hand, once you know something, you continue to know it. <S> Knowledge is not something that ends in an instant, whether in the present or in the recent past. <S> You could say instead: <S> Just now I learned that he is stingy. <S> or Just now I realized how stingy he really is. <S> The difference is that learned and realized are completable actions. <A> This would work: <S> I just found out that he is stingy. <S> : it means <S> I know only that he is stingy . <S> More examples <S> : You just went to the bathroom, why do you need to go again already? <S> Hurray — we just won the lottery! <S> Derek just got over a bad cold, so he is not ready to go ice climbing. <S> Even in other senses, "just now" isn't necessary; "just" is sufficient and more natural-sounding: <S> I am just now realizing he is stingy. <S> I am just realizing he is stingy.
| "Just now" isn't really used, because "just" is sufficient by itself in most cases to indicate that something has happened very recently... except in the first case you posted ( I just know that he is stingy ), "just" has a different meaning
|
"Less you feel uneasy" vs. "Less uneasy you feel" When I wrote: "The more information you have, the less you feel uneasy ." I was advised to use: "The more information you have, the less uneasy you feel ." I would like to know which is the correct position of "uneasy." To me both are okay. <Q> This principle is called parallel construction : <S> The [more/less] <S> X you Y <S> The more information you have <S> The less uneasy you feel Sentences with two clauses work better, and sound more natural, if they are of parallel construction than if they are of asymmetric construction. <A> In your sentence, less qualifies the adjective uneasy , so putting these two words next to each other does make good sense. <S> There is also a nice symmetry between the structures of the two clauses: more information and less uneasy . <S> However, there is another pattern where there appears to be no noun or adjective: <S> The more you think the less you feel. <S> which may have led you to say the less you feel uneasy . <S> However this pattern is best understood as <S> The more [stuff] <S> you think the less [stuff] you feel. <S> so again <S> more <S> and less are qualifying nouns. <S> That said, what you originally wrote is 100% understandable, and would pass unnoticed in ordinary conversation. <A> "less"/"more" can qualify an adjective like "uneasy" or a quantifiable noun or "information". <S> However, it's not possible to use it with a verb construction such as "feeling uneasy". <S> Here, "(to) feel" gives the term its meaning, and actions cannot as such be quantified or qualified. <S> They happen, or they don't. <S> So <S> The less uneasy you feel <S> is correct because "less" can actually have an influence on the adjective "uneasy". <S> The less you feel uneasy <S> is not grammatically correct, but as a colloquialism, it implies that you can quantify the act of feeling. <S> My guess would be, by regarding it as equal with the feeling itself. <S> It is understandable, but it leaves this tiny notion that something is not quite right here. <S> Too tiny to make it an issue in a normal conversation ... <S> ;) <S> That's just how colloquialisms work, I guess. <A> "The more information you have, the less you feel uneasy". <S> I think the PO should accept his friend's advice. <S> I'll not say that his sentence doesn't make sense, but it doesn't even seem correct grammatically. <S> We can not say "Less I feel uneasy instead of I feel less uneasy". <S> It's unjust to divorce less from uneasy. <S> Actually, we use such phrases when we want to refer to an event or action that happens continuously or repeatedly, with a particular result at the same time. <S> When we use such expressions, we must see to it that the word forms should be parallel in each of the expression. <A> Your original sentence can definitely be improved. <S> Whether the suggested improvement is optimal depends on what you are trying to say. <S> It is usually best to put modifiers as close as possible to the words they modify. <S> This reduces the odds of misunderstandings about which modifiers go with which words. <S> "[T]he less you feel uneasy" in your original sentence leaves some ambiguity as to whether you refer to a lessening of the intensity of each instance of uneasiness, or if there's an implied word (such as "often") missing right after "less" meaning that the frequency of your bouts of uneasiness will be reduced, but the intensity of them is unchanged. <S> Closing the gap can be done either by rearranging the words as suggested, or by including the implied word. <S> Which one to choose depends on which meaning you originally intended. <A> "The more information you have, the less you feel uneasy." -> for what it's worth, this would be considered 100% incorrect where I come from and to me it sounds very awkward. <S> There are lots of references to "parallelism" in the answers above but this is a specific form called (amongst other things) the comparative correlative - link . <S> I'd recommend you stick with the second form, especially if you use English in a formal business setting i.e. "The more information you have, the less uneasy you feel."
| So the correct sentence is "The more information you have, the less uneasy you feel".
