Split (1)

train · 95.7k rows

source stringlengths 620 29.3k	target stringlengths 12 1.24k
Meaning of "in closer" What is the meaning of "in closer"? Although she said she'd return in twenty minutes, Mrs. Calder returned in closer to forty minutes, and by this time Kirk was pretty hungry. He hoped that Mrs. Calder couldn’t hear the noises his stomach was making. <Q> Although she said she'd return in twenty minutes, Mrs. Calder returned in closer to forty minutes. <S> This means that the time she took to return was actually closer to forty minutes than to the twenty minutes she predicted. <S> For example, she perhaps took 35 minutes. <S> Note that "in" doesn't go with "closer". <S> It's simply "in X minutes", where X is "closer to forty [than twenty]". <S> Another example: <S> I promised my boss I would be back in the office in half an hour, but with the extra traffic it was closer to an hour by the time I got there. <A> In other words, forty minutes would have been a more accurate estimate than twenty minutes. <A> Without a supporting context OP's statement (the original pre-edit version) isn't valid English. <S> There has to be some contextually-supplied alternative time that closer references, such as... 1: <S> Although she said she'd be out for an hour, Mrs. Calder returned in closer to forty minutes . <S> That's to say, the time that passed before she returned was nearer to forty minutes than an hour . <S> In the absence of a second value to justify the comparative form, you'd have to say... <S> 2: <S> Mrs. Calder returned in close to forty minutes . <S> Note <S> that when close is used in this way there's usually an implied comparative anyway - depending on context it normally means one or the other of nearly, but <S> not quite (a bit less ), or just over (a bit more ). <S> Where the intended sense is a bit more or a bit less we'd usually use about . <S> Thus... 3: Mrs. Calder charges close to £100 an hour (she might charge £95, but not £101) 4: <S> Mrs. Calder earns about £100 an hour (she might charge £100, or a bit more, or a bit less) 5: Mrs. Calder's diet is great! <S> She's close to her target weight of 10st. <S> (but still a bit more , not less ). <S> EDIT: <S> Following OP's edit, it's useful to note that the actual context specified an alternative time of 20 minutes rather than my suggested hour in example #1 above. <S> Thus OP's example wouldn't really be appropriate if she came back after 41 minutes, just as mine isn't so good if she came back in 39 minutes.	It means "in [an amount of time that was] closer to."
Meaning of "I have $1000 to start September." "I have $1000 to start September." Does this mean I have that sum at the beginning of September. <Q> In American English, the sentence means that on September 1, you will have $1000 in your possession. <S> If today is September 1, then you have that money right now. <S> If September is in the future, then the sentence describes a plan in which you will have that money on September 1. <S> The phrase “to start September” suggests that the $1000 relates to some activity that will occupy the whole month of September. <S> For example, a very likely meaning is that you won’t be getting any more money until October. <S> That is, “to start” suggests that you need to make this money last until September finishes. <S> A less likely but conceivable meaning is that a certain money-making project is planned to occur during September, and $1000 is the “seed money” with which you are planned to start that project, which hopefully will grow into something more by the time September finishes. <S> The speaker could have avoided suggesting that the whole month of September is significant by saying “I will have $1000 on September 1.” <A> More or less. <S> It's got a lot of small ambiguities to me without full context. <S> The sentence as presented doesn't have enough context to determine if the speaker is saying they currently have or will have $1,000. <S> There's also not enough context to say if they're speaking about early September, or if they're talking about beginning something else at some point in September. <S> For example: "I have to get the new lemonade stand in the park operational before autumn, but they're not giving me much time or money to do it with. <S> I have $1000 to start September. <S> " <S> "I just took a new job, and they needed someone so badly they offered to give me a bonus if I begin early. <S> I took them up on the offer. <S> I have $1000 to start September. <S> " <S> "Our costs run $5000 a month, but we're running into trouble. <S> I have $1000 to start September. <S> " <S> More concretely: <S> "I have $1000 that I need to use to get the business started by September." <S> "I have been given $1000 to begin a new job in September. <S> " <S> "I will have $1000 available at the beginning of September." <A> Yes. <S> It also strongly implies that you are expecting or hoping to get more money sometime in September, or at least that you don't think $1000 will see you all the way through September.	The phrase means that you have $1000 at the beginning of September, and that you will use that money to pay September expenses.
What is the function of "look" in this sentence? I'm really confused. "Her new haircut makes her look younger." Is look in this example some kind of a linking verb? If not, what type of word is it? If so, how come it doesn't take "looks" form? <Q> Yes, it's a linking verb - look, feel etc can all act in this way. <S> Generally, in present simple 3rd person singular <S> (he/she/it <S> Vs) <S> , we get one 's' and no more: <S> She look s <S> younger / <S> She doe s n't loo k <S> younger / Doe <S> s <S> she loo k younger? / <S> Her new haircut make <S> s her loo <S> k <S> younger. <A> Her new haircut makes her appear younger. <S> "Look" in this sentence is a type of linking verb, although it is conditional, because if you say, "the soccer ball looks like a basketball," the soccer ball is not a basketball, but it shares some characteristics of it. <S> Literally: Because of her new haircut, people think that she is younger. <A> Her new haircut causes her to look younger. <S> In the sentence above, the verb "causes" takes a direct object and an object complement. <S> The direct object is "her". <S> The object complement is the infinitive phrase "to look younger". <S> Her new haircut makes her look younger. <S> The grammar of this sentence is the same, with one small exception. <S> The direct object remains "her". <S> The object complement remains an infinitive phrase. <S> The difference is that the governing verb "makes" accepts bare infinitives for the object complement. <S> She looks younger. <S> There is a subject, a verb, and a complement. <S> It takes the "looks" form to agree with its subject. <S> Although this uses the same sense of the verb "to look" as the original sentence, I wouldn't classify the original use as a linking verb. <S> The infinitive doesn't take a subject. <S> It acts as a modifier of the direct object. <S> It can't change form to agree with a subject that it doesn't have. <A> After "to make" you can have a direct object and an infinitive. <S> Such verb constructions with a direct object and to-infinitive or bare infinitive are relatively frequent in English. <S> You should study those constructions in a grammar. <S> Examples 1 <S> You make me laugh 2 to make s (someone) suffer 3 <S> He made her weep <S> You can say the direct object and the infinitive have the function of one object consisting of two parts, an accusative and an infinitive. <S> The direct object and the infinitive have as basis a sentence: the direct object corresponds to a subject and the infinitive to a finite verb form: <S> He made her suffer <S> The effect of his action was that she (subject) suffered (finite verb form).In German grammars of English these constructions are dealt with in the chapter Infinitive, infinitive with "own logical subject". <S> In English grammars in the chapter Infinitive, verb + object + to-infinitive / bare infinitive.	The verb "to look" is used as a linking verb here.
Difference between "two years old and two-year-old" What is the difference between 'two years old' and 'two-year-old'? Are they the same or not? What is the function of using dash in this phrase: 'two-year-old'? When we use dash we cannot say 'years' why? What's the reason for that? <Q> They are not quite the same, but they are similar. <S> Two-year-old is an adjective. <S> You can say, two-year-old girl, or two-year-old cat, or two-year-old child. <S> Sometimes, two-year-old is used as a noun on its own, and it <S> that case ("My two-year-old", say), child is usually implied, although it could refer to an animal if the context is clear. <S> it is all one phrase, and it is usually pronounced with the words run together. <S> You might see it without the dashes, and it is usually clear what is meant. <S> You can't say "My daughter is two-year-old". <S> In that case you say "My daughter is two years old". <S> I think the reason why it's year, when with dashes, is because the words are run together, and years would be hard to say. <A> Some adjectives can only be used to modify nouns, for example the adjective indoor . <S> We can talk about: indoor swimming pools <S> But we don't usually say: <S> The pool was indoor (not good) <S> We call adjectives that appear before nouns attributive adjectives . <S> The adjective indoor is called an attributive only adjective. <S> Other adjectives can't usually be used before a noun. <S> We usually find these adjectives as the complements of verbs like BE , FEEL or BECOME . <S> So we can say She was afraid <S> She felt afraid <S> But we cannot say: an afraid girl (not good) Adjectives that we use like this are called predicative adjectives . <S> The adjective afraid is a predicative only adjective. <S> We can use most adjectives as attributive adjective and predicative adjectives: a huge elephant <S> The elephant was huge. <S> Sometimes we have two adjectives that look similar and mean the same thing. <S> One of them is attributive only, and the other predicative only. <S> For example, the adjectives live and alive . <S> When these words are used to describe things that aren't dead, we use live as an attributive adjective and alive as a predicative adjective: a live snake <S> The snake was alive. <S> an alive snake (wrong) <S> <S> The snake was live. <S> (wrong) <S> The term two-year old is used as an attributive only adjective phrase: a two year old whisky <S> * <S> The whisky was two year old (wrong). <S> The whisky was two years old. <S> Note <S> We can also use the term two year old as a nominal phrase. <S> We can use it like a noun. <S> : <S> I have two children: a two year old and a three year old. <S> Notice that we use the attributive adjective here because we mean: a two year old child . <S> Hope <S> this is helpful! <A> While "two-year-old" and "two years old" are similar, there is a distinct difference beyond the "s" in that the first is an identifying number or categorizing using numbers and the other is about ordering or measuring. <S> The distinction is similar to being numbered as a runner versus placing in a race. <S> The placing of runners as they finish a race is an order, like "first" and "second" compared to simply the identifying of runners using numbers. <S> "There were 12 runners and my shirt had number 2, but I was number 2 in the race because I finished in second place!" <S> Usually people will refer to their "two-year-old" if they have more than one child, as a means of identifying the child rather than simply stating the child's age. <S> It then indicates the "category" of the child, not as much the age. <S> There are similar phrases, such as "To work, the nail must be two inches long" (measure) vs <S> "Please hand me that two-inch-long nail" (identifier). <S> Or "My son has grown, he must be five feet tall by now" (measure) vs "look at that five-foot-tall person" (identifier). <S> In each of these, the first example counts the amount or is a measure (like runners finishing a race), the second example it is about identifiers/categories (like the numbers on a runner's shirt). <S> Hyphens are optional.	The term two years old is used as a predicative only adjective phrase: *a two years old whisky (wrong) It's a compound adjective, with dashes to make it clear
Using 'to be going to do something' instead of future simple ('will') In Oxford English Grammar Course by Michael Swan & Catherine Walter (OUP 2011) I have come across the following example: Jennifer's eight, and she doesn't know what she's going to do. One day she says she's going to be a dancer, and the next she says she's going to work with animals. In the place of the person describing Jennifer I'd say: One day she says she'll be a dancer, and the next she says she wants to work with animals. My point is that we use 'to be going to do something' when we have already decided to do something and one day doesn't seem as enough time to make a decision. Am I wrong? <Q> Jennifer's eight, <S> and she doesn't know what she's going to do. <S> One day she says she's going to <S> be a dancer, and the next <S> she says she's going to work with animals. <S> I don't think that the construction going to carries with it a sense of determination so steadfast that one cannot change one's decision the next day. <S> A child is especially likely to change their decision on a whim. <S> This construction is a bit informal. <S> Yes, it used to express an intention, to talk about plans, but that alone does not imply that the intention or the plan is the product of a thorough reflection. <S> Michael Swan makes a comparison between going to and the future-time use of the Present Progressive in his Practical English Usage , topic 214.2. <S> What he says is that .. <S> we prefer going to when we are talking not about fixed arrangements, but about intentions and decisions. <S> Compare: <S> I'm seeing <S> Paul tonight (emphasis on arrangement) <S> I'm really going to <S> tell him what I think of him <S> (emphasis on intention) <S> If we say One day she says she' ll be a dancer <S> The clause no longer stresses her intention, but allows for some variation: it could be that the girl's parents planned for her to be a dancer and already enrolled her in some dance training group. <S> If we say she says she wants to work with animals <S> The clause no longer stresses that she has plans to work with animals, and allows for some variation again: it could be that she has a long-term plan overriding her desire to work with animals (" <S> but I think I'd better be a molecular biologist, like my Mom"). <S> Or maybe she wants to work with animals, but is not yet sure if she is going to <S> do so when she grows up. <A> They are both referring to a future action. <S> While 'will' is sometimes used to enforce more certainty and determination ("I will do that"), both of those phrases are correct and either could be used. <S> we use 'to be going to do something' when we have already decided to do something <S> This isn't correct. <S> Decision to do something has nothing to do with which phrase to use. <S> Now, sometimes people have preferences or habits for when they use one phrase or the other, but the truth is, that will simply come with time listening and speaking, and it doesn't matter really which you use. <A> The OP thinks that we use "to be going to do" when we have already decided to do something", but I think the other way around. <S> We usually use "will" when we have decided to do something, whereas we usually use "to be going to do" when we intend or have a plan in existence to do something. <S> Moreover, the use of the "to be going to do" is more informal and common in conversation than the use of "will". <S> So the use of "to be going to be/work is more appropriate in the statement presented. <A> There are two things you got wrong with your analysis that are unrelated to the choice between "will" and "be going to": 1. <S> The person is stating what Jennifer said When you state what someone else says, you are stating what they actually said, not what you believe they should have said. <S> Even if Jennifer hadn't decided, if she said she did, then it'd be wrong to paraphrase Jennifer: "I have decided" <S> as Jennifer said she hadn't really decided yet. <S> (Unless you're using the word "say" in a metaphorical sense, to mean something different from what it usually means.) <S> 2. <S> Jennifer might have actually decided Have you ever heard of a "split-second decision"? <S> People can decide quickly, without much deliberation. <S> And deciding does not mean that you can't change your mind later. <S> You might wonder, how could Jennifer have decided, if the writer states that "she doesn't know what she's going to do"? <S> The writer might be wrong. <S> But even if they're not wrong, deciding is not the same as knowing the future, unless you are omnipotent. <S> Consider the following sentences: I made my decision, but I don't know if it was the right one. <S> I decided, but I might change my mind. <S> Don't mix grammar and semantics <S> Sometimes people can fall into a trap of trying to match rules of grammar (or rules of thumb) too closely to objective truths of the world being referred to. <S> That's not how language works — language is for expression. <S> The correct usage of language follows what is to be expressed.	Both 'will' and 'to be going to' are correct in these phrases.
What is the structure of this sentence? Can you explain it more? I cannot understand the meaning of this sentence: "Sara is as handsome as her husband is ugly." Can somebody explain it in a clear way? <Q> Sarah is handsome. <S> Her husband is ugly. <S> she is <S> very handsome.her husband is <S> very ugly.she is as much handsome as her husband is ugly. <S> Another example would be: <S> That piece of fruit is as fresh as that bread is stale. <S> The fruit is very fresh, and the bread is very stale. <A> They have opposite qualities and possess their qualities to the same degree. <S> A rainforest is as wet as a desert is dry. <S> A lion is as ferocious as a lamb is meek. <S> Crisis-intervention personnel must be as calm as the situation is volatile. <A> That's a juxtaposition. <S> Two extremities placed together for comparison and contrast. <S> It tells that Sarah on one hand is really beautiful and places the other extreme condition with it, that her husband is really ugly.	The "amount" of handsomeness is equal to the "amount" of ugliness. They are the inverse of each other.
"Count on" and "Count with" usages I am having some questions regarding the count on and count with usages. I believe count with should be used when I'm telling something like: I can count with my fingers. And count on could be used in situations like: You can count on me I've heard a sentence from a friend that sounds incorrect for me: It is from a friend you can always count with. Is this sentence correct? Shouldn't it be It is from a friend you can always count on. I'm unsure about it because every time I've seen the count on it has something after, as the count on me example. Thanks a lot! <Q> You're confusing the meanings of 'count' Count with my fingers = enumerate… 1 <S> ..2..3.. <S> Count on me = depend on. <S> See <S> OALD & check the difference in meaning between 1,2,3 & 4,5,6. <S> To say "It is from a friend you can always count with." would imply they would be quite happy to stand with you & help you decide how many oranges are in your shopping bag ;) <A> Yes, you are correct. <S> It should be 'count on'. <S> The phrase 'to count on' means 'to rely on', while the verb 'count' on it's own, or with the word 'with', means to count, as in 1, 2, 3, 4... etc. ' <S> In english there are word combinations that change the meanings of the verbs used. <S> These are called compound verbs. ' <S> Count on' is a common compound verb, 'count with' is not. <A> The previous answers are accurate. " <S> Count on" and "count with" are definitely different. <S> That said, they are related! <S> Imagine <S> I grow trees <S> I want to post a sign that says "Apple Trees for Sale". <S> I ask my neighbor to bring me some paint. <S> He says <S> "You can count on me." <S> So I can "count" that first step as good as done, then I can count <S> /figure what the next steps are and how I'll get them done--as if I am counting on my fingers "1, 2, 3, 4" the steps and <S> how I'll get them done. <S> So I can have an idea of how I'll do all this before I actually begin. <S> I've seen the phrase interpreted as "you can trust me". <S> This is close, but too simple. <S> The phrase means "you can depend on me to do this specific thing". <S> Related is "you can trust me to do the right thing in general". <S> I'm pretty sure <S> the first definition is how the phrase started. <S> There's a reason it's "count on me" instead of "milk on me", "walk on me", "fly on me". <S> The phrase has a logic, sense and history to it. <S> Many words are like this and can be rewarding+helpful to learn about. <S> --A <S> similar phrase is "counting on". <S> As in, "I was counting on that pay raise in order to go vacation". <S> This means that I was depending on the extra money I figured I would get.	Count with' basically means 'Count using...'
Understanding, countable or not? Read the sentence below- "Christine Sterling’s determination to repackage her Olvera Street concept into something Chinese has been matched by her total lack of understanding of our culture, history, and taste." I wonder if the word 'understanding' here is countable or uncountable Sorry, if you find this question easy, stupid or useless, I'm a beginner. <Q> This question is not useless. <S> It is not stupid. <S> It is certainly not easy. <S> American English is my native and only language. <S> Even so, I find that I'm not completely sure whether this specific instance of "understanding" is countable. <S> I suspect that it is not, but I can't quite prove that it isn't. <S> On one level, we're talking about one understanding of Chinese sensibility, in contrast to other, better understandings of it. <S> I have an understanding. <S> You have an understanding. <S> Christine has an understanding that is (or so we can easily assume) worse than both of ours. <S> That's three understandings that I can easily count. <S> On another level, we're not talking directly about an understanding. <S> We're talking about a lack. <S> I can assume that her lack is more severe than my lack. <S> I can further assume that my lack is still quite significant. <S> I have no doubt at all that these are two countable lacks. <S> The grammar of the sentence supports this notion -- she has a lack, one lack that is all her own. <S> If the sentence read "her total lack of an understanding", then I'd be certain that it was countable. <S> If it read "her total lack of any understanding", then I'd be certain it was not. <S> I think that this is the uncountable sense. <S> I think that "a total lack of understanding" is closer to "a lack of any understanding" than it is to "a lack of an understanding". <S> I suspect that we both need to wait for a better answer. <S> Edit: <S> On second thought, I have to assume that this use is uncountable. <S> The countable use would have to include something that implies counting, such as the indefinite article. <S> The counting of "lack" can be implied by the genitive pronoun "her". <S> The counting of this "understanding" isn't implied by anything, and that implies that there is nothing to count. <S> If this is the countable sense, then we should be able to make a plural form make sense. <S> For instance, "Our understandings are different" seems to be a sensible use of the countable sense. <S> However, if I talk about how both you and I lack understanding, "We both have a lack of understandings <S> " doesn't seem as sensible. <S> It does seem sensible to say "We both have a lack of understanding. <S> " <S> In this context, the uncountable sense makes more sense. <A> Abstract nouns are generally uncountable <S> but then it is not a rule of thumb. <S> Depending upon the context, they can be used as countable. <S> EnglishPractice website quotes - The uncountable form is used with a ‘general’ meaning whereas the countable form has a ‘particular’ meaning. <S> Cambridge Dictionary supports that. <S> But then, understanding can be used as a countable noun. <S> Have a nice time! <S> COCA gives 2 result of the phrase lack of an understanding over 430 results of lack of understanding <A> "Understanding" is not countable. <S> You wouldn't say something like "five understandings". <S> You might be confused because people talk about partial understanding, or understanding something better. <S> But understanding is continuous. <S> You can have more or less, but you can't have two or three. <S> Continuous things are not (directly) countable.	In your case, it seems uncountable.
Pounded potatoes, Grounded or Mashed potatoes? In India, we have a plenty of dishes made of potatoes. But I'm confused what term we use for the 'form of potatoes' used. Here, in this context, 'minced potatoes' is out of question because the dishes require 'boiled potato' and also, you don't cut potatoes. Is it smashed potatoes or pounded? What do we call the potatoes when they are boiled, skin removed and then pounded/mashed? They ultimately become a paste like (no moisture though, I don't have this word actually). Say, you can make balls out of it. So, if I am making an Indian dish, how do I instruct the reader? The dish requires 'mashed/pounded' or 'grounded' potatoes? Image will help. Mind it, I'm not talking about the dish named 'Mashed Potatoes'. However, I'm open for this option to mean that the potatoes are mashed to be used in an Indian dish. For foreigners, take 'potato wedges'. Remove outer fried layer and what you see inside, I'm talking about it. For you all - <Q> Mashed is the correct word. <S> A potato fritter recipe on cooking.com has the directions Boil in plenty of salted water until cooked through. <S> As soon as they have cooled enough to handle, peel the potatoes and mash them in a food mill, a potato ricer or with a fork. <S> A related word is purée . <S> When I mash potatoes, they have a somewhat dry and chunky texture. <S> When I purée something, it has a smoother texture and I typically add some sort of liquid to it as I'm blending it. <S> Mashed potatoes look like this image from reluctantgourmet.com : <S> Pureed potatoes look like this image from lubbockonline.com <A> I'm going to post this as an answer, just to get all the links & pictures in. <S> I hope I'm staying close enough to English Language & not wandering off into cookery... <S> OK, so it could be 'mashed' - <S> but it's not mashed like <S> a 'westerner' would do it, it's usually much coarser. <S> I think if you use 'mashed' you'd need to describe additionally 'how much it's mashed'. <S> Often I've had cutlets & samosa where they are just 'rough-chopped' into small pieces, rather than even partially mashed, but as far as I can gather, this is perhaps area-dependant in India. <S> I've even seen samosas with 'western-style' creamy mashed potato, though they're not my favourite, I like chunky ;) <S> This recipe shows approximately how I would aspect to see samosa potato , which I would actually just call 'chopped into very small pieces', I can think of no better term. <S> & this potato glossary gives variations, including a good 'roughly-mashed' image; which you will note, contrasts considerably with the pictures kindly provided by @ColleenV <A> Mash means applying force on something solid but soft so you obtain a paste. <S> Grind means obtaining flour out of a cereal by abrasion or mincing meat in tiny pieces, which makes ground meat, like the kind you'd use for meatballs or hamburgers. <S> Pound means hitting something hard repeatedly. <S> You could make mashed potatoes by pounding them, but I don't think that's the usual method ;)	The word you're looking for is mashed .
is it a rule to put "at" after "in"? I am new to English language. I have seen many times when the word "in" is used to explain an area "at" is also used following it. For example: I am living in Tokyo at Koganey. He is staying in Sydney at Camden. I want to know that why it can not be written as: I am living in Tokyo in Koganey. Is there a rule to follow when writing like this? I would be grateful if you could give a clear explanation about this. <Q> There's nothing wrong with in Tokyo in Koganey , except that it might be confusing, particularly if people are not familiar with the place names and their relationship. <S> I would say either I live in Tokyo, in Koganey where the comma indicates that the last phrase is an afterthought, making the sentence more precise; or I live in Koganey in Tokyo where it does not make any difference to the meaning whether it is parsed as [in Koganey in Tokyo] or [in [Koganey in Tokyo]]. <S> Even clearer is <S> I live in Tokyo, in the Koganey district. <S> or I live in the Koganey district of Tokyo. <A> There is no rule that dictates which preposition follows another. <S> In the case of "nested" prepositional phrases, use the word that best fits the context . <S> That's the easy part of the answer. <S> The hard part is helping you understand when to use "in" vs. "at". <S> These little prepositions typically have around one or two dozen different meanings and usages, some of them overlapping, making them notoriously easy to spell but difficult for learners to use. <S> (For example, this site recently had a lot to say about in the park vs. at the park – neither of those is "incorrect;" they say sort of the same thing in two different ways.) <S> In the context of describing a physical location, the word in means, roughly, inside the confines of . <S> Generally speaking, in the building means inside the building , while in the city means within the city limits . <S> In the context of describing a physical location, the word at means at the location of . <S> Think of it as a point on a map. <S> Your examples gives a location within a location. <S> I am living in Tokyo, in Koganey. <S> He is staying in Sydney, in Camden. <S> She is working in New York, in Manhattan. <S> However, when talking about a hotel or other building, I would use at instead of in : <S> I am living in Tokyo at my friend's house. <S> He is staying at the Four Seasons hotel in Sydney. <S> She is working in New York at an upscale restaurant on 44th Avenue. <A> If I have understood your question correctly, the confusion is between in and at while describing city as a living place. <S> True, I'd use in to mention 'living' in open spaces such as cities here. <S> But then, I have observed (though rarest cases) that the preposition in is used to mention larger cities . <S> And, for small places like towns, villages and small cities, using at is also evident. <S> But anyway, standard practice is to use 'in' and not 'at' because when you use 'at', you describe some 'point' and city, by large, is an open space. <S> Koganey is a small city in Tokyo and Camden is a small town in Sydney. . <S> at is proper to mention some place in a city. <S> Good read here (note in New York ). <S> The BBC on prepositions , clarifying all doubts here. <S> And yes, do mark Colin's suggestion of putting two commas to have a better construction. <A> I am staying in Tokyo at Koganey. <S> He is staying in Sydney at Cameden <S> Usually, when we refer to two locations/places in a sentence one after the other, we use the preposition "in" before the main/larger location and "at before the location which is smaller or shows a point in the main location. <S> So the use of the "at" and "in" in the above sentences is correct. <S> However, it's also correct if you use the preposition "in" before both locations but you should put a comma after the location mentioned first. <A> in and at are used for similar things in regards location. <S> Sometimes they can be more or less freely interchanged, but other times one is used more typically than the other. <S> For example, you generally use in with cities, states/provinces, countries (regions) <S> I live in London <S> He used to live in California <S> She spent a summer living in France <S> None of these would typically have at in them. <S> at is used for general locations <S> He is at home <S> She is at work <S> It is also used for buildings and other smaller locations (points) <S> He is at the movie theatre <S> She is at the Empire State Building <S> It is more ambiguous or at least either could work in between these two extremes. <S> Regions within a city or country could be in or at, partially dependent on whether they are thought of more like a point or a region. <S> He is staying in Sydney at Camden in comparison to <S> He is staying in Sydney in Camden <S> The first sounds more natural to me, but it also treats Camden more as a single point. <S> The second one implies Camden is a region; however, it also seems to imply Sydney is part of Camden (rather than the reverse). <S> This nesting doesn't happen with at ; It would be more natural to express the second sentence as He is staying in Camden, Syndey at doesn't have this nesting effect. <S> That is, He is staying in Sydney at Camden <S> does not sound like Syndey is a part of Camden. <S> This would be because at is like a point and thus can't really contain another region.	When talking about a neighborhood, suburb, or district, in most cases, I would use in both times, perhaps separated with a comma:
Why no comma before and? By invading the forest first, weakening the morale of the army and making an inroad from the side after that, we have a higher possibility of victory. Soldier on! By Mark Thompson Why is it that there is no comma before "and" here? <Q> The example quote has lots of commas already. <S> Adding another comma would make the sentence more confusing. <S> I use the Oxford comma. <S> But I do not think the Oxford comma is applicable to this example. <S> I think the example has the form: <S> By invading the forest first, <parenthetical note <S> >, we have a higher possibility of victory. <S> The parenthetical note only contains two items: weakening the morale of the army and making an inroad from the side after that <S> so the Oxford comma is irrelevant. <S> (Oxford commas are only used in lists of three or more items.) <A> The use or omission of the Oxford comma is a favorite of internet grammar fiends. <S> The reason is that without it there is the possibility of an ambiguous passage (as we see here.) <S> The difficulty is that sometimes its inclusion causes other ambiguities. <S> Here is a good video explaining why or why not it would be used. <S> This is a somewhat ambiguous passage because of the lack of the comma. <S> Are they invading the forest first to gain a higher possibility of victory, and the invasion of the forest entails weakening the morale of the army then making an inroad from the side? <S> Or instead are they first invading the forest, then weaking the morale of the army, then finally making an inroad from the side? <S> It seems likely this author intended the latter option, and I would personally have preferred the use of the serial comma before "and," but it is seen as an optional comma in most cases. <A> The sentence already makes use of several commas. <S> Also, "and" makes the first part of the sentence not in need of a comma. <A> / By invading the forest first / and / we have a higher possibility of victory / = <S> ONE <S> Full meaning. <S> /weakening <S> the morale of the army and making an inroad from the side after that/ is the modifier (to give more info) of /By invading the forest first/ and /we have a higher possibility of <S> victory/. /weakening the morale of the army/ and /making an inroad from the side after that/ have one related meaning. <S> therefore, we do not need to use comma before "and". <S> what @jasper said is right to avoid confusion <A> From experience, it seems that the Oxford comma is optional in written works. <S> I generally use it to avoid confusion, however I believe that the sentence is considered correct with or without the comma.	It would make the sentence awkward.
Phrases or words to describe the sound a scissors makes What would be a description of the sound a scissors makes when its two blades come together? Some examples might be: "The clipping of fingernails." "The snip of the blades". Words or phrases work. <Q> Snipping is the most common word I've seen used to describe it <A> A Yahoo site says that somewhat insane gave the best answer regarding the sound of scissors as follows: <S> "They go 'snip snip <S> snip' <S> .... <S> I like the sound of scissors <S> , I don't know why though". <A> I agree with the others; snip is the sound used for scissors. <S> I just ran a Google Ngram for " <S> the * of the scissors" , and <S> 9 of the top 10 results referred to physical parts of scissors (the blade of the scissors, the handle of the scissors, the tip of the scissors, etc.). <S> Only one referred to a sound – the snip of the scissors. <S> As he took a few steps back, he heard the snip of the scissors as Mrs. Kennedy cut a lock of her husband's hair. <S> (Source: The Kennedy Detail <S> : JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence by Gerald Blaine & Lisa McCubbin, 2010) <S> I also did a Google search for "heard the * of the scissors" , which offered a few alternatives (like click or snap ), but snip <S> was the overwhelming favorite. <A> Scissors make snipping sound. <S> I'm in an IT company where we do make games for mobile devices. <S> When it comes to download <S> scissors' sound, we search for the audio clip of 'Scissors Snips' <S> Here is the site that offers you various sounds of scissors. <S> Check out the audio clips labeled 'Scissors Snip'. <S> Some may also use 'Scissors cutting sound' because the instrument is used for cutting, whatever it is.	If you snip (cut) something with scissors, the snipping sound produced by scissors is called "snip".
