source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Is "more better" ungrammatical? I want to find out whether these sentences are grammatically incorrect: It is more better than your book or It is far more better than your book <Q> Neither are correct. " <S> better" is a comparative form of "good", so you do not need to (and should not) say "more better": say either: <S> It is better than your book. <S> or It is far better than your book. <A> If you study the grammar point comparison forms of adjectives you will find that 1 certain adjectives have the endings -er/ <S> est <S> 2 others use more/most before the adjective 3 <S> some have irregular forms, e.g. good better best <S> http://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjectives/comparing-adjectives/ <A> I agree; it is simply redundant. <S> It's like saying "more, more good" and you'd never (at least one can hope) <S> say, "This book is more, more good than your book. <S> " <S> The usage of "more better" suggests a substandard education.
| Using "more better" is against normal grammar, and if it is used it is uneducated and substandard.
|
to top up a mobile phone In the UK people can say I need to top up my mobile phone (= pay more money so you can make more calls) How do we say this sentence casually in the US or other countries? <Q> American English doesn't have a good idiom for this. <S> "Top up" is used very rarely. <S> It may sometimes be used to describe filling up a partially-full container of liquid (" I've drunk half of the coffee from my mug; please top it up. <S> "), though "top off" is more common. <S> Neither is used to talk about putting money in accounts. <S> Apparently <S> Virgin Mobile calls their cards "top-up cards," but TracPhone and Boost Mobile never use the phrase "top-up" anywhere on their sites. <S> (Instead, they use "Add airtime" or "Refill.") <S> Apparently Best Buy sometimes uses "top-up" to describe refill cards, but mostly the carriers themselves call them "Refill cards." <S> (Consider this example from Verizon : the Best Buy website calls it a "top-up card" but the phrase "top-up card" does not appear anywhere on the product. <S> Instead, it says "Refill card.") <S> Instead, Americans would probably use add minutes or add more minutes in conversation: <S> I need to add [more] minutes to my phone. <S> I'm almost out of minutes. <S> Note that the British prefer "mobile" to talk about mobile phones , while American speakers prefer to say "cell" to talk about their cell phones . <A> In America we say to "top off" rather than to "top up". <S> Also, we generally say "cell phone" rather than "mobile phone", though if you said "mobile phone" people would know what you meant. <S> There may be a difference in meaning here, though. <S> To "top off" something is to fill it to capacity. <S> Often the connotation is that the container is already close to being full. <S> Like if you had a 10 gallon container that presently contained 9 gallons, "topping if off" would mean adding an additional 1 gallon to bring it back up to its full 10 gallons. <S> You probably wouldn't say that you were topping it off if it presently contained only 2 gallons. <S> Then you'd say that you were "filling it up". <S> As cell phone accounts, in the U.S. anyway, don't normally have any upper limit, you wouldn't normally talk about topping one off. <S> I think most Americans with prepaid cell phone accounts say "I am adding minutes to my cell phone" or "adding to my account". <A> For example, I can't make the call right now. <S> I need to buy more minutes for my (cell)phone. <S> Agree that in most areas of the US, "cell" is more commonly used as "mobile", <S> but I think that may be changing. <S> In technical documentation, "mobile" is typically used, but in conversation "cell" is more common. <S> People would understand regardless of which term you used. <A> In English English we would say "I need to top up my mobile" or "I need to top up my 'phone". <A> In American English, "topping up" and "topping off" are used to describe filling up containers of liquid, such as tanks of gasoline. <S> Gasoline retailers specifically recommend against filling gas tanks to 100 percent full, because that can cause excess gasoline to spill out. <S> Statements like this are common and natural: <S> " Top up the tank and off we go again. <S> " <S> If you have a fan blow across the top of a fishtank, " you will have to top up the tank more frequently due to the increased evaporation. " <S> Thus, I intuitively understood the original poster's example: <S> I need to top up my mobile phone. <S> as meaning <S> : I have a pay-as-you-go cell phone. <S> I try to keep $50 [or some other amount] of available balance on it. <S> I am currently below that amount. <S> The next time I am at Safeway [or another store or on-line site that sells cell phone minutes] I will buy some more minutes. <S> That way, I can make a few long calls, without running out of minutes. <S> If this is what the original poster meant, then "I need to top up my cell phone" is a natural way of saying it in the United States. <A> In Bangladesh, they may say the equivalent of "I need to 'flexi' my phone" which comes from the word "flexiload" some mobile service providers used in advertising at the beginning of the system. <S> They may also say "I need to recharge money to my phone" or "I need to fill my mobile balance." <A> To top up a mobile is just a shortened (modern) version of what used to be said when mobiles first appeared en-mass in the UK, back in the 90's which was: To top up the credit on a mobile <S> Here, as has already been noted, there is an assumed analogy between a mobile's credit [tank] and a petrol tank in a car (or topping up the oil in the engine, coolant in the radiator, etc.). <S> However, nowadays " the credit on " is dropped as it is generally assumed that you are talking about the credit - although you could say I'm just going to top up the charge on my mobile <S> thus clarifying that you are referring to the electrical charge in the battery... :-)
| I think the most common American English equivalent would be to "buy more minutes". Americans use the term "cell-phone" or just "cell" but I'm not sure if they use the term "top-up".
|
"Frustrates the life out of me":what does it mean? I came across this phrase that I don't understand. What does it mean? frustrates the life out of me I want to know how to use it too. <Q> "- the life out of me", usually "scared the life out of me", is an idiom. <S> It loosely means "until I had no energy left". <A> It would be more common to say "... frustrates the hell out of me" or "... scares the life out of me". <S> I'd avoid overusing this sort of idiom. <A> Literally, it means to frustrate to the point of death. <S> It's the same basic pattern as "to crush the life out of", as a constrictor snake will crush the life out of its prey before it begins to feed. <S> If anything ever literally frustrated the life out of you, you'd no longer be in a position to tell us. <S> However, something can frustrate you beyond what you are willing or able to tolerate. <S> In such a case, this phrasing makes perfect sense.
| If something frustrates the life out of me, I am exhausted from being so frustrated and feel like I can't do anything else.
|
What is the difference between /tr/ & /tʃ/? I'm very confused! A youtube video explained /tr/ should be pronounced like /tʃr/. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNHI1biK0-4 . Another youtube video explained /tr/ should be pronounced like /t/ & /r/ and try to make a quick link between 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMAv3B5xMZc . So which one is correct? /TR/ is the most difficult sound I have ever known. In other words, how can I distinguish between "cheese" & "trees"; "choose" & "true"? <Q> There appear to be two separate questions: Which one is correct? <S> How can I distinguish between them? <S> Both pronunciations are correct, but they each represent a different accent. <S> The American pronunciation is /tʃɹ/, as in the first video. <S> The second video features an Australian speaker, thus the pure /tr/ sound. <S> Assuming you are not a native speaker of English, it seems silly to provide a phonetic analysis of the two pronunciations. <S> My recommendation is to practice the words exactly as taught in the videos. <S> I think they both do a good job, but you need to choose the specific accent you wish to acquire and practice with that video ONLY. <S> The American accent video does a very good job of teaching awareness of the feel of your lips and tongue so that you include the /ɹ/ sound after the /tʃ/ sound. <S> Here is a bookmark of that portion of the video. <S> Good luck! <A> When I pronounce "TR", my lips are "out" and formed as if I'm about to kiss someone. <S> But when I pronounce "CH" slowly, my lips are in a "smiling" position. <S> This is why sometimes the photographer asks the people being photographed to say "cheese". <S> There are exceptions to the rule. <S> One exception is the "choo choo" onomatopoeia for the train horn. <S> I pronounce it with my lips "out", with the same sound as the word "true". <A> the tongue is just off that ridge and the air almost whistles through it. <S> For /ɹ/, the tongue is further away and further back, possibly even curled back slightly. <S> The reason "trees" might sound like "cheese" <S> is that going from the sound of the /t/ through to the /ɹ/ <S> the tongue more or less moves though the same position it would while making /ʃ/. <S> That's why it can sound like /tʃr/.
| The difference is the position of the tongue: Compared to /t/, where the tongue touches the ridge behind the teeth, in /ʃ/
|
Is it okay to say this: "Do you like to have...?" I was just wondering. Is it OK to say this sentence? Do you like to have coffee tonight when you get home? <Q> Either " Do you want to have coffee tonight... " or " Would you like to have coffee tonight... " would be more natural. <A> real Future + real Future = <S> first conditional If I get home, I will drink coffee. <S> My suggestion <S> Will you drink coffee tonight when you get home? <A> The sentence is grammatically incorrect. <S> As the other two users have pointed out, "would you" is the best choice for the sentence as it signifies a conditional (asking what someone prefers). <S> To start the sentence with "do you" is incorrect because it uses present tense, while the time parameter (tonight) points to an event that will occur in the future. <A> The sentence you wrote is a mix of two constructs, which I know non-native English speakers have trouble with. <S> "Do you like to have coffee when you go home?" is the continuous present, meaning "When you usually go home most nights, do you then like to have coffee? <S> " It's not an invitation. <S> "Would you like to have coffee when you go home tonight?"
| If you mean an invitation on a one-off occurrence, such as tonight, you use the conditional:
|
Usages of "as" and "although" with approximately the same meaning A. Huge boulders, far too big to be used as they were , were lying throughout the bed of the quarry. and B. Huge boulders, although they were far too big to be used , were lying throughout the bed of the quarry. Would anyone please show me if, especially semantically, there is any difference between the two bold parts? Thanks in advance. UPDATED : For clarification I had to edit my question. My Prof. has just shown me the following is correct and means the same thing. WOULD The sentences A and B, therefore, mean the same thing, as well? if so,why? why not? 1. Although it may seem straightforward, the argument is indefensible. 2. Straightforward as it may seem, the argument is indefensible. <Q> "as", and "although" aren't interchangeable. <S> Consider the following: although they were far too big to be used as they were <S> You can combine both and it still means the same thing. <S> The core statement is "they were far to big to be used", and I can add the word although to say that there's something wrong with them, and I can add the phrase as they were to say "in their current state". <S> Let's do an experiment and apply my logic to your update: <S> Although it may seem as straightforward as it may seem... <S> Okay the repetition sounds quite strange, but the meaning has been preserved. <S> The core idea you're trying to get across is 'it may seem straightforward', and you can use either (or both) although and as to get the same effect. <A> Huge boulders, far too big to be used as they were , were lying throughout the bed of the quarry. <S> The bold part gives a reason of why the boulders were "lying" at the quarry. <S> "As they were" means in that state of theirs. <S> Hmm, sensible is this sentence <S> and it can be used in a normal context. <S> Huge boulders, although they were far too big to be used , were lying throughout the bed of the quarry. <S> If it was me who attempted to write this sentence with an "although" , I would have omitted "they were" and changed the sentence to <S> Huge boulders, although far too big to be used, were lying throughout the bed of the quarry. <S> Anyway, that's not the point here. <S> The point is, you have possibly misunderstood their meanings . " <S> Although" is used to demonstrate contrasts. <S> I as the listener would expect to see something like this after the phrase with "although": <S> Although they were far too big to be used, workers wasted a dear amount of precious time trying to make them work. <S> There's no way "as" will be used to show contrasts the way this context is written. <S> And reputable grammar sites or dictionaries can teach you almost all of the usages "as" can have. <A> When as means although, it takes some set pattern: adjective/adverb + as + clause d. Cold as/though it was , we went out. <S> ( = <S> Although it was cold, we went out) <S> e. <S> Tired <S> as/though I was , I went on working. <S> f. <S> Bravely as/though they fought , they had no chance of winning. <S> Note that as in those structures can also mean because . <S> The context will tell you if as means because or although . <S> Tired as she was <S> , I decided not to disturb her. <S> ( = I decided not to disturb her, because she was tired) <S> In AmE as...as is normally used in this structure. <S> As cold as it was , we went out. <S> From Advanced Learner's Dictionary - <S> As ( conjunction ) in the way in which Example They did as I had asked. <S> Leave the papers as they are. <S> Your sentence #A Huge boulders, far too big to be used as they were , were lying throughout the bed of the quarry. <S> Here they were means <S> they appear or their appearance <S> So this sentence means Huge boulders were lying throughout the bed of the quarry. <S> Those huge boulders are far too big, and not suitable to be used in the way in which they appear . <S> Your sentence <S> #2 Straightforward as it may seem , the argument is indefensible. <S> Straightforward as it may seem follows the same pattern adjective/adverb + as + clause <S> And so here as means <S> although . <S> This sentence means Although it may seem straightforward, the argument is indefensible . <S> I believe you have no problem understanding sentence #1 and <S> sentence #B. <A> In your example sentence "as" is a function word for comparison. <S> Both ideas make sense but they are different ideas. <A> These sentences have one thing in common: their full meaning includes a "but" or "however", even though the sentences haven't been constructed to use those words directly. <S> Here's how I might paraphrase the first pair of sentences: <S> Huge boulders were lying throughout the bed of the quarry, but they were far too big to be used. <S> and the second: <S> The argument may seem straightforward, but it is indefensible. <S> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a semantic difference between the two bold parts, but there are many ways these two sentences can be reworded. <S> One way is to put the second part of the sentence first. <S> In the first case, that can be done rather easily using although . <S> Remember, although works like however , but although often works better when you are introducing the "however" part first, like this: Although they were far too big to be used, huge boulders were lyaing throughout the quarry bed. <S> The second sentence is a bit trickier, because of the "may seem" part: <S> Although it is indefensible, the argument may seem straigtforward. <S> This does not work very well, because of the "may seem" part. <S> The construct: <S> Although X, Y works fine, but: <S> Although X, maybe Y can sound rather odd. <S> That leads us to your last pair of sentences: Although it may seem straightforward, the argument is indefensible. <S> Straightforward <S> as it may seem, the argument is indefensible. <S> Both of these essentially mean: <S> The argument is indefensible, even though it might appear to be straightforward.