|
Practice Makes It Perfect Is the phrase " practice makes perfect " (three words) a nonstandard but popular variation of " practice makes it perfect " (four words)? <Q> No. <S> "Practice makes perfect" is the correct idiom in common use. <S> You raise a valid question. <S> To be grammatically correct it would have to be <S> "practice makes it perfect" (as you suggest) or "practice makes perfection." <A> It's used for saying that if you repeat an activity or do it regularly, you will become very good at it. <S> It's you that becomes perfect, not the activity that becomes perfect. <S> So the correct phrase is "Practice makes perfect" and it's not idiomatic to say that "Practice makes it perfect". <S> However, grammatically, it also makes sense as one's work improves when it's done repeatedly. <A> Think of "perfect" as a pseudo-noun. <S> Or just imagine a city called Perfect. <S> And another one called Nice (no pun intended). <S> And yet another one named Like A Tree. <S> "This design is far from perfect." <S> "You have to have more than just materials to make Perfect. <S> ""Go ahead and make Nice with those people. <S> ""Catch <S> the next train to Perfect and make some friends. <S> ""I don't want to make any friends, and I can't make Nice tonight. <S> ""Then <S> why don't you make Like a Tree and get out of my face." <S> Note that you don't actually physically make friends or money or time, i.e. you can't create them. <S> " <S> Make" is just a figure of speech in all those cases.
| "Practice makes perfect" is a common idiom.
|
Use of Modal Verbs 'Must' and 'Will' to Express Certainty When I see examples of 'must' or 'will' showing certainty, I find that the main verb is either a stative verb or a present participle preceded by 'be'. How different are the two sentences in the following pairs: He will be coming. VS He will come.He must be working. VS He must work. <Q> Wikipedia has reasonably good coverage of modal verbs . <S> Must is stronger than will : must indicates a requirement, whereas will indicates a prediction of future action without regard to its cause. <S> If someone will do something, we don't know whether it's because they have to, or they want to, or it's just a matter of circumstance. <S> See also RFC 2119 which outlines the specific meanings of the modal verbs MUST, MAY, SHOULD, and SHALL in requirements documents that cite RFC 2119. <A> The two phrases with must are actually quite different. <S> He must be working : <S> I am expressing certainty that he is currently working. <S> He must work : In general, work is something he has to do. <S> He will be coming : <S> I am expressing certainty that he will come, and am considering that action (of him coming) as continuous; that is, I am thinking of it happening over some time period. <S> This suggests certainty that his transit will occur. <S> He will come : <S> I am expressing certainty that he will come, and am considering that action (of him coming) as discrete; that is, it is one complete action in my mind. <S> This suggests certainty that his arrival will occur. <A> The word 'must' in many cases seems to me as lacking of a choice in the matter, like 'have to'. <S> My more used word 'will' allow freedom of choice.
| The two phrases with will are similar, with only a subtle difference.
|
Flat tyre and puncture Please read the following sentences: My bike has had two punctures in the last three weeks. I got a flat tyre. My bike got a flat tyre. My bike got punctured or The tyre of my bike got punctured (Which one is correct?) In the first sentence, from Cambridge, 'puncture' is used as a noun. But can it be used as a verb, like in the third and the fourth sentences? Could you help me understand when to use flat tyre and when to use puncture ?? Consider the situation - If I am late to the office and I want to give this excuse of puncture, then how should I frame my sentence? And will that sentence be applicable to bicycles, bikes, cars, buses (public transport) or any other transport. Is the word 'puncture' used in American English ?? <Q> The sentences 1, 2 and 3 are grammatically correct, but it will be more appropriate if we also use "had" instead of "got" in the second and the third sentences like the first one as "had" is the more usual verb used in such sentences. <S> The adjective "flat" is usually used in American English, whereas the noun puncture is common in British English. <S> Similarly, the "flat" can also be used as a noun in American English such as I had a flat. <S> As for the last sentence, "puncture" can be used as a transitive or intransitive verb such as my bike/the tyre of my bike punctured/was punctured. <S> Moreover, we spell tire in American English and tyre in British English. <A> Sentences #1, #2, and #3 all sound natural to my (bicycle-riding American) ear. <S> (Americans use "tire", not "tyre".) <S> I prefer "I had a flat" or <S> "I had a flat tire" instead of <S> "I got a flat tire". <A> First, note that a flat tyre ("tire" in US English) and a puncture are not necessarily the same thing. <S> A flat tyre means that the air has gone out of it; a puncture is a hole in the tyre, typically caused by running over a sharp object. <S> Thus, a puncture will cause a flat tyre but flat tyres can have other causes, such as a faulty valve. <S> My bike has had two punctures in the last three weeks. <S> I got a flat tyre. <S> My bike got a flat tyre. <S> My bike got punctured or The tyre of my bike got punctured (Which one is correct?) <S> 1–3 are fine. <S> "My bike got punctured" doesn't feel quite right: the most natural interpretation would be that something had punched a hole in the frame of your bike, though that seems sufficiently unlikely that the person you were talking to would probably understand that it was the tyre. <S> I'd say "My bike got a puncture" instead. <S> "The tyre of my bike got punctured" is fine but a bit long-winded. <S> You could also say "I got a puncture." <A> American/Canadian English <S> The American/Canadian spelling would be tire . <S> An American/Canadian English speaker would probably never choose to use puncture for these situations, but should be able to guess its meaning. <S> The common phrase would be got a flat tire , sometimes just got a flat . <S> Alternate phrases might be blew a tire , burst a tire , or popped a tire , particularly if it was a catastrophic event rather than a slow leak.