A question regarding gerund and its actor My company wants to promote me but needs me to work in Brazil. This is like your teacher telling you you’ve done well and allowing you to skip a grade. In the above sentence, the gerund "telling" is the object of the preposition "like", and "your teacher" functions as the actor of the action "telling". Am I right? <Q> You might be understanding the underlying grammar, perhaps. <S> But let me parse it for you anyway. <S> :) <S> This is like <S> [ your teacher telling you (that) you’ve done well and allowing you to skip a grade ]. <S> The stuff that is in italics <S> (the stuff within the brackets) is a subordinate non-finite clause: <S> your teacher <S> telling you (that) you’ve done well and <S> allowing you to skip a grade <S> and it has the meaning of the following finite clause: <S> your teacher is telling you (that) you’ve done well <S> and is allowing you to skip a grade From #2, it becomes transparent that "your teacher" is the subject of the clause; and so, it is the subject in both #1 and #2. <S> The meaning of both #1 and #2 is: <S> Your teacher is telling you X and is allowing you to do Y. <S> So yes, for your original example, the noun phrase "your teacher" functions as the subject (or "actor") for the clause which has the form of a coordination of two verb phrases: a verb phrase headed by "telling" and a verb phrase headed by "allowing". <S> Which is basically what you've already said in your OP. :) <A> And yes, your teacher is the actor for both telling and allowing . <A> I am not sure whether the way you are parsing the sentence is correct. <S> I am sure that there is a different way to parse it. <S> This is like your teacher telling you [that] you’ve done well and allowing you to skip a grade. <S> There are two phrases beginning with -ing words. <S> These -ing words could be gerunds, or they could be participles. <S> If they are participles, then the participial phrases must modify something. <S> In this sentence, they can modify "teacher". <S> The preposition "like" needs an object. <S> If the -ing words are participles, then they can't be the preposition's object. <S> However, the word "teacher" can be the object of "like". <S> As I parse the phrase, the preposition "like" takes the first available object, "teacher". <S> The genitive pronoun "your" modifies "teacher". <S> The two participial phrases also modify "teacher". <S> When the phrase is parsed in this way, we can still consider "teacher" to be the actor of the participles, but we do not consider it to be their subject. <S> It's just the thing that the participial phrases modify. <S> Regardless of whether we consider the -ing words to be particples or gerunds, they each start a complete phrase. <S> Within the first phrase, the pronoun "you" is the indirect object of "telling", and the nominative subordinate clause "[that] you've done well" is the direct object. <S> Within the second, the pronoun "you" is the direct object and the infinitive phrase "to skip a grade" is the object complement. <S> It doesn't make much sense to separate "telling" from the rest of its phrase.	I would say that like refers to the whole phrase your teacher telling you... and allowing you...
When is it acceptable to say 'my son' I've heard the phrase being used in multiple occasions. But I'm not sure, when exactly it is OK to use this phrase. It seems to be acceptable in a religious context. For example a priest talking to a member of his church. It is of course OK if you are actually speaking to your son. But I've also heard it being used in different situations. For example a man talking to some child. Or a much elderly person talking to a younger one. This is what I'm really interested in. Is the phrase always acceptable in these situations? Are there other situations where the phrase would be acceptable? <Q> There are two cases for (my) son: <S> Church context: <S> One reason for celibacy in the catholic church is, that the priest should not be "distracted" by his own family, but consider his congregation as his family with him in a paternal role. <S> Hence addressing him as "father XYZ". <S> So it's perfectly acceptable to call his parishioners "my son" or "my daughter". <S> This father/child addressing works in many different languages because it expresses an understanding of their relationship and tasks. <S> The "my" is fine here. <S> Seniority, often protective: Usually used without the "my", the address "son" expresses the - temporal, usually just for the moment - assumption of a father-like role (or mentor) by the speaker to the addressee. <S> Think of "it takes a village to raise a child" (from a different origin, but same thought). <S> It always carries an undertone of seniority, often reflected in the age difference. <S> Normally, the speaker would use "son" in a well-meaning way, even when admonishing. <S> This seems only to work for boys, though, I have never heard the phrase "daughter" in a similar context. <S> "Kid" might perhaps work for girls. <S> EDIT: <S> just for the sake of completeness, as requested ^_^: <S> Expressing the social or biological relationship: Father or mother talking to their son. <S> But I'm quite sure that's not what OP was asking... <A> The term is (literally) patronising. <S> It says that you are speaking as a father (or mother, of course) might speak to their son. <S> It implies that you consider yourself older and wiser than the person you are addressing. <S> It is therefore very likely to cause mild offence if the other person has a different view of your status or of your relationship. <A> Example: You have much to learn about being kind to people, my son. <S> It may also be used in an educating context. <S> Example: You did well on the archery range today my son. <S> It may be used in a parent to child conversation but may also be used in speech where you are trying to convey a person of authority or role model. <S> For instance, a parent might very well congratulate their child for a good performance in archery. <S> A good friend may also compliment your performance and add "my son" if they perhaps taught their friend how to shoot a bow and arrow. <S> In general day to day conversation, it is not used. <A> Since you are in Germany, I shall add that it's more or less equivalent to saying "junger Mann", which I find myself using these days. <S> So only use it if you are a lot older. <S> Actually, in English and in England I'd stick to just saying "son", if you feel you need to say it at all. <A> Not really an answer - but unable to comment... <S> However, the usage of the phrase as the end of this exemplifies the usage. <S> Doesn't specifically refer to the readers 'Son', but is the authoritive words of wisdom passed down by an elder. <S> If you can keep your head when all about <S> you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies, Or being hated, don’t give way to hating, <S> And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise: <S> If you can dream—and not make dreams your master; If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same; If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools: If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss; If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew <S> To serve your turn long after they are gone, <S> And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’ <S> If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it <S> , And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!	"My son" may be used in a condescending context.
Questions Using Had been in start Please help me to understand questions using * had been* at the start.If i want to as question about past the can i ask this way?I am aware about uses of were and was that it use to ask about status of past. Below sentences are in perfect tense give clear picture of time. Past time before any other thing happen. Had you been to Australia? Had she been upset? Had you been to school? Had you been hospitalized? Had he been arrested by police? If above sentences are incorrect the how below sentence are correct when we ask about present tense. Have you been to Australia? Has she been upset? Have you been to school? Have you been hospitalized? Has he been arrested by police? <Q> Both sets of sentences are correct, the difference between them is the meaning. <S> Now this difference is a little hard to explain, but I will do my best. <S> The verb 'to have' conjugates in the present as 'have' or 'has': <S> I, you, we, they, you all = <S> Have <S> he, she, it = <S> Has <S> In the past, it conjugates as 'had' for everyone. <S> Now when it comes to questions starting with 'to have', asking if someone has done something, they are asking about one of two situations, each with it's own meaning. <S> Had you run a marathon? <S> Meaning <S> "At any time up until that moment in the past, did you run a marathon?", or "Did you run a marathon by then?" <S> When you use 'have' or 'have', you're asking about any moment up until right now. <S> Have you run a marathon? <S> Meaning <S> "At any time up until now, did you run a marathon?", or "Did you run a marathon by now?" <S> The difference between the two is the limit of the time asked about. <S> When you ask using the past tense of 'to have', then the limit is referring to a specific moment in the past. <S> When you ask using the present tense of 'to have', then the limit is this very moment, now. <S> Have, has = <S> "up until now" Had = "up until then" I hope that helps! <A> This is a question of Present Perfect Tense and Past Perfect Tense. <S> I am not going to write anything about these two tenses except for briefly touching the constructions of these two tenses. <S> "Have/Has + past-participles-of-verb" - <S> Present <S> Perfect Tense <S> "Had + past-participles-of-verb" - Past <S> Perfect Tense. <S> Have you been to London? <S> This is an interrogative sentence. <S> The assertive form of this is <S> You have been to London. <S> The tense of this sentence is Present Perfect. <S> Here the construction also follows the tense rule I have mentioned against Perfect Tense. <S> Subject (you) + have + past-participles-of-verb (been) + Object (to London) <S> Note <S> - Been is used as the past participle of <S> go when somebody has gone somewhere and come back. <S> If you understand this answer, the sentence with "had", I think, is self-explanatory. <S> Please let me know if you still have any question regarding this. <A> The Had you been versions are what are referred to as the past perfect continuous . <S> This implies an activity that started and ended in the past. <S> Also, the correct form would beFor example, <S> "How long had you been to school" <S> Indicates that the person is no longer at school, and the other person is asking as to how long was the person in school, in the past. <S> This indicates that the action being in school started and ended in the past. <S> The Have you been versions are referred to as the present perfect continuous . <S> These are actions that started in the past, and have continued till now. <S> Once again, the correct form would be " <S> Have you been hospitalized <S> " is asking the person in the present, whether (s)he has been admitted to a hospital in the past. <S> Thus, the action being in hospital started in the past, but is still in progress.	When you use 'had' (past tense), then you are asking about any time up to a specific moment in the past.
'Analytics' -is there such word? Recently, I took up a course and passed it. It's Google's course on Mobile App Analytics. Though I know what exactly it is, I wonder whether the word analytics as a plural word is correct. If you come up with your point that if this is a product , it can have such liberty. But then, when I earned the certificate, the word analytics is used in the course name that makes me ask this question here. We generally take care of every word we use as a course title, don't we? My homework is, I searched for almost all the dictionaries we generally refer to. Except The Free Dictionary, no dictionary mentions this plural word Analytics . Also, if analytic is an adjective, what analytics is in Google's Analytics? A noun? Here is the certificate I got. <Q> <A> "Data analytics" is still technical jargon. <S> Ordinary dictionaries can be slow to add technical terms. <S> "Analytics" is similar to "Physics", "Metaphysics", "Calisthenics", and other words that end in "ics". <S> The similarity is that all of these words are singular nouns, because each of them describes a single discipline. <S> "Analytics" refers to the discipline of using metrics and software to analyze things. <S> (I would say "profession" instead of "discipline", but most people who perform "data analytics" have a more general job title.) <A> Analytics is the plural of analytic - because of that, you'll only find analytic in the dictionary. <S> Sometimes words that look like an adjective are really nouns - if we are talking about something that is a quality itself and not a physical entity, or if the quality of it is much more important than what it actually is. <S> I learned in the demolition industry that you must take care around explosives . <S> The witch doctor suggested a number of curatives that I was scared to try. <S> I learned in calculus what a derivative is. <S> Analytic - a specific "analytic" can be a number of things, but we don't care about the actual things, just the fact that whatever it is has an analytic property. <S> So we "noun-ify" the adjective.	Analytics is the name for "methods of data analysis" perceived as a subject of study or an area of competency.
Choosing between two different patterns of using the verb "prefer" I prefer staying home to going to the concert. I'd prefer to stay home (rather) than (to) go to the concert. Would you please elaborate which one you use? Or, when or where would distinguish between those? <Q> As written, both sentences could be used to state that one does not want to go to a particular concert and would like to stay at home instead. <S> The first is mildly unusual for American English conversation, but not overly much - nobody would comment on it and everyone would understand what you meant. <S> The second is more often used (in my experience). <S> With a small modification to the first statement a significant difference can be seen. <S> Suppose we change the first version to the following: <S> I prefer staying home to going to concerts . <S> Here we're saying that as a general rule we do not like attending concerts and would prefer to stay at home. <S> It doesn't matter which concert, we don't want to go. <S> In my experience this construction, using gerunds instead of infinitives, is used primarily for generalities. <S> The second statement is more natural sounding, though it is a bit more formal than what I normally hear in conversation. <S> I'd prefer to stay home (rather) than (to) go to the concert. <S> This refers to a specific concert that I do not wish to attend. <S> If I changed it to a concert instead of the concert <S> then this would have the same generality as the first version, and it would still be idiomatically correct. <S> The parenthetical "to" is usually omitted with simple statement where the comparison you're making is obvious. <S> In a more complicated sentence (perhaps using longer technical words or a particularly long phrase as the first item being compared) it would probably be included. <S> For American English conversation, the following is how this sentiment would likely be stated. <S> I'd rather stay at home than go to the concert. <A> The simple present is often used to express the idea of one's habit or general practice, a general rule. <S> I prefer to stay at home and watch DVDs these days; at the movie theater people are always talking loudly on their mobile phones, even though the theaters remind the audience to turn their mobile phones off. <S> But you are not using the simple present in that manner, since you say " the concert". <S> You are referring there to a specific concert, not to concerts in general. <S> We could change the continuous "staying" to "stay": <S> Using would there expresses your wish politely: you might be willing to defer to another's wishes. <S> Leaving would out expresses your wish more firmly. <S> You are probably unwilling to defer to another's wishes. <A> I prefer staying home to going to the concert. <S> I prefer to stay home (rather) than (to),go to the concert. <S> Grammatically speaking, there is a little difference in meanings of these sentences. <S> When you make a general statement that you like one thing or activity more than another, you use the following statement: <S> I prefer staying home to going to a concert or I prefer to stay home rather than go to a concert. <S> However, if you want to talk about the present or future preferences, you should form your sentences as under: <S> I'd prefer to stay home rather than go to the concert <S> I'd rather stay home than go to the concert. <S> I'd prefer staying home to going to the concert. <S> I think the first sentence <S> and then the second sentence are more common and informal.	I (would) prefer to stay (at) home and not go to the concert.
Alternatives to "raw signals" I have some data that was directly measured by a sensor (it wasn't processed). I believe we can qualify this data as "raw data", but an English native speaker told me that it seems like a poor word choice. Is there any alternative? (In French we would call it " signal brut ") <Q> Data is not the same thing as signal . <S> If we're talking about signals , I would write unprocessed ECG signal original ECG signal <S> Several quotes come up in search engines with these combinations, especially with the second option. <S> I would prefer the second choice <S> but if it's the first sentence of your incipit, it doesn't work that well, how is somebody supposed to know what you mean by original if you haven't talked about any processing yet? <S> You have this problem because it's redundant information. <S> It's obvious from the context that you're talking about a generic ECG signal and so the reader will not think you're talking about a processed signal or anything, so deleting the adjective altogether is maybe the easiest solution. <S> Physiological signals such as EKG might contain key information to predict a medical condition, but are challenging to mine. <S> How's that sound? <S> Added note: <S> google books turns up a quote on a book by Japanese authors where they say crude signal <S> but I'd avoid that personally. <A> I have some data that was directly measured by a sensor.... <S> Raw physiological signals such as EKG might contain key information topredict a medical condition, but are challenging to mine. <S> The sensors are not measuring data. <S> Their measurements are recorded as data. <S> We "mine" the data (ore metaphor), not the signals. <S> Not to nitpick, but is that which the sensor measures truly a "signal"? <S> Are the sensors "overhearing" the brain signaling to itself? <S> Or are the electronic discharges artefacts of the brain's chemical signaling process? <A> As an electrical engineer, I would say that "raw signal" and "raw data" are both correct technical English. <S> Personally, I would say that data is a collection of information, and a signal is information in transit. <S> If you already have the information from the sensor (say, in a table), it's raw data. <S> If you're talking about the electrical signal (voltage) that comes out of the sensor, it's a raw signal.	If you want to emphasize what you didn't do to the data or signal, you could call it "unfiltered" or "unprocessed" or something of that nature.
Gather or collect in a formal writing? I want to say the following sentence in the most formal manner: These stunning data are [?????] from instruments such as" However, I'm completely doubtful about the precedence of each word in that regard. (I think the verbs "gather", "collect", "achieve" well suits to being used in this context.) <Q> I'd go with "collect" . <S> While "gather" is not wrong, it has an undertone of scurrying around to find it, some randomness - think "hunters and gatherers" in the stone age. <S> We gather twigs for a campfire, a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. <S> "Collect" carries a sense of method, structure and planning: We collect stamps. <S> And I suppose your data collection follows methodical procedures and has a purpose. <S> "Achieve" points out the effort involved (-> achievment), so unless you want to stress that you had to do a lot of unusual work with your meassurements, you shouldn't use it here. <S> Oh, and Maulik V has a point: <S> If you call your data "stunning", it might be misread (or at least make your reader grin a bit): It's often used to describe very good-looking, sexually attractive women. <S> Most Hollywood actresses fall into this category ;-) <S> It's not wrong , though. <S> And remember: Scientific papers sometimes have a somewhat tongue-in-cheek title... <S> You might want to appear more serious and choose "surprising", "unusual" or something else that fits your context. <A> But then, the latter is more common . <S> I won't prefer <S> achieve because that is used mainly for humans as they get something after making efforts. <S> For a machine collecting data, achieve would be a bad choice. <S> Another typical word I use is fetch data. <S> Note: <S> I wonder which way data is stunning! <S> Using this adjective with data is something I haven't come across frequently. :) <A> There are several variations you can try. <S> Although data is correctly a plural noun in many contexts it is used as a singular. <S> This data has been collected using the following instruments: instrument 1 , instrument 2 , etc , ... or using the plural noun and collated <S> This set of data has been collated using instruments including instrument 1 , instrument 2 , etc , ... <S> You could also replace the words collected with gathered with or sourced . <S> e.g. <S> This set of data has been sourced from the following instruments: instrument 1 , instrument 2 , etc , ... <S> The sentence above also changes the emphasis, so in the other sentences you were using the instruments to collect data about your subject. <S> In the sentence above you are taking the data from the instruments. <S> You could also use extracted : <S> This collection of data has been extracted from the following instruments: ... <S> If you want to be more descriptive about the data, stunning doesn't really work ( stunning is usually used to describe the aesthetic of a physical object or person). <S> A good word to describe a set of data is rich . <S> This means that there is a lot of good quality data. <S> This rich set of data has been collected from the instruments: instrument 1 , instrument 2 , etc , ... <S> So you can see there are lots of different variations you can try! <S> NB: As an aside I don't like the term such as , it sounds weak. <A> In the most formal manner? <S> Consider <S> These stunning data are drawn from such instruments as . . . .	Gather data = collect data
Can I say that a man is "tree-like-looking"? I need to say that Man that is looking like a tree. But not full sentence but only adjective. For example : tree-like-looking man ... or something like this. Do you know how to use it correctly? <Q> My recommendation would be to use the suffix -like , with a hyphen: <S> The tree-like man stood on the street corner. <S> If the word is already an established word, the hyphen is unnecessary: <S> My uncle Roger was a fatherlike figure to me. <S> but in the case of tree-like , I'd recommend a hyphen. <S> (That's just personal preference, however; treelike could be used without a hyphen.) <S> Even though a man could be tree-like in many different ways (e.g, old like a tree, strong like a tree ), I think looks like a tree would be the default assumption. <S> Unless the context hints otherwise, I'd assume a tree-like man is a tree-like-looking man (that is, tall and slender). <S> Appending the word <S> -looking <S> makes the phrase seem clumsily wordy, and I would opt to omit it. <A> Tolkien used the word "tree-ish" to describe characters that both looked and acted like trees. <S> The fourth chapter of <S> The Two Towers is filled with descriptions of characters that have both "man-like" and "tree-ish" characteristics. <A> No, tree-like-looking is not correct, because "looking" is redundant when you have "-like".	To be tree-like means "to look (or act) like a tree".
Have you joined yet? I saw an ad regarding Stack Overflow Careers on meh , Stack Overflow. The sentence Have you joined yet ? evoked a thought in my brain that it isn't sounding good. But that may be because I ain't a native English speaker. What is it trying to convey? Have you joined? Or Haven't you joined still? Or something basic which I'm missing. Why is yet used here? If but is used instead of yet , I'm pretty sure that it will be grammatically wrong. So, what is yet doin' up there? <Q> Yet is there to give joining a sense of inevitability and excitement. <S> "Have you joined? <S> " would allow and answer like, " No, because X, y and z. <S> " <S> It would let people think think of reasons to not join. <S> Have you joined yet " <S> suggests an answer like " <S> No, I am late" or perhaps <S> "No - I'll do that right now." <A> The word "yet" implies a belief on the part of the speaker that the person being spoken to intends to do an action (such as joining something) and intends to do it sometime in the near future. <A> Yet vs. Still Have you joined yet? <S> for an advert… a little odd to my ears <S> [though not truly 'wrong'], unless it was conversational, one to one, "I heard about this [great thing], have you joined yet? <S> " <S> I'd push it back a bit to <S> Haven't you joined yet? <S> For an advert - it feels more imperative. <S> Have you joined still? <S> Not going to work under any circumstance. <S> Have you still not joined? <S> Works in a sense of having been repeatedly told to join, yet still didn't do it.	The word "yet" in that context implies that the person who asked you the question believes that you intend to join, and it's just a matter of when .
When to use "willing", when to use "want to"? I just met, again, someone using the phrase "willing". He said: "I'm willing to go." Why did he not use "want to"? Is there any difference between the words? Any situation where you would just use one of both? Edit: So I did some research about it, still I'm confused about it. I found a reference here explaining the difference. It says that "want to" means things that I really wish to do or happen. On the other hand, "willing" means to be able to do something but it isn't really the number one thing which is a priority. But what is about a sentence like "I'm willing to wait."? "I want to wait" doesn't sound as it could mean the same. In my opinion, "ready" could be good replacement for "willing" in this content. So, when do I exactly use "willing" and when "want to"? <Q> If I go to the movie theater for a 1pm showing of 'the Hobbit' and tickets are sold out for that showing, but there are still tickets for the 3pm showing, then a friend of mine might want to wait for the next showing (3pm). <S> This means he really desires to wait two hours. <S> but someone else in our group might not be willing to wait, which means they really want to leave and probably will, which could be big trouble if he's the one with the car <S> and we don't have another way to get home. <S> On the other hand the second person might say he's willing to wait. <S> This doesn't usually express a strong desire to wait, but at least he will wait, rather than leave. <S> It can mean that he prefers to leave, but that he'll wait just because the others want to stay and wait. <S> So willing to wait can show a reluctance to wait. <S> But wanting to wait definitely expresses the desire to wait. <A> You want to do something which you actively desire because it benefits you in some way: <S> You want to go swimming because it refreshes you and tones your muscles, making you irresistible to whichever sex attracts you (and maybe the other one, too). <S> You want to go to the University of the Southwest Ozarks because only there can you study with the celebrated costume historian Prof. Taylor Sartorius. <S> You want to overthrow the regime of the despot Czûlgymh and exact terrible revenge for the murder of your brother. <S> You are willing to do something which you do not actively desire <S> but which does not repel you either, or <S> at least is not so unpleasant that you refuse to do it. <S> For instance: You dislike washing dishes, but you are willing to do the dishes if your friend will make you his famous weeping leg of lamb with roast potatoes. <S> You don't much care for jazz, preferring the gloriously intricate music of Bach, but you are willing to go to a jazz club to entertain your significant other who absolutely worships Wynton Marsalis. <S> You can't imagine a dinner without large quantities of red meat, and you really haven't got the money to spend on books; but you are willing to live off of potatoes and cabbage for two months in order to buy your own copy of McCawley's Syntactic Phenomena in English , which has transformed your understanding of English grammar. <A> Want actively indicates desire or immediate intention. <S> If you say you want to do X, you are going to do it. <S> Willing is passive. <S> If you are willing to do X, there's an external condition implied or specified that you are waiting for before you do X. <S> You may end up not doing X. <S> I want to wait. <S> You are saying you are going to wait. <S> There may be a reason, but that reason has happened or is happening now. <S> I'm willing to wait. <S> This strongly implies you are not doing something until whatever you are waiting for has happened. <A> In "I want to do sth" the focus is on wish, in "I'm willing to do" the focus is on will/volition. <S> Practically there is only a slight difference in meaning, but one may say the frequency of the two expressions is different. <S> "to want to do" is a common expression whereas "to be willing to do" is not a frequent expression. <S> In negative form "willing" is justified: I'm not willing to tolerate this behaviour.	You typically indicate your willingness to do something which somebody else wants you to do or which is a precondition to your achieving something which you do desire.
What does "as it stands" mean? I searched in dictionary and it returned "in its present condition". Here is the corresponding example: the country would struggle, as it stands, to host the next World Cup Can I simply replace it with "now"? More examples will be appreciated. <Q> "[Hosting] the next World Cup" cannot happen until sometime in the future. <S> In this context, "as it stands" is subtly different from "now". <S> "As it stands" means "if things continue the way they are now", or "if things don't change from the way they are now". <A> Whereas "now" is simply a divider between past and present - a time notion, "as it stands" encompasses a physical/cultural/business state which is typically expected to require proactive input to change vs simply the passing of time (eg reduce costs, deal with corruption etc). <A> The idiomatic phrase "as it stands" means "in its present condition" as the OP has mentioned. <S> This plan as it stands is not practicable. <S> We have no option but to accept the proposal as it stands. <S> I don't think we can change the phrase "as it stands" to "as it's now" as the former is more idiomatic, meaningful, and sounds good.	In other words, we may say that it means "as it's now, without any changes to it".
it's not as bad as all that -- "all that"? An excerpt from the movie The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953) : The guy who saw the monster is trying to convince a professor of paleontology that what he saw was real but the professor doesn't believe him. — I don't know if this will be of any help, but you remember, doctor a few years ago, an expedition unearthed a herd of mastodons in the Siberian tundra. Dead thousands of years, yet their fur was still intact, the meat still edible. — That's quite right, my dear Lee. But they weren't alive. That's the important difference. They weren't alive. — I'm sorry, professor, but in all honesty, I can't support your story. — I guess I'll go back to the hospital. Maybe I should ask for a transfer to the psychopathic ward. — Nonsense. It's not as bad as all that , my boy. — Thanks for listening, doctor. I'm not sure how to properly understand the phrase all that . What does it refer back to? <Q> Speaker A describes a bad situation. <S> Speaker B could respond with: "It's not as bad as that." <S> It is the situation. <S> That is Speaker A's description of the situation. <S> If Speaker B says "all that" instead of "that", Speaker B is indicating that Speaker A's description is big, extensive, elaborate - and thus possibly an overreaction. <A> "It's not as bad as all that" This is a set phrase, an idiomatic formula of expression in which "all that" has no concrete meaning. "all that" just intensifies "not so bad". <S> You might also say:Really, this is not so bad - or: This is really not so bad. <S> By the way, it is not so easy to find "not so/as adj as all that". <S> I'm still trying to find it in Longman DCE. <S> DCE has all determiner 1-17 and all adverb 1-18. <S> In all adverb no.17 is "not all that" in similar uses but the use " <S> not so/as adj as all that" is not registered there. <S> I suppose it is in the entry "as". <S> I skimmed through two long entries of "as", found "not so aj/av as", but didn't find"not <S> so/as adj as all that". <S> Of course, one could give "all that" some justification. <S> One might say: It is not as bad as all that you have told me about the situation. <S> All that is not so bad. <A> The idiom " <S> It's not as bad as all that" is used by one person to calm down or reduce the emotional over-reaction (hysterics, panic, crying) of another person to a bad situation by convincing them that their reaction is much larger than is reasonable due to the situation. <S> "It's" refers to the terrible situation the other person is reacting to. <S> "all that" refers to the emotional reaction of the other person. <S> In your example, "Lee" disbelieves the professor's story, and in reaction the professor says he should check himself into a hospital as insane (transfer to psychopathic ward). <S> This statement by the professor is probably an example of hyperbole used for humor. <S> Lee then uses "It's not as bad as all that" to convince the professor that thinking he is insane is an overreaction to Lee's disbelief of his story. <S> If the professor was using hyperbole, then either Lee missed the joke and is responding literally to the professor's statement, or else he is pretending to take the statement seriously as a way of extending the joke.	"not as bad as" is a comparison between "It's" (the situation) and "all that" (the emotional reaction) that attempts to show that the reaction is larger than can be justified by the situation.
If it's about 'wall' of our house, is it 'empty' or 'plain'? I was tweeting Lenovo for a context, but then dithered over which word to use. I wanted to say that one of the walls of our house does not have any picture, artifact, clock or anything that we do on the wall. What that wall is? We have kept one of our room's walls empty OR plain? I wonder whether we can use 'empty' for something that is not a box-type of thing or any bench. Another question, if the wall is not painted, is it 'plain' wall? <Q> Your "box" analogy is very good. <S> In the US we would say that a "room is empty", but a wall is bare. <S> Plain has other meanings which might confuse the issue - for example, when one is describing a home, plain is often used to mean "austere", or without ornamentation. <S> So, if you visited the home of an Amish person in Pennsylvania, the walls could have hooks for coats and hats, and a clock, and even a curtain over the window, and still be described as "plain". <A> Such a wall is empty. <S> It looks empty. <S> And it is empty of 'any picture, artifact, clock or anything' else we hang on a wall. <S> At least that is the usage I have inherited from my forebears. <A> I would use the term blank . <A> If you said "plain", I would assume a drab color. <A> If the wall is not painted, it is "unpainted" or "unfinished". <S> Instead of "unfinished", it might be "brick" or "concrete" or "cement" or "natural wood" or "stone" -- by default, these (finished) surfaces are unpainted. <S> In most American homes, the interior walls have the following layers, from the surface inward: Paint (most newer homes use water-soluble acrylic paints) <S> Primer (most newer homes use Kilz or polyvinyl acetate primer) <S> Texturizer or "skim coats" of plaster. <S> The most common texture looks like the texture of an orange peel. <S> "Skim coats" of plaster are designed to achieve a very smooth finish. <S> gypsum board (aka Sheetrock) or a similar water-resistant material. <S> The non-water-resistant material includes: -- A thick paper-like surface layer. <S> -- <S> A pre-cured plaster-like material. <S> -- Another thick paper-like surface layer. <S> Wood studs, separated by either insulation or air.	That is, We have kept one of our walls blank . I would go with "bare".
an estimated 2 million people are/is I can not explain why "an" is used in the phrase "an estimated 2 million people are". In addition, I can find many examples in which such phrases are treated as plural although the noun phrase takes "an". When the noun 'people' is a collective noun, it may be possible to say/write "an estimated 2 million people is". But I am not sure about this. Can anyone explain the grammar? <Q> I would explain it with "an estimated number of two million people". <S> The following verb may be singular or plural as in 1 <S> An estimated number of people was killed in the war. <S> Here the verb sg refers grammatically to "number" (sg). <S> 2 <S> An estimated number of two million people were killed in the war. <S> Here the verb pl refers logically to "two million people" (pl). <S> As a non-native speaker I can't decide which possibility is preferred or more frequent. <S> I would tend to use the verb pl. <S> In the same way as I say "There were a lot of people there". <S> The verb pl refers to the logical idea of "many people" and not to the grammatical head "lot" of the noun group "a lot of people". <A> an estimated is just a modifier to indicate the 2 million people is not exact, so the verb form would be plural. <S> If we somehow knew the correct number ( <S> without context I would believe there is a number), substituting that number would not change the tense. <S> As such it is still plural and not a collective noun. <S> You could say a similar thing (to the extent an actual quantity exists) as: approximately 2 million people are <A> An is used because the word 'estimated' starts with a vowel. <S> An has nothing to do with '2 million people'. <A> A simple rule I like to use in these situations is to think about what the (are/is) is referring to, also known as the subject of this sentence. <S> In this case it's the word "people." <S> Since "people" is plural you would use "are." <S> You may be asking yourself: "But why isn't 'an estimated' the subject?" <S> An easy way to remember this is that you are counting the people. <S> The estimate refers to the people and therefore the word "people" is the subject of the sentence. <S> Finally, the 'an' is referring to the 'estimated' and not to the people. <S> It is one singular estimate so that's why you use 'an.' <S> If you had several different estimates about the people then you could say something such as: "Several estimated populations are discussed in this paper. <S> " <S> I hope that helps to clarify the concept for you! <A> From what I heard, you can sometimes refer to the same word as plural or singular. <S> It depends on what's important for you. <S> The community are glad have a lot of money. <S> (a community made out of many people) <S> The community is glad to have a lot of money. <S> (only a community) <S> The communities are glad to have a lot of money. <S> (many communities) <S> At the same time the word "people" is singular and plural anyway ("many people" is not "peoples"). <S> Confusing. <S> Back to your example: an estimated [2 million people] are a [ group of 2 million people ] are ("estimated 2 million people" is to be seen as one element) <S> You could also say: a [ group of people ] is Now use what I just told you about treating a group of people as plural; and you get the following: an [estimated 2 million people] are	An is linked to the word 'estimated'.