| "although" expresses contrast, opposion. Although goes at the beginning of the clause and as goes at the end.
|
If there is "incoming", can there be "incame"? So I get incoming mail. Once the mail is here, does it become incame/income ? <Q> In modern usage, income is a noun, meaning "monetary salary": <S> My income is one million dollars per year. <S> We are building new parks in low-income areas. <S> (i.e., areas occupied by people with low incomes) " Incame " is not a word. <S> Once the incoming mail gets in my mailbox, I can say that my mail has arrived . <A> Incoming is an adjective, and so no tenses are applied to it. <S> In present tense <S> All of the incoming mails go into the inbox <S> Then the past tense All of the incoming mails went into the inbox. <S> However, that doesn't really answer your question. <S> I think, as you are asking about the state of the mail itself, the actual answer to your question is received . <S> To illustrate, consider the following: <S> Incoming mail gets routed through the mail server. <S> Received mail resides on the storage server. <S> Hope that helps. <A> So I get incoming mail. <S> Once the mail is here, does it become incame/income ? <S> No, <S> but maybe there should be. <S> It is quite useful and logical. <S> On the other hand, we do have 'The mail that came in (just now/yesterday/this morning/etc) <S> We also have today's mail / <S> this morning's mail /etc <A> Sometimes there are isolated adjectives having the form of a present participle, but the corresponding verb is lacking or was not necessary. <S> It is Attention please, train's comin(g) in! <S> Not: <S> Train's incoming.
| There is a noun income and an adj in participle form incoming, but there is no verb to *income as a look at a dictionary will show you.
|
Choice of the word indicating a job title I am translating text in a blank form which will be sent by my organization to another organization. In this blank form I have to write a general word indicating a job position of an employee, i.e. a person who will fill out this form on behalf of his or her organization. I wrote the words 'Full Name' of a receiver or an employee. And I also need a word signifying a job title of a receiver. Which word is the most suitable for such a form? I am hesitating between 'job title' , 'job position' , 'position' and 'post' . Which word is the clearest and does not give rise to questions? <Q> It somewhat depends on what precisely you mean. <S> Of your options listed, "job title" seems the most sensible and most likely to be encountered. <S> "Job position" is not a combination I have heard of, but you can easily guess its meaning. <S> "Position" is sometimes used, but I would expect it more likely to be used in conversation than on a form Example: <S> "What is your position at this company <S> " "Post" has an older, more British or military sound to it, so probably not a good fit. <S> If you are asking what the person does now at their current employer, job title is good. <S> If you want to know what they do in general for employment then profession or career might be suitable. <A> You have to decide between "potential addressee" or "applicant" for this question. <S> Addressee lacks context. <S> Occupation is the typical word on forms sent out to "addressees", whereas with an applicant, one might want to know their previous Job Title. <S> Job titles vary from organization to organization, whereas "occupation" is a much narrower, and much more regular, list. <S> OCCUPATIONS Farmer Clerk Accountant Doctor Attorney Sales Rep etc <S> A <S> Job <S> Title might be "Assistant Vice-President", or "Chief of Staff", or "Human Resources Manager", or "Director of Operations for The Americas|Pacific Rim|Emerging Markets". <A> I would go for: <S> That's what we used all the last few corporations that I worked for. <S> They tend to lend the form an air of formally, which you don't really get when using the word job . <S> Although, ironically, I think that we used "Job description" for the larger description in the advertisement... <S> Hope that helps.
| " Role applied for ", or " Position applied for " - for the new job position ; " Applicant's full name " - for their name, and; " Current Occupation " - for their current job.
|
Why how 'old' are you, not how 'young' are you? English (the language) always gives an impression of being positive. For example, when little kids are making mistake, it will refer to as 'being creative' instead of 'being incorrect'. So as my title, isn't it the opposite? I assume asking how "old" is not very polite, so I usually avoid it and ask 'what's your age' <Q> English (the language) always gives an impression of being positive. <S> This is not really a property of the language per se as the surrounding culture in which it exists. <S> It is still very if not equally important to understand this if you want to effectively communicate in a given culture. <S> Read about political correctness . <S> Why how 'old' are you, not how 'young' are you? <S> You don't gain youth as time passes, you gain "oldness." <S> So the oldness is what's measured. <S> Measuring something you don't collect outside of a scientific context is weird. <S> It's similar to asking "how much air is in this cup" as you are pouring water into it <S> - you don't really want to know how much air is in the cup, but how much water. <S> I assume asking how "old" is not very polite <S> I would say in the US at least - it isn't unless among family, people who know each other well, or authority contexts where age verification is called for, such a police offer asking the age of a teenager who is doing something they shouldn't. <S> If you are older than the person and taking on a mentor role, it should be OK to ask. <S> I would avoid this if you are trying to be polite. <A> This may be slightly tangential, but there exists a common-enough case where elderly people, in response to questions about there age, reply " <S> I'm 70 (for example) years young ". <S> This is purely for irony, however, and not in line with standard usage patterns. <A> There are many words for quantities that express "a lot" versus "a little". <S> There's the example you give: "young", i.e. few years, versus "old", i.e. many years. <S> There are "near" and "far", "short" and "tall", "weak" and "strong", etc. <S> In general, we use the word for "a lot" when asking where something falls on a range. <S> So we generally ask, "How tall are you?", not "How short are you?" <S> We ask, "How far is it?", not "How near is it?" <S> Etc. <S> We usually use the "few" word only when we want to emphasize the "few-ness" of it. <S> Whether this is positive or negative depends on the quantity being measured and the context. <S> If I'm planning to run an errand, far away is probably bad. <S> If I'm asking the distance from my home to a toxic waste dump, far away is probably good. <S> As an old man, I find your implication that "old" is somehow negative offensive. <S> I think that as I get older I am gaining maturity and wisdom. :-) <S> But seriously, if you ask a small child how old he is, he tries to overstate it. <S> "I'm 5 1/2". <S> "I'm almost 6. <S> " Etc. <S> He sees being older as a positive thing. <S> If you ask a middle-aged woman how old she is, she tends to understate it. <S> "I'm ever so much more than 20", as Wendy says to Peter Pan. <S> She sees being older as a negative thing. <S> Old milk is bad; old wine is good. <S> It all depends. <A> Yes, it would be nice to ask this, isn't it? <S> But, as a fact of life, with each passing day and year, we grow older, not younger. <S> So, at any given time, we are older than what we were at any time before. <S> And if we take "any time before" the starting time of our life, i.e. 0, then the current "oldness" is the years we have lived. <S> Hence, asking "how old are you" to know our relative age from the time of birth. <S> On the other hand, if we ask "how young are you," it may mean "how many more years are you to live" which is not very polite. <S> However, for creativity's sake, or for fun, we can ask people "how young are you" just to surprise them with a smile, because they will just think that we are referring to their age as their youth.
| But asking "how young are you" doesn't make it polite, it makes it seem like you are trying to deliberately not use the word "old". Another permissible context for asking age is collecting details on people registering, signing up for something, or attending an event.
|
What do you call the sanitary equipment? Is there a word for things that include w.c. pan, washbowl, bath tub, shower cabin etc? <Q> For American English: These are usually called "fixtures. <S> " <S> Those specific to handling water are "plumbing fixtures. <S> " <S> Those specific to the bathroom are "bathroom fixtures. <S> " <S> (Most people who aren't architects or contractors don't use these terms very much. <S> Usually people call the fixtures by their individual names: "toilet," "tub," "kitchen (or bathroom) sink. <S> " Sometimes people will talk more generally about "the plumbing," which includes the plumbing pipes, valves, & etc. <S> as well as the plumbing fixtures.) <S> In the US, the toilet is usually located in the bathroom, along with the bathroom sink, and the bathtub or shower stall. <S> An American asking to "use the bathroom" almost invariably wants to use the toilet. <S> The only plumbing fixture commonly found in the kitchen is the kitchen sink. <S> Other kitchen fixtures usually include the refrigerator, which is an electrical fixture; and the stove (sometimes called the "range"), which may be an electrical or a (natural) gas fixture. <S> Other household fixtures include electrical lighting fixtures and gas or electric heaters. <S> In AmE: w.c. pan = toilet bowl (almost always joined to the toilet tank and just called the "toilet") <S> washbowl = sink <S> bath tub <S> = bathtub <S> shower cabin = shower stall or <S> just "shower" (bidet = bidet, but <S> they are so rare here that they may be most frequently referred to by: "What the heck is that thing?") <A> These are called "bathroom fixtures" (in America). <S> Of course, in America we don't have a w.c.—we have bathrooms, which include a fixture called the "toilet". <S> And we have never heard of these "sanitary fittings" mentioned in other answer. <S> So it would be good to clarify what country you want terminology for. <A> You can call "fixtures", but it is a bit ambiguous because it includes every piece of furniture or equipment fixed in a house, which you cannot take with you when you move to another house. <S> I think it's better and common to say in two words "sanitary fittings". <A> In my country if you say you want to use the bathroom, they will think that you want to take a bath. <S> WC is used mainly by Architects. <S> The common word is toilet if you mean toilet and bathroom if you want to wash or take a bath or shower.
| Those specific to handling bodily wastes (toilets and urinals) are known as "sanitary fixtures."