| We can also say "I had a puncture or my bike had a puncture".
|
Is there an insinuation after 'had better'? You’ d better bloody well tell them you’ll need to discuss it with me first. (The Casual Vacancy, by J. K. Rowling) Whenever I saw a bare-infinitive follow close behind ‘had better,’ I thought ‘had better’-plus-verb is a loaf of meaning bread. But as you see, there’s a ‘ bloody well ’ intervention. This gives me this impression that the construction might be a combination of a matrix and a conditional clause - I mean two meaning-sub-breads. That is, ‘You had ( in here, there might be an insinuation of ‘a treat, a situation, etc. ’) better bloody well, ( if you would ) tell them you’ll need to discuss it with me first. As a to-infinitve can deliver a conditional meaning as in: People might take you for a girl, to hear you sing . It’s hard to believe there could be any account for this in any grammar books. But do you perchance read the way I said? <Q> It's an ingenious idea, and it has some historical support. <S> When the idiom first arose (see OED 1 ,4,b), what is now the subject was a dative and the sense was <S> It would be better for you , and you could certainly understand that as: <S> It would be better for you if you bloody well told them ... <S> But I don't think it works. <S> I think you have to understand what follows better not as an adjunct but as a complement acting as an NP. <S> Historically, in fact, it was the subject, expressed as a content clause with that : Him wære betere <S> Þæt <S> he næfre ȝeboren nære ... <S> = <S> Him were better that he never born <S> wasn’t = <S> That he had never been born would be better for him. <S> Although the front end of the expression has changed drastically, I think that complement sense of the back end survives: <S> Tell them you’ll need to discuss it with me first is what you'd better bloody well do. <S> Let me offer you an alternate far-fetched analysis: ’d·better has become an ordinary modal verb, taking a bare infinitive (with its arguments) as its complement: <S> You ’d better <S> bloody <S> well tell them ... <S> You should bloody <S> well tell them ... <S> This analysis may be a little more plausible in US speech, where the ’d at the beginning has practically disappeared: <S> You better f*****g tell them .. <A> (hmmmm... let's say unpleasant) consequences. <S> Cf. <S> Harry Truman, 1951 . <S> P.S. <S> In the most neutral terms, "you'd better" is a prediction . <S> There need <S> be no malice or insinuation of harm, only a choice between two outcomes, one of them the less desirable. <S> It would be better for you to.... <S> Your eyelids are drooping. <S> You'd better go to bed! <S> (i.e. or you may fall asleep as we're talking, which might be an embarrassment for you. <S> vs. <S> You'd better not come back to this pool-hall! <S> (i.e. or next time, we may do worse things than break your thumbs). <A> It is known that older formulas had the form as in the example given by StoneyB: Him wære betere ... <S> ". <S> But I have never read an explanation how the illogical construction "You had* better do A" came into being ( had* means past subjunctive, <S> A stands for anything you might add). <S> Once I suggested on another forum the hypothesis that had <S> * may have been did*:"You <S> did* better go home now" - such a structure would have some logic. <S> Probably this did* was shortened to 'd and then taken for had. <S> A hypothesis of mine, but I couldn't convince anybody, though one member said:Interesting theory.
| To answer the question in the title, yes, in {you had better + bare infinitive} there is an insinuation that to do|not to do something will have
|
Can you say "the dessert eats well"? I heard that a food critic (who is British male) made a comment on a dish like this: It looks very pretty, but it doesn't eat very well. The expression amazed me as I never knew food can be a subject of verb eat . I couldn't find such a usage in any dictionaries. Is it something poetic rather than correct English? <Q> English is cool, in that words can often be "bent" to suit our purposes. <S> Context is everything. <S> Can you use food as a subject of the word eat ? <S> Sure you can; you just saw it done. <S> But I'm not surprised you heard this obscure usage being uttered by a food critic. <S> It's their job to eat, taste, and comment, and they will form their sentences accordingly. <S> I found a similar usage in the comments of a wine critic : <S> On the second night the wine seemed to offer up even more dark fruit, suggesting that a year or so in bottle may deliver even more. <S> This is not to say that the wine doesn't drink well now – compared to a few of the 2007 Cotes du Rhones I have had, this wine does not show too much heat or acidity at this stage . <S> I agree with Ryan's answer above; I, too, would not recommend using this wording too often. <S> After, say, visiting a McDonald's, you probably don't want to say: The French fries were edible, but the Big Mac didn't eat very well . <S> no matter how mediocre you found the food – unless you want to sound like a food critic for some reason. <S> The sentence isn't grammatically flawed, but it's not how most people would say it. <A> Some verbs are used with 'patient focus'. <S> In the Grammar of Discourse <S> Longacre gives examples such as <S> The article reads smoothly and My new car drives nicely . <S> It doesn't eat very well <S> appears to be this type of construction, but I have never heard EAT used in this way. <A> Strictly speaking, this is a structure known in linguistics as "middle voice" (although you don't often see that term used when talking about English grammar). <S> In many languages it's explicitly marked, but in English it usually takes the form of a verb that looks like it's active voice but has passive meaning. <S> As other people have already said, "the dessert eats well <S> " is grammatical, although for many people sounds a little bit forced. <S> There are, however, plenty of other examples of the middle voice in English where it's alive and well. <S> A simple example: Active voice: "The ball broke the window" (the ball is subject and