When should I use "fan" and "admirer"? Which sentences sound idiomatic to the Americans: I am a big Elvis fan. I am a big Elvis admirer. I am a big Obama fan. I am a big Obama admirer. <Q> It might be helpful to know that "fan" is derived from "fanatic", meaning someone who is interested to the point of obsession. <S> Sports fans are a great example of this kind of enthusiasm, willing to make great personal sacrifices to support their team. <S> Popular works of fiction like Harry Potter or Star Wars also have very devoted fans. <S> There is an implication of (at least) mild irrationality when describing someone as a fan. <S> Performers and public figures will often express gratitude to their fans, saying "I'll do anything for a fan!" <S> or "This is for the fans, you make all of this possible!" <S> Some fans are more casual, but all consider themselves more invested than a typical person should be. <S> Conversely, an "Admirer" is generally very reserved in their admiration. <S> An admirer is not going to dress up in a costume and stand in freezing weather to support their team - a fan might. <A> the existing answers already nail it for me, but I'd add … 'fan' is informal, 'admirer' is formal. <S> therefore, I would restructure my sentences to lean towards one or the other Informal <S> I'm a music fan <S> Formal <S> I'm an admirer of Mozart <A> American here. " <S> Fan" sounds more idiomatic to me, but both are common. <S> " <S> Admirer" is a bit more formal—I would be more inclined to write rather than say it. <S> There's also the idiomatic phrase "secret admirer" which is commonly used among children to refer to a person with a secret attraction to someone.	In informal situations, I think "fan" is almost always used.
"Clap" and "applaud" for someone Which sentence is usable in English when you are going to clap your hands in order to show your approval for instance when you enjoy the performance of a football player: The coach clapped for him. The coach applauded for him. I think both verbs are used improperly here. I would be thankful if you could suggest me the correct verb in the proper grammatical structure or a fix expression which customarily is used in this sense. <Q> "The coach applauded for him" does not sound as natural to me, but is still understandable and grammatically correct. <A> I agree with the idea that both "The coach clapped for him" and "The coach applauded him" sound natural, but I would observe that in America, we're most used to using those words without any object, so the best, and MOST natural (at least for me), would be to say something more like " <S> When the coach saw him cross into the endzone, he stood up and clapped." (or applauded) <A> As an American, I would say that the coach clapped, but the coach applauded for the player. <A> I also think 'clap for him' sounds natural, because we can use the preposition 'for' with the word 'clap' as a noun, as in: A big clap for John , so why not use it with 'clap' as verb also.	"The coach clapped for him" and "The coach applauded him" both sound natural to my (American) ear.
"It will set your mind stress free if you {take/have} some sun bath." Out of these two sentences, which is correct and why? It will set your mind stress free if you have some sun bath. It will set your mind stress free if you take some sun bath. Is there any other easy sentence to describe the situation? <Q> Neither of those sentences are idiomatic English. <S> There are three things that sound wrong to my ear in both of them. <S> 1) the phrase "set your mind" isn't a usual construction for what you mean. <S> "Set your mind" is normally used as part of the phrase <S> "Set your mind to the task", which means "to apply yourself diligently". <S> It's never used to mean to put your mind into a new state, which seems to be what you mean. <S> Are more idiomatic way to say what you mean would focus on the "stress" and not the "mind". <S> So something like, "it will ease your stress to", or less formally <S> "It will help you de-stress to" 2) <S> "sun bath" is ambiguous. <S> I can't tell if you mean sunbathe (i.e. lay out in the sun to tan) or "go to a tanning salon" (literally get in a machine like a bath, which covers you with sun.) <S> Any phrase that ends in "bath" in English usually means to put something into a tub. <S> For example you can give an electronic circuit board an "acid bath", where you put it into a tub of acid. <S> So the phrase "Sun Bath" sounds like you're getting into a tub of Sun. <S> Which can't be what you mean. <S> The more idiomatic phrase would be sunbathe. <S> Note that sunbathe is a verb not a noun <S> , so you shouldn't need to worry about either having it or taking it. <S> 3) <S> The word 'some', doesn't belong in this sentence. <S> You're only taking one set of sunbathing. <S> So it's not ambiguous as to whether you're taking some of it, or all of it. <S> So you don't need to use the word some to distinguish that. <S> Putting that all together, a better sentence might be: <S> "It will ease your stress to sunbathe a bit." <A> When in Rome (Do as the Romans do). <S> In BE you have a bath, whereas in AE you take a bath. <S> As for taking/having a sunbath, it's very controversial. <S> Some people say it's absolutely wrong to use have/take with a sunbath as it's not a noun <S> , some contend that it's acceptable and common in AE. <S> It's listed as a noun in The Free Dictionary. <S> However, it's undoubtedly acceptable if we say I am going to sunbathe, <S> I do some sunbathing in the morning, etc. <A> I can't speak for American English, but for British English: ' <S> Have a bath' is idiomatic. <S> 'Take a bath' is probably idiomatic, but may sound a little American. <S> Neither 'Have a sun bath' or ' <S> Take a sun bath' <S> is idiomatic. <S> The root problem is that though we use 'sunbathe' as a verb (always one word I believe), we don't say 'sun bath' . <S> Additional problem: ' <S> It will set your mind stress free' is not idiomatic in British English nor in American English. <S> In British English I'd say 'It will make you less stressed' .	I'd say ... 'if you sunbathe '.
As what do you read this letter? As what do you read the first letter in the picture above? Is it a Greek or an English? <Q> It looks like a lowercase V. <S> Is this describing an electrical signal? <S> If so, there's a convention that DC variables use capital letters and AC variables use lowercase letters. <S> It looks like Vm is the (constant) magnitude of the sinusoid, and v is the actual time-varying sinusoid itself. <S> The variables are written in italics in a serif font, which is why the V looks odd. <S> The Greek letter nu looks similar to a lowercase <S> V. Nu is sometimes used for frequency, but overall it's not very common. <S> I would be very surprised to see a nu in such a simple equation. <S> Upsilon is even less common. <S> (Sorry I can't use the actual Greek letters here; ELL apparently doesn't support MathJax.) <A> The ancient Latin/Roman alphabet used the letter v, as it had no letter in the shape of u. <A> Yes this is a Greek letter and its name is Upsilon <S> of course it is the lower case of Y in Greek alphabets also in English we read it as U <S> but I do not know its exact pronunciation.	To me it looks like a cursive lower case v, from the contemporary Latin/Roman alphabet (English).
"Animals which lay eggs are called birds." and "Animals that lay eggs are called birds." What is the difference between these two sentences? I am confused between "which" and "that". I don't know in above sentences which is correct. According to me, both sentences are right. I have read some posts on the usages of "which" and "that", but I didn't get my answer. Which of these sentences is correct, and why? 1) Animals which lay eggs are called birds. 2) Animals that lay eggs are called birds. <Q> There are two types of relative clauses in English, which I shall call 'defining clauses' and 'commenting clauses'. <S> They are best described with an example: <S> Pilots who have dull minds seldom live long Pilots, who have dull minds, seldom live long. <S> The first sentence is a warning about the dangers of having a dull mind if you want to be a pilot. <S> The second is insulting to all pilots. <S> Defining clauses are never separated from the main sentence by a comma: commenting clauses always are. <S> There's an old fashioned rule that you should always use 'that' rather than ' <S> which' when you are writing a defining clause. <S> Thus Animals that lay eggs are called birds. <S> is grammatical, while Animals which lay eggs are called birds. <S> is ungrammatical. <S> These days, however, prescriptivism (language rules) is unfashionable and people are far more likely to consider both sentences to be grammatical, and to mean the same thing. <S> Moreover, in colloquial speech, and even in writing, the rule has never been universally followed. <S> Of course, neither sentence is factually correct: a snake lays eggs, but is not called a bird! <A> In this construction, which and that both serve the same purpose. <S> They are both relative pronouns . <S> There is no difference in meaning. <S> The words are interchangeable. <A> See this Oxford Dictionaries article for an understanding of restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. <S> Oxford says: That and which introduce what’s known as a restrictive relative clause. <S> This is a clause containing essential information about the noun that comes before it. <S> If you leave out this type of clause, the meaning of the sentence is affected – indeed, it will probably not make much sense at all. <S> Restrictive relative clauses can be introduced by that, which, whose, who, or whom. <S> The other type of relative clause is known as a non-restrictive relative clause. <S> This kind of clause contains extra information that could be left out of the sentence without affecting the meaning or structure. <S> Non-restrictive clauses can be introduced by which, whose, who, or whom, but you should never use that to introduce them. <S> By the way, if we take your sentence "Animals that lay eggs are called birds" and make a syllogism, we can then say "Fish lay eggs," and so "Fish are called birds." <S> A small problem. <A> I think the OP is confused whether he should use the relative pronoun "that" or "which" in the sentence. <S> In fact, "that/which lay eggs" is a defining relative clause in the sentence, which is used without putting a comma before and after it. <S> It tells which animals you are talking about. <S> Without this clause, the sentence doesn't make sense. <S> As for relative pronoun that/which, you can use either "that" or "which" for things/animals in the defining relative clause. <S> However, the use of "which" is a bit formal and the use of "that" is common in informal English. <S> So both sentences are grammatically correct.	Both sentences are grammatically correct.
"You've got to be strong" and "You should be strong" are the same? Are there some differences in sentences You've got to be strong . and You should be strong. Are they the same? <Q> There are things we need to do, and there are things we should do. <S> Think of "needs" as requirements, while "shoulds" are recommendations. <S> So, if you want to convey that it is absolutely essential to remain strong, use one of these: <S> We need to be strong. <S> We must be strong. <S> We've got to be strong. <S> On the other hand, if you are recommending that we remain strong, use one of these: We should be strong. <S> We ought to be strong. <S> And if you want to express confidence that our strength will not falter: We will remain strong. <S> We shall remain strong. <A> Their meanings are the same, but their use contexts are slightly different. <A> They're not the same. <S> You've got to be strong. <S> This means that you need to be strong, that is that strength is a mandatory requirement for the situation. <S> This expression is often used in reference to emotional strength needed to weather a current or expected crisis, though of course it can refer to physical strength. <S> You should be strong. <S> This could be interpreted in more than one way depending on the context. <S> It could mean that strength is desirable but perhaps not necessary if you have other qualities that apply. <S> For example you could win a fight using brute strength or by using superior speed to knock out your opponent before they have a chance to use their superior strength. <S> In my experience this expression is much less likely to be applied to emotional strength: you might say "You've got to be strong to cope with a divorce", but you wouldn't say "You should be strong to cope with a divorce."	While both mean roughly the same thing ('you need to become stronger'), 'you've got to' is more impassioned and more personal (and slightly more informal) than 'you should'.
"What is [the] statistics on traffic accidents?" - do I need (an/the) article here? I wonder whether I need the article in the sentence "What is [the] statistics on traffic accidents?" and also what article should I use in the second part of the title of this question. <Q> What are the statistics on traffic accidents? <S> ( meaning: Please provide me with the necessary data ) <S> Here, you would need to use the definite article, because the word statistics is postmodified by the prepositional phrase " on traffic accidents " which makes the reference definite. <S> What is statistics on traffic accidents? <S> ( meaning: I don't know what the phrase "statistics on traffic accidents" means ) <S> It could be that the phrase is used as a column header in a big table, and you need to know what exactly does it reflect. <S> Such a sentence would, however, need quotation marks to be fully understood in writing: <S> What is 'statistics on traffic accidents'? <S> The word statistics is a strange beast in English: a plural noun treated as singular. <S> Do I need the/an article here? <S> Since you've used the article <S> the in your first sentence, placing it in square parentheses, the reader is aware what article you are referring to. <S> Hence, it would be okay to use <S> the in the question. <S> In other words: Do I need to use this article (which I put in the square brackets) here? <S> ( such will be the meaning with the ) <S> But you can use <S> an as well: this would imply that you are open to the possibility that it will be <S> a that will suit your example sentence best. <S> In other words: Do I need to use any article here? <S> ( such will be the meaning with an ) <A> Since "statistics" is a plural noun, you need a plural verb. <S> Yes, you need an article before statistics but not before traffic accidents. <S> "What are the statistics on traffic accidents?" would be correct. <A> and whether removing the -s yields another valid English noun. <S> (Counterexample: princess .) <S> "Statistics", naturally, is the plural of "statistic". <S> You might equally well ask "What is a statistic <S> [just one statistic] about traffic accidents?", to which I might answer, "130 people died in traffic accidents in Chicago last year. <S> " That's certainly a statistic. <S> If you're asking for " the statistics ", that has a connotation of asking for all the statistics that could possibly be relevant (to whatever it is we're talking about), or at least all the statistics that are currently available. <S> Google tells me that in Russian, the word for a single statistic might be "статистическая величина". <S> FYI, in English, statistic is also often used as a synonym for casualty (with the connotation of loss or unimportance of personal identity ). <S> In your original context, it wouldn't naturally be interpreted that way; but I could write <S> When her car crashed fatally into that telephone pole, Alice became yet another statistic in America's deadly love affair with the automobile. <S> This usage usually occurs on its own or with the preposition in , as opposed to the mathematical/statistical usage, which takes the preposition on . <S> Oh, and I should add: <S> Statistics (as an uncountable mass noun ) is the branch of mathematics that deals with statistics (plural). <S> Compare: mathematics , logistics , arithmetic , logic . <S> All of these are mass nouns referring to branches of mathematics. <S> And yes, some of them take -s <S> and some don't <S> ; it's pretty much random. <S> I could construct contexts in which the difference between count and mass nouns was pretty subtle: <S> Alice studies automobile statistics. <S> (Probably the count noun is meant: statistics about automobiles.) <S> Beth studies automotive statistics. <S> (Probably the mass noun: some sub-field of statistics.) <S> Carol studies financial statistics. <S> (Might plausibly be either one.) <S> but these aren't very important to your original question. <S> You're unlikely to see anything like these in real life.	Here, you would need no article, because you are not trying to get some specific data ("statistics") on some traffic accidents but rather to ascertain the meaning of the whole phrase "statistics on traffic accidents"). "Statistics" is a plural noun; you can usually tell this about English nouns by seeing whether they end with -s
What is the difference between the pronunciation of "a" and "e" in a closed syllable? What is the difference between the pronunciation of "a" and "e" in a closed syllable? For instance, between the words than and then ? I was told the first should be pronounced with [æ], and the second with [e]. I was studying English from the age of 7, initially before school, then in school, and then in a university. And I still do not know the difference between the two. I have asked several teachers about it, but nobody could answer me. Some of them tried to reproduce the difference by pronouncing the "a" with a widely open mouth and showing the difference with mimics and effort on the face, but the sounds they produced were exactly the same for me. Honestly I think they did not know the difference themselves. In the university we had some lectures in English by foreigners (I do not know whether English was their native tongue though), and still I did not hear the difference, but the foreigners often could not understand me. Please tell me the difference. <Q> In the weak form "than" and "then" have the same pronunciation with "weak e" (indefinite vowel). <S> Only when stressed "than" is pronounced as æ. <S> http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/than http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/then_1 <A> Fortunately, in Russian, you already have experience making the sound of English ă (“short a”, IPA /æ/). <S> If you take notice of it, you might be able to learn to hear ă as a distinct vowel. <S> Once you can hear it, you will probably be able to produce this vowel yourself in English, in which the vowel appears in places where it does not occur in Russian. <S> In Russian, the vowel represented by я and a can have a very different sound in different words, but is heard as “the same” vowel. <S> In English, you must hear these different sounds as different vowels. <S> The words below illustrate the differences. <S> Pay attention to the sound of the vowel, not the palatalization of the preceding consonant. <S> я грязный пьяница <S> Russian я = <S> English ä (IPA /a/), close to f a ther, b a r, c a r мясо мячик <S> Russian я = <S> English ă (IPA /æ/), as in th a n, c a t, tr a p мастер мать Russian a = English ä (IPA /a/), close to f a ther, <S> b a r, c a r <S> это здесь Russian э,е = English ĕ (IPA /ɛ/), as in th e n, m e t, <S> t e ll <S> The vowel chart on this page shows how the different vowel sounds differ from each other, and includes audio for each vowel sound. <S> Note that Russian я and а do not correspond in any simple way to any English vowel or even to any IPA vowel. <S> This sentence spoken by the Google Lady might help. <A> If your question is how to produce the sounds in your throat/mouth, try this: For "than" <S> -- lower your jaw, opening your mouth much wider than you'd normally do; exaggeratedly wide, and produce the sound in the back of your throat. <S> The "then" -- jut your jaw forward, exaggeratedly, and make a breathy sound like zombie. <S> ehhhh... <S> Then, try to un-exaggerate these facial positions gradually, listening to how the vowel changes as you reposition your jaw bit by bit. <S> See if you can produce two distinct sounds without having to exaggerate the jaw position. <S> P.S. <S> In rapid speech, the difference between the two sounds can be almost lost.	Russian vowels have very different sounds in different contexts, English vowels vary much less in different contexts, and IPA sounds are defined to not vary at all.
Where in the letter should you write "Merry Christmas" formally? I was writing an email to the principal of my former school, and came up with a question. The letter is to be read by the principal, so I should be more polite,I need to be careful about the etiquette. But how and where in the letter should I write "I wish you a Merry Christmas"? Is it polite to say "I wish you a Merry Christmas" to the people that have higher social status? <Q> (I would argue that social status isn't very important in this case, but that's a separate question.) <S> There are two common places to put it -- at the beginning (as a greeting) or at the end. <S> If you put it at the beginning, normally you would just say "Merry Christmas!" <S> instead of using a complete sentence. <S> Here's an example: Dear Principal <S> So-and-So, Merry Christmas! <S> I hope you and your family are doing well. <S> I've been... <S> If you want to use a complete sentence, it's more appropriate to do so at the end. <S> Here are a couple examples of that: ... <S> I'll try to visit the school the next time I come home. <S> I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. <S> Sincerely, -Your Name Here or: ... <S> I'll try to visit the school the next time I come home. <S> Merry Christmas! <S> -Your Name Here <A> Make sure they celebrate Christmas before wishing them Merry Christmas. <S> Not everyone celebrates Christmas, and some may be offended by the assumption. <S> If they do celebrate Christmas, then Merry Christmas. <S> If they do not celebrate Christmas, you can either wish them well on their specific holiday, or use the umbrella term, "Happy Holidays!". <A> I think most principals (and others, like politicians) that deal with a diverse set of people and religious backgrounds would not be in the least offended by "Merry Christmas" or any other common positive religious or secular holiday expression. <S> One need not necessarily go to the trouble to determine a principal's personal belief system first, especially if you know them. <S> How would one do that? <S> By asking the principal first in a preliminary email and then following up in a second email? <S> By asking someone else (and maybe getting it wrong)? <S> You could employ a private detective... <S> It's all really just a waste of people's bandwidth/time. <S> And why not express your own holiday greeting in your own manner, so that your principal can know what your preference is? <S> Principals are generally more concerned with knowing what your preference is than taking offense at all the various students and parents who have a different viewpoint than their own. <S> However, there are some formal situations in which it may be inappropriate, such as an email that touches upon some deeply personal matter related to the principal. <S> There are various business and social etiquette guidelines that one might want to review to consider various options. <S> Also, if in doubt or under unusual circumstances, you could ask the principal's secretary for advice. <A> If the letter is primarily for some other purpose, but happens to be sent around Christmas time, you should use a complete sentence at the start of the letter. <S> For example: <S> Dear <S> So-and-so, First, let me wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas. <S> I hope Santa is very generous this year! <S> With respect to our joint investment in XYZ Inc., I am of the opinion <S> that .... <S> etc.	Yes, you can say "Merry Christmas" to someone of higher social status. You can put it either as the first sentence of the email or the last sentence of the email.
What is the name of this thing in English? What is the name of the thing where objects are well connected and pass through different sections to finally help do one thing at the end in a creative way. Where an object moves along a specific path, hits another which has a new path which moves along and hits another etc? :) <Q> A 'Rube Goldberg machine'? <S> Here are some examples of what I think you might be talking about. <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFWHbRApS3c <S> (The name comes from the cartoonist Rube Goldberg, who would draw cartoons of fanciful and intricate inventions like these.) <A> You can coin your own. <A> A Rube Goldberg machine. <S> It is a machine that goes through complicated and unnecessary processes to complete a simple task. <S> Example: Task: to dump dog food in a bowl. <S> Start: a phone vibrating when it receives a phone call, knocking down a set of dominos. <S> Wikipedia: <S> A Rube Goldberg machine is a contraption, invention, device or apparatus that is deliberately over-engineered or overdone to perform a very simple task in a very complicated fashion, usually including a chain reaction. <S> The expression is named after American cartoonist and inventor Rube Goldberg (1883–1970).	Chain Reaction, Serial Chain Reactors, Chain Impulse Transmitters, Serial Momentons .. or even Domino Chain
"relax" or "relaxing"? -- I hope you are having some rest and relaxing at the end of the year I am sending someone a message, and I started with this: Good day. I hope you are having some rest and relaxing at the end of the year. is it correct to use the -ing in the relaxing word? <Q> You need the noun, which is relaxation. <S> So this would be grammatical. <S> I hope you are having some rest and relaxation. <S> Ways you can use relaxing grammatically: <S> The cat is relaxing. <S> The relaxing cat is over there. <S> The holiday was relaxing. <A> Yes. <S> Here is the same situation in a shorter sentence: <S> I hope you are relaxing. <S> The meaning is the same as: <S> I hope that you are relaxing. <S> You are relaxing <S> is a subordinate clause, with relax in the present progressive tense. <S> In the original sentence, notice that relaxing is not an object of having . <S> It would not make sense to say: I hope you are having some relaxing. <S> so, a reader just won't interpret the sentence that way. <S> That's not a problem. <S> However, having some rest isn't the ordinary way to say this concept. <S> It's grammatical <S> and it's not wrong, but normally one says getting some rest . <S> So a more ordinary-sounding way to say it would be: <S> I hope you are getting some rest and relaxing at the end of the year. <S> The phrase rest and relaxation is even more familiar. <S> Making both r- words into nouns, both objects of getting , sounds pleasing to the ear. <S> So, a nicer way to say it is: <S> I hope you are getting some rest and relaxation at the end of the year. <A> I think the use of "relaxing" is unnecessary in the sentence, as to rest and to relax are synonyms.	You can say I hope you are having/taking some rest or relaxing at the end of the year.
How to address more than one person? How do you address more than one person? If there was one person, you would say You are awesome! and if there was 2 male people/animals, you could say You guys are awesome! and same with the female. But what if there was a male and a female? Would you just say you are awesome ? Can ' you ' be used to address a group? Any help would be appreciated. <Q> "You" is the pronoun for second person singular and plural see wikipedia, for example . <S> So the phrase You are awesome. <S> is fine when addressing a group - which per definition means multiple persons / plural. <A> It depends on the level of formality, and the regional dialect of the people you are speaking to. <S> Because "y'all" is not Standard English, it is not formal. <S> (On the other hand, when addressing a group that includes one or more females, "y'all" is more accurate than "you guys", and therefore at least as formal as "you guys"). <S> Two Standard English translations of "y'all" are "you" (as suggested by Stephie) and "all of you" (when you need to unambiguously use the plural of "you"). <S> My preference is "y'all", even though this usage is not common where I live. <A> In Ireland we say yous, yis or ye, yous two over there, who are yis going with, were are ye going (ye is more used in the Midlands (farmer region))	In the Southern dialect of American English, the plural of "you" is "y'all".
How to comment on somebody's clothes? Is it correct to say e.g. "I like your way of wearing" or "the way you wear looks perfect"? Is it politely? Is it in use or not? May I use "the way you wear" referring to whole wearings including dress, scarf, hat, bracelet. jewellery, etc? Thank you for your suggestions in advance. <Q> Some normal things to say would be: <S> I like your outfit/dress/etc. <S> You look really nice today. <S> You wear that scarf/ <S> etc <S> really well. <S> Normally it's fine to compliment your friends on their clothes, but it can be kind of weird with strangers. <A> You wouldn't use the word "wearing", but "dressing". <S> "I like your way of dressing" (more likely "I like the way you dress"), "the way you dress looks perfect". <S> It's a bit strong. <S> Maybe if you meet a friend at the opera in a very nice suit or in an evening dress, then it would be appropriate. <S> Saying it to a well-dressed colleague might raise an eyebrow. <A> I have not heard "wearings" used this way. <S> If you said: I like the way you wear your dress. <S> it is more about the clothing itself, how it fits on her, or how it is arranged with other clothing. <S> But in this sense you are only complimenting the clothes.　 <S> I (really) like the way you look today. <S> which is understood to include clothing. <S> Using really would make it more personal. <S> On the other hand, you could make it passive if you need to be more formal: <S> You are looking nice today. <S> And if you are referring to all clothing items, including jewelry and accessories, you could use "outfit": <S> I really like your outfit . <A> To refer to someone's whole ensemble, or even their overall style of dress you can say, I like/admire the way you dress. <S> or <S> I like/admire your style. <A> I think part of the problem is that wear requires an object. <S> So the following are ungrammatical: <S> You are wearing. <S> I like the way you wear. <S> *I like your wearing. <S> They need to have objects to be grammatical: <S> You are wearing shoes. <S> I like the way you wear your pants. <S> I like what you are wearing. <A> It's not too common, but the phrase becomes you might be of interest. <S> According to YD , it means: become ( v. trans. ) <S> to look good with: <S> The new suit becomes you . <S> Collins lists it this way, under Definintion 3: <S> become ( v. trans. ) <S> (of clothes, etc) to enhance the appearance of (someone); suit ⇒ that dress becomes you <S> It's a flexible verb, in that you could use it for a single piece of jewelry or an entire ensemble.	If you are complementing the person on how she looks (which includes clothing), it is better to use the verb look .
When and How to use the term "hindsight"? hindsight=understanding of a situation or event only after it has happened or developed. I heard many people (especially business people) use the term "hindsight", but I am not sure when to use it and how to use it correctly? For example, is it correct to say this sentence? Steve Jobs just builds things he believe it's great first, then people will understand his products and his ideas later in a hindsight. So, when and how to use the term "hindsight"? <Q> Hindsight is a complex word because of the way it is commonly used. <S> It is important to understand the phrase <S> "Hindsight is 20/20", because it is the most common usage of the word, and that meaning is almost always implied when the word is used alone. <S> "20/20" is a 'perfect' score on a vision test, and is used here to mean both insight and understanding. <S> Hindsight is 20/20 because events always seem obvious and simple when you reflect on what has already happened. <S> It is also used as a reminder that foresight is difficult and complex. <S> Because of this, "Hindsight" is often used when discussing an action that should have been taken, especially if the consequences are much more obvious now. <S> For instance, someone undergoing a painful dentist appointment might remark " <S> In hindsight, I should have flossed my teeth." <S> Your example about Steve Jobs doesn't quite work, for a few reasons. <S> "Steve Jobs just builds things he believe it's great first, then people will understand his products and his ideas later in a hindsight" <S> There are three ideas here: <S> Steve Jobs builds things he believes are great. <S> (Since there are many things, we want to use the plural for believe <S> and it's here.) <S> People will understand his ideas and products later. <S> (We can group the ideas and products together because they are both "his") <S> [Steve Jobs' decisions will make sense] in hindsight. <S> To improve this sentence, we want to make it clear that we are talking about one thing - not things, ideas, and products. <S> It should also be clear that the people who understand later were confused at the beginning. <S> If we use the definition of "hindsight" to mean something that was only obvious later, we might say: Steve Jobs made a lot of shocking decisions, which in hindsight were understood to be genius. <S> By saying his decisions were shocking, we establish why people thought they were not genius. <S> We could say "only later" instead of "in hindsight" here, and it would mean nearly the same thing. <S> However, there is a slight implication when we use "hindsight" that the answer could not have been known at the time, because we do not share Steve's genius. <A> For example "Horse Number 4 won the race. <S> In hindsight, I should have put my money on Number 4."Some other examples from Oxford Dictionaries:1. <S> Playing through Iron Storm was like looking back in hindsight on a historical event.2. <S> With hindsight, we know how his moral instinct trumped the evidence for the war and its legality.3. <S> Many times I look back in hindsight and think of how I should have handled a situation. <A> Perception of the significance and nature of events after they have occurred. <S> Often we say, If I knew then what I know now . <S> After the fact we can all see the situation and adjust the way “would have” reacted… <S> If only we had known then what we know now . <S> Usage: <S> In hindsight, he wondered how he'd ever been fooled or why he'd settle for Claire when there was someone like Sofia out there, who'd love him for him and not for his title. <S> A simple usage may be "As we know, with 10-15 years hindsight, this never happened" <A> In my opinion & understanding below is best answer : <S> hindsight = <S> looking backward(like <S> foresight = <S> looking forward)	As you mentioned hindsight means "the ability to understand an event or situation only after it has happened".
How do we address an unmarried old woman? Say, Jeane is a 50 year old unmarried woman. And I insist on using titles. So, while talking about her with somebody else, shall I say, "This is Mrs. Jeane's house?" In writing, of course, we can use Ms. Jeane to avoid confusion, but how do we avoid this confusion while speaking, because both Mrs. and Ms. are pronounced the same, that is Missus, isn't it? Even if she is married and I deliberately want to avoid allusions to her marital status in my speech, what title shall I use? (Miss is for young girls, right?) <Q> This is an area of English where it's difficult to give a definitive answer - the situation has been changing over time, and the answer will vary a little in different regions and contexts. <S> Some points: Historically, 'Miss' would have been the correct answer - it was not merely for young girls, but for any unmarried female. <S> Since the advent of modern feminism (c. the sexual revolution in the 1960s-1970s), the attitude to titles indicating marital status has changed somewhat (but not universally - in a conservative area, the traditional view may prevail) and now you are 'safer' (from causing offense to feminists) to use 'Ms' as the default (for both single, married, separated, divorced, partnered, unpartnered etc. <S> of any age). <S> Although there may be regional variations, I believe the most widely accepted pronunciation for this is Miz . <S> ( corroborated by dictionary.com ) <S> Any regional variations would be over the vowel sound (eg Muz ) - excluding Missus as a possible pronunciation. <S> Some people find any use of a title to be patronising - it is often best to ascertain an individual's preference in how they wish to be addressed as manners can vary quite widely in this regard. <S> Further information: in using a title, you should be using either the surname or full name. <S> eg. <S> in referring to Jeane Smith the middle-aged spinster in conversation use <S> either Miz Smith or Miz Jeane Smith - the latter more for explicit identification (first mention), the former when the context is clear. <S> When addressing directly, Miz Smith (no given name), Ma'am or Madam depending on degree of formality or locality. <A> The title "Ms." is perfect for this situation. <S> It's pronounced "miz", which is similar to "Miss" except for the Z sound at the end. <S> It would be unusual to call someone "Ms. FirstName". <S> I've heard of women being called "Miss FirstName", but it sounds like an archaic usage from the American South. " <S> Mr." and "Mrs." are normally used with either a last name or a full name. <S> If you're going to call someone by their first name, just use the name without a title. <A> Women who have prestigious titles (such as "Doctor" or "Senator") generally prefer one of those titles. <S> The title "Ms." has connotations that range from neutral to severely negative. <S> I would not risk implying "Ms."' connotation of "a woman who has given up on marriage" without being invited to do so. <S> "Mrs." is pronounced "Missiz". <S> "Ms." is pronounced "Mizz". <S> "Miss" is pronounced "Miss". <S> As Adam Haun points out, titles are generally used with last names for adults.	I only use the title "Ms." if I know that is the title the woman prefers.