|
Mythological/godlike name for a manager I wonder if there's a term, possibly a name, relating to a god, mythological creature or such, that is used in English to describe a person, software or organization that manages cases, runs errands and takes care of issue resolutions. For instance, I've hear people call a guy by the name of Argus and for a very long time I believed that it was his actual name. Turns out, they only meant that the person in question keeps an eye on all the details, is never ambushed and knows what's going on around in the office. There's a software related solution called Kerberos , which refers to the doggie watching at the door of a rather hot place. The software is used for security and protection in the digital environment. I'd like to know if there's anything equivalent (possibly extremely rarely used in, or at the very least applicable to, English language) for a case managing and/or issue resolution instance, person or software. <Q> The closest I can think of is wizard . <S> It's not a proper name like Argus, but it does denote a mythological profession. <S> As Macmillan says: wizard ( n. ) a man in stories who has magic powers <S> but the second definition reads: <S> wizard <S> someone who is very good at something <S> I like the meaning listed in Collins even better: wizard ( n. ) <S> a person who is outstandingly clever in some specified field; expert <S> ( noun ) used with a subject matter to refer to a person with deep, expert knowledge of that subject matter : <S> We're looking to hire a Unix wizard . <S> If you're looking for a proper name, there's always Hercules , who was known for his twelve labors, and who gave us the word herculean to describe something that is tremendously arduous or difficult. <S> Out of curiosity, I entered software herculean task into a search engine , and found no small number of business articles, tech columns, and blogs, that mentioned things such as: <S> The Herculean task of upgrading a development language or environment <S> the information needed to be successful in the herculean task of securing your company with a modern SIEM <S> With that in mind, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to hang the nickname Hercules on someone who keeps a software organization running smoothly. <S> (I've never heard that used, though, so I suppose it falls under the category of "possibly extremely rarely used".) <A> You probably want the name of an ancient king. <S> If you want to be snarky, a possibility is: Herod, the infamous "pointy haired boss". <S> If you want to honor the manager, a possibility is: Cyrus (a.k.a. Koresh), the Persian who established a cosmopolitan empire under the rule of law. <S> He defeated the Assyrian empire, which had boasted of its looting. <S> Another possibility is a "messenger of the Gods": <S> Iris <S> Hermes Mercury <A>
| The meaning listed in the Online Slang Dictionary seems even closer to what you are seeking: wizard The best nickname would probably be Zeus the highest god in Greek mythology.
|
A single word for "assert, but without or before proof." "Allege" is a close one, but it related to something illegal or wrong. Is there a word just means "assert, but without or before proof."? Alleged, as an adjective, means that something was said to have taken place, but it has not been proven. It is often used when reporting about a person or incident that occurred, but the person has not yet been tried and convicted of the crime or the incident has not been verified by authorities. Unfortunately it is frequently used incorrectly. In your first example sentence, alleged means "asserted to be true, often without or before proof." -- An answer about alleged on english.stackexchange <Q> IMHO, to assert is already the word you're looking for, in contrast to to prove or to verify . <S> Other than that, to assume could also apply. <S> Definitions from Oxford dictionaries: <S> assert State <S> a fact or belief confidently and forcefully. <S> allege [as you said] Claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof. <S> assume <S> Suppose to be the case, without proof. <S> prove <S> Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument. <S> verify Make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified. <A> pos•it (ˈpɒz ɪt) <S> v.t. <S> 1. <S> to lay down or assume as a fact or principle; postulate. <S> 2. <S> to place, put, or set. <S> n. 3. <S> something posited; assumption; postulate. <S> posit. <S> (n.d.) <S> Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary. <S> (2010). <S> Retrieved January 22 2015 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/posit <A> Are you looking for something like "speculation"(to speculate)? <S> What also comes to my mind is "assumption"(to assume) or "presumption" - they are weaker.
| I believe you're looking for the word "posit". Allege is similar to assert and expresses that the user of the word is not convinced about the truth yet.
|
Should I use "other" or "another" in the following case? The dogs were put in pairs, one with a lever that stopped the shocks, and other/another with a lever that didn't. Should I use other or another ? <Q> Because you've already introduced the dogs earlier on in the sentence I'd go with: <S> The dogs were put in pairs, one with a lever that stopped the shocks, and the other with a lever that didn't. <S> Notice <S> I can't say "... and other with... <S> ", I need to add the definite article. <A> you can use both other and another . <S> other is used in a sentence before the plural or uncountable nouns. <S> `eg: other people have problems too. <S> ` <S> but another is used in a sentence before the singular and countable nouns. <S> `eg: <S> I would like another piece of cake` here in this sentence use of another <S> will be correct, because you are representing a single dog not group of dogs. <A> First, the phrase should be: <S> The dogs were put in pairs, one with a lever that stopped the shocks, and the other (another) with a lever that didn't. <S> In the phrase above, you are indicating there are only two pair of dogs. <S> When you use another , it is choosing a different option or item amongst an unknown quantity. <S> In the phrase above, you can't tell how many pairs of dogs there are. <S> You should choose which one fits your situation.
| When you use the other , it is choosing the second of two options or items.
|
Are you sitting in front of a computer screen or a computer? I am sorry but I feel confused by "computer screen" and "computer" alone when I tried to tell my friends what I was doing. (1): I am sitting in front of a computer screen talking to you with a webcam. (2): I am sitting in front of a computer talking to you with a webcam. I am not sure whether (1) and (2) are equivalent, but if they are, then, they will make me confused again: when your computer becomes old and you are going to buy a new one, so how will you tell your parents about this then? (1): Hi, Dad and Mom, I need some money to buy a new computer. (2): Hi, Dad and Mom, I need some money to buy a new computer screen. <Q> A computer screen actually refers to the monitor, though it often is used in kind of an uneducated way to refer to a computer. <S> People used to use "T.V. screen" this way too. <S> In describing your situation, actually you are in front of the webcam. <S> And you are talking into it. <S> So I would say: I am sitting in front of a computer, talking to you over the webcam. <S> As for the second phrase, you only need to say: Hi, Dad and Mom, I need some money to buy a new computer. <S> The monitor might be separate, so say "new monitor" if that is what you need. <A> On desktop computers, the monitor is separate from the actual computer, but in laptops and tablets the screen is built into the computer. <S> As for your first two sentences, either one is fine, although I would use "on a webcam" rather than "with a webcam". <S> A "computer" or a "computer screen" are two different things, so you would need to figure out which you mean before you tell your parents which one you want to buy. <A> In this context, they are equivalent. <S> The word "computer" can refer to the whole system - the tower, the monitor, the keyboard, the mouse, the printer, etc., all together. <S> If I say "I'm setting up my computer", I might mean "I'm setting up my computer, and all the things that are normally attached to my computer." <S> The word "computer" stands for the whole system because it's the most important part of that system. <S> (It.s technically an instance of metonymy , if you want to get technical.) <S> In that context, my computer screen is part of "my computer". <S> Specifically, it's the part of the computer I interact with. <S> "I am sitting in front of a computer" means "I am sitting in front of a system of devices, of which the computer is the most important part." <A> If you're talking about the part of the computer you're looking at, then computer and computer screen are synonymous. <S> "I am tired of sitting in front of the computer / computer screen all day." <S> This is especially the case with most Apple computers, where even the desktops have the screen built into the case, but even if you have a situation where you have the computer itself in a case and the monitor is nothing but a screen, people will still understand "computer" to mean "computer screen" and vice versa -- most of the time. <S> (E.g., "That joke was so funny <S> I spat water all over my computer!") <S> As noted above, if you need to replace a component, then it matter whether you need to replace the computer (the part that computes), the computer screen (or monitor), the keyboard, the motherboard, the hard drive, the CD drive, the mouse/trackpad/trackball, etc. <S> (E.g., "That joke was so funny <S> , I spat my drink all over my computer, and now I need to replace my computer screen.") <S> If you have a computer where everything is in the same case -- a laptop or most Apple desktops -- then "I need a new computer" will be understood to encompass the entire device: the computing part, the screen, the keyboard, etc.
| "Computer screen" refers to the screen itself, frequently called a monitor .
|
{"Have become" / "Became"} "popular over the past few years?" "Reality shows have become very popular over the past few years."Is it okay to replace "have become" with "became" in this sentence? :) <Q> It would not be incorrect, but the nuances might shift. <S> At least some listeners would expect "became" to be followed by a range of dates -- with the implication that Reality Shows are no longer popular, or that their popularity is waning. " <S> Have become" implies they could still be popular, and is a bit more harmonious to my ears. <S> This may be my individual "dialect" of American, though. <A> The sentence "Reality shows have become very popular over the past few years. <S> " indicates that the shows are on the rise starting from "the past few years" and they are still popular/still rising. <S> The sentence "Reality shows became very popular over the past few years. <S> " is grammatically correct; however, it indicates an ambiguity of the popularity of the shows now. <S> The sentence states that the shows have become popular in those "few years" but does not reveal any information about "now. <S> " <S> Therefore, using became can turn the sentence into an indicator of a change in the next sentence. <A> I find the use of became out of place in this sentence. <S> Became <S> is an event verb that describes a single action. <S> The verb itself does not have a sense of duration. <S> Other verbs, taught , read , worked are past verbs that can describe ongoing activities. <S> The phrase over the past few years describes a period of time. <S> It seems to me that verbs that can be seen as a one-time event, such as "became", do not work so great in the proposed sentence: ? <S> * <S> Reality shows became very popular over the past few years. <S> ? <S> *Germany won the World Cup over the past few years. <S> ? <S> * <S> She went on a diet over the past few years. <S> ? <S> * <S> The man won the lottery over the past few years. <S> But consider verbs that express more of of a duration: <S> I taught English over the past few years. <S> The woman read several books over the past few years. <S> He worked at the TV station over the past few years. <S> In some of the above, "during the past few years" sounds better than *over the past few years. <S> " I suppose it might be up to how one takes "over the past few years", whether it refers to a single time period, such as yesterday, last week, last month, or as indicating an ongoing period of time. <S> If the latter, I don't think became works that great.
| It depends on whatever meaning that you are trying to convey.
|
the usage of dies instead of died https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/king-abdullah-bin-abdulaziz-al-saud/ Saudi King Abdullah dies aged 90 I can't understand why in the above sentence there is "dies" instead of "died". about that event, bbc world news television, uses "dies" instead of "died" too. why? <Q> This is known as historical present, dramatic present or narrative present. <S> It is the use of the present tense to describe a past event, usually for dramatic emphasis; it makes it seem more real. <S> Saudi King Abdullah dies aged <S> 90 <S> Could also have been stated as: <S> Saudi King Abdullah dead age 90 or <S> Saudi King Abdullah has died at age 90 <A> This sounds like a headline. <S> Headlines and titles are not complete sentences and are often not grammatically correct. <S> They're trying to get an idea across in as few words as possible. <S> Headlines often use present tense for something which happened very recently, perhaps because the idea of "news" is that readers want to know what is happening "now". <S> If it was a full sentence, you might write, "King Abdullah died last Thursday at the age of 90." <S> But when you're trying to be concise for a headline, and the death was very recent, like today or yesterday, you just say "King Abdullah dies". <S> In this case, they apparently thought his age at death was important, so they tack on the "Age 90". <A> Saudi King Abdullah dies aged 90. <S> Present simple is also used to express a recent past event. <S> You cannot use it in your colloquial or formal English. <S> It's typical journalese used in news headlines.
| It's very common in headlines and new stories, especially for deaths.
|
"There are" and "There is"? "There is a banana and an apple on the floor." "There are a banana and an apple on the floor." "There are bananas and an apple on the floor." "There is a banana and apples on the floor." I'm confused with the rules of using "is" and "are." Please tell me which one is correct and which is not. And based on what the verb has to be conjugated? Is it the total amount of the subject mentioned or is it just the first subject? <Q> It has to be "are" as verbs are conjugated in coherence with the complete subject. <S> Omit the "there" to make it easier; "A banana and an apple is on the floor" or " <S> A banana and an apple are on the floor" <S> The first one is incorrect. <S> In the same way you would say: My friend and I are going places. <A> While a native speaker would probably not blink at speech <S> that said, "There's a banana and an apple on the floor," it's not actually correct. <S> "There is cat fur on my coat." <S> "There is someone at the door." <S> Meanwhile, "There are" is for plurals. <S> " <S> There are cats on my coat. <S> There are oranges on the floor. <S> There are people at the door." <S> While "fruit" counts as a singular, once you separate it out into "fruit 1 and fruit 2," it becomes plural, and therefore, uses "There are. <S> " <S> AverageGatsby's answer basically gives a good rule of thumb on whether you can use "is" or "are." <A> There is a banana & an apple on the floor. <S> There are bananas & apples on the floor. <S> Here, "are" signifies a multitude of said fruits, and hence the plural form.
| Here, the "is" signifies that there's a single item of both. "There is" is used primarily for singular nouns: "There is fruit on the floor."