is causing the action of breaking) <S> Passive voice: "The window was broken by the ball" Middle voice: <S> "The window broke" (the window is subject, but <S> underwent the action of breaking) Or Active voice <S> : "The sun melted the ice" (the sun is subject and causing the action of melting) <S> Passive voice: "The ice was melted by the sun" Middle voice: <S> "The ice melted" (the ice is subject, but underwent the action of melting) <S> In each case, the middle voice form is derived from a transitive active voice verb, but with the object of the transitive form being used as the subject of the intransitive middle voice form. <A> It is more stylistic of British English than American English. <S> From my American point of view, it sounds a bit awkward. <S> It is a matter of opinion if such a sentence is correct, but in general, I would avoid using the phrase in this way. <A> On those lines, it irks me to hear someone say "Oh, she takes a good photo! <S> " when what they mean is "She looks good in a photo!" <A> It is no more strange than to say the food "looks" very pretty. <S> It has no eyes with which to see, or certainly none that remain operational at this point, I hope! <S> I look at the food and behold it to be pretty, so we says it "Looks pretty". <S> "Eats well" is quite parallel, in this sentence.
| Saying a phrase such as "eats well" is a fairly poetic usage.
|
"the hotel where you stayed" or "the hotel where you stayed at" Which sentence is correct? 1. Did you like the hotel where you stayed? 2. Did you like the hotel where you stayed at ? I am curious as to whether to use at or not. <Q> 1.Did you like the hotel where you stayed? <S> This is correct. <S> The relative pronoun where has the meaning of at/in/to which. <S> 2.Did you like the hotel where you stayed at? <S> You can say: 3. <S> Did you like the hotel you stayed at/ <S> in? <S> or 4. <S> Did you like the hotel at/in which you stayed? <S> No. 4 is rather formal. <A> The first one is correct. <S> Do you like the hotel where you stayed? <S> If you didn't have the "where," however, you could get away with including the "at." <S> Do you like the hotel you stayed at? <S> That has a dangling participle, and would more grammatically correctly be phrased <S> Do you like the hotel at which you stayed? <S> Although that's way more formal than how anyone would probably speak in real life. <S> I think the difference between the two you said becomes a bit more evident when you change it around a bit. <S> Where did you say last night? <S> That sounds a lot more comfortable than its equivalent <S> Where did you stay at last night? <S> Of course, you could also say: Which hotel did you stay at last night? <S> And that would be reasonable. <S> It's ultimately just a choice between "where" and "at which." <A> I wouldn't add "at" here; it sound redundant, if not grammatically incorrect.
| As the where contains within itself the idea of at , the at in your sentence is redundant, and the sentence is incorrect.
|
"Before doing X or doing Y, you need to do Z", does it mean Z, X/Y, Z, X/Y OR Z, X/Y, X/Y, X/Y? While camping, you plan to fry some eggs and steam some fishes. Beforeactually frying an egg or steaming a fish, you need to check that thefire is still burning. Which of the following does the paragraph above mean? Is the description so ambiguous that you can't tell either way? Interpretation 1: Check fire Fry a egg or steam a fish Check fire Fry a egg or steam a fish Check fire Fry a egg or steam a fish Interpretation 2: Check fire Fry the eggs or steam the fishes, in whichever order you prefer <Q> If your example is intended to be a realistic and natural use of language, where philosophical precision is not called for, I would understand the sentence that begins "Before actually frying..." to mean that, before doing either of those things, one must check to make sure the fire is still burning. <S> But it's not a mutually exclusive scenario. <S> The fire-check applies equally to both, regardless of the order in which they occur, and whether they occur singly or together. <S> If you have been digging in the garden, you should wash your hands before you put on your contact lenses or brush your teeth. <A> Before actually frying an egg or steaming a fish, you need to check that the fire is still burning. <S> In this sentence as it stands, you first check that the fire is still burning. <S> The second action can be one of two possibilities: : Frying an egg Steaming a fish. <S> The or in your original statement precludes the possibility of both frying an egg and steaming a fish. <A> As TRomano explains, "or" in English usually means "and/or", not "exclusive or" ("xor"). <A> The sentence could be interpreted either way. <S> Actually it could be interpreted at least 3 ways: <S> If you want to do both X and Y, you must do Z twice, once before each. <S> First do Z, then do X or Y or both. <S> First do Z, then do either X or Y. <S> You cannot do both X and Y. <S> For example: "Before driving the car to the store or to school, check the oil. <S> " If the person is going to the store and from there to school, he probably doesn't need to check the oil twice. <S> "Before driving the car to the store or to school, check if you have enough gas. <S> " You might need to recheck before each trip. <S> "Before driving the car over a cliff or into the lake, be sure you can get out before it's too late." <S> He can only do one or the other, because after that the car is destroyed. <S> If you don't think the interpretation will be clear to the reader, add additional words to make it explicit. <A> Which of the following does the paragraph above mean? <S> I take the sentence as a joke . <S> Of course, before cooking the fire must be burning. <S> It is like saying "before taking a bath, you need to check there is water in the bathtub". <S> Or "before cooking a chicken, make sure you have a chicken". <S> Trying to interpret whether you keep checking if the fire is still burning during the cooking process is taking the entire sentence too literally. <S> That is like saying "whilst taking a bath, keep checking there is still water in the bathtub".