"met in the middle"—what does "meet" refer to in this title? The title of an article from Polygon : Doom was rising, the Amiga was dying, and these weird clones met in the middle I don't quite understand what is meeting what (or maybe who?) in the middle? Does it refer to the clones that meet themselves in in the middle between rising Doom and the dying Amiga? Or possibly users meet (play, see) these clones between rising Doom and the dying Amiga? I'm sorry but I have no other ideas. :( <Q> For example, if I am trying to sell a used car and I ask $10,000, and you offer me $5,000, we would “meet in the middle” by agreeing to a price of $7,500. <S> Another phrase for this is meet halfway . <S> The phrase's use in the title of the web page is inept. <S> The idea is that Doom called upon graphics capabilities that the Amiga did not support well. <S> So, various people wrote clones of Doom that sacrificed some quality in order to run on the Amiga. <S> Thus the clones implemented a sort of compromise between Doom’s requirements and the Amiga’s hardware. <S> But meet in the middle <S> suggests that Doom and the Amiga would meet each other in the middle. <S> It doesn’t make sense to say that the clones “met” in the middle. <S> As you observed, parties meet each other; the clones did not meet anyone or anything, nor did some clones meet other clones. <S> So, you should probably learn the phrase from other examples, not this one. <S> Here is a very typical example <S> (search for "in the middle"), and here <S> is a typical example not involving money. <A> First, let's get through the background. <S> The clones that the title refers to are Doom clones. <S> "Doom clone" was a popular name for first-person shooter video games in the late 1990s. <S> (Many of these games were seen as copying Doom, which is where the name comes from.) <S> The article links to a video about Doom clones on the Amiga. <S> The Amiga was a line of computers made by Commodore. <S> They were notable mainly for having advanced multimedia features and a very loyal fan base. <S> The Amiga was never a very popular platform, and eventually died due to lack of sales. <S> The title of the article tries to establish the time, circumstances, and subject of the video. <S> Doom came out in 1993 and quickly became very popular. <S> Commodore declared bankruptcy in 1994, which mostly killed the Amiga. <S> The Amiga-based Doom clones were a connection between these two events. <S> The title starts with a contrast (rising/dying) and then draws a connection between them. <S> It's a clever idea. <S> Unfortunately, the title is not very grammatical. <S> Meeting in the middle requires two nouns. <S> It's understandable to a native speaker, but it sounds a little odd. <S> Something like "these weird clones were in the middle" might have been better. <S> It's a subjective judgement, and I haven't seen the video. <A> As the Commodore Amiga was on the decline because its graphics capabilities were being surpassed by new technology, and as the game <S> Doom was on the ascendant, running on this new more powerful hardware, copycats of the Doom FPS experience (Poom, Gloom, Alien Breed, et al) appeared on the scene. <S> They ran on the Amiga and offered Amiga owners an FPS-like experience, albeit with somewhat inferior graphics.	The primary idiomatic meaning of meet in the middle is to compromise, especially when negotiating a price. The "middle" is that period of time when the Amiga was moribund and the FPS genre was being born.
What do you call this thing? "bag"? I always need this when I buy stuff from the market. So, I need to know the real name for it. I always call it "bag" but it seems that it is not the correct name. <Q> In my experience, which is all I can answer from, in American English, 99% of the time the white plastic object is called a bag . <S> Specifically, it is a plastic bag. <S> We also have paper bags. <S> And canvas bags . <S> When you start talking about "bags" made out of thicker material, traditionally woven from cotton or something, you can then use the word sack. <S> You can use sack to refer to a paper bag, but it is rare to refer to a plastic bag as a plastic sack, in the USA, using American English, at least in the dialect I speak. <A> I have a funny experience with this. <S> I grew up in the Eastern U.S. What you ask about were called bags , pure and simple. <S> Then I moved about 1500 miles (2400 km) away, to the American midwest, near the geographic center of U.S. <S> I still remember my puzzled look when the cashier asked me, "Would you like a sack with that?" <S> Where I had grown up, a sack was made of burlap or mesh; i.e., this was a sack : Fig. <S> 1 <S> : <S> A sack in the Northeast <S> But in my new location, your groceries were put in a sack , unless you wanted to carry them back to your car in your arms. <S> Fig. <S> 2: A sack in the Midwest <S> By the time I moved back to the east coast more than a decade later, my ear had become accustomed to sack , and bag seemed eerily unfamiliar. <S> I was just about certain that bag was the right word to use again, but it didn't sound right to me. <S> So, maybe a month or so after I had moved back, I had this rather amusing conversation with a convenience store clerk while purchasing a gallon of milk: <S> J.R.: <S> If I wanted one of those brown paper things to put my milk in, what would I ask for? <S> Cashier: <S> A bag? <S> J.R.: <S> Thank you. <S> Cashier: <S> [looking confused]: <S> Do you want one? <S> J.R.: <S> No – I just wanted to know what it was called. <S> and then I walked out. <S> I think the bottom line is that regional variations may apply. <S> I'd say bag is usually right, but you can always ask a cashier if you're not sure : <S> ^) <S> By the way, one question often asked in groceries stores is, "Paper or plastic? <S> " I'd never really thought about it before, but that terse three-word question avoids the noun – which might be by design. <S> Lastly, remember this: If you are ever asked "Paper or plastic? <S> " You'll have to decide for yourself. <S> Why? <S> Because baggers can't be choosers . <S> ;^) <A> This appears to be UK-English only It's a bag; specifically it's a carrier-bag. <S> You could ask for either - or even, colloquially, just 'a carrier'. <S> Some places would ask whether you want paper or plastic, though that's not a popular choice in the UK. <S> Here they prefer you to have a thicker, heavier plastic or cloth bag which can be used over & over, often referred to as a 'bag for life' Examples - In Br Eng, this would never be a sack - <S> that would imply it being much larger, perhaps like this, a 'bin-bag' or sack. <A> In India, we refer that as a ' polythene bag '. <S> Some years back, it was just a 'bag' but then due to the awareness about preserving our planet, the governments started acting strictly. <S> All the newspapers and TV channels were flooded with the message that we should not use 'polythene bag' (there is when general public came to know the 'full form' of that bag!) <S> However, polythene bags above 40 microns are allowed. <S> There are so many types of polythene but broadly, we refer these bags as polythene bags. <S> The vendors here started using 'paper bags' and there is where, <S> we, as buyers, have to specify the 'bag'. <S> Suppose if I'm carrying something wet, I'll have to ask for a polythene bag over a thin paper bag that the vendor is using for everything else. <S> I would not prefer to put an adjective to this (such as shopping bag, grocery bag) which would simply restrict its usage! <S> Use a polythene bag to carry a wet shoe, a fruit, a bunch of newspapers or anything <S> that you don't 'shop' as well! <S> [I'm tagging this answer as InE]. <A> In India wee call it a ' plastic-cover '. <S> Well educated people also call it a ' carry-bag '.These are available in almost all types of stores in my country. <S> In-fact because of its heavy usage and pollution problem a law was created in my state that demands these bags be made of plastic of 30 microns or above. <S> And because in our country every state has its own language this is mostly known by it local name, in my state Kerala <S> it is known in Malayalam as 'sanjhi' <A> I am a product specialist in the flexible packaging industry. <S> The bag you have in this picture is commonly called a "t-shirt bag". <S> It is called this because the construction moderately resembles a t-shirt. <S> This type of bag falls under the larger category of "carry-out bag" which is any bag that a cashier will put your item in at the time of purchase and you will then carry-out of the store. <S> The application is important when it comes to figuring out if the item is subject to import tariffs.. <S> They are made out of LDPE or HDPE. <S> The bag in this picture also has registered spot printing done with a flexographic press.	So, in short, yes, bag is the most common term to call the white plastic object.
Usages of "in case" and "should" inversion I'll be at my uncle's house in case you need to reach me. I'll be at my uncle's house just in case you need to reach me. I'll be at my uncle's house should you need to reach me. I'll be at my uncle's house you should need to reach me. Could you tell me what the difference between these is? In addition, when can I invert "should" in such a sentence? UPDATED : I am wondering what is the exact difference between the bold parts? <Q> ∗ I'll be at my uncle's house <S> you should need to reach me <S> is ungrammatical. <S> You need an if in there: if you should need to reach me . <S> The if is only omitted if should is inverted with the subject. <S> The inverted construction is a ‘fossil’ from much older usage; today it is fading into disuse, and has a very quaint ring in the US. <S> Once any verb might be used in this construction, but today only should , had and were are used this way. <S> The rest of your sentences are all ‘relevance’ conditionals: <S> that is, the protasis (‘condition clause’, ‘ if clause’) does not express a condition under which the apodosis (‘consequence clause’, ‘ then clause’) is true but a condition under which the information in the apodosis is relevant. <S> For the most part they all express the same thing, which may also be expressed with an ordinary if clause: <S> I’ll be at my uncle’s <S> house <S> if you (should) need to reach me. <S> However, there is another dimension to the versions with (just) in case . <S> In case may express, alternatively or additionally, the reason why you will be at your uncle’s house: you will be remaining at a particular place (rather than going out) so that you can be reached if that becomes necessary. <S> That is the primary meaning of the expression, as in <S> I’ll take an umbrella in case it rains. <A> I'll be at my uncle's house <S> just in case you need to reach me. <S> The person who said this sentence informed the other one that "if you ran into any kind of trouble you can contact me in my uncle's house because you'll find me there." <S> I'll be at my uncle's house <S> should you need to reach me. <S> Formal sentence; meaning that " if you needed to reach me, know that I'm at my uncle's house. <S> " <S> I'll be at my uncle's house <S> you should need to reach me. <S> Odd sentence :) , <S> meaning that " I suggest you reach me, I will be at my uncle's house. <S> " <S> Notice that these three statements follow very different grammatical structure. <S> The first one is two statements linked with "just in case" conjunction, the second one is an inverted conditional, and the third one, well, it seems to me that it's two separate statements combined with no conjunctions! <S> Update: <S> The use of "just" makes no vast difference in the meaning of the sentence, it can be ignored. <S> Hey, here's a helpful page about inversions, were you eager to learn about them. <S> Hope I've helped. <A> I'll be at my uncle's house in case <S> you need to reach me. <S> A “case” in this sense is one of a set of possibilities considered during planning, or one of a set of possible outcomes. <S> I'll be at my uncle's house <S> just in case you need to reach me.(colloquial) <S> In this context, the word just functions as a “softener”. <S> Just in case suggests that the following possibility, while bad, is unlikely. <S> The central meaning of “just” (in this sense) is like “only” or “a little bit”. <S> Combined with in case , it means that the possibility is a small thing, nothing to worry about, but you’re still addressing it. <S> I'll be at my uncle's house <S> should you need to reach me. <S> I explained the effect of <S> should in detail in this answer “just” a few minutes ago. <S> In this context, should introduces a hypothetical condition where the the situation has veered away from happy/normal/good in some way. <S> If you included if (“…if you should need…”), should would soften the hypothesis by suggesting that the you’re unlikely to need to reach me or by suggesting that you need not worry, because even if you need to reach me, we are ready to solve the problem right away. <S> I'll be at my uncle's house <S> you should need to reach me. <S> This one is ungrammatical. <S> When you use should in place of if , you need to invert the subject and auxiliary verb as you do when forming a question.	In case means “If the following possibility occurs.”
An adjective to describe a pregnant woman's swollen belly? I can't find any good English adjective for the stomach of a pregnant woman. For example, how does one say this naturally: "Her belly looks bigger than a month ago. I guess she is expecting soon." <Q> I guess she's expecting soon." <S> In this sense, "showing" means "obviously appears pregnant". <S> It is a verb, not an adjective. <S> To a person who knows what to look for, most pregnant women start "showing" when their pregnancy is "about four months along". <S> This sense of "showing" does not combine with adverbs to form " phrasal verbs ". <S> For example, "showing up" and "showing off" use different meaning(s) of "showing". <A> The way you've phrased the statement in your question is just fine. <A> First, you should know that 'belly' is not a word to use thoughtlessly. <S> It is in a register that is appropriate to refer to animals or young children. <S> With adults, it is dubious unless you are talking in an intimate circle. <S> Yes, the tabloid press loves 'baby belly', but that doesn't mean you can use it anywhere. <S> You don't tell us your relationship to the subject of your remark or the person you are speaking to. <S> If you are talking to your wife about your sister, it's very different than if you are talking to your manager about your co-worker. <S> In the US, at least, it's considered quite rude to speculate about pregnancy or comment on a swelling abdomen until the owner of that abdomen announces her status. <S> A more neutral remark might be, 'She looks to me as if she is expecting .' <S> That can still get you into hot water, but not as hot as some of the alternatives. <S> A short answer; there is no English word that neutrally serves the purpose you want in a common conversational register. <A> Expecting is the same as pregnant. <S> You should say due if you mean giving birth. <S> She looks larger than a month ago. <S> I guess she is due soon.	She wouldn't be expecting soon, she is expecting now. "She's showing more than a month ago. If you're talking directly to the woman, and she's rather sensitive, then it's just possible that she may be slightly offended by the idea of a 'bigger belly'.
What does "Never do yesterday what should be done tomorrow" mean? I heard a quote Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. I assume that this means Whatever you do, there will be tomorrow, so don't do it. Am I right? <Q> This is actually a reversed version of the quote " Never do tomorrow what should be done today. <S> " The original quote was reversed for a movie about going back in time over and over again to fix what was messed up by originally going back in time to prevent a specific event from happening. <S> The context it is used is to explain the plot of the movie. <S> The other quote in the movie is " If at last you do succeed, never try again. " and that is a reversed version of the quote " If at first you don't succeed, try again. <S> " <S> This one explains why not to travel back on time to try and fix The event. <S> It created a huge mess of time travel that actually made the situation worse. <A> I read it differently still. <S> Think instead of the habits of human nature and our reluctance to stay in the now and instead ponder what could have and should have been with out lives as well as dreaming small and fragile into our possible futures. <S> You may wish that you had done a college degree, chosen a better career or travelled the world - when the "time was right" and so perpetually redo this in your mind (regret), when in fact, such things should be done tomorrow - i.e. imminently planned. <S> Don't "do" and redo your yesterdays in your head - just do them tomorrow. <A> I think it's from the time travel movie Predestination . <A> The reference, so far as I can tell without knowing your source, stems from Robert A. Heinlein's short story —All You Zombies— , a sci-fi magazine short he wrote in 1958. <S> Wikipedia says that there was a film adaptation called Predestination , which is presumably what user Natman is referring to. <S> I won't spoil the plot much, but the main character is part of the Time Corps that shows up in several Heinlein books. <S> They have a bunch of slogans, all related to time travel. <S> These include "A Stitch In Time Saves Nine Billion", "Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow", "Even Jove Nods", and my favourite, "If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again". <S> The one you ask about is, obviously, a humourous reversion of Burr's original quote, and just refers to the prudent use or non-use of time travel. <S> The slogans appear once more in the canon, in The Cat Who Walks Through Walls <S> but in both they are minor details without an author-sanctioned interpretation. <S> Like most cliché, really, real or fictional. <A> I think the best answer is "don't do things prematurely"	I interpret it to mean "Never use time travel to fix a problem if you don't have to."
What are these things called? I recently went on a trip to Peru, and met some pre-inca people. They braid their long hair into two ponytails, and weave balls of cotton to the end of the ponytail. What are those called? Bon-bons or something like that? <Q> What are those called? <S> Bon-bons or something like that? <S> I think you might be mixing up pompons and bonbons . <S> A <S> pompon is an ornamental woolen ball. <S> The word <S> pompon in English can also be spelled pompom or pom-pom . <S> For what it's worth, I found these images on Google by search for pompons and bonbons : <A> You phonetic memory wasn't far off: <S> The word you are looking for is probably "pom-pom" (not bon-bon). <S> But I agree with Dmandy, you could also call them "tassels". <A> Bon-Bons are two buns on the either side of the head <S> These look more like tassels	A bonbon is a piece of candy, often covered in chocolate.
Can "pleasing" be used to modify people? She is not very beautiful but very pleasing . Does the sentence make sense to you? Can "pleasing" be used to modify people ? I think it is mused to modify things , such as "The result is pleasing." <Q> Certainly pleasing can be used to modify people, either women or men, or children. <S> Or pets. <S> But if I used it, I would probably use pleasing to modify something about the person. <S> She has a pleasing personality. <S> But even this sounds slightly old-fashioned to me. <S> Another way to say what I just said is "She is willing to please. <S> " People at times do describe themselves as 'willing to please.' <S> In several contexts, but I am thinking mostly about a person willing to please their new boss. <S> Despite certain overtones that this phrase may be construed to have by some, those overtones are not inherent to "willing to please." <S> The dictionary definition that user3169 links to has one example sentence of "pleasing," and it also modifies something about the person, not the person directly. <S> But the 2001 date shows that the word is still in use--by some. <S> His face was fleshy and full and not at all pleasing , the eyebrows too heavy, the nose too sharply hooked. <S> Robert Silverberg LORD PRESTIMION (2001) <A> The sentence is fine. <S> Also people can be pleasant . <S> She has a pleasant personality. <S> The definition of pleasing does not make any distinction between people and things . <A> It can be used for a person. <S> But I'm not sure as to some, it might be offensive . <S> She's very pleasing <S> may also mean that she can give pleasure to you. <S> Consider user3169's option instead. <S> She is not beautiful but she has a pleasant personality. <S> There could be other options to say that... <S> She's not very beautiful <S> but she's amicable/charming/friendly etc. <S> You may choose other words depending on what you exactly want to say. <A> Please see the following examples: <S> * <S> She is pleasing in manner and appearance. <S> * <S> He is a pleasing writer/actor. <S> *I met Omar Sherif, who is a pleasing personality.	The adjective "pleasing", though not much used to refer to people, it can be used to do so,
"Treats of the place where Oliver Twist was born" What does the word treats mean in this context? I don't think it means entertainment, food, drink etc. . Maybe it is an old usage of this word? Does it mean influencing factors or something like that? This is the first part of the title of the first chapter of the novel "Oliver Twist" by Charles Dickens. The whole title reads: Treats of the Place Where Oliver Twist was Born and of the Circumstances Attending His Birth <Q> This phrase is the name of the first chapter in Oliver Twist. <S> Let's take a look at a few other chapter names: <S> Source: <S> Dickens, C. (1838). <S> Oliver Twist. <S> London, England; Bentley's Miscellany. <S> http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/50/oliver-twist/ <S> Chapter 1: <S> Treats of the Place Where Oliver Twist was Born and of the Circumstances Attending His Birth. <S> Chapter 2: <S> Treats of Oliver Twist's Growth, Education, and Board. <S> Chapter 3: <S> Relates <S> How Oliver Twist was Very Near Getting a Place Which Would Not Have Been a Sinecure. <S> Chapter 11: <S> Treats of Mr. Fang the Police Magistrate; And Furnishes <S> a Slight Specimen of His Mode of Administering Justice. <S> Chapter 24: <S> Treats on a Very Poor Subject. <S> But is a Short One, and May be Found of Importance in this History. <S> Chapter 34: <S> Contains <S> Some Introductory Particulars Relative to a Young Gentleman <S> Who Now Arrives Upon the Scene; And a New Adventure Which Happened to Oliver. <S> The examples I gave, and a few others, have chapter names that follow the pattern <S> "Chapter XX does Y." Chapter 11, in particular has this structure twice. <S> So it looks like treats is being employed as a verb. <S> As for meaning? <S> Treats can mean something like "provides." <S> In modern English, it is usually used for desirable things and is usually followed by "to." <S> (e.g. I treated the basketball team to ice cream after the game) <S> I don't know if the convention wasn't established when Dickens wrote these chapter headings, or if he is just being colorful, but it looks like your quote means: <S> Chapter One describes the place where Oliver Twist was born. <S> Also, with acknowledgement to a comment by @Bob Jarvis: Dictionary.com 's 9th definition for treat gives an example that uses treats + of : "to deal with a subject in speech or writing; discourse: (example) a work that treats of the caste system in India." <A> As in, "This book treats the question of how World War 2 started. <S> " I think this usage is becoming out of date, you mostly see it in older books. <S> So in this case, the chapter discusses where Oliver Twist was born. <S> See, for example, thefreedictionary.com, definitions 3 and 4. <A> "Treat", or better, "treat of" is the verb to the noun "treatise", which OALD defines as: treatise (on something) ( formal ) a long and serious piece of writing on a particular subject <S> Definitions on this specific meaning of "treat" are a bit harder to find. <S> Collins dictionary gives the definition: <S> treat (verb) 8. <S> (intransitive) usually foll by of (formal) to deal (with), as in writing or speaking <S> So a more colloquial title for Dicken's first chapter could be: <S> " Describing the Place Where Oliver Twist was Born and of the Circumstances Attending His Birth"	The word treats can mean "discusses a subject".
Can we use "Been" without have/has/had? I've never seen "been" been used without have/has/had. But in some songs it appears that they sometime use "been" without have. When I searched on internet the lyrics of some songs, it was actually like "I've been" or "It's been". I always thought that it's not I been , it's I've been but recently I saw the lyrics of the song "Forgot about Dre" in which they use it multiple times as: ...But I been low key... ...Sorry Doc but I been crazy... ...ya'll are the reason Dre ain't been getting no sleep... The last sentence is quite confusing. ain't been = is not been. Someone told me that we can never use something like is been , e.g "I am been" means that somebody is being me. Please explain me in simple language, what does I been mean and when is it used. Please do not explain the grammer, that is verb, noun etc; I am learning English without studying formal grammar. <Q> In some cases the form is established as a dialect standard, in other cases it represents a severe elision of <S> have been —/v/ <S> and /b/ are pronounced at exactly the same point in the mouth, so it /v/ very readily disappears in the following /b/. <S> Note that been is not used this way in negative statements. <S> Note that in some dialects been is also used as an alternative past form. <S> All of these uses are non-standard and should not be emulated by learners in any register, even the most casual speech: speakers of a dialect in which one of these uses is standard may suspect you of mocking their speech. <S> Stick to the standard forms. <S> Dialects which employ <S> ain't use it for both {is / are / am} not and {have / has} not . <S> Ain't been thus represents <S> haven't been or, as in your example, hasn't been . <A> In the podcast "Is Black English a Dialect or a Language?" <S> (part of Slate 's "Lexicon Valley" series), presenter Mike Vuolo and linguist Walter Wolfram explain that African-American English has a rich system of verb tense which is different from Standard English. <S> So, for example, “she been talking” means "she has been talking"; whereas “she BEEN talking”, with stress on the "been", means "she has been talking for a long time <S> and she still is talking". <S> Similarly, “she talking” means "she is talking”; and “she be talking” means "she is usually talking". <S> If you're an English-language learner, you wouldn't want to emulate this dialect. <S> It might be perceived that you are trying to parody or criticise those non-Standard language features. <S> Do check out the podcast and its transcription if you can. <S> The informal, back-and-forth conversational style might be a bit hard going for a non-native speaker. <S> But it changed my mind. <S> I stopped seeing those features of black speech as degenerate or wrong. <S> Though be aware that most speakers of Standard English or other dialects will judge you that way if you write <S> "I been learnin' English on da StackExchange"! <S> http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/02/lexicon_valley_is_black_english_a_dialect_or_a_language_.html <S> As for "ain't", I might try to address that separately. <A> Been there, done that. <S> Regarding "ain't been": <S> in this case "ain't" is not short for "isn't" but indeed for "haven't". <S> "Been" on its own actually sounds less wrong than combined with a pronoun. <S> "Been busy, didn't get to it" is sort-of perfectly fine telegraph-style speech <S> whereas "I been busy" sounds like slang. <S> Doesn't save any syllables over "I've been busy" either.	Been is widely used in a number of British and American dialects as an abbreviated form of present perfect have been/has been .
so an adjective/ adverb that ... the period was so far like the present period that some of... She was so much beautiful that... She was so beautiful that... As far as I know the bold one is incorrect because we mustn't add another intensifier after so. I am wondering the reason why, although there has been used another intensifier" far", the sentence is correct, isn't it? Please feel free to ask any further question if my question in not vivd enough. Any help would be greatly appreciated <Q> When a word can not be classified as a noun/pronoun/adjective/verb/preposition/conjunction etc, it's classified as an adverb. <S> So calling a word an adverb is not that helpful. <S> Because an adverb in a sentence is used in various ways, and not all adverbs can be used the same way. <S> She was <S> so much <S> beautiful ... <S> (INCORRECT) <S> In this sentence much is an adverb. <S> Generally much as an adverb can't modify a plain adjectives (that is the case here, and that's why this sentence is incorrect). <S> Though it can modify a comparative or superlative adjective or a past participle of verb. <S> He has not changed much. <S> A much loved family member. <S> The exam was much easier than I had expected. <S> Loach’s latest film is much the best thing he’s done. <S> Consider the following sentence - Glad that you are doing <S> so much <S> better . <S> See in this sentence much <S> is coming after so , but this sentence is not wrong. <S> So your assumption that no intensifier can come after so is actually wrong. <A> "So far" is an idiom meaning;1. <S> Up to the present moment: So far there's been no word from them.2. <S> To a limited extent: You can go only so far on five dollars. <S> In the first sentence you mentioned, the second meaning could have been intended;... the period was to a limited extent like the present period that some of... <S> You are correct about using "so" as an adverb to modify adjectives, it should be just before the adjective;She was so happy that she cried. <S> She was so beautiful that... Hope this would help. <A> Your first sentence is not grammatical. <S> At first I thought that "so far " meant "up to {this/that} point" <S> The period was, so far, like the present period... <S> But then one runs into the "that"! <S> So then one has to re-parse thus: <S> X was so far like Y that ... <S> {clause} <S> This does not make sense. " <S> so far like" is not idiomatic. <S> (things can be "far apart" or "far away" but not "far like"). <S> You would say "so much like":- X is like Y- X is <S> much like Y - X is so much like Y <S> that {clause} <S> So unless the context somehow untangles this problem (and I really would like to see the full sentence, and maybe the one that preceds it), I would have to say your first example is not a correct usage.	This sentence is correct because the adverb - much - there is used to modify the comparative form of good - better .
'Haha' over 'lol' -Do natives consider 'hahaha' as an offensive gesture? Most of the times, I don't lol . Yes, there's no loudness in my laugh at all. And, 'lol' is probably used by everyone on the Internet/mobile even though when they laugh little. 'lol' is also used when the matter is not of some joke [However, I strictly avoid such usage]. For instance, in chat... I know you are at Ruby's house lol, I've not visited hers for past one month. Now, if I use 'haha', is it considered offensive? Especially to native speakers. Let's say, I'm talking to my client who is from London or NYC. If she says something little funny which should not be replied with LOUD laughing, is it okay to use 'hahaha'. Will she consider that as an offensive gesture? For instance... Julia: Hello Maulik, I was busy yesterday. Sorry, I could not contact you. Me: That is fine. Julia: Yeah...I was pissed off; my boss flooded my inbox with loads of work. Me: lol/hahaha/haha I hope you are okay now! Finally, does the number of repetition matter? "Haha" is okay but not 'Hahaha' which may have a bit of offensiveness? Is it okay if I use 'lol' there? I don't think so...it's not something I'll laugh out loud . I'd like to clear that in this example, Julia is NOT my bosom-friend. She's a client and we know each other for past 10 days. That's it. <Q> I would not use haha(ha) in the instance you have presented ( Schadenfreude ). <S> That aside, hahaha is more apt to be taken for irony than haha , and haha is more apt to be taken for irony than LOL. <S> I say this because of the intonation patterns typically associated with hahaha and haha . <S> (LOL is strictly textual.) <S> Hahahā (longer final syllable with a drop) often means <S> you might think that's funny <S> but the humor is at my expense whereas haha usually means simply "I think that's funny (too)" though hahā (longer final syllable with a drop) can imply the humor is at my expense . <S> LOL is usually taken at face value: laughing out loud. <A> I wouldn't use any of these very informal, text-speak type things with a client. <S> * <S> But if you must, I'd suggest a sad smiley :-( <S> would be a more appropriate way of sympathising with her inbox situation than either 'lol' or 'hahaha'. <S> * <S> Although arguably Julia has already moved to informality with her use of 'pissed off' which is normally considered inappropriate in a business situation as well. <A> Julia : <S> Hello Maulik, I was busy yesterday. <S> Sorry, I could not contact you. <S> Me : That is fine. <S> Julia : <S> Yeah... <S> I was pissed off; my boss flooded my inbox with loads of work. <S> Me : lol/hahaha <S> /haha <S> I hope you are okay now! <S> In that particular dialog, I wouldn't use "lol" or "hahaha"; I think the exclaimation point handles it just fine: <S> Julia : <S> Yeah... <S> I was pissed off; my boss flooded my inbox with loads of work. <S> Response : <S> I hope you are okay now! <S> Since you're not laughing about this, I would avoid anything like lol, haha, hahaha, or bwah-ha-ha . <S> If you don't want to let the exclamation convey your surprised sympathy on its own, there are better alternative exclamations: <S> Julia : My boss flooded my inbox with loads of work. <S> Response : <S> Oh, no! <S> I hope you are okay now. <S> or: <S> Julia : <S> My boss flooded my inbox with loads of work. <S> Response : <S> Yikes! <S> I hope you are okay now. <S> or: <S> Julia : <S> My boss flooded my inbox with loads of work. <S> Response : <S> Ouch! <S> I hope you are okay now. <S> The word ouch might be considered a bit informal there, but Wiktionary supports such usage: <S> ouch ( interj .) <S> 1 <S> An expression of one's own physical pain. <S> 2 <S> An expression in sympathy at another's pain. <S> I don't think the problem here is that lol or hahaha are considered "offensive" – but they are inappropriate. <S> I'm assuming you're not laughing at someone else's pain, but you are trying to show sympathy in a lighthearted way. <S> Here's my advice: avoid using laughter to do this; save lol for things that both people would find funny or amusing. <S> This is how NOAD defines yikes : yikes <S> (exclamation) <S> informal expressing shock and alarm, often for humorous effect : <S> I had a dip in the 40-degree pool (yikes!) . <S> I think that's closer to the emotion you are trying to convey. <A> There is no solid, objective, universal distinction made between these options. <S> When communicating audibly, of course, there is a great variety of meanings that can be implied by laughter itself, and still more that can be implied by <S> not laughing and instead stating "haha". <S> But in written communication, all of that variety is compressed into a series of mostly-interchangeable stand-ins for laughter. <S> These stand-ins are not a part of formal writing, and certainly don't follow any formal rules, nor are there any rules that are "understood" by the majority of English speakers. <S> Which means any or all of them can be and often are misinterpreted, and can be perceived as negative. <S> The only chance to add clarity is through context, and mix-ups are inevitable. <S> English just has no way to express intonation in its writing system. <S> You just have to hope that between context and your relationship with the listener, your intent is clear. <A> Okay, so I just realised that I didn't answer the question, which is 'Haha' over 'lol' -Do natives consider 'hahaha' as an offensive gesture? <S> It makes me think the person whose written it doesn't want the prior stuff they've written to be taken too seriously; hence, the reason adolescents use "hahaha" so often. <S> They're always seeking approval and are often not sure about how their written communication is going to be taken. <S> I think its inappropriate to use either lol or hahaha when writing to a client in a business sense. <A> 2019: Am seeing a rise in "Oof" (internet pop culture reference) as a more negative version of the ubiquitous-to-the-point-of-inapropriate "lol". <S> Aside from that, punctuation matters. <S> Haha. <S> I hope you are okay now. <S> versus haha <S> I hope you are okay now <S> That first one almost seems nonplussed, impatient even. <S> I don't think the number of "ha" or "he" matters, but do avoid things like "hehahe". <S> I don't think that laughing too much could ever be thought of as rude or offensive.	Whenever I see "hahaha" it doesn't seem offensive at all.