|
Why is "alike" not possible in this sentence? (Choosing from: alike, similar to, exactly and just as) Good press photographers must have an ‘eye’ for news, __ (?) __ journalists must have a ‘nose’ for a good story. In that sentence I was supposed to choose the right answer from these options: alike , similar to , exactly and just as . The answer is just as . Can you explain to me why the option alike is not possible? <Q> Alike is an adjective. <S> What you need here is a conjunction. <A> Just As Good press photographers must have an ‘eye’ for news, just as journalists must have a ‘nose’ for a good story. <S> If one joined the sentences with "just as," then "as" would be a conjunction, modified with the adverb "just." <S> This is an efficient, natural way to express this. <S> Note that this is comparing the idea of need for an eye with the idea of need for a nose. <S> Similar to <S> Similar can be made to work in a couple of ways <S> Good press photographers must have an ‘eye’ for news, similar to journalists, who must have a ‘nose’ for a good story. <S> Here, we are comparing photographers with journalists. <S> Photographers are similar to journalists. <S> Additional verbiage specifies how. <S> Good press photographers must have an ‘eye’ for news; Similarly, journalists must have a ‘nose’ for a good story. <S> Now we are using the adverbial form, similarly, and we are again comparing the existence of two needs, rather than comparing photographers vs. journalists directly. <S> Exactly <S> Exactly can be an adverb modifying as <S> (See the first example, with just .) <S> Good press photographers must have an ‘eye’ for news, exactly as journalists must have a ‘nose’ for a good story <S> This is grammatical, but doesn't sound as smooth to me as using just did. <S> Alike <S> "Alike" can be an adjective or an adverb. <S> In neither form is does it work well in this sentence. <S> In dated English, you might see: Good press photographers must have an ‘eye’ for news, alike as journalists, who must have a ‘nose’ for a good story. ... <S> but this sounds biblical and weird in this context. <S> I think it is grammatical, but it is far from idiomatic. <S> Just like J.R. points out in the comments that just like can be used also. <S> The totally non-controversial way would be like this: <S> Good press photographers must have an ‘eye’ for news, just like journalists, who must have a ‘nose’ for a good story. <S> Like is a preposition, <S> just is an adverb. <S> Another option exists: <S> Good press photographers must have an ‘eye’ for news, just like journalists must have a ‘nose’ for a good story. <S> Here like is being used as a conjunction. <S> This is not its historical function , and many people consider it wrong. <S> I avoid using like as a conjunction, but I am including it because one does hear/see this construction frequently, at least in the U.S. <A> When comparing two predicates (has quills....has needles) <S> we use "as". <S> A porcupine has quills just as a cactus has needles. <S> When we wish to say two nouns (e.g. cactus, porcupine) share a feature, we say they are similar to each other or that they are alike . <S> The cactus is similar to the porcupine. <S> The cactus and the porcupine are alike . <S> The expression <S> exactly the same means that something is identical to something else. <S> I have been stuck by a porcupine, and I have been stuck by a cactus. <S> The pain was exactly the same .
| "Just as" is effectively a conjugation.
|
cash register 'out of balance' What does it mean when a cash register is out of balance ? I cannot seem to find " out of balance " in dictionaries. Could it be a technical jargon? <Q> A modern cash register maintains a record of the transactions that it has "registered". <S> This record of transactions is, in accounting terms, a "ledger" or "subledger". <S> The "ledger" has "balances". <S> The initial balance, plus the net amount that has been received, should equal the final balance. <S> In other words, the cash register can tell you how much money should be "in the till". <S> A mistake was made somewhere along the line. <A> In all sorts of financial contexts balance refers to the requirement that two values must be equal. <S> For instance, in an account you maintain with your bank your balance is the difference between the money you have put into the account and the money you have taken out in the form of checks or charges or withdrawals. <S> That difference (positive, you hope!) <S> ‘balances’ the account: added to what you have taken out it equals what you have put in. <S> In the same way, if you run a business, your books are periodically audited to make sure they are in balance : that assets balance liabilities and revenues balance disbursements. <S> A cashier’s <S> register is similarly audited once or twice per shift to make sure that the amount of cash and checks and charges in the till balances the value of goods shown as sold on the accounting tape. <S> If these values are not equal, the register is ‘out of balance’. <A> There are a couple of possibilities. <S> 1: It's tilted. <S> 2 <S> : It's a jargon term for not having the amount of money in the cashbox as the machine's own records say it should. <S> Many modern cash registers keep a tally of how much money should have been put in and taken out, and at the end of the shift, the worker takes that balance <S> and it gets checked against the amount that's actually in the cashbox. <S> This lets management know if someone is perhaps skimming money from it, or being forgetful in handing out the right amount of change (which can make customers upset if they notice). <S> Some links that don't quite use "out of balance" as a term, but do lend plausibility to the second explanation: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-balance-cash-register-transactions.html <S> http://retail.about.com/od/storeoperations/qt/drawer_balance.htm <S> (This one is especially helpful.)
| If the final balance does not correspond to what is in the till, the "cash register is out of balance".
|
Difference between "won't" and "wouldnt" Here's an example : "My tastes are very singular, you wouldn't understand" Now my question is keeping this sentence in my mind we can substitue "wouldn't" with "won't" here right? But what would that mean here? <Q> Try seeing the two versions this way: "[I'll tell you about it but] you won't understand. <S> (simple future negative) <S> VS <S> [I'm not going to tell you because] you wouldn't understand ( <S> conditional future negative: i.e., wouldn't understand EVEN IF I were to tell you) <A> There is a tendency of using contracted form, for example - <S> I will -> <S> I'll <S> We are -> <S> We're <S> The contracted form won't results from woll not = <S> will not There are many variations of won't - for example, wonnot, woonnot, wo'nt - but they now are either obsolete or restricted in some dialects. <S> Some of these variants are recorded as early as the 15C won't emerged in 17C as the standard form. <S> The short form of will not is won't <S> Note - wo <S> nt <S> and won't are not the same, they are different. <S> Contraction of would not is wouldn't . <S> As for the replacement in your sentence, yes, you can do that without any changes being made in meaning. <S> But there is a slight difference in tone. <S> By using would not you make the sentence less direct. <A> The accurate answer: <S> "Would" is the past tense of will (aux.v.). <S> It is used as a conditionals and to express that something is unlikely to happen . <S> (It is also used in polite requests, but in that case it is, as I explained here , a conditional). <S> "Will not" implies that there is as reason which hinders him <S> /her from understanding your taste regardless of anything else. <S> E.g.: "I will not tell you why therefor you wont understand it." <S> But only a pedant would correct you or be disturbed by your usage of "won't" It is also worth noting that Google Ngram has around as many hits for "you would not" as for "you will not"
| The simple answer: Yes they are, in this case, interchangeable If we look upon the sentence from a theoretical viewpoint, the two sentences have slightly different connotations.
|
What's indirect about indirect objects? Source: p 126, If I Was You... , Lauren Sussman, 2014 The third type of complement used with a transitive verb is an indirect object . It comes before a direct object and answers the question to whom? or for whom? after the subject and verb. I ask not about the meaning of an indirect object, about which I've read, but about the rationale behind the nomenclature. Wikipedia's explanation is too feeble (as it concedes itself); how's he (as represented by him ) only indirectly affected ? He received the present, so the sending affects him! Indirect object | Entity indirectly affected by the action | She sent him a present. <Q> Law Area 51 <S> Proposal - Co <S> , I think your confusion stems from you not using the sentence as it is strictly constructed to figure out what are the direct and indirect objects. <S> (On another note, this is why diagramming sentences shouldn't be a lost art.) <S> Specifically the direct object is the primary target of the verb and the first necessary thing to happen. <S> The indirect object[s] is/are the secondary target[s] of the verb and anything that is referred or happens after the first thing has occurred. <S> The original sentence is: " <S> She sent him a present." <S> In this example, the verb is "sent". <S> The sentence says nothing about "him" receiving the present. <S> He may have received the present, but that is not part of the sentence's syntax. <S> If "she" does not send 'a present" (direct/primary action) <S> nothing else (indirect/secondary actions) is referred by the verb ("him") and nothing else happens. <S> Also, think of it as those parts of the sentence that are unnecessary. <S> The sentence may be incomplete (as a concise thought), but it is grammatical and makes sense. <S> Therefore, you could remove the indirect object and recompose the original sentence as: <S> "She sent a present." <S> I have attached a diagram. <S> I hope my answer is clear and helps. <A> If you say, "I give a book to him", there's a subject, indirect object and direct object. <S> The subject is, of course, me. <S> As for the direct / indirect objects, there's a book being given and a man receiving it. <S> Although the man is very much involved in the exchange, he is only the recipient. <S> There's also a book in there being thrown about the place, who is far more involved. <S> So, from that logic, the book becomes the direct object and the man the indirect object. <A> We're talking about the objects of a verb, specifically the objects of a transitive verb. <S> An over-simplified way to describe a transitive verb (in the active voice) is to say that it carries an action from a subject to a direct object. <S> She sent him a present. <S> That sentence includes the idea of a sent present. <S> The present receives the action that the verb carries. <S> Now, what about him? <S> We're not talking about a sent person. <S> This guy does not receive the action. <S> Instead, he receives the direct object -- the present itself. <S> The subject causes the action. <S> The verb carries the action. <S> The direct object receives the action. <S> The indirect object receives something else -- something that isn't the direct action. <S> The indirect object receives either the direct object or the benefit of the action. <S> Yes, he got the present. <S> That's the more distant, less direct relationship with the verb. <S> The present, on the other hand, got sent. <S> What could be more direct than that? <A> Mary gave me a book. <S> Subject is Mary - the subject is who/what is doing the action. <S> What did Mary give? <S> A book. <S> The book is the "direct object" - what's receiving the action or what's being "targeted" by the action. <S> That leaves "me". <S> "Me" is not directly receiving any action or item. <S> It's coming to me indirectly by way of Mary. <S> That's why it's called the indirect object.
| The indirect object is involved, not with the verb's action, but with the results of that action.
|
Does 'sic' behave as any other English adverb? This question is motivated by my attempt to complement [sic] with some text to clarify the original errors . I wanted to elucidate that the original website erroneously displayed two quotation marks with: ODO, Definition 1. sic {adverb} = used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original... So far as sic resides in brackets , did I enlarge on sic grammatically and rightly? Can I use sic , of Latin origin, with other words? <Q> Sic is not an English word, it’s a Latin word. <S> So, it’s normally italicized when it appears in English text. <S> It’s Latin for "thus". <S> People put it in brackets when quoting text to indicate that what might appear to be a transcription error is actually faithful to the original. <S> It’s short for sic erat scriptum , which is Latin for "Thus it was written" or "It was written this way." <S> It’s not like pace , mutatis mutandis, ceteris paribus, i.e., e.g., etc., which commonly do appear untranslated within English sentences and perform English grammatical roles. <S> The monster’s diary said on p. 52, "Dr. Frankenstein’s work effected [ sic ] my judgement." <S> A reader might think this is a common mistake: confusing affect for effect . <S> But the monster really does mean effect as a verb, since Dr. Frankenstein’s work really did accomplish the creation of the monster’s ability to judge. <S> Bryan Garner has some comments about its use in legal writing here , including some common ways that people use it disparagingly or ironically, such as to unnecessarily point out a spelling error in a quotation. <S> That’s really an abuse of sic . <S> It's proper to correct typographical errors when quoting, unless an error is material to the reason you’re quoting it. <S> Garner suggests that the insulting usage of [ sic ] is currently the most common; the need for the ordinary, legitimate use of [ sic ] is pretty unusual. <S> Of course, this is English, so if you want to use sic in some new, creative way, like as an adverb in an English sentence, or even as a verb with a terminal <S> -ing, you can. <S> It’s best to become familiar with the customary usage first, of course, so you can judge how far you can stretch existing custom and still be understood (and not be thought to be making an error, which someone will no doubt insultingly quote with a [ sic ] <S> — sic ’ing it to you, you might say). <A> [sic] Is normally used to point out that you intended to write something in this exact way ( thus! ). <S> Yes, you can mark these quotation marks with [sic] but i do not think you need to elaborate why. <S> Yes [sic] has other applications . <S> It is mostly used for quotations and "copied" words but it can as well be used in other context. <S> E.g if the orthography of "gangsta rap" is possibly unclear to your readers you would write "gangsta rap"[sic!] . <S> Exclamation mark optional. <A> Well, the only way you can use sic (the Latin one) is to indicate that the cited text was exactly as you presented it, when there is some oddity you wouldn't have put there ( <S> e.g. a misspelling). <S> I like the way you explained about the quotation marks, because otherwise we might have tried to find what was unusual about the preceding word. <S> I have never seen explanation anywhere else with "sic", but yours is the first case I have seen where explanation seems needed. <S> "sic" is a special case, and does not behave like other sdverbs. <S> It doesn't attach to any verb; it's not a sentence adverb, as it "modifies" only the word before it (or short quoted passage); and it can "modify" ANY part of speech (a pronoun, a preposition, an interjection, anything!) <S> I hope you are aware of the other, English word sic, used in referring to setting your dog to attacking someone. <S> This is a verb that can be conjugated.