| First do Z, then do either X or Y. It all depends on the type of action you're describing.
|
'Putting on / Wearing' and 'Taking off' a hat / cap... - Tie &... - Glasses - Jewels and so on To me, one can ("put on" or "wear") and "take off"all the mentioned items in the subject of this thread; I have made some examples. Please consider them and let me know if my sentences sound incorrect to you. Meanwhile, I think using either 'put on' or 'wear' in these senses do not make any semantic nuance in the sentences bellow; I would appreciate it if you specify the examples where using one of these two mentioned verbs convey a different connotation: 1) Hat / Cap and etc. I thought its cold outside and (put on / wore) my Knit cap; but the weather was good and I (took it off / took off it). 2) Tie and so on Do you know that man who has (put a tie on / put on a tie / worn a tie)? Because of an old habit I (take my tie off / take off my tie) at the time of dance. 3) Glasses It’s too sunny; I need to (put on / wear) my sunglasses. Take of your glasses. 4) Jewels Most of the women love to put on / wear expensive jewels in ceremonies Please take off your jewels. <Q> There is always a difference between put on/take off and wear . <S> In "It’s too sunny; I need to (put on / wear) <S> my sunglasses", the practical result may be the same, but put on refers to a brief action and wear to a continuing state. <S> A further difference is that both verbs can be used before the sunglasses are put on, but only wear can be used after they have been put on. <S> Note that you can put on sunglasses , put sunglasses on and put them on ; take off sunglasses , take sunglasses off or take them off . <S> You cannot put on them or take off them. <A> "putting on" is the act of changing from "not wearing to "wearing". <S> In the same way "taking off" is changing from "wearing" to "not wearing". <S> However, they are often used interchangeably, because they imply each other. <S> If I have put on a tie, then it can imply that I am wearing it now. <S> If I am wearing a hat, it implies I put it on at some point in the past. <S> In your examples, the sentences all work either way, but there may be subtle differences in meaning. <S> "Women who love to put on jewels" is slightly different from "women who love to wear jewels" because in the first case it suggest that it is the act of putting the jewels on that they enjoy, and in the second case it suggests that they enjoy the wearing. <A> The difference is that put on/ <S> off implies the movement action of removing and putting something on yourself,while "wearing" dies not indicate movement. <S> Example:I put on the hat 5 minutes ago. <S> I am wearing a hat. <S> I will take off the hat later. <S> (Something similar happens in german, but that is a tale for another day)
| There is a difference between "put on" and "wearing".
|
Does "49er" mean "A 49-year-old man"? Is it right to say "I was talking to a 49er" to aim that "I was talking to a 49-year-old man"? I know that it's meaningless to say it, but my question is: "Is (age)er = (age)-year-old man"? <Q> No. <S> Referring to a forty-nine-year-old man as a "49er" is not idiomatic in either American or British usage. <S> The more idiomatic expression would be "49-year-old," as in: I was talking to a 49-year-old. <S> "49er" or "forty-niner" is an English word, but it has nothing to do with age. <S> It refers to one of a wave of gold prospectors who traveled to the American West, and especially California, in 1849. <S> So, for example, the first verse of the song "Clementine" is: <S> In a cavern, in a canyon, Excavating for a mine, Lived a miner forty-niner <S> And his daughter, Clementine. <S> This is why San Francisco, California's American football team is named the "Forty-Niners." <A> DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince referred to a gold-digger as " <S> The girl ain't nothing but a 49er" in their track <S> "You Got It (Donut)" from their 1989 album <S> And In This Corner... <S> I was contemplatin' her bein' my wife andAll <S> she was tryin to do <S> was siphonEvery single dime that she could extortShe was Jane the Ripper, and she couldn't be caughtMy friends tried to tell me <S> but I stood behind her("The girl <S> ain't nothin but a 49er")They tried to tell me <S> but I couldn't be toldBecause <S> her beauty was a shovel that was diggin for gold <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Fx3G2blzU <S> A "gold-digger" is a person who dates others purely to extract money from them, in particular a woman who strives to marry a wealthy man, so you could use "49er" as a slang reference to this type of person. <S> Probably not very common usage judging by having to use a 25 year old reference ;) <A> I have never heard or seen this type of expression. <S> I would use only "I was talking to a 49-year-old man". <S> If I were not sure of his exact age, I might refer to him as a man in his late forties. <A> No, a 49er refers to a person who plays for the San Francisco 49ers , the American Football team. <S> You: <S> "I was siting next to a 49er at the bar today." <S> Friend: " <S> Sweet! <S> Was it Frank Gore!?!?" <A> "Thirty-something" originally meant a person who was forty one, "in denial" about their age, and still pretending they were in their thirties. <S> Now, it just means someone who is actually in their thirties. <S> But "forty-niners" is, as the person above said, a reference to the California gold-rush boom in 1849.