Responding to "It was nice to talk to you" How can I reply to "It was nice to talk to you" properly both formally and casually? Actually, I want to make this question a bit general, but since I heard this sentence a lot I used it as an example. What about these options I wrote off the top of my head? a. the same (for me it sounds too short and informal, but it can be used when texting?) b. I think so c. me too d. It was nice to talk to you too e. I feel the same f. ______________________ <Q> There could be many ways and it depends on the speaker. <S> However, I always reply this way <S> Thank you. <S> Same here. <S> Or Thank you. <S> Nice talking to you as well <S> This conveys that your are thankful to the person. <S> And you too feel the same. <A> It was nice to talk to you. <S> My response might depend on exactly who I am talking with, but I can think of the following which I would say at least some of the time. <S> Note, since this is saying goodbye, or "leave-taking," it's okay to repeat the same words or use similar words (similar to greeting: <S> A <S> : How are you? <S> B: <S> Fine, and how are you?) <S> Polite: <S> -Yes, it was nice to talk with you too. <S> (polite) -Nice <S> talking to you too. <S> ("polite") <S> -I feel the same. <S> [I hope we can do it again some time {polite}. <S> Or Let's do it again sometime. <S> {casual}] (polite, and definitely gets the point across; I mean you are admitting some feelings here) <S> Friendly: <S> -Same here. <S> Nice talking with you. <S> -Yes <S> , same here. <S> I'll talk with you later. <S> (but only if you mean it) -Hey, it was great to talk with you too! <S> (friendly/enthusiastic) <S> -Good chatting with you too! <S> Informal: -Yes, catch you later! <S> (more informal, use with a good or frequent chat buddy only) -Yes, <S> same here! <S> * (pretty informal) <S> * If you are in a hurry: -Me too. <S> (I would probably not actually say this one, but 'me too' seems to be used more and more these days as a generic response, even if the logic doesn't work: <S> A: It was good to see you again. <S> B: Me too.) <S> As a texted response, it would be okay with a friend. <S> -Okay, me too, see you!! <S> (This one sounds better because 'me too' is not by itself.) <S> But it does sound as if you are in a hurry to say good bye. <S> But not: -I think so. <S> Last, apparently 'talk' or 'speak' to <S> someone is British English, and 'talk' and 'speak' with <S> someone is American English (generally speaking). <A> On "It was nice to talk to you" <S> This is not an answer to this question. <S> It provides evidence from a corpus (COCA) that is related to <S> "It was nice to talk to you." , which is an issue raised by an ELL member, syntaxerror, that <S> "It was nice talking to you. <S> " <S> is more appropriate, and the choice between talking to or talking with was questioned. <S> Here are the results found in COCA using two searches [be] nice talking to\|with you , and [be] nice to talk to\|with you , grouped by the intended time. <S> In the present: 'S NICE TO TALK <S> TO YOU 12 <S> 'S NICE TALKING TO YOU 3 <S> 'S <S> NICE <S> TO TALK <S> WITH YOU <S> 1'S NICE TALKING WITH YOU <S> 1 <S> In the past: BEEN NICE <S> TALKING TO YOU <S> 15 <S> WAS NICE <S> TALKING TO YOU <S> 13 <S> WAS NICE <S> TALKING WITH YOU <S> 1 <S> BEEN NICE <S> TALKING WITH YOU <S> 1 <S> WAS NICE TO TALK <S> WITH YOU <S> 1 <S> WAS NICE TO TALK <S> TO YOU <S> 1 <S> IS NICE TO TALK <S> TO YOU 1 <S> BEEN NICE TO TALK TO YOU <S> 1 <S> From the data, we can draw a few conclusions: <S> All possible choices (of to talk or talking , and of talk to or talk with ) are acceptable (or at least can be said "in use"). <S> The use of to is indeed in favor (compared to with ). <S> When talking about a past event, talking to is the favored choice by most speakers. <S> When talking in present tense, to talk to is the favored one. <A> In informal contexts, I'd be likely to reply with... <S> "Ditto!" <S> or perhaps "Same here!" <S> But in formal contexts, I might say... <S> "The pleasure was all mine" ... <S> which is a long-established "set phrase" for such situations. <S> I imagine most of the estimated 11,500 written instances in that link will be in contexts where the person being addressed has just thanked the speaker for "entertaining" him in some way <S> (a nice evening out, a dance, pleasant company, etc.) <S> I'm actually quite surprised to discover that the Google Books finds no instances before these two from 1900 . <S> It's still "current" today, but I thought it would be at least Victorian , if not earlier. <A> I say simply You too. <S> Or Thanks, you too. <S> Which means <S> (It was nice talking to) you too. <S> With respect to Maulik V's answer above, I'd say that "Same here" is a bit too informal in US English and could sound dismissive or rude if the speaker is not careful. <S> However, I don't know much about Indian English, so it may be perfectly acceptable there. <A> Jones <S> : It was nice talking to you. <S> Sam: <S> Oh! <S> The pleasure's mine. <S> I usually respond to such statements with something like that. <S> If it feels a bit too formal, you can always just say "Same here" as Maulik suggested. <A> I think the reply should be something like this: <S> And to you too... <S> Where "And" represents <S> "it was nice talking". <S> Simply, it can be interpreted as <S> And (it was nice talking) to you too...	As a simple reply, you can use "The pleasure is mine".
Sarcastic Idioms for being slow to notice something The scenario: The power was out but it came back up. However, a friend or family member noticed that late and said: Oh, the power is back up! You noticed that long before they did ( sometimes because it is obvious). You want to comment on/about their late notice sarcastically with something like: What? You've been sleeping? Good morning! (as if they have just woken up) What idioms that you natives use in such a situation? Of course the sarcastic ones! Edit:Could this idiom also be used? Wonders never cease! and Will wonders never Cease! Prov . What an amazing thing has happened! (Said when something very surprising happens. Somewhat ironic; can imply that the surprising thing should have happened before, but did not. ) Fred: Hi, honey. I cleaned the kitchen for you. Ellen: Wonders never cease! Jill: Did you hear? The company is allowing us to take a holiday tomorrow. Jane: Wonders never cease! Not only was my plane on time, the airline also delivered my luggage safely. Will wonders never cease? <Q> I can't think of any expressions that are specific to the case of noticing a recent change, but there are a number of common expressions that can be used whenever someone says something that should have already been obvious. <S> Here are a few: <S> "Thank you, Captain Obvious. <S> " <S> (Captain Obvious, naturally, commands the Starship Duh .) <S> "No duh." <S> "No shit." <S> (Or "No shit, Sherlock.") <S> "You don't say!" <S> "What else is new?" <S> Note that some of these are more sarcastic than others. <S> In particular, as CarSmack and J.R. point out below, "No shit" and "No shit, Sherlock" are harsher, and I wouldn't use them with casual acquaintances. <S> J.R.'s alternative suggestion, "No kidding", is less harsh. <A> In Indian English, quite a common word for someone who realizes things lately is... <S> tube-light .... <S> hey...tube-light ... <S> The reason is, here we have tube-lights that don't start the moment you put on the switch! <S> They blink, blink and then get started. <S> However, tube-lights these days come up with double 'starters' or 'chokes' for an instant start. <S> But the phrase is still used by almost all around me. <S> However, the tongue-in-cheek comment is mainly used for someone who understands something late . <S> For instance, if I crack a joke and you laugh after some time, I call you a tube-light . <S> But here too, the person is unaware of the power that has already come back... <S> so sarcastically this way of answering shall work more. <S> Note that I'm now replying in the context given . <S> It's connecting a tube-light as a person who realizes things later and also, a tube-light that requires power, which is back now! <S> Let's come up with more sarcastic comment using the word for that conversation (only) - <S> Oh! <S> Power is back <S> Oh? <S> Really? <S> But the tube-light still took time to light-up! <S> A Britannicism expressing a similar concept: "Well, well, the penny finally dropped!" - suggested by some anonymous who is neither allowed to post an answer nor a comment. <A> The best sarcasm is over your victim's head. <S> Quote Horatio in Hamlet : <S> There needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave To tell us this. <A> Alert the media! <S> A situation where something I wouldn't have known if it weren't for you. <A> A good comment for an absent-minded person: <S> What planet were you on? <S> or Earth <S> to (insert name), ... <A> One I hear quite a bit is Boy, nothing gets past you! <A> In the U.S., you could say: <S> Well, that news bulletin is a day late and a dollar short . <S> Wiktionary explains how the idiom a day late and a dollar short refers to an action that is "taken too late and is too feeble to be of any use." <A> The penny finally drops! <S> The last horse crosses the finish line! <S> Uh... <S> yeah! <S> (There is a specific intonation to "yeah <S> " that expresses "you have just said something obvious". <S> I am not exactly sure how to describe it, but it is a sort of rising-falling-rising.) <S> Slow applause, or the phrase slow clap <S> Yes. <S> Yes, that is true. <S> (Spoken slowly and without emotion.) <S> Any phrase that would normally be used to express surprise, said sarcastically. <S> You don't say! <S> Wow, really? <S> Brilliant deduction! <S> How clever of you to notice! <A> Blandly: <S> No kidding! <S> Or more colorfully: <S> Wake up and smell the coffee! <A> Oh, really? <S> works in this situation. <A> I usually say "You're cut off" - as in "you've had too much to drink <S> and we're not serving you any more" <A> I have seen this used online, in response to someone who posts a blatantly obvious comment, in a serious discussion. <S> I wouldn't have figured it out in a million years, if not for your insightful observation. <S> I personally find it too harsh, so I rarely use it myself. <S> I rather go with: <S> We are having a pretty bad network delay today. <A> Asking 'are you sure?' <S> is normally a good one because the friend will then elaborate, but there's no need to listen to their answer as it will be about as informative as their initial comment! <A> "Lightning wit strikes again" -sarcasm <A> ones that seem to have missed the party so far… <S> Oh, the power is back up! <S> Is it? <S> How can you tell? <S> So where's my dinner? <S> So that's where my shilling went. <S> [reference to old-style coin operated electricity meters & doubles as a ref to a one-armed bandit - once the coin drops] <S> Sorry? <S> What? <S> Can't hear you for the News/Eastenders/whatever TV show 3 versions of the same thing <S> Thanks, I'll be sure to let the doctor know. <S> Thank you Matron. <S> Thank you Captain. <A> In the South, we might say, "Can't get nothin' past you."	Any phrase that would normally compliment their intelligence, observation, etc., said sarcastically.
What does this sentence mean? "not any more than" phrase I'm confused about this sentence from The Catcher in the Rye : They don't do any damn more molding at Pencey than they do at any other school. I can think of two interpretations: Other schools do molding students and Pencey doesn't do more than them. Other schools have never done molding students and Pencey has never done either. Which is correct? <Q> Both interpretations are possible. <S> There is also a third: Both Pencey and other schools claim or believe they are molding their students, but their efforts are worthless. <S> In short, Pencey does no more than any other school <S> does or does not do. <A> In this context, I would take the phrase "don't do any damn more" to semantically mean "the same amount". <S> The subtlety in this turn of phrase is that all schools think or sell that they mould more than other schools. <A> They don't do any damn more molding at Pencey than they do at any other school. <S> The word "any" has been used in the sentence as an adverb, which means at all, in the least or even by a small amount. <S> "Any more" is a phrase that can be used in comparative sentences. <S> The word "damn" has been used as an adverb to modify and emphasize "more". <S> In other words, the amount of molding at Pencey is the same as at other schools.	So the sentence means that the molding they do at Pencey is not (at all/in the least) more than they do at any other school.
I'm surprised they "didn't" vs "hadn't" I'm kind of confused as to which one I should use. While I'd normally opt for "didn't", I'm not sure if I could get away with "hadn't", though Google displays many results for both structures. Are there any semantic differences? Would present perfect be passable in any of those? I'm surprised they didn't listen to my advice. I'm surprised they hadn't listened to my advice. Also I want to express my amazement that he didn't listen to me. I want to express my amazement that he hadn't listened to me. <Q> The past perfect is used to describe an event that occurred in the past before another event occurred. <S> I was surprised that they hadn't listened to my advice. <S> They didn't listen to your advice, then you were surprised. <S> Both occurred in the past. <S> Didn't is used as past simple to describe an action that occurred in the past. <S> In your desired usage, you're describing your current thoughts about that past event. <S> I am surprised that they didn't listen to my advice. <S> My surprise is occurring now due to their failure to listen in the past. <S> Examples: <S> When I saw John this morning, he hadn't moved from the spot where he passed out last night. <S> The sun hadn't risen yet when I woke up this morning. <S> I just checked on John, he didn't move from the spot where he passed out last night. <S> Is my alarm ringing? <S> The sun didn't rise yet. <S> I probably would have said hasn't moved and hasn't risen for these examples, but I'm trying to keep the examples parallel to one another. <S> They are grammatical. <A> I'm surprised he hadn't... <S> does not sound correct, although any English speaker would understand the meaning. <S> "Didn't" is the proper choice here because the person who's surprised is speaking in the present tense about a past event. <S> "Hadn't" is correct if the speaker were surprised in the past tense about an event that was ongoing at the time. <S> Speaker surprised in present tense by a specific past event <S> I'm surprised he didn't say hello. <S> Barbara's friend John passed her on the street but did not say hello. <S> The not-saying-hello event occurred at a specific time. <S> Speaker surprised in present tense by an ongoing condition <S> I'm surprised she hasn't said hello [yet]. <S> Jake's new boss Emily has been at the company for three days, but she has not said hello to him yet . <S> The not-saying-hello condition is ongoing; Emily can end the condition by saying hello, or prolong it by continuing to ignore Jake. <S> Speaker surprised in past tense by a specific prior event <S> I was surprised he didn't say hello. <S> Same construction as its present tense counterpart. <S> Speaker surprised in past tense by a prior ongoing condition <S> I was surprised he hadn't called me [yet]. <S> George was waiting for a phone call from a friend. <S> At the time of his surprise , George's friend hadn't called. <S> Sometime after George's surprise, the friend called. <S> If the friend never called, George would have said "didn't" instead of "hadn't." <S> "What were you doing at one o'clock, George?" <S> "I was waiting for my friend to call." <S> "What were you doing at three o'clock?" "Still waiting. <S> I was surprised he hadn't called yet." <S> "And what were you doing at six o'clock?" <S> "I was having dinner with my friend. <S> He finally called me at four o'clock." <S> The ongoing condition need not have ended after the time of surprise. <S> George's friend never called "What were you doing at three o'clock, George? <S> " <S> "I was waiting for my friend to call. <S> I was surprised he hadn't called already." <S> "And what are you doing now?" <S> "I'm still waiting. <S> I'm surprised he hasn't called yet." <A> I am surprised they didn't listen vs hadn't listened to my advice. <S> I want to express my amazement that he didn't listen vs <S> hadn't listened to me. <S> The use of the simple past "didn't listen" is grammatically correct in these sentences, whereas the use of the past perfect doesn't sound natural. <S> You use the past perfect when you refer to an event happened before another action in the past such as "I was surprised they hadn't listened to my advice. <S> On the other hand, when you refer to an event that happened before another event in the present, you can use the simple past or the present perfect such as I am surprised they didn't listen or haven't listened to my advice. <A> In both these sentences, you are learning of or being told of an event that happened in the past. <S> I'm surprised they didn't listen to my advice <S> I want to express my amazement that he didn't listen to me. <S> The event in question is completed and no longer is happening. <S> I'm surprised they hadn't listened to my advice <S> I want to express my amazement that he hadn't listened to me. <S> The event in question is ongoing. <S> Examples: <S> He bought that car you told him not to. <S> It ended up being a lemon. <S> He took that one back, and now has a new car. <S> I'm surprised he didn't listen to my advice. <S> He could have avoided all that trouble. <S> He bought that car you told him not to. <S> He hates it, but he's still driving it. <S> I'm surprised he hadn't listened to my advice. <S> He would be much happier if he didn't buy that car.	So "hadn't" should be used when the surprise is in the past tense, and the cause of the surprise is a past event that was ongoing at the time of the surprise.
"exponentially stable global" vs. "global exponentially stable". Which is more appropriate? I'm not an English native speaker. I'm trying to translate the abstract of my work to English. The problem that I've studied in my work has a global solution that is exponentially stable . I'd like to know what of the following sentences are more suitable. (1) The existence of a global exponentially stable solution will be investigated. (2) The existence of a global solution exponentially stable will be investigated. (3) The existence of an exponentially stable global solution will be investigated. Are all statements correct? Do they have the same meaning? Is there any other more appropriate for the context? Thanks. <Q> In general, in English, adjectives come before the noun that they modify, so <S> version (2) doesn't work: you placed the noun somewhere in the middle. <S> The other two are basically fine, but there are some guidelines for the order of adjectives when you have more than one, for instance <S> this from the British Council: <S> Adjectives usually come in this order: 1. <S> General opinion <S> 2. <S> Specific opinion <S> 3. <S> Size 4. <S> Shape 5. <S> Age 6. <S> Colour 7. <S> Nationality 8. <S> Material <S> Now, exponentially stable I would classify as an opinion, whereas global can be interpreted as a nationality. <S> (3) <S> The existence of an exponentially stable global solution will be investigated. <S> sounds just a bit more natural than <S> (1) <S> The existence of a global exponentially stable solution will be investigated. <S> But the given order is a guideline at best, and opinions can and will differ among speakers. <A> "global solution exponentially stable" is not grammatically correct. <S> It has the form <adjective> <noun> <adjective phrase <S> >. <S> They both have the form <adjective (phrase) <S> > <adjective (phrase) <S> > <noun>. <S> But neither of these choices is very clear. <S> A long string of long words is usually hard to understand. <S> Also, it is not clear whether you think the alleged solution exists. <S> Does one of these sentences say what you mean? <S> This problem has a global solution that is exponentially stable. <S> I will investigate whether there are any global solutions that are exponentially stable. <S> I will prove that there is a global solution that is exponentially stable. <S> I will prove that none of the global solutions are exponentially stable. <S> You can substitute "We" or "The project" or "Our team" instead of "I". <S> The first option might be best for an abstract; the other three options might be better for a project proposal. <A> The problem that I've studied in my work has a global solution that is exponentially stable <S> Given that explanation, #3 is an idiomatic expression of the idea you wish to convey: <S> The existence of an exponentially stable global solution will be investigated. <S> However, I don't much care for "The existence ... will be investigated" when we can say it more simply: An exponentially stable global solution will be sought .	Both "global exponentially stable solution" and "exponentially stable global solution" seem grammatically correct.
Slight nuance between 'fat', 'obese' and 'overweight' Could someone please tell me about the nuances of the adjectives: Fat Obese Overweight The only difference which comes to my mind is their formality degree, where 'fat' is the most informal and 'overweight' is the most formal and at the mid position stays 'obese'; do you confirm me? <Q> Obese and overweight are both medical terms. <S> Fat is a casual/colloquial term. <S> Overweight means to be over the recommended Body Mass Index ( BMI ) for a person's height. <S> Obese means to be extremely over the recommended BMI for a certain height. <S> (Obesity is considered medically dangerous.) <S> In polite conversation, you could refer to a person as overweight but only in the medical sense. <S> It is always better to use the word "large" or "larger". <S> For example: "Which person?" <S> "The larger gentleman on the left." <S> Americans loathe to talk about people's weight. <S> Perhaps because so many of us are on the large side. <S> ;) <A> These words have very specific meanings in medicine, but can have slightly different meanings in casual conversation outside of medicine. <S> In medicine:In the US, obese and overweight are terms used to describe people who weigh more than they should, according to current medical knowledge. <S> The exact weights can change as new medical research is done, but an obese person is a very overweight person. <S> Medically, fat is the type of tissue that makes a person overweight or obese. <S> In casual conversation:Usually obese means very overweight, but not always. <S> Both terms are used to describe someone who weighs to much when the speaker isn't trying to be insulting. <S> Casually speaking, fat can either mean the tissue causing you to be overweight ("I've got a ton of fat on my belly!"), or it can be a mildly insulting description of someone who weighs too much. <A> None of these are overt comparisons made of two or people. <S> They are simply modifiers. <S> He's fat. <S> He's overweight. <S> mean pretty much the same. <S> The second might imply that he needs to lose weight. <S> He's obese. <S> can refer to the scientific definition of obesity, or just be a remark similar to <S> He's really fat. <S> He's really overweight. <A> Yes, they differ in formality. <S> "Fat" is an informal term. <S> You wouldn't use it in, for example, a technical paper. <S> "Obese" is more formal. <S> " <S> Overweight" is more polite, or at least, less impolite. <S> Calling someone "fat" would almost always be taken as an insult. <S> Saying he is "overweight" could be taken as a more neutral statement, perhaps expressing concern for the person's health, etc. <S> They also differ in degree. <S> " <S> Like I weigh about 20 pounds more than my ideal weight. <S> I think most people would say that I was "overweight", but not "fat" or "obese". <S> "Fat" is a more middling term. <S> "Obese" is usually used only for people who are seriously overweight, like 100 pounds or more. <S> Note <S> I'm not saying that there are concrete definitions, like up to 26.28 pounds <S> is overweight and above that is fat, the boundaries are vague. <A> "Fat" is a simple word that every child learns. <S> It is surprisingly mean when used to describe a person. <S> Definitely avoid calling someone fat unless you intend to hurt them, and generally avoid calling someone else fat without thinking about it. <S> "Overweight" is the closest word to neutral. <S> I think it has a medical meaning regarding BMI being outside of the "healthy" range. <S> It means a BMI that is above 30. <S> It would mean "grossly fat." <A> I agree with other answerers that "fat" and "overweight" are less formal and less clearly defined. <S> Obese, as pointed out, is a medical term, and there are defined degrees of obesity. <S> In the US, having a BMI between 30 and 35 is considered "obese" (Class I obesity). <S> Between 35 and 40 is called "severely obese" (Class II obesity). <S> Over 40 BMI is considered "morbidly obese" (Class III obesity). <S> In other countries this scale varies: in China the minimum BMI to qualify as "obese" is 28; in Japan, 25). <S> Until quite recently, at least in the US, only "morbid" (Class III) obesity was considered dangerous to one's health. <S> However, just last year, the AMA (American Medical Association) voted (against the recommmendations of their own select study committee) to declare obesity itself a "disease". <S> This I consider a political move; with that vote, they can now prescribe drugs and treatment to people who are overweight, but OTHERWISE PERFECTLY HEALTHY! <S> This opens up huge new marketing opportunities. <S> So a lot of money rides on the exact definitions of "obese", and of "disease", and on who gets to define them.	Overweight" could be used to describe someone who is only slightly over his ideal weight. "Obese" has a medical meaning, and when used colloquially, people generally respect the medical meaning.
I have a solid / strong foundation / background in this field Which sentence sounds better to you: (A) I have a strong foundation in this field. (B) I have a solid foundation in this field. (C) I have a strong background in this field. (D) I have a solid background in this field. I need to know which one would be the most common choice of an American? I know well that these all are used and sound idiomatic for every English native speaker everywhere in the world because I read them all somewhere in some documents written by the natives. In other words, I need to know which combinations are used more; e.g. I need to discover that which one of the words "strong" or "solid" is used with the word "background" or "foundation". <Q> Though I would not personally tend to use "solid background," <S> the only real distinction that I would make is between background and foundation. <S> That would guide my choice more strongly than frequency considerations. <S> If you have a strong foundation in an area of study, you understand the fundamentals of that area, but you do not necessarily have knowledge of more advanced topics. <S> For instance, if you were applying for a job and wrote that you had a strong background in computer science, I would expect you to have worked in a computer science position at some point or to have some relatively advanced CS studies. <S> If instead you told me that you had a strong foundation in CS, I would expect that you had studied thoroughly at a lower level or perhaps done related work in a position that was not explicitly computer science. <A> For solid background in the field strong background in the field solid foundation in the field strong foundation in the field (no results) <S> a Google Ngram gives the following for American English from 1970 to 2000: <S> However, since Ngrams are not reliable, and since strong foundation in a field is not necessarily "unidiomatic", and since American speakers who are trying to help ypu cannot agree: IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE <S> THEN THAT WE CANNOT TELL YOU WHAT IS IDIOMATIC IN AM. <S> ENGLISH. <S> More generally, Google Ngram gives the following for American English from 1980 to 2000: <S> However, Google Ngram gives ZERO results for all of the following A) strong foundation in this field. <S> B) <S> solid foundation in this field. <S> C) <S> strong background in this field. <S> D) solid background in this field. <S> By the way, you can go to Google Ngram viewer and plug in your own words and phrases. <S> But the results may not correspond to the specific usage you are asking. <A> Solid foundation appears to be the most popular in American English, judging from this graph . <S> However, the Ngram search doesn't distinguish between different meanings of these phrases, so <S> it’s not a reliable guide by itself. <S> Here's one way to think about this: notice that when applied to a person’s education and prior experience, foundation and background are both metaphors, even though they're nearly- dead metaphors . <S> Literally, a foundation is something solid that you build upon, such as the foundation for a house. <S> Literally, a background is the part of a picture that contains scenery or context for the objects depicted in the foreground. <S> The term solid foundation is used literally in construction, and metaphorically for many, many different things. <S> So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that solid foundation is the most common of the four and solid background <S> is the least common. <S> You asked which phrase is most common, and <S> that’s hard to say for the reasons just explained. <S> If you’re mainly interested in which is the best for describing a person’s education and prior experience as they relate to doing a new job, here is one native speaker’s view. <S> While solid foundation makes the most sense, I find the word strong to have a slightly more positive connotation than solid , and to stand out a little better—maybe because it’s used less often. <S> Overall, I'd say that solid background is the weakest of the four phrases, but they’re almost indistinguishable. <S> Other people will perceive the same phrases slightly differently, of course. <S> Note that the most common phrase might not be the best. <S> In fact, a more-common phrase can be weaker because <S> it’s <S> so common.	Solid foundation makes the most literal sense and solid background makes the least literal sense. If you have a strong background in an area of study, then you have broad knowledge of a variety of topics in that area, possibly quite advanced in some areas.
The meaning of the sentence: "I am positive" Does the sentence: "I am positive." mean "I am sure 100 percent"? <Q> Basically, yes. <S> We could quibble whether someone might say "I am positive" when they are only 95% certain or 90% certain. <S> But it indicates a very high degree of confidence, 100% or nearly so. <S> As some of the commenters have said, yes, "positive" has other definitions besides expressing certainty. <S> It can refer to electrical charge, as in, "the positive terminal of the battery". <S> It can also mean that the outcome of a test or experiment was "yes", as in, "The results of his hepatitis test were positive" or "He showed positive for the ebola virus. <S> " It can also mean "good" or "promising", as in, "We tried using an aluminum alloy and got some very positive results." <A> Don't get into the subtlety of 'percentages'. <S> They always confuse us especially when we talk about human behavior and not figures. <S> But yes, when you say, "I am positive" , you are pretty sure about something. <S> At least WordWebOnline and OALD agree with you! :) <S> positive <S> (#2) <S> - very sure <S> And... <S> positive (of a person) <S> - Under the title <S> Sure, Definite <A> I agree with Jay's answer. <S> > is true. <S> In other words, the speaker has either seen <something <S> > themselves, or heard about it from a very reliable source. <S> The speaker is not just guessing that something is true because some other possibilities they can think of are not true. <S> The speaker is not just passing along "an urban legend". <S> I included the "(probably)" weasel word because some people do not understand the concept of "positive knowledge".	"I am positive" also implies that the speaker (probably) has "positive knowledge" that <something
3 sentences with "only" I only play tennis in the summer. I play tennis only in the summer. I play tennis in the summer only. It there any difference in these 3 sentences? <Q> Note that the italics are used here to indicate verbal stress - you would emphasize these words to clarify your meaning. <S> MEANING <S> A. <S> At some times of year I play tennis and some other sport, but in the summer I play tennis and not the other sport. <S> I only play tennis in the summer. <S> I play tennis only in the summer. <S> The second could be used in informal spoken English, with a one-word, flat pronunciation of "tennis only" - probably better to avoid it in written English <S> MEANING B. <S> In the summer I play tennis, but the rest of the year I do not play tennis. <S> I only play tennis in the summer. <S> I play tennis only in the summer. <S> I play tennis in the summer only. <S> So the difference between your three sentences is that the first two could carry either meaning depending on context or intonation. <S> The third is unambiguous. <A> I could imagine the second one as a response to a request (when the season is not summer) to play tennis. <S> Seems like a bit of a snobbish response, in my opinion. <S> I'm not sure what would be the point of the third sentence. <S> Perhaps as a dispassionate piece of information for someone. <A> only is a magical word and in writing , it can change the meaning of the sentence depending on its position . <S> Generally , it applies to the word next to it! <S> I have explained this in several answers of mine on this site. <S> I only play tennis in the summer <S> - I don't watch it on TV! <S> I play tennis only in the summer - <S> In winter, I don't play. <S> I play tennis in the summer <S> only -no word is following 'only' <S> so, it's taken as a general reference. <S> Probably close to the second sentence. <S> One example I always come up with is... <S> New software <S> only confused the PA - it did not annoy her! <S> Only new software confused the PA - The old one did not confuse her! <S> New software confused the only PA -There was <S> only one PA in the office Note that I'd not lean toward 'stressing' a word while speaking it as the other answer talks about. <S> It certainly affects the meaning of the sentence <S> but then, you don't need <S> the word 'only' to emphasize it. <S> I play tennis in the summer <S> -stressing <S> play would convey the message that you 'play' and don't 'watch' the sport in the summer <S> I play tennis in the summer - stressing tennis <S> would convey the message that you 'play' only 'tennis' in the summer. <S> Maybe, squash in the winter then!	Technically they are all correct and have the same meaning, but the first one is the most natural-sounding sentence.
The mother helping her baby walks by holding her baby hands The mother helping her baby walks by holding her baby hands. Come, let me hold you. What is the verb that should be used? Hold? <Q> If a mother was talking to her child while the child was learning to walk, the mother might say: <S> Let me hold your hands to help you. <S> or: <S> Let me help you by holding your hands. <S> (No difference in meaning.) <S> However, you also ask about: <S> Let me hold you. <S> When I hear that, I usually expect a parent to hold a toddler something like this: <S> The verb hold is rather versatile, in that it can mean to embrace, to grasp, or to pick up and carry. <S> If you were going to hold the child's hand, you wouldn't say, "Come, let me hold you." <S> Instead, you'd say, "Come, let me hold your hand." <A> Man from India's corrections are indeed needed. <S> However, as to the verb: the first instance of "holding" is good, but the latter instance "let me hold you" is not quite right, because "holding" a baby (picking him up in your arms) is not the same as holding his hands. <S> So it's either " Come, <S> let me help you." <S> or" Come, let me hold your hand(s)." <A> The mother helping her baby walks by holding her baby hands. <S> The use of the verb to hold is okay in the first sentence. <S> For the second sentence, refer to Brian Hitchock's answer. <S> But as Man_From_India has said, you should use <S> is before helping and walk instead of walks and baby's instead of baby <S> if your intended meaning is The baby is walking with her mother's help. <S> Like this: <S> If you leave your first sentence as it is, it would be okay grammaticaly but could be understood to mean <S> The mother, who helps her baby, is walking with her baby's help (by holding her "baby hands"). <S> The mother [(who is) helping her baby] walks by holding her [baby hands]	The mother is helping her baby walk by holding her baby's hands. The verb hold can be used in both cases, although holding hands is much different then holding you .
Can "the + noun (pl)" imply any of a group in some cases? When we say this way: " The workers are lazy ", then we are telling that all workers of the company are lazy. But what happens when one says this (in the examples I assume that I mention the workers for the first time) : 1) " If the workers of the company are lazy, what can you do about it? " 2) " If the workers of the company want to ask for help, who should they address? " Can the sentences 1 and 2 connote any workers, not all of them? So, I do not say that if "all the workers are lazy", I say "any of the workers are lazy". And not "all the workers want help, but "any of the workers". Yes, they are specific workers, so "the workers" can be used, but does it specify here about how many of them I mean in a relevant situation? This is very confusing to me. I can show you the example that seemed very suspicious to my mind: " If the users of this device do not follow safety recommendations, they... " I am sure that it can't only mean "all the users at a time" or something like that, but the usage of the + noun (pl) seems confusing here to me since "the + noun" means "all the" - this is what I learnt. Can someone clarify the matter, please? Thank you in advance. <Q> "If the users of this device do not follow safety recommendations, they..." This means 'for any user' 'if they don't ..', i.e., any user in the future, and here used as a colective noun. <S> To define subsets of workers/users etc, one would modify workers/users, e.g., 'a few of the workers', 'some of the workers', 'most of the workers', otherwise 'workers' standing alone means all of them collectively. <A> It depends. <S> all means all of them and <S> all means a group of... as well! <S> For instance, All the members of the club have to wear a red tee when they come to the party. <S> This talks about all the members who come to the party leaving none . <S> On the other hand, if you are standing at a bus stop and see 10 employees of some companies, you may call them 'all'. <S> They all are the employees of 'X' company. <S> Here, all are everyone from that group. <S> But not all 300 employees of 'X'. <S> Getting back to your example: <S> "If the workers of the company are lazy, what can you do about it?" <S> may mean that you are talking about some workers who are lazy or all. <S> The sentence in concern: <S> "If the users of this device do not follow safety recommendations, they..." talks about any user who uses the device. <S> But collectively, 'all users' When we refer to safety , we use such construction and we do mean anyone (means, of course, all) who uses the device. <S> Do you see 'the' users there? <S> It means all the users who use that particular device/app. <A> When "the" is used with a plural, it is referring to some specific group. <S> "Now let us examine moral issues. <S> If the workers of the company are lazy ..." <S> This would be understood to mean all the workers of the company under discussion. <S> (Depending on the context, "company" might be a hypothetical "any company", or it could refer to a specific company.) <S> The use of "of the company" also leads the reader to understand that you mean all the workers at this company. <S> "Many companies have difficulty with the work ethic of members of the younger generation. <S> If the workers are lazy ..." Here the reader would generally assume that "the workers" refers back to the people introduced in the previous sentence, namely, those workers who are members of the younger generation. <S> If you wanted to refer to only some workers, you could simply drop the word "the". <S> "If workers at the company are lazy ..." That could mean some or all. <S> If you wanted to be clear that you mean only some, you could add qualifying words. <S> "If some of the workers ..." or "If any of the workers ..." <S> In the example, "If the users of this device do not follow safety recommendations ...", I would consider that poorly worded because it implies that all the users are doing the same thing, either they all do follow safety recommendations or they all don't. <S> If you simply dropped the "the" the problem goes away: "If users of this device do not ..." Personally, I'd be more likely to bring it down to the individual user, "If a user of this device does not ..."	If you say "the plus plural" with no introduction or context that limits it, it would normally be understood to mean all the members of the referenced group.