| Sic usually goes in brackets all by itself, right after the word or passage that a reader might reasonably think is a transcription error, like this: Sic is an adverb in Latin , but it’s not normally put into an English sentence.
|
Meaning of the word "blue" in song lyrics Can anybody tell me what the word "blue" means here? And how can it make the protagonist get high/low? Little girl, little girl You should close your eyes That blue is getting me high And making me low I found out that there is an English verb "to blue" which doesn't really make sense here. Maybe it refers to her blue eyes and getting high has to do with love.That's what I thought so far. Find source here. <Q> Song lyrics are often complex, because (like poetry) they try to evoke emotion with layered meanings. <S> First, let's look at "getting me high, and making me low". <S> To "get high" means to reach a state of euphoria or bliss, often through the use of drugs. <S> Conversely, to be "low" means to be depressed, dejected, or diminished. <S> In context, it means "that blue" is creating both positive and negative emotions. <S> Blue is ambiguous here. <S> It could refer to her eye color, and he could be so struck by her beauty that he is moved to these emotions. <S> However, it's also worth noting that "blue" is also a common way to refer to sadness, so it's possible he is reacting to her emotions. <S> He could also be referring to his own emotions in reaction to her eyes. <S> As I said, ambiguous. <A> Given that it directly follows the line telling her to close her eyes, it's very likely that blue refers to eye colour. <S> Blue may be to emphasise the youth and innocence of the girl. <S> Mike Kozar's answer covers the meanings of high and low. <S> The singer gets high because he is having sexual thoughts about the girl, and low because she is underage <S> and he knows acting on those thoughts would be a terrible idea. <S> Which is why he wants her to close her eyes. <A> Okay, these are lyrics, which are poetry, which is art; and the meaning of any piece of art lies within the beholder. <S> But this is my interpretation: The author of the lyrics is playing around with the word "blue" here, and using it simultaneously for different meanings and even as different parts of speech. <S> more about this in @Mike <S> Kozar's also excellent answer). <S> "Blue" can also be a noun; and the same occurrence of the word, meaning both the color blue and the author's sad mood, acts as a subject noun here: <S> That <S> (article) blue (subject) is getting (verb) <S> me <S> (object) <S> high (adjective) <S> And (conjunction) <S> [that blue is] making (verb) me (object) low (adjective) And "blue" <S> can be a verb, but <S> (and this is where your love/hate relationship with the English language may hit a very high/low point) <S> it's not used that way here. <S> Both meanings of "to blue" are chemical processes: one oxidizes the surface of steel to provide partial protection from rust; and one adds a slight blue tint to white laundry, making it the white appear brighter. <S> Neither is going on in this song. <S> I think the author wants the little girl to close her eyes not just because they are so problematically blue, but also to shut him out, to decline the relationship he so desperately both wants and doesn't want to have with her. <S> Some of the lyrics not quoted here include very sexual connotations and cultural references, and I think that by "eyes" the author might also mean "legs."
| "Blue" can be an adjective, as it is here describing both the color of the girl's eyes (see more on this in @ssav's excellent answer) and the author's sad feelings about being so attracted to this inappropriately under-aged girl (
|
An orange juice vs some orange juice Consider you are at a cafe and you tell the waiter that you would like to order drink.What would you say? I would like to have an orange juice please. I would like to have some orange juice please. (I know the word juice uncountable noun and we don't normally use "a/an" before uncountable nouns as long as they are packed and there was not " a glass of " phrase before the orange juice either.So this is original question.) <Q> For orange juice, which is usually sold in jugs or cartons and dispensed into smaller portions of uncertain volume, "some" is probably the choice that your test was looking for. <S> Unfortunately there are situations where "an" would be perfectly appropriate, for instance in a restaurant or if you were selecting from single serving bottles/cans of juice. <S> To use a more common example: Someone asks me to choose which soft drink I would like from a selection of cans, or someone asks me at a bar or restaurant what I would like to drink. <S> "I'll have a Coca Cola." <S> Someone is pouring drinks from a 2 liter bottle into glasses and asks what I would like in my glass. <S> "I'll have some Coca Cola." <S> I don't want to invent a grammatical rule on the fly, but it seems as if definitely sized portions ( <S> bottles/cans/quantities served by a restaurant) use "a/an" and indefinitely sized portions (poured from a larger container, for instance) use "some." <A> You would order "an orange juice" in a restaurant as it is a specific item (with a fixed measurement) on the menu. <S> "Some orange juice" would be fine if you are visiting someone at their home (as there is - normally! - <S> no menu) <A> Either way people will understand you I guess. <S> - this way you refer to the menu. <S> Whereas I would like to have some orange juice please. <S> - which doesn't really point out how much you want. <S> sounds good to me, too (not native). <A> actually I don't have specific answer for your Eq. <S> but I will put an Example <S> I hope its help you to increased your background Ideas <S> "I’ll have a glass of orange juice,” you’d say, “I’ll have an orange juice.” <S> Orange juice is a Mass noun, but in this context <S> it’s implied that you’re referring to a glass of orange juice.
| I would order the / an orange juice.
|
"We missed the bus, which made us late for school" - erroneous use of "which"? From a discussion at Lang-8 : Kim and I ran fast as we could, but we missed the bus, which made us late for school. I believe the sentence's use of the relative clause to be okay: the relative pronoun which refers to the whole preceding clause " but we missed the bus ". But both the author of the post and one other non-native English speaker believe this use of which to be erroneous, since in their view the antecedent is bus : "the bus made us late for school." Gleb quoted a SAT preparation course in which the following use of which is apparently described as erroneous : "Marylin and I ran as fast as we could, but we missed our train, which (C) made us late for work." ... Which is a pronoun, and needs a noun as its antecedent. The only available noun is train , but that doesn't make sense ... So there is your error, choice C . Is that really so? In Michael Swan's PEU, topic 494.9 says that which can relate to the whole of a preceding clause. I'm a bit baffled. Is this a typo in the SAT course, or am I missing some point? <Q> You are correct, Copperkettle. <S> Which can refer to the fact just described, even if this fact is described by a whole clause and which has no antecedent noun to latch onto. <S> Every fluent speaker knows this. <S> The SAT prep course is wrong. <S> I don't know of an authority you can cite to "win" an argument, but I would be very surprised if standard reference works on English grammar failed to cover this. <S> The ultimate proof is reading and talking. <S> I'm sure you can find at least 100,000 occurrences of this construction in real use in books. <A> I'd like to draw attention to the comma before which . <S> Here the comma separates the two parts of the statement. <S> Were the comma missing, which would refer to the bus. <S> With comma the which refers to the whole first part of the sentence. <A> The sentence is merely ambiguous. <S> This is quite common with relative clauses. <S> Since one possible interpretation is presumed untrue by the reader (that the bus itself somehow made you late), the ambiguity is eliminated and the sentence is accepted by most speakers of English. <S> The following will also typically be accepted: <S> "We missed the bus, which was yellow" (relative clause applies to "the bus") <S> "We missed the bus, which was our own stupid fault for oversleeping" (relative clause applies to "missing the bus". <S> Unlike your example, applying it to "the bus" is not only false but nonsensical, so even the pedants who reject yours may accept this). <S> "We missed the bus, which made us late by spinning out on a sharp turn and blocking the road for two hours" (here the ambiguity is resolved in the opposite direction from your example -- indeed the bus did make us late despite us missing it). <S> As to whether the ambiguity is "erroneous", that depends how precise you need to be in context. <S> It's certainly a correct sentence even if it's false: the issue is whether it reliably means what you want it to. <S> Since both meanings are at least conceivable and require the reader to sort them out, it's not a great sentence, but normally it would work. <A> I’ll back Steve Jessop here. <S> It just has room for multiple interpretations, but only to an inexperienced speaker. <S> I am a non-native speaker, but I would only think about the bus making you late for school if I were taking the sentence apart in order to tease the author a bit. <S> Relative clauses can be antecedents to “which” as well as nouns. <S> When you have nouns in a relative clause which could possibly also be antecedents to “which”, well, you need to rely on your experience with the language to decipher the meaning. <A> If you're still feeling iffy about using which, there are some other ways to avoid using the word, like so: <S> Kim and <S> I ran fast as we could, but we missed the bus, making us late for school. <S> Kim and I ran fast as we could, but we missed the bus, thus making us late for school. <S> Kim and I ran fast as we could, but we missed the bus, so we were late for school.
| The sentence is completely correct so far as grammar goes.
|
Concise phrase to describe a weekend spent in a countryside holiday home A student group I participate in has made a habit of spending one weekend every year at a (pseudo-)random holiday home somewhere in the country side. We recently started using English as the primary language for our meetings and meeting minutes, so I'm now faced with the challenge of finding as idiomatic a term as possible for what was previously called our "Hüttenwochende" (literally: lodge weekend). Is there any concise and common term for an event comprising a group of people spending a weekend in the countryside, with the intention of relaxing and enjoying themselves? <Q> I would call that a weekend retreat . <S> If you search on this term you can find many travel related ads as examples. <A> My answer is no, there is no established, concise term for the situation you describe. <S> If you said my group went on a weekend retreat at ABC Country Lodge, you are more than likely going to be asked to clarify the meaning of retreat . <S> Like, a retreat, huh? <S> What kind of retreat or what was the retreat about or what was the purpose of the retreat? <S> This is because retreat has the meaning of a group of people, often a specific group, attending a specially organized weekend ordered around a specific topic in order to do or study or attend talks and/or meditate on that topic. <S> Such a retreat does not even need to be held in the countryside, it could be held at a meeting center downtown. <S> Oddly, the phrase "retreat weekend" does not seem to carry with it all the garbage, er connotations, that weekend retreat does. <S> And a getaway does not necessarily mean a getaway into the countryside. <S> There are people who relax better in the city, or at least in a crowded urban amusement park. <S> And plenty of weekend getaways are made to Las Vegas. <S> I stand by my comment that was meant to imply that every native speaker in the USA would know (in general if not in detail, as in did you play horseshoes, Frisbee golf, bicycle, fish, etc.) <S> what you meant if you said, my family or group spent a weekend in the countryside . <S> However, as that is not concise, you could just 'invent' a term for your minutes and say a countryside weekend . <S> Or use the original foreign language phrase. <S> It's your minutes, after all, and foreign terms are adopted when native terns aren't ready-enough synonyms. <S> But the more I look at countryside weekend <S> the more I like it. <S> And 'retreat weekend' is also good. <A> Another term would be a "weekend outing" or "our weekend outing. <S> " It doesn't specifically say that you're staying in the country -- it's more "we are getting out of the house" -- but it doesn't bar that, either, and... they're your notes, so as long as you have established that this is the Usual Weekend Outing, the context is established and you can be a little vague. <S> Or you could just go for the direct translation: <S> "Our lodge weekend. <S> " Again, as these are your notes, you can do a certain amount of jargon-creation. <A> I think you could say it this way if you are talking about a family: <S> It had been a very difficult work week, so he decided on a weekend escape for himself and his family. <S> They left their children at their grandparents, and went on a weekend escape to a coastal spa (or a countryside home if you wish). <A> If the choice were between "weekend retreat" and "retreat weekend", I would choose the latter here, because you mention "meetings and meeting minutes". <S> A "weekend retreat" has connotations of "getting away from everything, all relaxation, no business", whereas the connotations of "retreat weekend" are "primarily business in nature, in pleasant surroundings, with group events that may have a fun element but which serve a business purpose, such as team-building". <A> I think "lodge weekend" is an excellent choice. <S> Because these are literal translations of your German word, your intended audience will be sure to understand you. <S> "It's getting to be time again for our annual lodge weekend" and "It's getting to be time for our annual weekend at a lodge" sound perfectly natural to my (American) ear, even though I don't think I have ever heard the terms before.