| As others have said, the correct way would be to refer to him as a "49-year-old".
|
How do you read this, "to staff a 100 bed"? The health provider will get $20 million from the Abbott Government to staff a 100 bed hospital in Sierra Leone. ( here is the audio) (from Aussie ABC) I don’t hear clearly how the presenter is saying this number, 100. ‘a-hundred’ or ‘hundred’. I hear the latter. But the presenter might be saying ‘to staffa a-hundred,’ not ‘to staff a hundred.’ How do you read the number, 100? ‘A-hundred’ or ‘hundred’? If it was 200, would you read ‘to staff a two-hundred’? <Q> ... to staff a 100-bed hospital ... <S> The second was what the announcer in your clip said. <S> We can have a 200-bed hospital, "a two-hundred-bed hospital". <S> Indeed, we can use any number there. <S> The 'a' is necessary, The 'one' before numbers beginning with one hundred/thousand ( 100, 110, 175, 1,000 , etc) is optional. <A> You can use either "a one-hundred" or "a hundred". <S> I am not aware of any prescribed grammar in this circumstance. <S> Maybe because it has become an all too familiar usage. <S> But, just to be analytical: "a—used as a function word before singular nouns when the referent is unspecified and before number collectives and some numbers " <S> Technically, 'a' in this circumstance is an indefinite article (singular). <S> Which means it can be any 'hundred', not a specific 'hundred.' <S> Where these examples refer to a specific hundred: 1.) <S> This hundred bed hospital.2.) <S> That hundred bed hospital.3.) <S> Your hundred bed hospital. <S> 'One-hundred bed hospital' itself does not refer to a specific or non-specific one-hundred bed hospital. <S> It only really creates an lexicon image. <S> One is not required before hundred because in this case (and most all cases) hundred is a noun. <S> Just the same as any other noun, it is understood already as '1' singular. <S> (Cat or One Cat, bed or one bed) <A> To use and articulate a one-hundred-bed hospital is to emphasize, while saying a hundred is very passive. <S> Apparently this hundred-bed hospital is not to big of a deal. <S> It nearly sounds like the presenter is indicating some kind of experiment; an experiment funded by Abbott. <S> EMPHASIS EXAMPLE <S> Abbott gave ONE Hundred Million Dollars to charity! <S> That is quite a lot of money! <S> PASSIVE EXAMPLE <S> Abbott gave a hundred million dollars to charity. <S> He couldn't think of anything else to spend it on.
| This could be said either as "a one-hundred-bed hospital" or more simply, "a hundred-bed hospital".
|
Which is the correct word to be filled in the blank in this sentence, "use", "using", or "to use"? Touch screens are electronic visual displays that allow a user to interact directly with what is displayed on the screen, rather than ___________ a pointing device, such as a mouse. Which is the correct word to be filled in the blank in this sentence, "use", "using", or "to use"? I prefer to use "using", but is "use" also OK? How about "to use"? <Q> Robert Burchfield says that rather than can be followed by an -ing form, a bare infinitive or a to- infinitive. <S> He suggests that "matching forms are best in in the clause preceding and following rather than ". <S> If you follow Burchfield's advice, to use , matching to interact , is the best form. <S> Burchfield R (1996.652), The New Fowler's Modern English Usage. <A> Good question. <S> Cambridge Dictionary has an entry for this. <S> It says... <S> We use rather than to give more importance to one thing when two alternatives or preferences are being compared: Good to note that when we use 'rather than' with a verb, which is the case here, we use the base form or (less commonly) the -ing form of a verb. <S> For example... I would prefer to leave now rather than to wait. <S> Another reference with good information is here. <S> Rather than is normally used in parallel structures: for example with two adjectives, adverbs, nouns, infinitives or -ing forms. <S> When the main clause has a to-infinitive, rather than is normally followed by an infinitive without to. <S> An -ing form is also possible. <S> OR ' <S> using' . <A> 'To use' would be the most structurally correct, since it's being compared in preference to the infinitive, 'to interact'. <S> However, it's totally permissible to compare an infinitive to a participle. ' <S> Using' yields the best conversational flow.