Is 'mating' only used with males? What if I use it with females? Is it incorrect? Google ngram shows 'lion mating' word, but not lioness mating, and so goes with most of the species of animals. Why? Do native speakers prefer males for describing 'mating'? Will it be incorrect if we describe females mating? Is there any such grammar rule? I want to learn the use of the verb 'mating'. Is it used only with masculine gender? <Q> The main idea is that lions does not mean male lions . <S> It means lions . <S> Chickens also mate, and indeed cats. <S> I rarely, if ever, have seen mention of roosters or tomcats mating. <S> Or bulls , stallions or for that matter, bitches , sows or hens . <S> So the assumption that the male word is used is incorrect — the general term for the animal species is used, and in many cases that just happens to be the same as for the male member of the species, but certainly not always! <S> The use of an exclusive single-gender term would be confusing if mating is used to describe the actual producing of offspring — this would, at least in case of most animals, take a male and a female of the species. <S> So using either an exclusive male or an exclusive female designation would be wrong! <S> When same-sex individuals of a species do engage in a mating ritual (and that is certainly not unheard of) <S> I think it is usually referred to as sex or sexual activity , or indeed mimicking of the mating ritual . <S> I may be completely wrong here, but in my experience, mating is usually (maybe always?) used to refer to the actual reproductive rituals, not any other (social) bonding (sexual or otherwise) between individuals. <A> But as far as the grammar is considered: In mixed groups, the gender term is chosen that would be used to talk about the species in general . <S> Therefore you would say: lions mating in Africa cats mating in the alley cattle mating in the field <A> "Mating" by definition normally requires that both sexes participate. <S> Perhaps your confusion comes from thinking that "lion" refers exclusively to males. <S> It doesn't. <S> While a "lioness" is exclusively female, a "lion" can be either male or female. <S> Traditionally in English, feminine words referred exclusively to females, but masculine words could refer either specifically to males, or generally to both males and females. <S> For example, if you say, "Man is an intelligent being", "man" there is normally understood to mean human beings in general, not just males. <S> We've had discussions on this forum about the use of the pronoun " <S> he" to refer to either a male or a female: that used to be the common usage, though today many object to it as sexist and potentially misleading. <S> You could talk about a male creature mating if you were talking about one specific individual. <S> Like, "The biologists decided to follow one lion in the wild to use him as a case study of the behavior of lions. <S> They studied how he hunted, mated, etc" Presumably the mating would involve females, but in this case you are looking at it from the perspective of that one male. <S> Of course you could do the same from the perspective of an individual female.	Actually, most of the time it's a male and a female mating…
Mixing tenses in reported speech sentences When I use reported/indirect speech when dealing with some sentence that states a general fact or is still true, the present tense can be retained, right? As in: I told him that I work for HP. But can I retain other tenses as well, given they represent an ongoing situation? He asked how long we've been together, and I told him we've been married for two years. Is use of the present perfect here even correct? Also, is it possible to use both past and present forms, when only one part of a sentence is still true? Mr. Brown asked why you were absent, and I told him that was because you are ill. And Mike asked me why you didn't come to the party with me, and I explained to him that you had been working hard for the past two weeks, and once you're free, all you want to do now is get some rest. I feel like I should use present perfect rather than past perfect, but not being sure, I left it that way. <Q> The tenses in all your examples are perfectly fine. <S> I believe that in the last example you could have switched to present perfect if you wished so it would look something like: <S> Mike asked why you didn't come to the party with me, but I explained to him that you have been working hard for the past two weeks, and now you're free all you want to do <S> is get some rest. <S> (I hope I got my present perfect right <S> , I'm not too hot at grammar terms.) <S> Note that you probably want to say ' <S> but I told him it was because...' <S> or 'but I told him that it was because...'. <S> In the final example you wouldn't normally have 'me' twice in the first part, you'd say ' <S> Mike asked why' or 'Mike asked me why you didn't come to the party, but...'. <S> In casual speech you'd probably get away with it, though. <A> To take an obvious example: "Yesterday I wore a blue shirt <S> but today I am wearing a red shirt. <S> " I switch the tense from past to present because the first half of the sentence is talking about yesterday, the past, while the second half is talking about today, the present. <S> Of course there are more subtle and complex examples. <S> Consider, "I didn't eat lunch yesterday because I have been on a diet. <S> " I begin with a simple past because I am describing one discrete event: lunch yesterday. <S> But then I shift to present continuous because the diet is a continuous thing. <S> I didn't just go on the diet yesterday, skip lunch, and then decide to quit dieting. <S> (Well, that's how I usually treat diets in real life, but this is just an example.) <S> Most of your examples fall into that category: you're shifting tenses because you are, indeed, talking about different time periods. <S> "I told him that I work for HP." <S> "Told" is in the past tense because you are referring to one discrete event in the past. <S> But "work" is in the present because, at least at the time you told "him" this, you were working for HP in the present. <S> The sentence, "I told him that I worked for HP" is potentially ambiguous. <S> Is "worked" in the past tense because you worked for HP at the time you made this statement, but you no longer work there now, when you are telling this story? <S> Or was working for HP in the past at the time you made the statement? <S> Either interpretation is possible and it would take more context to make clear which is meant. <S> Note that you should definitely NOT switch tenses where there is no change in time frame. <S> Every now and then I read something where the writer carelessly changes tenses for no apparent reason, like, "Yesterday I went to visit my friend Bob. <S> He isn't home. <S> I called him on the phone. <S> He answers and says ..." etc. <S> There's no reason to shift tenses there because all the events are happening in the same time period. <S> At the least it's disconcerting, at the worst it could create confusion over when events happened. <A> Also, is it possible to use both past and present forms, when only one part of a sentence is still true? <S> Mr. Brown asked why you were absent, but I told him that was because you are ill. <S> It would be "more grammatical" to say ... <S> but I told him you were absent because you were ill <S> whether the person is still sick in bed or had recovered, but especially if the person were no longer ill. <S> It's not that the original phrase isn't carrying the tune, to speak figuratively, but it's (grammatically) <S> pitchy , dog. <S> Mike asked me why you didn't come to the party with me, but I explained to him that you had been working hard for the past two weeks, and once you're free, all you want to do now is get some rest . <S> Either: ... <S> and now that you're free, all you want to do is to get some rest or ... <S> and once you were free, all you wanted to do was to get some rest. <S> Once you are free = <S> when you become free. <S> So you can't say "now". <S> Once you were free = <S> when you became free.	It's perfectly legitimate to switch tenses as you speak, even within one sentence, PROVIDED that the time frame has changed.
In the given graph VS In the graph given Is there grammatical and sense difference between these two variations: "The two given graphs reflect the percentage relationship among UK migrants in the year 2007". reflect the percentage relationships between UK migrants in the year 2007". "The two graphs given reflect the percentage relationship among UK migrants in the year 2007". reflect the percentage relationships between UK migrants in the year 2007". Is it normal English to say "graph given" - I mean how the native speaker was talking about the graph he has got for analysis. <Q> "...given graphs..." means that the graphs are being shown, displayed or presented. <S> But "... <S> graphs given... <S> " means that the graphs have been handed over to someone. <S> Consider : <S> The given graph <S> shows the increase in the price of petrol in the current year. <S> The graph given to you <S> shows the increase in the price of petrol in the current year. <A> To my (American) ear: <S> This usage of "given" is very formal. <S> I associate this usage with logic problems like "Given <X>, prove <Y>" or "Given <X>, find <Y>". <S> Thus, "The two given graphs" sounds more natural to me than "The two graphs given" in your usage. <S> I can parse the "The two given graphs…" sentence more easily, because I do not need to check for a construction like "The two graphs, given <these assumptions>,…" On the other hand, a sentence like "The two graphs were given by Fred to Jane" is grammatical (but not very natural). <S> "The two given graphs from Fred to Jane" is not grammatical. <S> If the original poster's example is referring to two nearby graphs in the same work, there are other ways to express the idea. <S> These other ways sound more natural to me: <S> The two graphs show the percentage relationship among UK migrants in the year 2007. <S> Graph <#1> and graph <#2 <S> > show the percentage relationship among UK migrants in the year 2007. <S> The previous two graphs show the percentage relationship among UK migrants in the year 2007. <S> The following two graphs show the percentage relationship among UK migrants in the year 2007. <S> In my second idea, I am trying to reference specific graphs. <S> Sometimes this is done by referencing "Figure 4", or "Step 3", or "Exhibit 29", or "Graph 13", or "Appendix A". <S> Usually the figure will have a more explanatory title, such as "4. <S> Immigrant spouses, by country of origin." or "Graph 13. <S> Relationships of UK immigrants." <S> or "Graph 14: Relationships of UK emigrants." <S> By the way, I do not know what the original poster means by "the percentage relationship among UK migrants". <S> Also, I am not sure if the graph shows "the percentage relationship among UK migrants", or if it shows something that is affected by (and thus reflects ) <S> "the percentage relationship among UK migrants". <A> Okay I'm not totally certain about it, but this is how I see it: <S> However, using "graphs given" demands more information. <S> (like given where ?) <S> For example consider the following sentences: <S> In the given graph , we see a steady decline. <S> In the graph given in the book , we see a steady decline. <S> Taking the example from your question, <S> " <S> The two given graphs reflect the..." "The two graphs given in the chart reflect the... " Trying to interchange the usage doesn't flow as naturally.	When you say "given graphs" it seems to make complete sense naturally.
What do I call the ′ in mathematical formulae? As in x′ = x + t "Ex (?) equals ex plus tee". In Russian it is called "штрих" (shtrikch). <Q> The single tick following a variable is often (but not always) used to represent a derivative and (in the United States) is always pronounced "prime." <S> In your example, <S> "Ex prime = ex plus tee." <S> f(x) = <S> x² <--- "Eff of ex equals ex squared." <S> f′(x) = 2 <S> x <S> <---- "Eff prime of ex equals two ex." <S> f′′(x) <S> = <S> 2 <S> <---- <S> "Eff double prime of ex equals two." <S> In non-mathematical contexts it is called a single quote (or a "tick"). <S> This wikipedia entry <S> differentiates between the prime symbol and the single quote. <S> As they also note, using a single quote (') as a stand-in for prime (′) is not uncommon. <S> Thanks Vi for the link. <S> I have learned from other respondents that in the UK, Canada and Australia, it is pronounced prime unless it signals a derivative, in which case it can be pronounced dash . <S> In case you run into these two: <S> x̅ is pronounced "ex bar" x̂ <S> is pronounced "ex hat" <A> Odd, I know, as it does not look anything like a dash "-". <S> In all other circumstances, "prime". <S> Found this nice general reference on mathematical and scientific symbols pronunciation that may be useful. <A> In High School and Junior High in Japan, we read a′ as "a dash." <S> However, in universities, it is occasionally read as "a prime" due to American influence. <S> The Oxford English Dictionary (1969) states that it is "usually read as 'a dash' in the explanation of the word 'prime'."	In my experience, in the specific case where it indicates a derivative, it is pronounced "dash".
I help my kid to cut his fingernails I cut my kid's fingernails. When speak to the kid, "Let me help you cut your fingernails." I help my kid to cut his fingernails. Does it make sense? Can I use help in that way?Or I should omit the "help" just say "Let me cut your fingernails" "I cut his fingernails." <Q> There are two things: <S> help <S> is the present form of the verb. <S> If you are describing the event in the past, then the version you want is helped . <S> This is the way people talk when telling a story. <S> help <S> is the present version and means that you do it all the time. <S> to cut : it is not grammatically incorrect to say "to cut"; however, in common English you leave out the "to". <A> This is a 'tricky' question (+1) <S> You <S> can say... <S> Let me help cut your finger nails <S> though you are the one who's cutting the nails and the kid is completely inactive! <S> If you go by OALD definition, it says... <S> to make it easier or possible for somebody to do something by doing something for them or by giving them something that they need <S> Don't we say? <S> I helped a poor person on the street. <S> I gave him money. <S> Here, he's inactive <S> but you still help him get rid of his poverty! <S> :) <S> Is it clear? <S> Your kid needs nail cutting and you are doing that! :) <A> I help my kid cut his fingernails. <S> There is nothing wrong with the sentence; it makes sense. <S> But, as it's in the present simple, it expresses the idea that you usually help your kid cut his fingernails when it's needed. <S> Let me help you cut your fingernails or let me cut your fingernails. <S> The first sentence is usually used when your kid is inclined to cut his fingernails at the time of speaking. <S> On the other hand, the second sentence doesn't indicate whether he is inclined to this act at the time of speaking. <S> Moreover,when you help someone, the verb "help" can be followed by an infinitive with "to" or without "to". <S> So you can say "I help my kid ((to) cut his fingernails". " <S> To"is optional.	The way you said it could be grammatically correct, depending on exactly what you are trying to say.
The button can't be press. One of the buttons on the remote control isn't working. The button can't be press. The button can't be press down. "Press" and "Press down" are the same? Is it the verb that can omit? <Q> In that particular sentence, the common way to say that is: "The button can't be pressed." <S> However it would also be valid to say "The button can't be pressed down.", just not common. <S> Press is the verb, and down is an adverb describing how the pressing happens. <S> Things can be pressed without being pressed down. <S> You can press something against a wall. <S> The definition from MW : "to act upon through steady pushing or thrusting force exerted in contact." <A> One of the buttons on the remote control isn't working. <S> ...is the perfect way to say that. <S> For one particular button... <S> Hey, that button is not working. <S> 'Not working' button is different from 'unpresseable' button. <S> You may certainly press the button, but it won't function. <S> Say a volume 'minus' button. <S> It's not working. <S> However, you can certainly press it. <S> Is that what you want to convey? <S> There could be some instances where buttons 'cannot be pressed' at all -say jammed buttons , but I don't think that is in your mind. <S> [This may not answer your question <S> but I thought it is worth to mention this angle]. <S> You need to clarify it to have a good and relevant answer. <S> The choices of words depend on the context as well. :) <A> The verb "press" is both transitive and intransitive verb. <S> If used as an intransitive verb, you can say "The button can't press (down). <S> However, it's more common to say "The button won't press".	When used as a transitive verb, you can say "The button can't be pressed (down)".
Is 'Hi ' a correct salutation? I know that in a salutation, it's preferable to use Dear Mr/Ms/Mrs ' last name ' Is it correct to use Hi " last name " in official email? I am trying not to be too formal but I was told that it's not proper English. <Q> If you want to use their last name, you should continue to include 'Mr', 'Ms', or 'Mrs' as appropriate. " <S> Hi" is rather informal so keep "Hello" in mind as an alternative. <S> Of course if you really don't need to be formal you can just address them by their first name. <S> Hello, Mr. [ LastName ]. <S> <- Most formal of these options (Probably best for official email) <S> Hi, Ms. [ LastName ]. <S> Hi, [ FirstName ]. <S> <- Least formal. <S> For grammar purposes: A last name should usually have either the person's title (Dr, Prof, etc) or the honorific (Mr, Ms, etc). <S> The title takes precedence. <A> In official email, best practice is to use same level of formality that everybody else is using. <S> So it might be only first name(s) <S> even without "hi", like: "John, Paul, George,". <S> So in responding to email addressed to you as "Hi ," - respond the same. <S> Please note that there is a comma after name, but next line starts new sentence. <S> When responding to email "Dear Mr ," you respond the same. <S> If you are sending first email, a way to circumvent improper level of formality could be to start email with "Good morning," and start new sentence on the next line. <S> "Dear all," is also common, but feels impersonal. <S> If not sure, use more formal "Dear Mr X," if you know the name of the person you try to contact, and switch to less formal in next round to mirror the response. <A> For example, a World of Warcraft GM could say "Hi" and that's fine. <S> An email from an insurance company should only use "Hello" (because being informal there can suggest an "informal" (i.e., sloppy!) <S> approach to your insurance!). <S> A tech company, it would depend; if it's a response to a complaint, then be more formal and helpful, or people may become concerned that you are not taking their complaint seriously, and feel they are being disrespected. <S> If you're working for someone else, see if they have a template for what kind of address they want you to use in official emails. <S> I also agree with Stephie in the comments above: only use [firstname] <S> if that is the only thing they have used in their own signature, and even so, I would consider continuing to use [Mr/Mrs/Ms/Dr] <S> [Lastname] <S> even so, unless explicitly told to use the first name.	In official email, I would stick with "Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms/Dr [Lastname]," or "Hello, Mr/Mrs/Ms/Dr [Lastname]," and only use "Hi, Mr/Mrs/Ms/Dr [Lastname]" after making sure it is not too in formal.
"in the light of" vs "in light of" I see that both phrases " in light of " and " in the light of " are used and people considering both to be correct. Look here and here . Also there is a large corpus supporting both phrases usages; you can consult here . Question #1: Though both seems to be correct in terms of being used in writings, which one is grammatically correct? Question #2: In there any difference in their meaning implications? I am providing two examples: I will be happy to look at to them and respond to you in the light of your comments. Even in light of your comments, I still fail to understand what is the difference between A and B. Thanks <Q> In the light of/in light of <A> The idiom for the "given, considering" meaning is in light of - no article. <S> However, in the light of is grammatical as well, it just doesn't mean "considering". <S> In the light of the full moon, the lake looked magical, like something out of a dream. <S> In light of the full moon falling on Tuesday, we've moved our nighttime treasure hunt to Wednesday. <S> To explicitly answer your questions: <S> Both in light of and in the light of can be grammatical. <S> (The very fact that you found both in use should have told you this.) <S> They mean different things. <S> The version with the definite article is used literally, while the version without an article is an idiomatic phrase that means something like "taking into consideration", and is unlikely to be used literally. <S> Both of your examples should use in light of (no article). <S> (Note that this is American English. <S> I make no claims one way or the other about British English.) <A> Just to clarify, BOTH are allowed according to Oxford, with the SAME meaning: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/in-the-light-of-or-in-light-of <S> To my American ear, the "the" version sounds a bit odd, but maybe that's just me.	Both phrases convey the same sense, with the only difference that you usually say "in the light of" in BE and "in light of" in AE.
Difference between the elderly and the old A guide for journalists suggested that "people aged over 50 should be referred to as 'older people' or simply 'man' or 'woman' followed by their age. So, I wonder if these two sentences are different: Appropriations to care for the old. Appropriations to care for the elderly. I use "the elderly" when I refer to old people, but their ages were not specified, e.g. nurses take care of the elderly in hospitals. but not "nurses take care of the old in hospitals" I have never used the term "the old", because my English language teachers had never taught me this term. <Q> The sentences are not different. <S> They both refer to older people, but the primary difference is perception and interpretation. <S> "The old need lots of extra care." <S> vs. <S> "The elderly need lots of extra care." <S> Using 'elderly' is a more polite, and sensitive way to address an aging population. <S> As far as how old someone must be to fit into that category, it's all subjective and relative <S> so there is no definition for that. <S> Whatever you consider old, is old. <A> Old comes from the Old English ald and eald , and all of these words have the same meaning ("aged"). <S> Old escaped the i-umlaut, so it retained the back vowel and didn't become "eld". <S> However, the comparative elder and superlative <S> eldest underwent the i-umlaut, resulting in the front vowel in each. <S> Elderly is the adjectival form derived from the noun, and means something similar to "elderish," or "not quite an elder. <S> " This is different from old , which one becomes after being elderly. <A> For some reason I resent being described as elderly. <S> I am old. <S> And I am happy to be so. <S> I see the term <S> elderly as describing the traits of older people - or as some people perceive them. <S> Being old means you survived to a greater age. <S> I actually think I prefer using the term aged before using elderly - although in some instances it fits. <A> The following is the editorial policy of the Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy. <S> The authors prefer the term "older" because it lacks the connotation of "frailty". " <S> Elderly" is considered to be an "ageist" term: https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0b013e31823ab7ec	Generally speaking it sounds more eloquent to use ' elderly ' than to use ' old '. According to most dictionaries they have more or less the same definition when used as a plural noun.
I’m a / one hundred percent sure What is the difference between these two sentences: I’m one hundred percent sure. I’m a hundred percent sure. For me the only difference between the two sentences is that the second sentence is more formal. <Q> The two phrases have the same basic meaning, but native speakers tend to use the "one hundred percent sure" wording in order to to give a greater impression of certainty. <S> In speech, you can emphasise the word "one" more strongly than "a" and the phrase is spoken with a regular rhythm as ONE HUNdred perCENT SURE. <A> There is no difference. <S> However, I have heard the former more frequently . <S> Maybe, in India though. <S> OALD <S> defines it: a/one hundred percent - in every way. <A> “One hundred percent” is more emphatic. <S> When spoken, the stress naturally falls on “one”. <S> But other than that, they are completely equivalent. <S> A similar emphasis can be achieved with “a hundred percent” by stressing the quantity “hundred”. <S> Note the examples given in Oxford Learners Dictionaries : <S> I'm not a hundred per cent sure. <S> My family supports me one hundred per cent. <S> I still don't feel a hundred per cent. <S> The statement about having family support is stronger than the other two. <S> “I still don't feel one hundred percent” is not incorrect, but feels more awkward when spoken. <S> A native speaker would more likely use “a hundred” here, as in the dictionary example. <S> Perhaps “don't feel a hundred percent (well)” means “don't feel quite well”; but “don't feel one hundred percent” or “don't feel a hundred percent” mean <S> “don't feel completely well”? <S> “Not 100% sure” is an interesting case. <S> Because of the negation, you would normally use the softer “a hundred” form. <S> To me, “I'm not a hundred percent sure” means “I'm not very sure”; <S> whereas “I'm not one hundred percent sure” means “I'm reasonably sure but not completely certain” (with the spoken stress on the words in italic/oblique font). <S> This is not a distinction that I see in the affirmative <S> “I am a/one hundred percent sure”. <S> It's only a difference in emphasis, not degree. <S> There's also a third written form that I've slipped in above: “100%”. <S> Here, 100 can be pronounced a hundred or one hundred , and the writer is giving no indication as to which. <S> [Acknowledgement to Maulik and David, I've drawn on their answers in formulating this one.] <A> I tend to say “I’m a hundred . . .” <S> but that may be because of my Southern U.S. tendency to slur over certain word landscapes, so to speak.	Both mean “completely sure”.
"This book and this pen" or "This book and pen"? How do we use the determiner "this" if we want to identify more than one thing close at hand?Should the determiner be used for both nouns or just with the first one? For example This waterfall and fountain are among considerable features of the park Or should "this" precede both "waterfall" and "fountain"? <Q> This waterfall and fountain are among considerable features of the park <S> It is okay to drop the second <S> this <S> in such situations. <S> This waterfall of rose marble and <S> this fountain are.. <A> Imagine you are in a stationery shop. <S> You say to the shopkeeper <S> "I would like { this book} and { this pen}" because there are many books and also many pens. <S> However, if he has a special promotion where a book an pen are sold together (you can imagine the pen is maybe attached to the book) you would say "... <S> this {book and pen}" . <S> " <S> This ... " is simply drawing attention. <S> To address your second example, you may use either. <S> And each will communicate something subtly different. <S> If you were to say "this waterfall and fountain", you are grouping them together. <S> As if you can point your finger, and I look to where you are pointing <S> and I see both of them. <S> Or we walk to a particular location, and they are both at this location. <S> It may be natural to make such a grouping. <S> And it may not. <S> It will depend upon the situation. <S> You could probably create a situation where both can be used. <S> Whichever one you choose, the language has to be correct: <S> (use singular because there is only one object) "{{This waterfall} and {this fountain}} ARE ..." <S> (Now there are two objects, so we have to use the plural!) <S> Also, "among considerable features" is also not good English. " <S> among THE considerable features" is better. " <S> among many features worthy of consideration" or "among the most beautiful features" are better, although this is a different question. <S> PS the trickiest situation might be where you have several objects constituting one feature. " <S> these steppingstones {are/constitute} one of the more notable features of...". <A> I am not sure exactly using one determiner in this statement is correct but if you have got a former sentence that fountain has been used there, you must use article <S> the because fountain now is known and if you have not such a statement before main clause you are recommended to use the absolutely because I think if you use only a determiner in this sentence, in case of grammar it sounds a bit odd to the reader. <S> I am hopeful the answer I provided could help you getting the point. <A> Things close, or in-, hand are interesting - since it's usually most natural to ignore what they are. <S> Instead of either of your title suggestions, "this book and pen", I would say simply "these", e.g.: <S> Do you want to buy these? <S> Since it's obvious what I'm referring to. <S> Incidentally, if you do specify, I would say that "this book and pen" suggests the two are a set (i.e., they come together), whereas "this book and this pen" emphasises that they are separate - and <S> I mean really emphasises, it sounds like a deliberate mix-and-match choice in a shop, for example. <S> For large, probably unique items, like the waterfall and fountain, I would say: The waterfall and fountain are ... <S> Although I am not sure what you mean by them being "considerable features".	"This {waterfall and fountain} IS ..." If your nouns are post-modified it would be better to leave this :
What does 'granular' mean, in reference to an approach to a subject? [75% down the page] If the size of firms obeys a power law, economies will comprise some very big firms and a long tail of small ones. The fortunes of the biggest companies might then stir the whole economy, [Xavier Gabaix of New York University] conjectures. The $24 billion dividend paid by Microsoft in December 2004, for example, added 3% to America's personal income that month. Mr Gabaix calls for a more “ granular ” approach to macroeconomics, which would weigh the contribution of big firms to national aggregates . This granular view is already taking hold in studies of international trade. Countries, after all, do not trade with each other; companies do. A few firms usually account for the lion's share of a country's exports: in America, the top 10% of exporters account for 96% of the country's foreign sales, and only 4% of firms export at all. granular = 1. Resembling or consisting of small grains or particles. 2. {technical} Characterized by a high level of [granularity]: granularity = 1. I omit this circular definition; it just bootlessly refers back to 'granular'. 2. {technical} The scale or level of detail in a set ofdata. 1. The only possibility seems to be defn. 2 of 'granularity', but this contradicts macroeconomic's already extant, flourishing dependence on data, and this view's novelty as implied by Prof Gabaix's calling for it? 2. What does the bolded relative clause mean? I think that 'weigh to' is confusing me. Are firms' contributions simply being compared to national aggregates? <Q> I've not read the article <S> and I'm not an economist, <S> but I think what the author is saying is that current macroeconomic approaches deal with the entire economy as a single object. <S> Mr Gaibax believes that in addition to that they should also look at large companies, ie. <S> break down that single object (the economy) into smaller chunks (company A, company B, company C, all the rest) and work with that data and, yes, compare them. <A> When a photograph has insufficient granularity , fine detail is not visible. <S> This meaning is often applied figuratively to data, and refers to the fineness of the detail. <S> If the data are tracked at the state or province level, say, it is impossible to perform an analysis at the city level. <S> The data are not sufficiently granular. <S> A city-level analysis would require data to be tracked city by city. <S> Granular data can always be aggregated. <S> The reverse is not true: aggregate data cannot be "de-aggregated". <A> And to "weigh" their contributions means to count them, and consider/examine them, individually; that is, at the company level, not just country totals.	Granular here means level of detail.
"waterway ... flowed sombre" - Should Joseph Conrad have used an adverb, not an adjective? SPOILER ALERT: This question asks about the last line of Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. If you are reading the novel, you may want to skip this question. The offing was barred by a black bank of clouds, and the tranquil waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed sombre under an overcast sky – seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness. Should an adverb (i.e. sombrely) have been used to describe 'flowed'? Are there any formal terms describing this issue? I question my doubt given Conrad's renown. Obiter dictum: I lighted upon this while reading The Guardian's 'The 10 best… closing lines of books' . <Q> I've just been reading on " depictive constructions " and it seems to be the term used by some lingusts to describe such constructions. <S> The waterway flowed sombre . <S> The construction depicts the state of the waterway, not the manner of its flowing. <S> Compare : <S> John shouted at them angrily . <S> (describes the manner of his shouting) <S> John angrily read the review. <S> (an intermediate case: describes John's state of mind too) <S> John left the party angry . <S> (Depictive construction: John might have left the party in a civilized way, perhaps even smiling, but he was angry inside) <S> This thing called "adjective secondary predicate" seems to subdivide into depictive and <S> resultative : <S> Mary ate tired . <S> (depictive over the subject: Mary was tired ) <S> John ate the meat <S> raw <S> (depictive over the object: the meat was raw ) <S> Johh pounded the metal flat . <S> (resultative) <S> We drank the teapon empty . <S> (resultative: <S> the teapot has been emptied) <S> John fried the fish dry . <S> ( resultative or depictive: either the fish was fried to a dry condition, or John was dry while frying the fish) <S> You might read up on this and decide if I'm right. <S> Linguists seem to be still in disagreement as to how to treat such constructions. <S> Judging by a quick perusal of different PDFs, some analyse the whole thing as a "complex predicate", leading to the use of the terms "resultative/depictive", some use the terms " <S> small clause"/"adjunct" for resultatives and depictives respectively. <S> I haven't yet got the difference. <S> Reference <S> Secondary Predicate - Wikipedia Predicative Expressions - Wikipedia "Types of secondary predication" by Monica-Alexandrina Irimia (2005) " <S> Against the complex predicate analysis of secondary predication" by Yuko Asada <S> P.S. Note that Conrad was a non-native speaker of English, although a brilliant writer. <S> But in your example the usage seems idiomatic to me. <S> P.P.S. Related questions: <S> Is it possible to use adjectives as adverbs? <S> Is ‘upside down’ a depictive adjunct for ‘a note’? <S> When adjectives become predicatives, do they also become adverbs? <S> Do predicative adjuncts modify nouns or verbs? <S> - at Linguistics SE <A> There is no such state as "somber-like, in the manner of sombreness, or having the qualities or appearance of sombreness". <S> Sombreness is a state, not a manner, not a show. <A> The underlying concept is: The waterway was sombre. " <S> To flow sombrely" would describe the manner of flowing, but there is no sombre way of flowing or a happy way of flowing. <S> Water can flow slowly, sluggishly, fast, but not sombrely. <S> The problem of adjectives after verbs in adverb position is very tricky and it takes some time to get a feeling for this problem. <S> The school rule "after a verb follows an adverb" is really only a school rule. <S> There should be added in brackets: <S> (But there are a lot of cases where an adjective follows because the intent is not to describe the manner.) <S> Edit: I looked up the etymology of sombre at etymonline. <S> The meaning is 'gloomy, shadowy' from French and ultimately from Latin <S> sub <S> (= under) <S> and umbra <S> (= shadow). <S> So we could clarify the use of the adjective sombre after flowed in this way: <S> The water flowed (along) as under shadow. <S> An expression made plausible as there are things that dim the light: an overcast sky and a dark cloud at the horizon and that fits with the last words: leading into the heart of darkness. <A> It is OK. <S> Same as you can say: The earth appeared red under the twilight sky. <S> where red is an adjective. <S> Using the example and a definition of somber : <S> 1) dark and gloomy or dull <S> you could write: the tranquil waterway... <S> flowed dark and gloomy under an overcast sky <A> Somber is correct. <S> It’s a complement. <S> Whether to call it a subject complement, predicative adjective, or something else is a matter of debate. <S> It’s also an unusually clever and poetic use of English grammar. <S> Here is a similar, more ordinary example of this construction: <S> Rinse the shirt under cold running water until the water runs clear . <S> [ Source ] <S> The word somber <S> The primary meaning of somber is: somewhat dark, as if under a shadow. <S> This agrees with overcast sky . <S> But a more common meaning of somber is a certain melancholy, solemn mood. <S> The water doesn’t have a mood, of course, but I’m sure Conrad chose this word carefully, since the characters were surely in a somber mood after the death just discussed and the lie just told to the deceased’s fiancée. <S> The mood isn’t part of the literal meaning of the sentence, but that meaning will affect a reader. <S> The grammatical construction <S> It’s ambiguous whether the water became somber <S> as it flowed—that is, led into darkness—or whether it was somber everywhere. <S> Copperkettle <S> ’s answer <S> provides linguistic terminology for these two kinds of complement, and mentions that scientists are still figuring out precise categories for them. <S> However, somber in this sentence calls upon both grammatical meanings simultaneously. <S> One meaning is echoed by under an overcast sky and the other meaning is echoed by lead into the heart of an immense darkness . <S> To pick either “the state of the water” or “the shade that the water took on as it flowed” would miss the deliberate double use of the same complement, which gives the sentence its unique and memorable structure. <A> The word in question is part of a participle clause. <S> , and the tranquil waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed (being) sombre under an overcast sky – I can convert it to a adverbial clause as below. , and the tranquil waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed (while it was) sombre under an overcast sky – <A> One waxes lyrical, not lyrically. <S> Same construct.	I will say that no, Conrad should not have written somberly , for something is either sombre or it is not sombre.