| Depending on whether you have already chosen the lodge for the weekend, "weekend at a lodge" or "weekend at the lodge" would also be an excellent choice.
|
Synonyms of "down the memory lane" "old is gold" Are there any synonyms which could be used in their place? People use these as either a caption , or as the title of the album, can there be more synonyms similar to the twos i just mentioned above? <Q> "They don't make 'em like they used to." <S> or "They don't make 'em like that <S> anymore" can sometimes be said in the same situations as "old is gold". <A> ... <S> maybe? <S> It would really depend on the sentence in question. <S> Sometimes the only thing that will fit is "going down memory lane" (not " the memory lane," but just "memory lane" -- like you don't "go down the Second Street" but instead you "go down Second Street"). <S> (To digress: When a street has a proper name, you will usually just use that name: "Go down Second Street, turn right onto Maple Lane, pass by Pine Court, and turn left onto the highway. <S> Get off at Exit 9, and bear right onto Firebrook Road." <S> ("the highway" doesn't have its name listed, so it gets the "the" as being the only highway you're going to see after passing Pine Court.) <S> So even though Memory Lane is metaphorical and often not capitalized like a proper name, it's still a "named street.") <A> Here's a rhyme that hits on the "old is gold" idea:Make new friends, but keep the old,One is silver and the other gold. <S> And another saying, which I think started In regards to songs (recorded music), but is now applied to any kind of thing: "an oldie but a goodie" As for Memory Lane, here is a phrase to describe someone who seems to spend too much time there (reminiscing); <S> "He's living in the past" And to refer to that particular "golden era" that such people seem to want to preserve or re-create (usually their teen years, their coming-of-age years: <S> "{He is/ <S> She is/ <S> They are} stuck in the {'60s/70s/'80s/etc}"
| "We were just reminiscing" can be substituted for "We were just taking a stroll down memory lane" as can "we were just reliving the good old days"
|
How should I translate "take as input"? "take as input.." I have no idea what that means.. for example, I extracted a sentence from Google by searching, such as "Describe an algorithm that takes as input a list of n integers". What is the meaning of the sentence? <Q> In writing that sentence, I assume that you are a programmer. <S> In C, you might express this notion as int algorithm(int <S> arrayAsInput[]) <S> { . . . return output; } <A> It means that is the nature of the data that goes into the algorithm. <S> If the algorithm were a function expressable as f(x1, <S> x2,.....xn), it would be the set of numbers x1 through xn, which is also called the "argument" of that function. <A> "Describe an algorithm that takes as input a list of n integers". <S> The sentence can be re-written as: "Describe an algorithm. <S> This algorithm needs to accept input. <S> That input is a list of n integers."
| To 'take as input' means to accept it into your algorithm.
|
Is it correct to ask "who needs a dragons"? According to the title of this question... Who needs a dragons Is it "a dragons" or just "dragons"? And "need" or "needs"? <Q> A [plural] <S> Is never correct in any sentence, so the correct sentence is: <S> Who needs dragons? <S> Which means 'Dragons aren't very useful', or: Who needs a dragon? <S> Which means 'Why would anyone want to own a dragon (as a pet)?' <S> The reason it's "Who needs... <S> " and not "Who need..." is because of how this verb conjugates: "I/You/ <S> We <S> /They need", and " <S> He/She/ <S> Who needs". <A> It can be correct, if "dragons" is used as a name. <S> You might be playing a card game that includes a "dragons" card: the ownership of such a card might confer magical strength, and the card could be referred to as "a Dragons". <S> "Who wants to trade a dragons for an invisibility?" <A> At the risk of being pedantic, there is a possibility by which it could be (almost) correct. <S> If the phrase 'Who needs a dragons?' is only part of a longer sentence then maybe it's correct but just missing an apostrophe. <S> You could correctly construct for example: <S> "Who needs a dragon's heart?" <A> "a" or "an" basically means "one". <S> This can be extended to other nouns (things). <S> You can need "an apple" but not "an apples". <S> "Need" and "needs" are verbs <S> (actions or states of being). <S> Verbs must agree with their subjects — the things that are doing the action or being. <S> Singular: <S> He needs a dragon. <S> He needs dragons. <S> Notice how the verb is the same no matter how many dragons are being discussed, because the verb only cares about the singular "he". <S> Plural: <S> They need a dragon. <S> They need dragons. <S> In your example, "who" can refer to any number of people, so it is plural and uses "need". <S> Who needs a dragon? <S> Who needs dragons?
| "Dragons" is the plural of dragon — meaning more than one dragon — so you can't have "one dragons".
|
What does "the brass" mean, exactly, in military context? In books by many different authors I encountered phrases like this: He curses the brass for not caring whether he lives or dies. From context, it seemed to me that it meant high-rank officers, about the rank of general. But sometimes it seems to mean lower (than general) rank commissioned officers, too. Sometimes civilian government officials overseeing army. So what does it really mean? And does it have anything to do with copper and zinc alloy? <Q> AMENDED: <S> (Civilians, however, generally use the term to refer to the upper echelons of command—"the brass in Saigon", for instance, during the Vietnam War.) <S> The term arises from the fact that in the US and English armies the primary insignia of rank for officers are pins on the collar, colored gold or silver but actually made of brass, while enlisted men wear shoulder patches of cloth and embroidery. <S> [ http://www.army.mil/symbols/armyranks.html] : <A> It's military slang for very high ranking officers. <S> Even though these generals and commanders make all the most important decisions that affect the troops on the ground, the infantry soldiers will never meet them face-to-face. <S> This means that it can feel like a big unseen force is controlling what they can and can't do, so whenever a decision reaches them they have to follow, they say it came 'from the brass'. <S> Even though a lieutenant is a commissioned officer, he wouldn't be referred to as 'the brass', as he's on or near the frontlines giving orders in person; if the soldiers object to an order they can talk to him. <S> But if he receives an order from his boss, who received the order from his boss, there's no room for argument. <S> There's no specific rank it refers to, since it doesn't matter who it came from. <S> The order has traveled down the chain of command until your commanding officer doesn't have the authority to let you raise objections. <A> "The brass" refers to officers, and it's shorthand for the older phrase "the brass hats." <S> From the OED: brass hat n. [so called from the gilt insignia on an officer's cap] colloq. <S> (orig. <S> Mil. <S> slang) <S> a high-ranking officer in the armed forces, originally in the British army; cf. <S> tin hat n. 1b. <S> 1887 <S> Belfast News-let. <S> 16 <S> Mar. 7/4 <S> Three officers..are to be tried by general court-martial for practical joking to a most unwarrantable extent with one of the brass hats of Dublin—we mean a staff officer. <A> Brass refers to commissioned officers. <A> Top Brass refers to staff Officers (above brigadier), i.e did not directly command troops. <S> Hope this helps <A> I'm submitting a distilled version of something I said in comments on another answer. <S> The "brass" when referring to military officers, only refers to commissioned officers, and never refers to non-commissioned officers in any context. <S> Because of the absolute, discrete boundary that exists between NCOs and commissioned officers, I would expect a negative reaction out of a high-ranking enlisted person whom is called "brass" by lower enlisted (for the same reason you very often hear NCOs and NCO veterans reply to being called "sir" with "I'm not an officer, I work[ed] for a living"). <S> "Brass" probably is best described as a placeholder term for commissioned officers above company-grade. <S> More specifically, commissioned officers above company-grade who are issuing orders to the unit. <S> Because there is often no direct benefit for the unit following the orders, this is sure to generate a lot of "because the brass says to do it" in response to questions about the orders which are a kind of "spukhaften fernwirkung". <S> From my many years of experience as an enlisted infantryman, by far the most common place to find this term -- used in reference to officers, instead of the definition of an empty shell casing, which is correct but out of context -- is in this situation. <S> Lower enlisted soldiers almost always question orders. <S> It's just a natural human motivation to be curious about directives. <S> And "brass" is most often used in response to these queries by NCOs or company-grade officers. <A> Brass can refer to the ammunition shell that is ejected from a weapon after it has been fired. <S> This was the first thing I thought of when I read the question since I'm uncertain as to whether the phrase is something the questioner came up with or if it was read somewhere. <S> I was in the military as an enlisted person. <S> Officers being referred to as Brass is something that I'm familiar with but more strongly related the reference to ammunition and not people. <A> "Brass to the grass" also refers to the proper loading alignment of U.S. military belt-fed machine guns. <S> The individual rounds are linked together with dark colored clips that are stripped off as they enter the weapon. <S> The clips are more visible on one side of the belt than the other. <S> When loading the ammo can or feed mechanism, the side with the linking clips faces up and the other side where the brass shell casings are more visible face down, i.e. "brass to the grass."
| Brass is a term used to denote officers, it comes from a time when enlisted personnel had cloth badges of rank, but officers had brass emblem (and had Batmen to polish them). For the military, brass means any officer who outranks the speaker: the people who make decisions which affect the speaker's life (usually with the suggestion that they don't much care how they affect the speaker's life).
|
Alternative word for a 'stagnant' sea/lake/pond without the negative connotation? When we say stagnant sea/lake/pond, does it connote that sea/lake/pond is dirty? According definition, the word stagnant means "stagnant water or air is not moving and therefore smells unpleasant" How can we call a lake which is not moving, but it is not dirty either. I saw on the Internet that there is a place called the Dead Lakes in the US. But the word the dead could make a place sound scary. <Q> You could call it a placid lake. <A> Yes, stagnant does denote water that is dirty. <S> I would expect a stagnant pond to be covered in algae or fungal blooms. <S> I would expect the water to look somewhat brown from sediment. <S> I would expect bugs. <S> A dead lake would mean that fish can no longer survive in it, so I would expect no fish, no turtles, no frogs. <S> I would not expect the water to look clean and nice like the lake in the picture you included. <S> I would describe the lake in the picture as still, calm, clean, and clear. <S> If there truly is no river bringing fresh water into the lake, you could call it "a lake with no inlet". <S> In that case, I would expect that the water is coming from an underground spring, so we could call it a "spring-fed lake". " <A> It could be pacific, standing, or idle, just to name a few. <S> Basically most synonyms for "unmoving" or "inactive".
| Spring-fed" has positive connotations, and if I was told we were going to a spring-fed lake, I would expect to see a lake like the one in your photograph.
|
Can an order ship itself? I received an email from Amazon: Your Amazon.ca order has shipped: (#702-XXX...) But from what I've learned, I think the correct sentence should be: Your Amazon.ca order has been shipped: (#702-XXX..) Can someone please explain why they don't use "been"? Thanks! <Q> The American Heritage Dictionary has the following definitions for ship (intrans.) <S> : To go aboard a ship; embark. <S> To be sent as a delivery : <S> The books that we ordered shipped from warehouse yesterday. <S> To travel by ship. <S> All of these definitions mean roughly the same thing, and when they are applied to packages, the meaning is clear: the item is traveling in a delivery shipment. <S> If this intransitive form did not exist, you would be correct to insist on the passive form " have been shipped ". <S> The transitive form requires some person to performing the act of shipping (but the intransitive form does not). <A> According to my dictionary, the verb "ship" can be used without an object, for example "the new car model will ship next month". <S> The phrase "your order will ship tomorrow" or "your order has shipped" is quite common. <S> " <S> To ship" would in this case mean "to leave our premises". <S> An order cannot ship itself. <S> But an order can ship. <A> Note that people ship (themselves, implicitly) quite readily. <S> At the very least, your future Sailor will make a trip to MEPS for initial processing, then a second trip to MEPS for final processing on the day s/he ships out to basic training. <S> -- <S> Navy For Moms <S> And, yes, inanimate objects can "ship" meaning to begin their journey. <S> Of course, being inanimate, they don't actually <S> do anything . <S> A person begins that order's journey; that order has had its journey begun; but we can say it began its journey. <S> Similarly, it has been shipped, but we can say it shipped.