| So, to answer your question, it could be simply 'use'
|
Which to use, 'washroom' or 'restroom'? I'm from India; in our office we refer toilet to ' Wash-room ' and ' Rest-room ', which is the correct form to use and if there is a difference, what is the difference between the two words? <Q> I would either use two words or one (rest room or restroom), but I wouldn't use a hyphen with either. <S> I think either restroom or washroom could be used. <S> In the U.S., bathroom is also used, even if there is no tub or shower in the room. <S> Someone might be inclined to use washroom instead of restroom or bathroom if they were only going in to wash their hands, but that's only a technicality that you might hear on occasion, not a fixed rule that should be applied or assumed. <S> There's also the term powder room , which would only be used for ladies. <S> I believe the term is out of vogue now. <S> This Ngram shows that "bathroom" is a rather prevalent term. <S> I'm not surprised; it's the choice I would probably use most of the time. <S> This Ngram shows how often all the rest of the terms are used – although this data is taken from a written corpus and therefore may not accurately reflect how natives generally speak. <A> If the room only has sinks for washing, it's a washroom. <S> If it has toilets, it's a restroom. <S> If the room is in your home, it's a bathroom. <S> Here's an odd idiom of the US. <S> If someone asks, "May I use your bathroom," the person is asking to use the room to eliminate, not to bathe. <S> So, a room in the home with a toilet & sink is called a bathroom, even if it lacks a tub or shower. <A> The word we use for the room in which we evacuate our bowels and bladders depends very much on the culture we happen to be in. <S> There is no definitive answer to your question. <A> In Canada, the term for the room with the toilet is a "washroom." <S> In the United States, signs in stores that show you where you can use the toilet almost universally use the term "Restroom."
| In the United States, it's generally "restroom" or "bathroom," though people generally understand if you say "washroom."
|
Is "I have got a pencil" appropriate here? A teacher passed out pencils to all the students in the class and said,"Has everyone got a pencil?" The students answered, (a) I have a pencil. (b) I have got a pencil. (c) I have one in my hand. (d) I having a pencil. Is the usage of have in these sentences technically correct? <Q> Answer (a) answers the question directly and is grammatically correct. <S> Answer (b) is more informal. <S> It passes in conversation but I would not recommend that wording in a more formal document, unless it was a quotation. <S> Max's answer explains why. <S> Answer (c) is also grammatically correct; it merely adds some information that wasn't initially requested. <S> Answer (d) is incorrect, because the verb is wrong. <S> We do not say, "I having" anything. <S> We might say "I am having" something, (such as, " <S> I am having a party tomorrow," or "I am having a fit right now" ), but I can think of no context where "I having" would be grammatically correct. <S> Incidentally, have is a very tricky word, as you might have noticed. <S> It can mean own , or have in one's possession (as in, <S> "I have a pencil" ), but the word can be used in a host of other ways, too: <S> I have an appointment <S> I have a toothache <S> I have an idea <S> I have a new girlfriend <S> I have a new roof on my house <S> I have all my luggage <S> packed <S> I have my hair cut at the salon <S> I have something I need to do tomorrow <S> I have coffee in the morning <S> I have a knack for finding good deals <S> I have a lot of patience when it comes to answering questions <S> (All of those have shifted away from the notion of ownership or possession to some degree or another.) <A> When we are talking about possession, relationships, illnesses and characteristics of people or things we can use either have or have got . <S> The have got forms are more common in an informal style. <S> Have got has the same meaning as have and both are used as present tenses. <S> Note that have got <S> is NOT the present perfect of get . <S> From: BBC Learn English <S> So the answer to the question is yes. <A> But, despite the redundancy, lots of people would say "I have got a pencil" and it's not at all wrong. <S> One case where "have got" is useful is when contradicting a negative. <S> If the teacher looks accusingly at you and says, "You don't have a pencil, do you?", you can show him or her your pencil and reply, "I have got a pencil!" <S> In that case, the emphatic "have got" is more natural than just saying "I have a pencil." <A> The first three sentences are grammatically correct. <S> The fourth is not. <A> Apart from the sentence (d), all the sentences are correct grammatically. <S> However, the answers (a) and (b) are most appropriate in the context of the question asked. <S> You can reply <S> either I have or I have got a pencil.
| In this case, "have got" is grammatical but redundant, since it means exactly the same as "have".