Is it right to say "a multi-vegetable salad"? I want to state a salad that has many different kinds of vegetables, so can I say "a multi-vegetable salad"? I've looked up the meaning of the prefix "multi" in Oxford learner's dictionary http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/salad and found some examples such as "multicoloured", "multi-ethnic society", "multimillionaire",... It says that "multi" can combine with nouns and adjectives but "multi-vegetable" still somehow seems funny to me. So is it right? If not, what is an appropriate word to describe this kind of salad? <Q> native English speakers tend to use the phrase "mixed salad". <A> I think your hunch is right; multi-vegetable salad sounds a bit odd. <S> This might be why: the phrase sounds redundant because a salad has multiple vegetables almost by definition : <S> salad ( n. ) <S> a dish, usually cold, of raw or sometimes cooked vegetables or fruits in various combinations , served with a dressing, or molded in gelatin, and sometimes with seafood, poultry, eggs, <S> etc. <S> added (from Collins ; emphasis added) <S> salad ( n. ) <S> a food containing a mixture of raw vegetables such as lettuce, tomatoes, and cucumbers, usually served with a salad dressing (from Macmillan ; emphasis added) <S> salad ( n. ) a mixture of uncooked vegetables , usually including lettuce, eaten either as a separate dish or with other food (from Cambridge ; emphasis added) <S> salad ( n. ) <S> A food made primarily of a mixture of raw or cold ingredients, typically vegetables, usually served with a dressing such as vinegar or mayonnaise. <S> (from Wiktionary ; emphasis added) <S> salad ( n. ) <S> food mixtures either arranged on a plate or tossed and served with a moist dressing; usually consisting of or including greens (from the Mnemonic Dictionary ; emphasis added) <S> One could argue that, without the mix of vegetables, a bowl of lettuce is simply a bowl of lettuce , and not a salad (although I think such an argument would be a bit pedantic). <S> If not, what is an appropriate word to describe this kind of salad? <S> I think the word is salad . <S> I checked the menus of a few restaurant chains here in the U.S., and when they want to give more details about a salad, they simply list the main ingredients: Source: <S> Applebee's (L) ; Red Robin (R) <S> Sometimes you'll see the phrase mixed greens (as in the description on the right); however, that refers to a blend of lettuces – possibly with other leafy greens. <S> If you want to emphasize that a salad has only vegetables (no egg or meat), you could use the descriptor vegetarian salad. <A> The thing to understand about "Multi" is that it wasn't a commonly used affix until somewhat recently, (as Google shows here ), long after the word salad came into usage. <S> As a result of "Multis" fairly recent rise in usage, there are a lot of terms that came about after the 1940s that use "multi" to show when we have several different objects creating one master object. <S> For example a "multi-engine airplane" Is a plane who's power unit has more than one engine and, as you are probably aware, aviation terms were coming into usage vaguely at the same time <S> "multi" was, hence people were aware of "multi" and could use it to clarify things. <S> The world "salad" on the other hand is a very old world ( evidence from Google again ). <S> It started seeing a lot of usage in the last 1800s. <S> Thus. <S> because "salad" was a well established word that meant, more or less, "to mix a bunch of vegetables together for eating" there was really no need to add "multi-vegetable" in order to clarify the term. <S> And people don't generally start adding an affix unless it's really needed to clarify an old term. <S> Salad didn't have that need, so multi was never attached to it. <S> Sorry, probably a little off topic. <S> But I thought explaining the etymology a bit would clarify why we don't use "multi" with a lot of words that could probably use it, but those words appeared before the 1930s <S> so...we don't. <S> Language is an organic thing, remember, it's not decided by a committee. <S> Otherwise we probably would have all been forced to switch to "multi-vegatable salad" back in the 60s (rather than the 30 because, you know, committees take forever.... ;).) <S> It looks like the links I provided are causing some fits, so let me just include both graphs right here for easy reference :). <S> First, the graph for multi: <S> Note the usage spike that starts around the 40s. <S> Now, the graph for salad: Note a gentle introduction starting in the 1810s that hits critical mass in 1890/1900 or there abouts. <S> Note: <S> These graphs are provided by Google and, as I recall, are based off of searchable text at the Google Books site. <S> This makes the stat man in me a bit squeamish, but I think the sample size is large enough to work for this discussion.	I realise the logic of your thinking but the phrase "multi-vegetable salad" would not be used.
hundreds of persons VS. hundreds persons hundreds of persons hundreds persons Could you please learn me what is the difference between the two? Thanks in advance <Q> If you use hundreds then it is followed by of. <S> "hundreds persons/people" is wrong. <S> Structures of the type "how much/ how many of what" use "of" in English with few exceptions and fall under the heading partitive or partitive genitive. <S> Why do we say "hundreds of demonstrators but a hundred/one hundred demonstrators (without of)? <S> Answer:You say fifty persons because it is a numeral. <A> Did you happen to be reading from the Cambridge Learner's Dictionary ? <S> It says: of preposition (AMOUNT) used after words or phrases expressing amount, number, or a particular unit: a kilo of apples loads of food hundreds of people most of them both of us a third of all people a speck of dust a drop of rain <S> In any case, the word of cannot be removed from any of those phrases; the resulting phrase would sound unidiomatic and ungrammatical. <A> I'm inclined to believe that the first one is true. <S> We have the structure: amount + of + N. <S> Any other statemtent with no "of" is wrong. <S> I also found a passage which contains an equivalent example to the usage of the phrase "hundreds of persons" http://dethi.violet.vn/present/show/entry_id/239291	Though a hundred/one hundred still has some features of a noun it is regarded as a numeral, whereas hundreds is regarded as a noun describing a quantity just as a lot of/ a quantity of etc.
Why is "Their insistence was that ..." incorrect, when "His fear is that ..." is correct? Their insistence that the meetings should be held at lunch-time angered the staff. (correct) Their insistence was that the meetings should be held at lunch time. (incorrect) His fear that he might lose his job was increasing. (correct) That he might lose his job was increasing. (incorrect) His fear is that he might lose his job. (correct) I was reading about subordinate clauses, and came to know that they are not same as noun phrase. Though sometimes they might act similarly, they are not same. Well, I found those sentences in CGEL, some are marked as correct and some are as incorrect. My question is why #2 is incorrect, when #5 is correct? Please help. <Q> [Their insistence that the meetings should be held at lunch-time] angered [the staff]. <S> (correct) <S> [Their insistence] was [that the meetings should be held at lunch time]. <S> (incorrect) <S> [His fear that he might lose his job] was [increasing]. <S> (correct) <S> [That he might lose his job] was [increasing]. <S> (incorrect) <S> [His fear] is [that he might lose his job]. <S> (correct) From Collins Dictionary , insistence is the quality of being insistent <S> the act or an instance of insisting <S> Some dictionaries list <S> demand as a synonym for insistence, but it is easy to confuse "the act of demanding" sense of demand, which is similar to insistence, with "the thing demanded" sense of demand which is not synonymous. <S> In #1 "insistence" angers the staff and the subordinate clause describes the kind of insistence. <S> It doesn't equate the insistence with the policy of having meetings at lunch-time. <S> This is a correct construction. <S> In #2 insistence is the subject of the clause, so the sentence says "insistence" is "meetings should be held at lunch time". <S> That isn't valid because the "act of insisting" is not the same thing as "a policy". <S> You could say something like: <S> [Their insistence that was a source of anger for the staff] was [unreasonable]. <S> This is correct because "the act of insisting" can be "a source of anger". <S> Insistence is the subject of the clause "that was a source of anger". <S> In #3 "fear" is increasing, and the subject of the clause describing the type of fear he has. <S> That is correct. <S> In #4 the sentence doesn't have a subject that the clause "that he might lose his job" describes, so the sentence is a fragment and not correct. <S> @F.E. mentions in the comments, a way that the sentence could be constructed to be correct is <S> [That he might lose his job] was [his biggest concern] In #5 "fear" equals "that he might lose his job" and that's OK because "a fear" can be "losing your job". <S> Fear is the subject of the clause. <A> I think, #2 is incorrect because of the inaccurate use of the word "insistence". " <S> Insistence" can stand for many things. <S> Insistent - <S> > Happening for a long time and very difficult to ignore Example of statement: <S> We listened to the insistent crashing of waves on the beach. <S> From the statement above, it can be rephrased as: <S> We listened to the insistence of waves crashing on the beach. <S> With the rephrased statement above, you can see the multiple meanings of "insistence" and the term is not objective to one. <S> Hence, the reason of it being incorrect is inaccurate usage of word . <S> With that said, I'm not sure. <S> This is just my opinion and based on my amateur reasearch. <S> I'm yet to be corrected. <S> I'm a student myself. <S> =) Richard Navindran <A> # 2 is an awkward usage of the work insistence, but I can't see why it would be completely wrong. <S> Insistence here is used as a synonym for demand. <S> Insistence is the act of insisting. <S> Rephrasing with demand instead of insistence is more clearly correct. <S> Their demand was that the meetings should be held at lunch time <S> Unless someone else has a better answer, I'd suggest that the incorrect designation is wrong, and number 2 should be marked correct.	For the above question asked, it is wrong because the writer could have meant "insistence" as "insistent" .
About the meaning of a due date If someone says "applications due January 12" are they including that day also (until 23.59.59h) o do they really mean strictly before that date? <Q> If it is something mailed, like an application, it needs to be received in the mail before or on that date. <S> Mail is usually only delivered once a day, so it has to be ready to be delivered before the end of the day. <S> If the due date is not a normal business day (such as a weekend or holiday), then it needs to be received by the last business day before the due date. <A> Collins states: <S> If something is due at a particular time, it is expected to happen or to arrive at that time. <S> So, yes, the day itself is included . <A> For job applications etc, helpful advertisers (companies/people) include a time (and maybe time zone) with the due date: 'applications close 5 pm Eastern Australian Summer Time (UTC +11) on 12 January', especially when people from different countries might be applying. <S> Otherwise, I would assume close of business (usually 5 pm) rather than 23.59. <S> In any case, it is always possible and always safe to send your application to arrive (at least) the day before the due date, though this is not always possible.	In the case of an in-person business transaction, it usually means it must be received before the end of that business day (the due date).
can vs may to form a request? I need your help. is there a difference in meaning between May I use your bathroom ? and Can I use your bathroom ? <Q> 'May' is more correct, as it is asking for permission. 'Can' literally means 'is it (physically) possible?' but is often used in this way by native speakers and would not be misunderstood or sound at all strange. ' <S> Could I use your bathroom?' <S> is another alternative - maybe a little more polite and formal. <S> All three of these are pretty much interchangeable to my BrE ear. <A> It is possible for can to have meanings other than asking permission (e.g., asking about ability or possibility). <S> These alternatives can be found in dictionary entries under the word. <S> In addition, some people consider it completely unacceptable to use <S> can to ask permission, at least in formal writing. <S> In 2009, less than 19% of a large panel of US academics, writers, editors, etc., considered this use of can to be completely unacceptable. <S> There is an informative brief on this topic under "Usage Note" here . <A> while using can <S> it is about the ability to do the things. <S> `eg: <S> He can carry a bike ` using <S> may is correct because it is like asking the permission. <S> `eg: May I come in?`	Most commonly, they would be taken to have the same meaning: A request to use a bathroom.
"It's not a problem at all TO do that" vs. "It's not a problem at all do that" (without TO before do) Which of these is correct? It's not a problem at all TO do that vs. It's not a problem at all do that (without TO before do) <Q> It's not a problem at all TO do that. <S> You can imagine this question and answer: <S> What is not a problem at all? - <S> "To do that". <S> But you cannot imagine this: What is not a problem at all? <S> - "Do that." <S> (here, "do that" is a command , not an answer to this question) <S> You can remodel your sentence thus: To do that is not a problem at all. <S> But it would be ungrammatical without to : <S> Do that is not a problem at all. <S> (NOT OKAY) <S> Why? <S> Because "to do that" is what is called an " infinitive phrase ". <S> An infinitive phrase can be used as a noun phrase when it has the particle to . <S> That is, with the particle "to", we can put an equality sign between the phrase "to do that" and the noun "problem": "a rectangle" = "a square" (both words are nouns) "to do that" = "a problem" (both serve as nouns) <S> [To do that] is not [a problem] (we put "is" instead of "=" and added "not") <S> [It] is not [a problem][to do that]. <S> (we added the pronoun "it". <S> A pro noun , speaking simply, is a word that is used as a stand-in for a noun . <S> In our case, such "noun" is [to do that]) <A> Normally you could say: Could you go to the store for me? <S> (reply) <S> It's not a problem at all to do that. <S> It means there is no problem for "you" to go to the store. <S> The second phrase is not OK as is, but you could say: Do you mind if I answer the phone? <S> (reply) <S> It's not a problem at all, do that. <S> spoken with a pause between <S> all and do . <S> This mean that you don't have any problem, but here you are telling someone (the person asking the question) to do something. <A> You probably mean the first one. <S> It's not a problem at all to do that <S> This means that doing "that" is not a problem. <S> Depending on context it might be a bit stilted, another way to phrase it might be <S> "Doing that isn't a problem at all." <S> or "That's not a problem at all." <S> But It's not a problem at all do that <S> ideally with the comma or semicolon: <S> It's not a problem at all, do that <S> It's not a problem at all; do that <S> It means that's not a problem, go ahead and do it. <S> It's a compound sentence saying two things: "It's not a problem" and then the imperative (command) <S> "Do that. <S> " <S> In more formal writing you wouldn't combine it, but informally it's not uncommon. <A> It's not a problem at all to do that <S> vs <S> it's not a problem at all do that. <S> I think the second sentence with the bare infinitive is grammatically incorrect. <S> As for the second sentence with "to infinitive", it will be more idiomatic if use -ing form after problem (problem + -ing form) in this context. <S> We can use to-infinitive when the noun "problem" means a question or matter involving difficulty for example. <S> we were given five problems to solve, we have many problems to deal with. <S> On the other hand, when you face difficulty (in) doing something, you usually use the -ing form after problem (problem + -ing form), for example, I am having a problem finishing my work, the only problem is finding a job, etc. <S> So it's more idiomatic if we say "It's no problem/not a problem at all doing that". <A> The use of the bare infinitive is limited to special cases:1 Auxiliary verbs as will/would + bare infinitive (future and conditional)2 Modal verbs + bare infinitive as "I can do <S> it".3 A very limited number of other cases where a bare infinitive can be used. <S> But after nouns you can't use a bare infinitive. <S> The normal thing is a to-infinitive or sometimes of + gerund.	They both could be correct (particularly if you add a bit of punctuation to the second one), but they mean different things.
What is this type of road called in English? I’m looking for a word or a phrase for describing this kind of road which usually is constructed in the mountain areas, but not only: image a representative sample from Google images, query = transfagarasan In my language we call this serpentine a word used as a noun (not adjective) to describe its shape. If I wanted to write an article about this road, a road constructed in the mountains provided with many turns and angles like in the above link, which word would be more appropriate to use? <Q> Preface ADDED 14 Jan/Jan 14, 00:11 GMT/UTC: <S> This answer, as the OP Lucian Sava is well aware, has been written from an AmE perspective. <S> Actually, it is written from the perspective of the variety of AmE that I speak. <S> I think Lucian gets by now that English usage is not universal, as I had already indicted in my anwer. <S> Let the conversation continue, by all means! <S> Serpentine is fine, but in English I am pretty sure we would use it as an adjective describing the road. <S> Such a road is also called, in familiar terms, a curvy mountain road. <S> More technically, it is any road that contains many switchbacks or hairpin curves <S> Switchback can refer to entirety of such a road. <S> But this may not reflect universal usage. <S> You can do an image search for both "switchback road" and "serpentine road" and get many of the same images. <S> Thus saith the snake: <A> Suitable words might be: winding or twisting <S> You could check the Thesaurus for more options. <S> These are very general adjectives and don't just apply to mountain passes (a pass is a road that crosses a mountain, but it does not have to be winding). <S> Note that there is a pass over the Pennines called Snake Pass , but that is its name. <S> You could use Serpentine but that is rather poetic sounding. <S> The type of turn that loops back on itself is known as a hairpin turn . <A> In the U.S., we call those mountainous roads "switchback" roads, with the individual turns called "hairpin" turns. https://www.google.com/search?q=switchback+road&espv=2&biw=1147&bih=685&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qUy0VKO3KtWxogSMpYDIBw&ved=0CB0QsAQ&dpr=0.9 <A> zig <S> zag roads or paths <S> Searching this on Google Images supports this word. <S> In my state, we have such place called Saputara . <S> It's famous for its hairpin curves or zigzag roads. <S> Most of the tourists experience motion sickness due to this. <A> I think serpentine road or winding road is as close as you're likely to get. <S> Personally, I prefer serpentine road . <S> To my knowledge there isn't a single-word noun form of this phrase that is generally understood. <S> Another user mentioned switchback , but that strikes me as less likely to be widely understood. <A> In england we do not speak of serpentine roads and a swichback <S> (n) is not a road and a switchback (adj) road is not a bendy one. <S> We are notorious for winding roads but these are not necessarily winding to ascend a hill or mountain. <S> Meandering is more often applied to a river than a road and would not describe a bendy climbing road. <S> We speak of hairpin BENDS rather than curves or corners. <S> I do not think there is in British English a particular noun or adjective pertaining particularly to roads made with bends to reduce the gradient on a hill. <S> This may be due to lack of mountains and hence such roads in england; there may be Welsh or Scottish words for such. <A> Instead of a 'road' you could instead call it a 'track.' <S> 'Track' refers to it being a dirt, rather than sealed, road. <S> So 'winding track' rather than 'winding road,' for example. <S> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/track <A> This would be a road containing many s-bends or hair-pin corners. <A> The word that you are looking for is " meandering ". <A> It is called a mountain pass . <S> You can definitely use words like "serpentine", "sinuous", "winding" and so on to describe such a road <S> but they're just appropriate adjectives. <S> To give an analogy, answering the question <S> "What is this type of road called?" <S> with "a serpentine road" is a bit like answering "What is this this type of animal called?" <S> with "a huge animal" rather than "an elephant".	I think serpentine (adjective) would be the more universally recognized word. I often refer such paths/roads as ..
how to say the sentence "I am walking on the steps of bus"? When I catch the bus , I say I caught the bus (or) I got the bus . But I need to say I am walking on the steps of bus.how can I convert that into a sentence? I don't have a clear idea. <Q> In English, if you just want to say that you're in the act of catching the bus, you don't explicitly mention the steps. <S> The present progressive tense indicates that the action is happening right now, as you are speaking. <S> Get on is a phrasal verb that means (among many other things) to enter a large vehicle such as a bus, a truck, a boat, a train, or an airplane, <S> by whatever way of entering it is appropriate: climbing up steps, climbing down a ladder, jumping onto a platform, walking along a ramp, etc. <S> Here is a dictionary definition. <A> I'm boarding the bus. <S> I'm stepping onto the bus. <S> Those sound the most natural to my ears. <A> To say you are walking specifically on the steps to the bus (that is, the emphasis is just as much on the fact <S> you are on the steps as that you are getting onto the bus in general), I would say, "I am climbing the steps onto the bus". <S> It is wordy, but I would say it is the best way to include the use of the steps in the action. <A> "But I need to say I am walking on the steps of bus. <S> how can I convert that into a sentence?" <S> If you want to mean you are getting onto the bus you could say : I'm getting on the bus <S> or I'm ascending the bus-steps <S> or I'm running up the bus-steps <S> The above three variations are already pointed out by CopperKettle and Ben Kovitz by the way. <S> However, if you want to mean that you are getting off the bus you could say : I'm alighting the bus or <S> I'm getting off the bus <S> or I'm running down the bus-steps <S> or I'm stepping off the bus <S> Interestingly, one can also use debus to mean getting off a bus (getting off any motor vehicle for that matter). <S> However a bit of Googling suggests that it's more apt in a military context. <S> Hope that helps.	You just say: I'm getting on the bus.
What's the difference between drug and medication? What's the difference between drug and medication? Do you agree with Dose of medications=Dose of drugs? <Q> The word "drug" can have connotations of illicitness , whereas medication is always used in licit contexts. <S> But a drug can refer to licit medicines as well. <S> New drugs come on the market. <S> A drug is typically ingested (or injected) whereas medications can also be topical. <S> Not that we don't say "topical drug" too, but "topical medication" is used more often and has been in use since the 1840s, whereas "topical drug" is a fairly recent usage, arising in the 1950s per Google ngram . <S> So, they're more or less interchangeable, except in illicit contexts, where drug is used. <S> The criminal is said to be a "drug dealer", or a "drug runner", and the addict is said to be "hooked on drugs" or "on drugs". <S> The patient is said to be "on medication". <A> Medications are substances that are taken with the intention of healing or improving health. <S> Drugs can refer to any substance that has an effect on the body — positive, negative, intentional, or side-effect. <S> For example: Cannabis is a drug. <S> If you are using it to treat pain or cancer, it's a medication. <S> If you're just smoking it for fun, you're just using it as a drug. <S> Alcohol is a drug. <S> You might be able to call it a medication if you are taking it on a doctor's advice, but it would be a bit of a stretch. <S> Athletes who take performance-enhancing drugs may refer to them as "medications", but I would consider that usage a euphemism. <S> Whether the word drug has a positive or negative connotation depends on the context. <S> A "drug store" would generally be a legitimate business; a "drug deal" usually implies illegal activity. <S> Drug delivery is an active area of scientific research, but sometimes "drug delivery" is used in the other sense . <A> Medicine is a type of drug. <S> All medicines are drugs, not all drugs are medicines. <S> In AE (not sure about BE), "drug" tends to have an illicit connotation, so it is better to use "medicine" for clarity if there is a chance of misunderstanding. <A> I think a drug is just a raw state of a chemical and a medicine is the use of a particular chemical to prepare something to change the body's state in positive way. <S> For instance, the use of acetaminophen. <S> If it is taken "raw" or as it is a chemical regardless of the quantity and without any additives or other ingredients, that can be termed as a drug because taken in that alone can have both positive and negative effects on your body. <S> In a case where other additives are added to acetaminophen, it becomes a medication because it has been prepared to treat a disease. <A> All medicine is drugs but all drugs are not medicine. <S> Because Drug is the active ingredient used to modify physiological system or pathological states for the benefit of the recipient but it may not have a suitable form & dose. <S> On the other hand, Medicines are finished products, which contain drugs in active ingredient as well as the excipients and It has a suitable form & dose. <A> While Medicine is a chemical substance use to treat disease, illness and disorder that does not have dose and dosage. <S> Example herbal medicine.	Drug is a chemical substance use to treat disease, illness and disorder that has dose and dosage.
Should there be a comma before ‘too’ in: "Me too"? I was taught that it is properly written as "Me, too." But a book (The sixty-eight rooms, by Marianne Malonne) I've recently read uses "Me too." Which one is correct? Are tone and pronunciation affected? <Q> Perhaps it'd help to remember that comma is not merely to separate phrases, it is also used to denote a very short pause when you speak. <S> When you read "Me, too" aloud, you're expected to pause for a bit directly after saying "Me". <S> " <S> Me too", on the other hand, does not require you to pause Taking into account those, you'd much more likely to encounter "Me too" when it's meant to be said quickly. <S> There's nothing wrong with that phrase. <S> Perhaps a bit of context of when this was said can help <A> The following examples are from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. <S> None of them has a comma before too . <S> There were people from all over Europe, and America too . <S> Can I come too ? <S> ‘I’m feeling hungry.’ <S> ‘Me too .’ <S> It’s a more efficient system <S> and it’s <S> cheaper too . <A> Me too is correct. <S> Me, too can be used when you especially want to emphasize me . <A>	"Me, too" is a simplification of the sentence: "That is my experience, as well" Because of this, I tend to favour "Me, too" rather than "Me too".
Please help me with the verbs 'dodging', 'evading' and 'ducking'? In the following images I have tried to show you which verb I am trying to find; I need to know what are the persons marked with "B" doing in the images bellow: A) They are evading. B) They are dodging. C) They are ducking. I think "b" is the only correct choice. If not please tell me what verb is used for these reactions? <Q> In the top photo: A is punching or throwing a punch <S> B is evading (moving below the punch could be ducking) <S> In the bottom photo: A is throwing B is evading or dodging. <S> It depends on where the ball is being thrown, (at the person or the person is just in the way). <A> Dodging or ducking in the boxing scene, dodging or, possibly, ducking in the ball scene. <S> "Dodge" and "duck" have the connotation of quick physical movement. <S> "Evading" has a connotation of something that happens over a longer time and, sometimes, is at least quasi-illegal, e.g. "evading taxes", "evading the law", but also "evading Joe, the PITA neighbor" [PITA is an increasingly-common acronym for Pain <S> In The Arse]. <S> We could use "dodging" or "ducking" for those cases too, especially in the case of Joe, but "evading" isn't usually momentary or done by simple body movement. <S> "Evading the punch" sounds odd, but "evading the punches" doesn't: <S> it means there were at least several punches and none of them landed, the evasion was something that was done over more than momentary time. <A> To duck means to lower one's head or entire body down to avoid something above. <S> It can imply crouching. <S> avoid if the thing being avoided is constantly moving and <S> it's <S> location is visible or known. <S> This is not a very specific term. <S> To dodge means to move slightly in order to actively avoid something, and is usually used in contexts where lateral movement is needed. <S> For the boxing example, B is dodging A's punch. <S> For the dodgeball example, it looks like B is in the process of ducking. <S> Dodging wouldn't be wrong here but might imply the ball has already been thrown whereas <S> in the pic it hasn't yet. <S> In both these instances, evading is something the players should always be doing, so it's too vague of a term in either case.	To evade means to move significantly in order to actively avoid something, or sometimes is synonymous with
"No more Hiroshima" or "No more Hiroshimas" " No more Hiroshima " or " No more Hiroshimas ".Some say the former and some say the latter.I'm wondering which is grammatically correct. <Q> The latter is correct. <S> If the meaning is essentially There should or must never be any additional uses of nuclear bombs on cities or against people, as occurred in Hiroshima (and in Nagasaki) in August, 1945 , it must be No more Hiroshimas. <S> People who use this expression are likely using Hiroshima to stand for the bombings of both cities. <S> Hiroshima <S> then, would be conceptualized as a single event, and like the word event, Hiroshima is countable. <S> No more Hiroshima would usually mean that the city no longer exists. <S> It might also be used in an abbreviated way to express something like <S> We are no longer in Hiroshima (having, for example, travelled out of it from inside it; thanks to JdeBP--see comments), or to express something like <S> I/ <S> we/ <S> somebody will have no more experience of Hiroshima; for example, because we've left it and won't return. <S> English learners can perhaps more easily understand the grammar if we consider that "Hiroshimas" refers to Hiroshima plus one or more <S> imagined or theorized cities like Hiroshima (cities that might be attacked with a nuclear bomb like Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) and that might suffer the massive loss and agony that followed. <S> No more events (like that one). <S> As usual, we make the countable noun (Hiroshima) plural by adding s . <S> It is not surprising that you may see errors in the form <S> *(no) more + [city name/singular noun] because we would rarely see city names in plural form. <S> We normally have in mind <S> one Tokyo, one San Francisco, etc. <S> It is also likely common to find mistakes in that grammar pattern because more often determines something about quantity of mass or of a noun treated grammatically as mass: We would say no more rice much more often than no more rices. <A> However, if you are referring the incident that occurred there, it will be "No more Hiroshimas". <A> No More Hiroshima is what almost happened in WW-2. <S> No More <S> Hiroshimas is what we say to indicate that we don't want that to happen again. <S> At best, the former sounds like a clumsy attempt at the latter. <A> No more SOMETHING! <S> means: <S> you deny someone access to that something. <S> you are sick and tired of something and express your feeling of denial. <S> you express the fact that something is gone (or you are parting ways with it). <S> No more SOMETHINGS! <S> means: <S> you are against SOMETHING and express your opinion that such thing shouldn't happen anymore. <S> IMO. <S> :) <A> To explain it in terms of terminology: <S> "No more Hiroshima" would treat Hiroshima as an uncountable noun. <S> There was five square kilometres of Hiroshima before the nuclear attack, but then there's zero square kilometres of Hiroshima after the attack. <S> "No more Hiroshimas" would treat Hiroshima as a countable noun. <S> There is one nuclear attack, two nuclear attacks, but hopefully no more nuclear attacks. <S> It's like saying "I like kangaroo" (which'd be indicate a liking of the uncountable noun of kangaroo meat), versus "I like kangaroos" (which'd indicate a liking of the countable noun of the animals themselves). <S> As one slight complicating factor, pluralising a city feels a little weird. <S> Maybe they chose not to do it, even if they ought to. <A> I'd say both are valid. <S> In either case, we aren't literally talking about the city of Hiroshima, rather, what happened at Hiroshima. <S> We use the noun Hiroshima to mean the destruction of a city with a nuclear weapon. <S> This is a metonym . <A> I'm guessing that someone who makes either statement is saying that they don't want to see another city subjected to a nuclear attack. <S> In that case, you would say, "No more Hiroshimas. <S> " You use the plural because "more" calls for a plural, and you are using the word "Hiroshima" as shorthand for "the nuclear attack that caused massive destruction of the city of Hiroshima". <S> Suppose instead of this shorthand we used a literal phrase, like "nuclear attack". <S> Then I think it's clear you would say, "No more nuclear attacks", plural, not "No more nuclear attack", singular, because "more" calls for a plural. <S> You could recast the sentence to call for a singular, like, "I hope there is not another nuclear attack", or "I hope there is not another Hiroshima". <S> Someone might say "no more Hiroshima" if what he was trying to say <S> was that the city no longer existed. <S> Like, "After the bomb dropped, there was no more Hiroshima." <S> But I'm guessing that's not the intent. <A> There is no direct plural in Japanese, so "Hiroshima" is like "sheep. <S> " It can refer to one Hiroshima, or it can refer to many Hiroshima. <S> However, in colloquial usage, we just tack an "s" on for plural in English-- <S> otherwise you end up with the very dangerous confusion included in the other questions. <S> Additionally, since the phrase refers not to the city as such but an event which occurred there (and only one other place), it can be considered to be a new "English" word. <S> In the end, "No more Hiroshima disasters" would cleanly avoid the problem, though it does lack the enthusiasm of the protest era that the original phrasing intends to load in there.	If you are referring to the CITY in particular, then it will be "No more Hiroshima". Both will be correct, depending upon the context in which you want to use them.