| "Your Amazon order has been shipped" would be incorrect until it actually arrives (until the process of being shipped has finished). "To ship + verb" means "to transport an object" and "has been shipped" means that it was transported but isn't being transported anymore.
|
Meaning of "life as we know it" What does it mean? There's a movie by this name, and i've heard people saying it often. I have been trying to find its answer but couldn't find any.A sentence/example would be nice too. <Q> Or more commonly, as it currently is. <S> The sentence is suggesting that we do not currently understand something entirely, but have a certain level of understanding. <S> It is giving the context of "life" as it is currently understood. <S> There may be other forms of life we can't even comprehend, or have just never seen. <S> Similarly the concept of life may change over time. <S> Consider bacteria, which is a form of life we simply didn't know about 500 years ago. <S> A more elaborate example. <S> Life, as we know it, is hard. <S> Maybe one day, humanity will find a way to make it easier. <S> Alternatively it may have previously been harder Life as we know it is easy, imagine working in a coal mine 200 years ago! <S> Again this sentence is using "as we know it" to give the context of "as it is now" <A> From Google Books: Scientists may speculate about life on other planets and in other solar systems, but at present there is no proof of life, as we know it , elsewhere in the universe. <S> The meaning is: we know our kind of life - carbon-based, liquid water-dependent, using RNA- and DNA-based mechanisms for self-replication. <S> On other planets, life might exist in other configurations, not as we know it , and hence be hard to detect, for instance. <S> All we know at the moment is that we see no traces of life as we know it on other planets. <S> Another example: <S> In a way, viruses might be considered aliens, because they are so different from the life as we know it <S> that is cellular life. <S> Life as we know it is cellular. <S> Viruses are not cellular. <S> They have no cell membrane . <S> Yet they have genetic code and are able to propagate themselves via replication quite effectively. <S> If viruses are alive, it's not life as we know it . <A> Both answers are correct. <S> We know, thus far, only earth life, life which has DNA and RNA as coding mechanism for the organism to grow, walk, replicate or do other specific activities during its life. <S> This life is composed of atoms, ninety-two elements, which exist in all universe as matter. <S> When scientists state "life as we know it" they simple say that for something that might be outside of our current recognition and knowledge. <S> It could silicon-based life, or liquid-based, or it is only steam-constructed "life". <S> Scientists thus try to stay neutral to life definition—by not being influenced by life, like we are.
| Life in the way which we see/understand it . The implication is that life may one day become easier, but right now (the way we understand it) it isn't.
|
Rely on vs Hinge on I've come across the phrase hinge on recently and it reminds me another phrase rely on ,which I think to myself, they have similar meaning even though I couldn't see rely on as a synonym of "hing on" on thesaurus.com. Can we use "hinge on" instead of "rely on" in these example sentences I got from dictionaries? You can’t rely on good weather for the whole trip. The system relies too heavily on one person. These days we rely heavily on computers to organize our work. As babies, we rely entirely on others for food. You should rely on your own judgement You can rely on me to keep your secret. He can't be relied on to tell the truth. <Q> The big thing with all of these examples is that people don't hinge on things. <S> Outcomes do. <S> "When I threw an outdoor party, I hinged on the weather." <S> - Wrong. <S> "When I threw an outdoor party, my success hinged on the weather." <S> - Right. <S> When deciding whether to use "hinge", think of it as a synonym for "turn, bend, veer", and think of events as something that moves forward along a set course - like a river, or a railway track. <S> A factor that they hinge on is a factor that can cause their course to bend - left towards one outcome, or right towards another. <A> Think of it this way: "rely" is almost like "depend" <S> the difference is that "rely" is often used in the sense of a person relying on something or someone. <S> " <S> However, "hinge" is taken from the word for the hardware a door swings on, and is extended to a metaphorical sense that is related. <S> So the best place to use "hinge" in this metaphorical sense is not when B's existence or nature depends on A, but rather when the direction that B can go depends on and is constrained by A. And not physically. <S> Often historical events are said to have "hinged" on some condition. <S> If the condition had been otherwise, the outcome would have, figuratively, "swung" the other way. <S> So if you say that event B "hinged" on condition A, it means that A somehow guided the outcome (B). <S> And I don't know of any case where we would say a person "hinges" on anything, or that anything "hinges" on a person; but a person's actions, or success, etc. <S> could "hinge" on someone else's actions. <S> You wouldn't say, for example, as Avigrail seemed to imply, that a baby "hinges" on its parents; it "depends" on them. <S> It is unlikely a baby knows what it means to "rely" on them. <S> But you could say the baby's eventual character "hinges" on how his parents discipline him. <S> Nor would you say "we can't hinge on him to tell the truth", we would say we can't {rely on, depend on, count on, trust} him to tell the truth. <S> So, I suggest that you would not be speaking idiomatic English if you were to substitute "hinge" in ANY of the examples you cite. <S> I hope this helps; I wish I could cite some source of more examples where "hinge" is appropriately used. <A> Not sure what country you are from but when I translate rely on and hinge on <S> it clearly shows the difference. <S> To rely on means that you have faith in some process/person/thing. <S> "I rely on you" would mean "I trust you/believe in you". <S> To hinge on means that you need something to happen in order to do something else. <S> So it is not about trust but more in the direction of hope/dependance or a condition . <S> "I hinge on him doing the right thing. <S> Otherwise I'll lose my job. <S> " <S> I think a trip could hinge on the weather, if it was be cancelled in case of bad weather. <S> The system hinges on one person. <S> As babies, we hinge on others. <S> He can't hinge on him telling the truth. <S> (?)
| Depend on" can be used the same way, but when discussing how one event can't happen without another, we are more likely to say "B depends on A" than "B relies on A".
|
"As it turned out" vs "it turned out" What's the difference between the two? Example: Everyone thought it was a panther. As it turned out , that was precisely the case. Everyone thought it was a panther. It turned out , that was precisely the case. <Q> that was precisely the case!" <A> The syntax is significantly different. <S> The comma is completely wrong in the second version, because it turned out that [something happened/was true] actually requires "that" to reference the fact of something "turning out" . <S> That mandatory "that" is additional to the (optionally deletable) one referencing the statement that turned out to be true. <S> Consider about 13,600 results in Google Books where <S> both "that"'s occur consecutively... <S> 1: <S> He didn't expect to die. <S> But it turned out that that was what happened. <S> If we introduce as , the comma (pause in speech) is required, and the first that is no longer valid... <S> 2: <S> He didn't expect to die. <S> But as it turned out , that was what happened. <S> Note that in common parlance, "it" in #2 may be replaced by other more specific nouns (things, events, etc.) , <S> but this would be at least "unusual" in context #1. <S> Apart from the syntactic differences, I don't believe there's any reason to make any semantic distinction between the two constructions. <S> They're both relatively informal usages, and it's implicit in <S> it turned out that whatever did take place or become apparent wasn't what the speaker had expected. <S> But neither version implies any more or less surprise at the outcome. <A> They're almost identical in sense and meaning. <S> If you say "As it turned out, X. <S> " you're saying that X is a somewhat surprising outcome. <S> "I wondered which teacher I would have for grade 7. <S> It turned out to be Mrs. Smith, who often taught grade 7. <S> " <S> "I wondered which teacher I would have for grade 7. <S> As it turned out, both of our usual grade 7 teachers had quit, so they hired someone completely new." <S> "I wondered which teacher I would have for grade 7. <S> As it turned out, I had my own father." <S> It can also be used very sarcastically, in cases where X is not a surprising outcome, but someone has behaved as though they didn't expect it anyway - such as if they act without regard for obvious consequences: <S> "Did you hear what happened to Jimmy?" <S> "No! <S> What happened?" <S> "As it turns out, the police don't like getting prank calls." <S> (Implication: (1) <S> Jimmy has been making prank calls to the police, (2) Jimmy got in trouble because of it, (3) no one should be surprised by this outcome , and yet <S> (4) <S> Jimmy clearly didn't anticipate this outcome, or he wouldn't have done it.) <S> For this sarcastic usage, you'll use the present tense, since you're making an observation about a general truth that was illustrated by these events, rather than making a comment about the events themselves. <S> "It turns/turned out" can be used in both of these cases instead of "As it turns/turned out", but "As it turns/turned out" emphasizes the surprise in the first case, and the sarcasm in the second case.
| The two mean exactly the same thing, but "as it turned out" has a bit more of an astonished mood, like they're saying "amazingly, The only real difference is that "As it turned out" has a slightly stronger hint of surprise .
|
Can I say "I was born in a place but bred in another place" instead of using "born and bred" in pair? I am wondering If I tell people that I was born in Melbourne but bred in Sydney, will the people think that I am married and have many children in Sydney? Because when someone "breeds" then it implies that "they have babies", and then people mistakenly think that I have many babies. (But I am a student. I have no sex experience, I am not married either) My original idea is to tell them that I grew up and received my education in Sydney since after I had moved from Melbourne to Sydney.But, because I think it is cumbersome to say "I grew up and received my education in Sydney since after I had moved from Melbourne to Sydney", I want to use a few words which will help me express the same idea, but my English is not good enough, so I could only come up with this sentence: "I was born in Melbourne but bred in Sydney" <Q> I was born in Melbourne but bred in Sydney <S> No. <S> " <S> As a standalone word, "bred" is more suitable for use in regards to cattle or other animals. <S> " <S> Born and bred" is tied together so tightly that you can use it as an attributive adjective: <S> She was a born and bred Melbourner. <S> What to pick instead? <S> If by "education" you mean <S> your basic education, including that given by your mother, father or other caregiver, you might say I was born in Melbourne but brought up in Sydney. <S> I was born in Melbourne but raised in Sydney. <S> You can also try <S> I was born in Melbourne but grew up in Sydney. <S> (Thank you, Kevin , for your comment!) <S> Instead of "received my education", you can pick shorter versions, such as "(was) educated, tutored" or "graduated", or "went to school/college/university": <S> I was born in Melbourne but educated in Sydney. <S> I was born in Melbourne but went to school in Sydney. <S> P.S. " <S> Born and bred" does remind me of the so-called " legal doublets " , but in such combinations the meanings of the words are synonymous, and one of the words usually derives from Latin. <S> I'm not sure that that is the case with "born and bred". <S> According to Wiktionary, one of the meanigns of breed , most likely an archaic one, is "to take care of in infancy and through childhood; to bring up". <S> Judging by the quotations used for this sense, it must be archaic: <S> "Ah, wretched me! <S> by fates averse decreed <S> To bring thee forth with pain, with care to breed " (by Dryden , a poet who lived in the 17 century) <S> It's probably due to this "human-related" sense fading away and <S> only the "animal-related" sense retained that we cannot separate born from bred . <A> "Born and bred" is one of the many English phrases formed from pairs of words that are almost complete synonyms: safe and sound aid and abet meek and mild far and wide null and void flotsam and jetsam <S> These are set phrases or even idioms - "aid and abet" doesn't mean you helped someone twice, but that you assisted someone in a probably-criminal enterprise. <S> In many cases, they also use words that are otherwise obsolete (does anyone ever use "jetsam" on its own?), or use meanings of words that are obsolete/rarely used (e.g. the "sound" in "safe and sound" or the "mild" in "meek and mild"). <S> What all this boils down to is that in most cases, you can't really separate the pairs of words. <S> In the specific case of "born and bred", "bred" on its own sounds like something you do with dogs or horses, so "...but bred in Sydney" just sounds... <S> wrong. <S> I would use a different word there, perhaps "raised" or "grew up": <S> I was born in Melbourne, but raised in Sydney. <S> I was born in Melbourne, but [my family moved when I was very young, so] I grew up in Sydney. <A> I agree with the other commenters that it's a set expression. <S> The point of the phrase is that you are completely and thoroughly of a certain place. <S> If you split it up, people will recognize what you mean, but it's not normally done. <S> They may think you're trying to be funny. <S> Also, bred in this sense is being used as the past participle; you're saying you were bred (by your parents), not that you bred children of your own, so no one is likely to think you are saying you have kids. <A> If the original poster wants to say that her ancestors lived in Sydney, or that she was conceived in Sydney, she should not say she was "bred in Sydney". <S> Unless you are using the phrase "born and bred" as a stock phrase, saying that she was "bred in Sydney" is a very coarse way of saying that she had sex in Sydney, and someone hoped that sex would result in her giving birth about nine months later. <A> Yes. <S> Birth is an event but breeding is a process. <S> They do not have to be conjoined. <S> The phrase "born and bred" implies a history and a connection to an area but to say one was born here and bred there would be more along the lines of conveying factual information. <S> The two would be said with different intentions, in different circumstances and would convey different meanings.