|
A subsidiary company which works for a parent company, but it has its own independent commercial affairs What do AmE native speakers call a subsidiary / sister company which works together with parent company when each one of these companies has its own directing manager and, aside from the fact that they work independently for themselves, the subsidiary company cooperates with the parent one (something like a financial / commercial department of the parent company)?The only terms which come to my mind are Cooperating company Collaborating company Associated company PS. I do not want to convey the message of being a subsidiary company. Actually I need to imply only a connotation of cooperation.I don;t know why, but somehow I am sure that no one of the above suggestion work in this purpose. What are your suggestions? <Q> If the subsidiary company has been created or exists solely to substitute for a department of a larger company, that's something like "internal outsourcing" and "financial outsourcing company" (continuing with your example) may be appropriate. <S> Another option: two business entities that work together, but are not controlled by one another, could be referred to as "partners" and the relationship referred to as a "partnership" - "partner company" would also be appropriate it. <A> I don't think there are ‘official’, legally-defined terms for these relationships; there are far too many subtle differences between one situation and another. <S> But a real-life example of use within one company may help. <S> I have a client—let’s call it <S> X-USA —which is a regional subsidiary of an international holding company—let’s call that one X-Global . <S> X-Global also owns subsidiaries in other regions: X-SouthAmerica , X-Europe , X-AsiaPacific and X-Africa . <S> X-Global trades in commodities produced around the world, so these subsidiaries often deal with each other: for instance, X-USA sells US commodities to X-SouthAmerica and buys South American commodities from X-SouthAmerica . <S> In these transactions, the subsidiaries cooperate in some respects: for instance, payments from one subsidiary to another are handled basically by bookkeeping entries at the X-Global level, and of course they are all, in the end, dependent on the overall profitability of X-Global . <S> In some respects, however, they must for legal reasons act ‘at arm’s length’, as if they were unrelated; and X-Global does not direct either subsidiary’s operations in these respects. <S> Internally, X-USA refers to the other subsidiaries as affiliates . <S> X-USA also has joint-venture agreements with companies outside the X-Global family; for example, X-USA and another company jointly operate a loading facility for seagoing vessels. <S> These relationships are governed not by the companies’ common ‘parentage’ but by specific contracts between them. <A> I think the word you want is "subsidiary". :-) <S> If it was, it wouldn't really be a subsidiary, it would be a "division" or "branch" of the parent company.
| The word "subsidiary" does not imply that the company is totally controlled by and integrated into the parent company. Internally, X-USA refers to the other companies as partners .
|
'should have' in a future sense A quote from BBC's live feed on today's Philae landing, a post by journalist Jonathan Amos: Assuming Philae can avoid the cliffs, the boulders, the fissures and the steepest slopes, it has a good chance of getting down in a stable configuration. But how do we know it's down? The action of the feet and legs touching the surface is to move a central pole running up the middle of the robot's main housing. This will generate a signal that activates the screws in the feet and the harpoons on Philae's underside. It should also have activated the small gas thruster on the roof of the housing, pushing the probe into the surface. But, as we heard earlier today, we're no long sure this will work. So for Philae to succeed at landing, a soft surface will be preferable - something like a "snowdrift". Philae hadn't yet landed at the moment Jonathan Amos posted his report. Is it okay to say should have activated about an event whose timeframe is in the future at the moment of speech? Can I say: I should have visited you tomorrow, but I'm no longer sure I will be able to. <Q> Yeah... this sounds questionable in the BBC case, and inappropriate in your case. <S> I know it changes the grammatical tense, but I would just use should : <S> It should activate the small gas thruster on the roof of the housing, pushing the probe into the surface. <S> I should visit you tomorrow, but I'm no longer sure I will be able to. <S> But this indicates that you feel it is the correct thing to do. <S> Do you want to imply duty or intent? <S> I would like to visit you tomorrow, but I'm no longer sure I will be able to. <S> The other way of handling it is to emphasize the perspective of the past from the future: <S> By tomorrow I should have visited you, but I'm no longer sure I will be able to. <S> But this is still awkward <S> and I'd avoid it. <A> This will generate a signal that activates the screws in the feet and the harpoons on Philae's underside. <S> It should also have activated the small gas thruster ..." <S> The will in the first sentence indicates certainty about the future. <S> The speaker has no doubt about the future occurrence of the generation of the generation. <S> Should is possible instead of will , but it implies less certainty. <S> "It expresses rather extreme likelihood or, or a reasonable assumption or conclusion" (Palmer, 1990.59, Modality and the English Modals ). <S> In the second sentence, will have would have suggested absolute certainty about the previous future activation of the thruster. <S> Should have <S> indicates the lesser certainty noted above, a lack of certainty vcnfirmed by ." <S> .. we're no long sure this will work" in the following sentence. <A> , Has happened or Will happen . <S> Example: if the flight was on time ,he should have arrived Jakarta early this morning. <S> Thomas is running so well at the moment that he should win /should have won the 800 metres easily. <A> a notice given on 9/April /2019, by a dean of academics as follows : All the faculty should have submitted the attendances of their classes by 15/04/2019 (15 th April 2019) <S> AN after which access to the Attendance Management System (AMS) will be denied. <S> Access to the staff/faculty will not be given under any circumstances.
| Yes "Should/ought to have done" can be used to talk about an expectation of something that Happened
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.