Looking for the correct preposition: "The horse was walking ___ behind its master" What would be the correct preposition for this sentence: The horse was walking ___ behind its master. In my opinion, it would be 'on'. Please give the correct answer. <Q> The horse was walking behind its master is fine, no extra preposition is necessary - behind is your preposition. <A> If you add anything else, it would qualify the way the horse walks, not the position: Your example: The horse was walking on behind its master. <S> - <S> > meaning that the horse just kept walking. <S> Though a reader would probably wondering what material <S> the horse was walking on: a path, a bridge, on air. <S> Another example: <S> The horse was walking happily behind its master. <S> - <S> > <S> describing the way the horse walks (adverb). <A> "Behind" is a preposition. <S> You don't need another one. <S> "The horse is walking behind his master." <A> Given that this sounds like a homework question, I think the answer they are looking for is "along": <S> The horse was walking along behind its master. <S> But the sentence is grammatically fine without this, as others have pointed out. <S> In fact, it is arguably redundant <S> - how else does a horse walk, except "along"? <S> Upwards? <S> Spirally?If <S> it is not walking along , you would specify how or in what direction - in circles, sideways, etc. <S> In riding, the phrase "walk on" is used to tell a horse (or the rider) to start walking again after pausing briefly. <S> Eg in dressage, or when presenting a show horse in a competition, you may need to stop to be inspected, checked over or whatever. <S> "Walk on" would tell you when you can go. <S> In this context, it sounds like the walking is already happening and continuous, not just starting. <S> So "walking on" would sound wrong to me.	You already have the preposition in your sentence: "behind" The horse was walking behind its master.
What does "to be painted shut" mean? We tried, but the window couldn't be opened. It was painted shut. I am wondering what the bolded part could mean. <Q> We tried, but the window couldn't be opened. <S> It was painted shut . <S> It was painted to a "shut condition". <S> The process of painting the window resulted in it being shut . <S> The paint got in the gaps between the frames and glued the frames together. <S> So, in order to open the window, you need first to get all the paint out of all the clearances. <S> Here's another example: <S> I tried to eat the fish, but could not. <S> It was cooked dry . <S> (it was unpleasant to eat: the fish was overcooked to a dry condition) <S> He tried to drink tea, but could not. <S> We had drunk <S> the teapot <S> empty . <S> (our drinking of tea resulted in the teapot becoming empty ) <S> And one good example from Harry Potter: <S> At breakfast on Thursday she bored them all stupid with flying tips she'd gotten out of a library book called Quidditch Through the Ages. <S> (They were in a "stupid" condition as a result of hearing all the boring things she told them) P.S. <S> Snailboat <S> wrote a nice answer to a related question: <S> Is it possible to use adjectives as adverbs? <A> Without wanting to point out the obvious;It's painted. <S> The paint is holding the window closed <A> Although the others answers here are correct in terms of the literal meaning, they miss the figurative meaning. <S> It's not possible to open the window with ease, it would take significant effort or removal of some paint. <S> The figurative meaning of the phrase is that something hasn't been used for so long that it has essentially lost some or all its function - or when used as a metaphor, it's used to describe someone who has lost some of their skill. <S> The window is still a window, but it doesn't really function like one any more through lack of use. <S> ie it hasn't been used for so long that it's been painted over several times.	The literal meaning is that the window has been painted over and is now sealed shut by the strength of the paint.
require that X be used VS. require X to be used Some cities have a rule requiring that a certain percentage of the budget be used to fund public art. I am wondering the reason for being omitted the preposition to before used to. <Q> Some cities have a rule requiring that a certain percentage of the budget be used to fund public art. <S> The clause beginning with "requiring" employs the subjunctive mood , more precisely, the so-called mandative subjunctive : I require that the budget be used to fund public art. <S> We asked that it be done yesterday. <S> Mandative subjunctive uses the " bare infinitive ", the basic form of the verb without the particle to . <S> The mandative (or "present") subjunctive expresses a circumstance that is desired, demanded, recommended, necessary, etc. <S> If you spot a verb like insist, suggest, demand, prefer , an adjective like necessary, desirable , or a noun like recommendation, necessity , and after (or subordinate to) it, a that-clause , it's a good sign you have a mandative subjunctive. <A> **** <S> Such a clause may be dependent on verbs like insist, suggest, demand, prefer,(2) <S> adjectives like necessary, desirable,(3) or nouns like recommendation, necessity;(4) <S> it may be part of the expression in order that... (or some formal uses of so that...); it may also stand independently as the subject of a clause or as a predicative expression. <S> In short: as it's a mandatory requirement, it is stated using subjunctive instead of indicative. <A> The use of "be used" instead of "to be used" is grammatically correct in the sentence. <S> No doubt, the sujunctive mood is mostly found in conditional if-clauses, but it also expresses a wish, suggestion, command, or state of necessity. <S> The present subjunctive of "to be" is "be" for all persons and for all other verbs it's bare infinitive <S> and there is no addition of "s" to the infinitive for the third person singular. <S> According to this rule of grammar, we cannot use "to be" in the sentence. <S> Instead, we use only "be". <S> Please look at the following sentences in the subjunctive mood: <S> It's important that he attend the meeting. <S> (we cannot use attends) <S> It's necessary that all matters be considered. <S> (we cannot use to be) <S> By the way, it is OK in BE if we say "it's important that he should attend the meeting" and "it's necessary that all matters should be considered".	The reason for the "missing to" is the fact that here not infinitive, but subjunctive is used: Quote from Wikipedia , emphasized by me: The main use of the English present subjunctive, called the mandative or jussive subjunctive ,(1) occurs in that clauses (declarative content clauses; the word that is sometimes omitted in informal and conversational usage)
What does "ain't" mean in "if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it"? This question is a follow up question of my previous question Meaning of "ain't" in: "...we ain't know what it meant" According to the Oxford Dictionary , ain't is used for isn't in the following sentence, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it But substituting isn't doesn't make sense, if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it User CarSmack indicated in his comment that broke is used for broken . Please explain in detail what is going on. Why is broken replaced by broke ? <Q> Posted : <S> A kind note to the community who chose to edit my spellings of the word nonstandard to non-standard ... <S> Nonstandard is the way I spell this word. <S> More importantly, it is spelled this way in Collins , American Heritage , and the Unabridged M-W. <S> The form non-standard is not found in any of these three American dictionaries. <S> In other words: If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it! <S> The answer proper: 'Broken' is the past participle for 'to break'. <S> 'Broke' is a nonstandard past participle for 'to break'. <S> Reference . <S> That is, it is considered to be nonstandard from the point of view of 'standard English'. <S> To avoid confusion, let's just call 'broke' colloquial for 'broken'. <S> Since ain't can also be considered colloquial, it makes perfect sense to find them together in the sentence <S> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. <S> Thus, ain't does mean isn't here. <S> Example <S> As an example usage, in the "old days" of the cathode ray TV and before cable or satellite TV service, one had to adjust the rabbit ears <S> antenna to get good reception on the TV <S> (pronounced T V in this example). <S> Caution: <S> nonstandard/regional language ahead: Now suppose them rabbit ears broke? <S> Well you're gonna use an aluminium fishing poll and duck tape to rig a new antenna. <S> Now the T V works good again. <S> Your wife don't like it, and she wants to buy new antennas. <S> But since the television is working fine with the antenna you made, you say "Martha Mae, if it ain't broke, don't be trying to fix it. <S> We can use the money on catfish bait." <S> However, one dictionary calls 'broke' an archaic past participle of 'to break'. <S> If that is the case, then at one time it was not considered nonstandard. <S> I have to check the OED for further details on this. <A> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is not grammatically correct standard English. <S> This is deliberate. <S> It's meant to sound simple, blunt, and uncultured because it's old, common-sense advice. <S> You can treat the whole sentence as a single idiom. <S> Don't use "ain't" in formal situations. <S> Don't use "broke" like this at all. <S> Doing so will make you sound uneducated. <S> EDIT: There's some discussion in the comments about AAVE and the merits of using it. <S> Since this question is getting a lot of views, I'll expand my answer. <S> First, the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is not AAVE . <S> It was popularized by a white businessman in a magazine published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1977 (page 27, bottom right). <S> Variants were probably used in the South before then. <S> The saying sounds southern and "folksy". <S> The word "ain't" comes from British English. <S> It is popular in AAVE, but many other nonstandard dialects also use it. <S> When I answer questions here, I assume that readers are trying to learn the standard English dialect of an English-speaking country, usually America or Britain. <S> For a non-native, speaking in other dialects is possible but risky. <S> There are a few reasons for this: <S> In formal contexts, nonstandard English can sound insulting or unprofessional. <S> People who speak a nonstandard dialect are usually part of a group with its own subculture. <S> Imitating their speech without being part of their culture can seem weird, embarrassing, or insulting. <S> This is especially true if you make a mistake. <S> People who speak nonstandard English are often perceived as uneducated, stupid, shallow, poor, or other bad things. <S> This applies to AAVE, valley girl speech, redneck speech, probably Cockney speech, and others. <S> There's nothing wrong with asking questions about them, or (in some situations) speaking them. <S> But if you want your words to be safe and reliable , always speak standard English. <A> broke for broken <S> There is a normal tendency to reduce the number and forms of irregular verbs. <S> To break normally has the stem forms break broke broken. <S> The next step of simplification would be break broke brokeand possibly break breaked breaked might come up sometime. <S> The form broke is already established as a predicative adjective in colloquial language: I'm broke - meaning having no moneyand in the expression to go broke said of firms that go bankrupt. <S> And I'm not astonished that in some dialects or substandard speech "broke" has substituted broken. <A> This is simply colloquial English, which isn't grammatically correct (as far as Standard English is concerned). <S> So, don't use something like that in a formal setting. <S> In an informal context, "broke" is simply short for "broken". <S> This is in use all over the United States, particularly among people who haven't had much schooling. <S> In this case, it has nothing to do with "being broke" (not having money). <A> This question has many wonderful answers. <S> But I would like to post a different approach. <S> What if the broke in this sentence means this: broke <S> adjective informal having completely run out of money. <S> — <S> Google Search <S> I know this wouldn't fit with the second part of the sentence ("don't fix it"). <S> But still something different to think about, ain't it?	It is being used as an adjective in If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Is the word "suit" offensive (meaning "corporate-looking person")? You are in your workplace. Your father is visiting you. He sees one of your coworkers and asks you: Who is the suit? Is the word "suit" offensive in this context? A usage of this : http://youtu.be/y8rzt-vj2gU?t=3m17s <Q> This is synecdoche, and it is curt and slangy, and probably derogatory. <S> Keep in mind that mildly derogatory slang terms can be used affectionately as well. <S> A similar example comes to mind: say you're the driver to a ski trip? <S> You might be referred to as "the wheels. <S> " It's derogatory in the sense that that's now your purpose, flattering in the sense that your pals trust you with the role, or think you are good with it, etc. <S> When you use synecdoche like this, you are saying that being a suit or the wheels is the person's only relevant function. <S> You could use it as a slur, e.g. "Suits aren't welcome here." <S> If you meet a friend with a businessperson and say "who's the suit?"that would be mildly offensive also. <S> "What's with that bar? <S> Seemslike there's a lot of suits in there." <S> probably implies that youthink suits are a type of person and probably a type you don't like. <S> A software developer might say to a colleague helping her on the project "oh he's just the suit" to mean <S> "he's not important right now, because we're talking about technical stuff. <S> " <S> If you are an engineer you might introduce your partner as "the suit," which is affectionate because it is derogatory and no harm is meant. <S> But, it is also an expedient way of saying "my partner does all the business stuff," which is ironically very important but also far removed from what "I" worry about. <A> Collins defines "suit" as: (slang) <S> a person wearing a suit; specif., a business executive or a bureaucrat ( usually a term of mild derision ) <S> So, yes, it is somewhat offensive. <A> While it isn't "offensive," it is typically used by someone who does not identify himself as an executive, nor is it overly affectionate. <S> isn't something I'd actually say to the executive myself. <A> Suit is offensive <S> The reason it is offensive is because it gives the impression that all they are is the suit they wear. <S> A "suit" is an executive who, in the speaker's eyes, is nothing more than an empty suit. <S> The person inside the suit is unimportant. <S> Someone who uses this term would feel comfortable treating several "suits" interchangeably, because to them, a "suit" is not a person, its merely a machine performing a role in business. <A> If you've ever watched the TV show, "White Collar," you know that the quirky character Mozzie (played by Willie Garson) refers to the FBI agent Peter Burke <S> (Tim DeKay) as "The Suit" and his co-workers/fellow agents by variations of the phrase: Agent Jones is called "The Junior Suit," <S> Agent Diana Berrigan is called "The Lady Suit," Agent Kimberly Rice, who is seen as hard & aggressive, is called "The Pants-Suit," a superior officer is "The Super Suit"... <S> Agent Burke's wife Elizabeth is called "Mrs. Suit"... <S> The main character, con man/forger/thief-turned-criminal informant Neal Caffrey (Matt Bomer), who gets his sentence shortened by helping the "suits" catch other criminals, has a lot of fun playing against Peter's uptight, strait-laced, by-the-book officer-of-the-law, and as his partner-in-crime, Mozzie loves tweaking Peter's calm demeanor & pushing his buttons... <S> Eventually through the 6 seasons, these three form an unlikely comraderie, and soon a genuine friendship as they bring down the bad guys & try to keep Neal out of jail or from being killed... <S> In one episode, Mozzie, who holds an online degree from some unknown "divinity school" (he also has an online law degree), officiates Peter & Elizabeth's renewal of their wedding vows, ending with, "I now pronounce you 'Suit' and 'Mrs. Suit'"... <S> In another episode, the three go to an old stone fort to find clues to a case, and Mozzie develops a fever from being poisoned by a female criminal they are chasing... <S> At one moment as he begins to deteriorate, Mozzie slips and refers to Peter by his first name... <S> Neal asks, "Did you just call him 'Peter'?" <S> Mozzie answers, "Who? <S> The Suit?" <S> Mozzie is eventually taken to a hospital and his life is saved... <S> In this show, the term "suit" thus becomes a term of affection, friendship and respect...	It is by no means derogatory - the person is admitting he is not "a suit" by it Suit is slang for an executive - one who has to come to work in a suit.
Alternate idiom or phrase meaning "drought followed by a storm"? I am writing a short article where I have to describe following situation. Nothing good happens for a long long time, and people are desperate. Then things change and soon go to the opposite extreme, where things become so good that it becomes unmanageable and creates another problem which is not as serious as the earlier one . For example, an airline company goes several years with few passengers interested in flying with them (drought). Then all of a sudden, things change, demand far exceeds the number of seats available, and the company is overwhelmed dealing with so many bookings (storm). I cannot use 'drought followed by storm' because of the part highlighted in bold above. The second problem is a "good" problem to have, but the first one is not. We couldn't think of storm and drought that way. <Q> This may not carry precisely the restrictions on meaning that you are after, but it is an umbrella idea over what you seek: <S> When it rains it pours <S> This means that things (good or bad) will happen all at once, once they start happening, perhaps to an overwhelming degree. <S> Your example of the airline is a perfect use case for this expression. <S> Other possible use cases <S> : I got a raise at work, and found a twenty dollar bill. <S> When it rains it pours. <S> I complained about my neighbor's rotten, dangerous shed. <S> He tore it down, which would be good except that now the rats have moved into my shed. <S> The crows have also started a rookery in my lilac tree, so my yard is full of unwelcome visitors. <S> When it rains it pours. <S> For a long time, I have been unable to find anyone to help me walk my dogs during the day. <S> I promised three different people I would hire them if they changed their schedules around. <S> Now they all showed up at the same time to walk the dogs. <S> When it rains it pours. <S> This expression is a fairly new phrasing of an older expression, coined by the Morton Salt Company to publicize the marketing point that when the weather is humid ( When it rains... ), their salt still flows freely ( it pours ). <S> http://www.mortonsalt.com/our-history/history-of-the-morton-salt-girl <S> The original, it never rains <S> but it pours would work also, but is much less common and people might actually try to parse it, instead of just "knowing" the meaning. <A> In this situation, it could work to say, "After the drought, the floodgates opened." <S> The expression "the floodgates opened" is used to indicate that a situation has entered an extreme state. <S> In this metaphor, under normal circumstances the water is held back and everything is fine, then when the gates open the water rushes out and causes a problem. <S> However, the "flood" that results from "the floodgates opening" is not always a bad thing. <S> For example, it would make sense to say, "After the first person thanked me, the floodgates opened, and everyone came up to shake my hand." <S> In this situation, there is a "flood" of positive emotion. <S> It is a flood because there is a lot of it suddenly and all at once, but it is not dangerous like a flood of water would be. <S> By combining this with the drought metaphor, you get the effect you want. <S> The surrounding context that you write should allow the reader to know that the flood counts as a problem, but not as a terrible problem. <S> It also helps that both metaphors involve water. <S> The two metaphors together are not a set phrase in themselves, but they fit together fine. <A> A sudden or unexpected reversal of fortune might be the phrase you're looking for. <S> Also, the word eucatastrophe describes this situation almost exactly, but it is not in wide use. <S> You might also be able to use the phrase a good problem to have to highlight the fact that the second "problem" is not as critical as the first. <A> I am not aware of any common idiom or brief phrase that expresses this idea. <S> If someone else can name one, I'm happy to hear it. <S> But you're describing a pretty specific situation. <S> It's not the sort of thing that comes up ten times a day that would lead people to have a short, common phrase for it. <S> Sometimes people on this forum ask questions like, "What is one word that means a tall man wearing a brown shirt and heavy boots who goes fishing on a very cold day and on his way home is hit by a truck carrying canned goods that has one bald tire? <S> Someone suggested this word but that word doesn't necessarily imply that the truck must be carrying canned goods, it could also mean a truck carrying fresh fruit. <S> " <S> Yes, I'm exaggerating, but once an idea passes a certain level of complexity or specificity, you can't normally expect there to be a single word or common phrase for it. <S> You have to explain it. <A> There's a saying, <S> it's always feast or famine , which describes situations with extreme vacillation. <S> It doesn't strike the precise note you're after, where the "feast" is too much to handle. <S> There are phrases that don't describe the vacillation, but do address the "too much business" part of your example, where the luck is so good, it's a little too much. <S> Too much of a good thing. <S> Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. <A>	You could try "take a turn for the better" (see definition here ), which implies that the situation has improved, but not reached the desired state yet.
Can we use "to jettison" as a synonym for "to throw" I was discussing the verb to jettison with a native speaker, and my interlocutor gave an example: I was jettisoned from the bar. [for bad behavior] Was this usage sloppy or it is legitimate? My guess is that it is sloppy . For me this verb has two feelings: to throw something away ( an action ) which is no longer needed ( a reason ). My friend grasped only the action meaning in his sentence, but the verb has a strong reason component , which doesn't fit into the situation. Its usage would be more legitimate in this context: I was a bartender at the bar. But the owners decided they didn't need me anymore. I was jettison from the bar. <Q> Originally, the verb jettison is used to throw something from a moving ship or plane to make it lighter. <S> But it's also used informally in the sense of "throw away/off" Please throw the towel to me. <S> You cannot throw the blame on me, he threw his opponent to the ground. <S> You cannot replace "jettison" with "throw" in the above senses. <S> I jettisoned all the old clothes. <S> The plan was jettisoned as it was very expensive. <S> The captain jettisoned him from the team because of his constant poor performance. <S> It's also correct to say "I was jettisoned from the bar for bad behavior." <A> The difference between "to throw" and "to jettison" arises after the act has occurred. <S> One can throw an object in a direction, or at another object. <S> You can throw a ball at your friend . <S> When one jettisons something, one has little to no control over where it goes afterwards. <S> When used colloquially, as it is used in your examples, "to jettison" gives more of an "anywhere but here" mentality with little care to what happens afterwards, while the potential for direction with "to throw" makes it more neutral. <A> In America, one gets "thrown out of a bar". <S> This is closer in meaning to jettison than is the simple "throw" ("thrown from a bar" would rarely be heard). <S> "Throwing out trash" is virtually identical to jettisoning it, but hardly anyone would say jettison, unless they are on a boat or ship. <S> Not in regard to trash, nor to a person. <S> But "throwing out" a person carries a more forceful connotation, and implies a conflict between people, often involving physical force <S> (if the person went willingly, he wouldn't have to be "thrown out".) <S> However, it could be used after the fact, as an exaggeration, if the person was asked to leave, and complied, but later wanted to claim that he stood his ground until physically ejected from the bar.	You can replace jettison only with "throw off/away", which means to get rid of or discard someone or something (material or immaterial) that is causing harm, or annoying you, or no longer useful to you.
X with a purpose vs. X for a purpose I am not sure when to choose X with a purpose or X for a purpose . For example, when describing serious games, I don't know which one of the two following options I should use: games with educational purposes games for educational purposes I am aware of Is there a difference between “for this purpose” and “to this purpose”? , but I feel it addresses a different situation. I also wonder without the singular form is acceptable as well: games with an educational purpose games for an educational purpose <Q> Generally, something can be done "for a purpose", but a thing has a purpose - so I'd use "with" here. <S> What you're possibly getting at is this essay , titled "The effectiveness of games for educational purposes" (and even if not, it's a good example of a difference). <S> It's kind of hard to explain, but in this case "for educational purposes" refers more to "effectiveness". <S> " <S> The effectiveness of games with educational purposes" would mean "how effective are games which have an educational purpose" - but we don't know what they're effective for . <S> " <S> The effectiveness of games for educational purposes", on the other hand, means "how effective are games when used for educational purposes". <S> Still, in this case, the games might not even have an educational purpose by themselves, but they're used for educational purposes by whoever did the study. <A> It's a fine shade of meaning. <A> To say "games with (an) educational purpose" is to say that education is ONE purpose of the game, but not necessarily the only purpose. <S> On the other hand, saying "games for (an) educational purpose" means that it is THE purpose of the game; there is no other. <S> In the latter case, the "game" aspect (ie the fun-factor) is only a vehicle to accomplish the educational purpose. <S> On the other end of the educational spectrum are games designed purely for entertainment (without an educational purpose), which nevertheless have an incidental educational EFFECT. <A> I think which one you use depends on what you are trying to say. <S> Neither: a game with an educational purpose <S> nor: a game for an educational purpose is a complete sentence, so it's impossible to say which one should be used. <S> The preposition with means you are talking about something instrinsic to the game; for example: Monopoly is a game with an educational purpose . <S> It teaches young children how to make change. <S> while the preposition for is used when describing a reason for doing something: <S> The teacher let his students play Monopoly for an educational purpose ; he wanted them to practice making change. <S> Neither of those sentences is incorrect, or better than the other. <S> One is talking about the game itself; the other is explaining why a teacher used a game during class time. <S> The two very different situations each work better with a different, more suitable preposition. <S> Incidentally, I noticed a lot of your recent questions tend to go something like this: <S> Which is better: This with X , or <S> That with X ? <S> where you are actually using letters like X & Y in your question titles. <S> Such questions are often difficult to answer because the answer may change depending on what X is – as happened in this question. <S> So, please remember, English rarely works like algebra, and getting the right wording is rarely as formulaic as an algebraic function.	I'd say that games with an educational purpose are games that are designed (or marketed) with an educational purpose in mind, whereas games for an educational purpose are games which might be suitable for use in pedagogical contexts. In other words, it's context-dependent .
A comma before "using"? I want to say: We focused on X, using Y. Is it correct to put a comma before "using"? I don't want to write We focused on X and used Y. because I find it ambiguous: it is unclear whether Y was done to achieve X, or Y was done in addition to X. I don't want to write We focused on X using Y. because it is then unclear whether I used Y myself, or simply that I was interested in "X using Y". Example: We focused on patient outcome prediction, using dynamic Bayesian networks to model patients' progression throughout their stay in the ICU. <Q> You got it right. <S> The comma is not only allowed—it is effective in adding clarity, as well as accurately indicating a normal spoken pause <A> We focused on X, using Y. <S> We can't omit the comma from the sentence. <S> In fact, "using Y" is a present participle phrase, which functions as an adjective-phrase. <S> In the sentence, this phrase modifies the pronoun "we", which means we used Y to focus on X. <S> If you don'nt put the comma, the participle phrase will modify Y, which means that "we focused on X that used Y. Pls look at the following examples to find out the difference that sentences make with/without a comma: <S> I saw him walking along the road (the participle phrase modifies "him" <S> I saw him, walking along the road (the phrase modifies "I") <S> He loves his glasses, wearing even at night. <S> (the phrase modifies "he". <S> He loves his glasses wearing even at night (the phrase modifies his glasses, which makes no sense). <A> Though I can't quote a rule, I would naturally pause after the first phrase (i.e. put in a comma) <S> only if the sentence continued, e.g. "We focused on X, using Y, to do Z." Here are examples of the two, <S> as I would speak: We focused on cleaning using detergent rather than solvent. <S> We focused on cleaning, using detergent rather than solvent, to avoid fire hazard. <A> The presence of the comma here is a necessity since without it, the sentence would be unclear. <S> It is used here as an identifier of sorts. <S> Your sentence is not only acceptable, it is clear and in its perfect form as well.	In this case, the comma is necessary.
Changing the word order changes the meaning? I read these sentences recently in a book. What is the difference between these two sentences? I had my car cleaned. and I had cleaned my car. The book gave two different meanings. How would you describe the difference between these two sentences? <Q> The first sentence, "had my car cleaned," implies that someone else did it. <S> "I had my car cleaned [by someone]." Disregarding tenses, you could say "my car was cleaned. <S> " The "had [something done]" setup typically implies that you instructed someone to do it. <S> The second sentence means that you cleaned it. <S> Disregarding tenses again, you could say "I cleaned my car." <A> In "I had my car cleaned" the main verb is "had"; the perfect tense of the verb "to have". <S> In this case it's "to have" in the sense of "to arrange for". <A> The first sentence means "I arranged for somebody to clean my car". <S> It is in the past but the word "had" in this construction indicates the arrangement. <S> The second sentence means that at the point in the past of which I am speaking my car had already been cleaned (by me).	In "I had cleaned my car" the main verb is "had cleaned"; the pluperfect tense of the verb "to clean".
"She is at the dentist's now" Why must we add an 's ? Why "she is at the dentist's now" instead of"at the dentist"? <Q> We don't have to. <S> It's equally correct to say She is at the dentist now. <S> (you can interpret "the dentist" as a synecdoche in which the person stands in for the place) or <S> She is at the dentist's now. <S> (an elliptical way of saying "She is at the dentist's office now <S> *). <S> Which you choose probably depends on what you hear more. <A> It is common to say that you are "at" a place - <S> e.g. at the office or at the railway station. <S> So "at the dentist's" is correct. <S> It is not common to say that you are "at" a person. <S> "She is with the dentist now" would sound better. <A> While most people would recognize "at the dentist" as not quite correct, it is used quite often simply because it is easier (and neater) to say. <S> "Dentist's" can get juicy, especially if you spend a lot of time at the dentist's getting bridgework on your front teeth. <S> Americans are really conscious of spitting when they talk.(US) <A> Grammatically, "dentist" is being used as a placename here, referring to the office itself. <S> That trailing "'s" was phased out of day to day usage in many places, many years ago. <S> Specifying "dentist's" in some regions of the United States would sound, or be considered, overly fussy or exact. <S> Probably not enough that someone would mention it to you, but enough that it would impart a tone to your conversations. <S> This is a natural process of language becoming more efficient, as words take on contextual meanings.	Adding the 's to make "dentist's" indicates the place owned by the dentist - in this case the dentist's surgery.
Should I use 'the' in 'Leaving this page will discard {the} unsaved changes'? In my software, if user edits some content of a document and clicks close icon without saving the changes he made (i.e. without clicking the save icon first), the text of message that I display to the user is as follows: Leaving this page will discard unsaved changes. Should I use ‘the unsaved changes’ instead of simple ‘unsaved changes’? Does this sentence look correct? <Q> The software either knows, or does not know, if there are unsaved changes. <S> That is a yes/no question. <S> So it is either monitoring whether the document is "dirty" <S> (programming jargon for "has unsaved changes") <S> or it is not. <S> OMITTING THE ARTICLE <S> Leaving this page will discard unsaved changes. <S> USING <S> "ANY" INSTEAD OF THE ARTICLE Leaving this page will discard any unsaved changes. <S> USING THE DEFINITE ARTICLE <S> Leaving this page will discard the unsaved changes. <S> To use the definite article <S> the implies that there are in fact unsaved changes to be concerned about, <S> and so there had better be, or the user can lose faith in the software. <S> So a software developer should use the only if the software is actually monitoring the document for changes (and the document is "dirty"). <S> To use any will never be inaccurate, since it implies that there may be such unsaved changes. <S> But to use any explicitly reminds the user every time the warning is displayed that the software is not "intelligent" enough to detect if there are such unsaved changes. <S> So the people in the sales department would advise against any . <S> Why remind the user of a shortcoming? <S> When neither the definite article <S> the nor any is used, the warning becomes a general truth (unsaved changes do not get saved if you exit now), which leaves it up to the user to decide if there are such changes to be concerned about. <S> This is little different than using any ; but it lacks the explicit reminder of the software's shortcoming. <S> This is the version the sales department would opt for when the software lacked the intelligence to track the document's state. <A> The sentence is fine as-is, although adding the word "the" would not make it incorrect. <S> You could also add the word "any"; I think that would sound better than "the": Leaving this page will discard any unsaved changes. <S> It's hard to say if the software engineers were trying to be deliberately terse, or if they simply liked their shorter version better. <S> Maybe they strive to write short messages, much like headline writers do, to save space on mobile devices. <S> A trickier question is, "When is it okay to omit the article, and when must it be left in?" <S> After all, I wouldn't have asked that tricky question as: <S> When is it okay to omit article? <S> You can find more about the null article at this question . <A> Discard the unsaved changes implies that there actually are some changes that have not been saved. <S> Discard unsaved changes could mean that the message is displayed whether or not there actually are unsaved changes, but <S> if there are they will be discarded. <S> If the software correctly detects whether or not there are changes before displaying the message, the unsaved changes might reinforce the sense that the software 'understands' the situation, and increase the chance that the user will think before clicking OK - rather than assuming the message is something automatic that is displayed whether or not there are actually any changes they might want to save. <S> You might even choose to say Leaving this page will discard the unsaved changes to your document - but there is a delicate tradeoff to be made between ensuring your messages <S> mean what you want, and making them too wordy. <S> This question might also be suitable for http://ux.stackexchange.com . <A> Leaving this page will discard unsaved changes. <S> My guess is that it would not be a crime to omit the ; it would be similar to the practice of article omission used in newspaper headlines and in picture captions. <S> As a sidenote, I guess there are some usability guidelines in the software industry that address the topic of "exit messages". <S> Maybe it would be better to rephrase the sentence, like You have unsaved changes. <S> Do you really want to leave this page? <S> or in some other way. <A> I would actually rephrase this message to address the user more directly (which is always a good thing to do, and better for localization): <S> If you leave this page, any unsaved changes will be discarded. <S> Do you want to continue? <S> [Yes] <S> [No] --Ron <A> In this case you know that the user has unsaved changes so I would say, "You have unsaved changes. <S> Leaving this page will discard your changes."	"Leaving this page will discard unsaved changes" has the same meaning as "Leaving this page will discard any unsaved changes" in that it doesn't assume there are any unsaved changes, but if there are it will discard them. In that simple question, I'd say you could use the definite or the indefinitie article, but not the null article.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.