| Born and bred" is a set phrase, and when used separately its meaning changes.
|
What is the difference between cheating and plagiarizing? I need to know the difference between cheating and plagiarizing. For example if I was a student doing a test and I copied my classmate would I say: I was cheating on the test. or I was plagiarizing on the test. Any additional information would be helpful! <Q> Cheating is simply breaking the rules (for example, of an exam). <S> It's unlikely to say "he plagiarized on the test". <S> It's possible and grammatical and the sentence is understandable. <S> It's more likely to use "cheating" even if the type of cheating was to plagiarize another's work. <S> Plagiarize is more likely to come up regarding written works: books, essays, papers, articles, etc. <A> Plagiarism means to use the thoughts and ideas of another person and passing them on as your own - sometimes with a slight change in words. <S> Usually it is used for larger texts like literature or scientific writing, but you could also plagiarize music. <S> What you need to do to when writing scientific texts is to quote other authors. <S> If you don't and use their text passages, its plagiarism. <S> Cheating means to recieve the results in some unethical way. <S> Therefore, by simple logic, plagiarizing is a subset of cheating. <S> So for your question: unless you are both writing an essay and you are stealing your neighbors ideas (higly unlikely, unless your teacher is really daft), you can't plagiarize in a test. <S> What you do when you have a quick glance at his results is called cheating. <A> Plagiarizing is specifically copying off someone else. <S> You can cheat in other ways during a test. <S> For example: you can secretly use a calculator in a math test.
| Plagiarizing is passing off someone else's work as your own.
|
Wanting to avoid vulgarity; alternatives for "a d--k move" I have heard the slang phrase dick move in contexts like this: "Please don't do that prank to him. That'd be a dick move from you." "Look at those drawings of Bob! Do you know who made them? That's a dick move !" I understand what the phrase means, but what other colloquial expressions could I use to replace the slang dick move ? I want to avoid swear words and convey the same sentiment in a way that is would be regarded as more polite and less offensive. <Q> Saying something is not cool captures the same sentiment. <S> It’s fairly flexible: Don’t prank him. <S> That would not be cool. <S> Don’t prank him. <S> That’s not cool. <S> You could also tell someone not to be that guy. <S> [examples] <S> Don’t prank him. <S> You don’t want to be that guy. <A> A very polite altemative would be "faux pas" (pronounced foe-paw). <S> This is a French phrase adopted into English; it literally means "false step", but is used specifically to denote an act that is socially unacceptable, something that is just "not done in polite company". <S> Your rude friend might not get it, and think you're being hoity-toity or high-falutin, or he might get it, but still think you're prissy or a goody two-shoes. <S> Go ahead and say it anyway <S> —he'll get over it. <A> Dick moves aren't just mean or inconsiderate, it's explicitly identifying something a person should be ashamed of. <S> So focus on the shaming and less on the deed. <S> Don't poop in his shoes, <S> that's such a dick move. <S> You're better than that. <S> Who does that? <S> Don't be a Schmuck <A> "Egregious act" is a pretty good synonym IMO. <S> It is the one I chose after coming to this page for alternatives. <A> Rude could stand in for Dick
| You could say something along the lines of "that's a rude move".
|
How does 'nothing if not' mean 'at the very least; certainly'? nothing if not = at the very least; certainly How does the juxtaposition of nothing + if + not produces the above definition on the right? What semantic notions underlie and connect the left-hand and right-hand sides? I ask not about this phrase's definition which I already understand; <Q> I don't think "very" is the best definition for that idiom. <S> Collins , American Heritage and Cambridge dictionaries of idioms all define it more like more like "clearly" or "above all else." <S> This meaning is more easy to distill from the component parts. <S> " <S> [X] is nothing if not [y]" <S> means that if [y] is not a good description of [X] , then nothing could be. <S> [Y] is the best possible description. <A> Phrases like "either… or", "neither… nor", "if… then… else…", "between… and… (inclusive)", and "nothing if not" explicitly use multiple different logic operators. <S> Some of these logic operators (such as "neither", "nor", and "inclusive") are rarely used in informal speech. <S> Similarly, informal speech rarely uses so many different logic operators in a single expression. <S> These are hints that these logic operators are being used to express formal logic, and the meaning can be derived logically. <S> Here are the assumptions: 1) <S> <X> exists. <S> 2) <S> < <S> X> is nothing if not <Y <S> >. <S> We seek to prove that: 3) <S> <X> is at the very least <Y>, and 4) <S> < <S> X> is certainly <Y>. <S> The argument is fairly straight-forward: 5) <S> Either <X> has the feature <Y>, or 6) <S> < <S> X> does not have the feature <S> <Y <S> > <S> 7) <S> If (6) is true, then <X> "is nothing", per (2). <S> 8) <S> If <X> "is nothing", then it does not exist. <S> 9) <S> But we have assumed that <X> exists, per (1), so neither (8), nor (7), nor (6) can be true. <S> 10) <S> Therefore (5) is true. <S> We know that <X> has feature <Y <S> >. <S> 11) <S> We have proved that <X> is certainly <Y>. <S> 12) <S> Since the assumptions state nothing else about what <X> is, or is not, we have not proved that <X> is more than <Y>, nor have we proved that <X> is <Z <S> >. <S> 13) We can only state with certainty that <X> is at the very least <S> <Y>. <S> 14) <S> Q.E.D. <A> It's an abbreviation of a rhetorical device. <S> " But it's understood that Canada does have other properties; for example, it's large and full of maple trees. <S> So the purpose of setting up the comparison is to say that Canada is beautiful, and its beauty is as notable as, or more notable than, anything else about it. <A> ( source ) <S> Shakespeare used this idiom in Othello (2:1): "I am nothing if not critical." <S> [c. 1600] <S> If I am not critical (which, I am very much), then I am nothing. <A> There is often an implied criticism. <S> To say that someone is "nothing if not {X}" can mean that the person is rather too {X}, or {X} at the expense of {Y}, i.e. that the person is lacking in other qualities. <S> She is nothing if not thorough. <S> (translation: She gets lost in the details ). <S> He is nothing if not persistent. <S> (translation: He can be a nuisance ). <S> He is nothing if not logical. <S> (translation: He can be wooden in his approach to things .) <S> He is nothing if not practical. <S> (translation: <S> He is relentlessly pragmatic ) <S> He is nothing if not predictable. <S> (translation: <S> He is a creature of habit. )
| In my experience, this idiom is often used to disparage. If we say "Canada is nothing if not beautiful" then we are saying "if Canada isn't beautiful, then it isn't anything at all.
|
An expression to mean 'Thanks for that' I can't recall exactly.. someone was saying something like..To mean "Thanks for that" is it "I have you to thank for that" or "You have me to thank for that"? <Q> I have you to thank for that! <S> This phrase means that the reason that "that" happened, is because of you. <S> We can use the phrase to mean: <S> That was because of you. <S> Thank you. <S> However, you need to be a bit careful, because sometimes we use this phrase sarcastically, or idomatically to mean that something is somebody's fault! <S> Oh no, Mark's not coming to the party <S> You've got Mary to thank for that. <S> She was shouting at him yesterday. <S> I don't think he'll come if she's coming. <S> So, if you want to use this phrase to show that you appreciate something somebody did, you need to make sure they won't think your blaming them for something! <S> Hope <S> this is helpful! <A> Thanks for that <S> Simply means that you are thanking someone for something <S> s <S> /he did for you as a favor. <S> Let's build and example: Lisa was unable to take her big bag from a conveyer belt. <S> Mike helped her. <S> After a week, when they meet, remembering the incidence, Lisa might say... <S> You really helped me then. <S> Thanks for that . <S> I took an example of past because I don't think 'thanks for ' <S> that'' is a common reply for the favor <S> done just now . <S> More commonly, we use just Thanks or Thank you . <S> But to address your question, in any context, thanks for that is you thanking someone for the favor done. <S> It's kinda: <A> A patronising way to say ' thank-you '. <S> It's subtle sarcasm of course, and often used to be blatantly rude - or even faux-innocently - <S> which is why it's often used by British people whilst exercising snark . <S> e.g. Someone might tell you a story you are not interested in, or see yourself too aloof to even consider any interest in the lesser mortal. <S> Posh person is thinking - <S> You really think I'm interested in spoutings from your grubby little self from the gutter? <S> My goodness, gosh no, not on your nelly. <S> Says - Thanks for that. <S> Hope that helps.
| "I thank you for that [the favor]"
|
What is the correct way to write 1.5 hours? I'm a bit confused in describing 1.5hrs in words. Is writing one and a half an hour correct or should it be one and half hour ? E.g: I'll see you there in one and a half an hour . OR I'll see you there in one and half hour . Or is there any other correct way of writing this? <Q> In general , for some number of hours, plus some fraction of an hour, you'd use the number, plus the fraction, plus "hours", plural. <S> "Four and a half hours. <S> ", "Three and three-quarters hours," etc. <S> However , for the specific case of 1.5 hours, the usual expression is "an hour and a half". <S> This usage is so common that "One and a half hours" actually sounds strange. <A> One and a half hours English is a bit strange, if I'm talking about exactly one hour, then I say hour and not hours . <S> For every other number, I use plural. <S> This applies to every noun in the English language that has a plural tense: <S> I have one dollar <S> I have zero dollars <S> I have 1.1 dollars <S> I have -1 dollars <A> I love hearing how English-as-a-second-language persons construct phrases like this! <S> It's so fun. <S> I can completely understand what they are trying to say, but marvel at how they construct the idea in a way that makes sense to them, but would be unusual for a native English speaker. <S> "ninety minutes" somewhat less common: "one hour and thirty minutes <S> " <S> uncommon: <S> "one hour, thirty minutes" not used: "one hour, and one half hour" "the sum of an hour and half of an hour" "one hour, plus an additional half hour" "two hours minus one half hour" "seventy-five percent of two hours" <S> Basically, if it sounds like a math equation, it's probably not used! <A> You can always get out of this conundrum by writing: <S> An hour and a half or: 90 minutes <A> Other answers discuss writing the quantity as words. <S> When writing things as numerals, however, I would suggest that the decimal fraction .5 as being a perfectly good way of indicating "half". <S> For partial-hour quantities other than 30 minutes, I would avoid other decimal fractions unless times are being measured in six-minute or 36-second intervals, but .5 is so idiomatic as "one half" that I would consider "1.5 hours" to be more readable than "1 hour and 30 minutes" or "1 1/2 hours", or even "1½ hours". <A> My interpretation of the debate would be "two and a half hours" VS "two and one half hours". <S> The latter was taught in grade school. <S> Toss the fraction in as you wish.
| Here are some ways native English speakers would describe time: Very common: "an hour and a half" "one and a half hours" "an hour and thirty minutes" common:
|
Whats the meaning of double-duty here Whats the meaning of genetically modified to pull double-duty as pesticides? Does it mean that GM foods are two times dangerous to health than pesticides? From Dr. Mercola's Diet and Cancer Risk: Are you eating foods that are loaded with antibiotics and hormones? Are you eating foods that contain ingredients that are genetically modified to pull double-duty as pesticides? <Q> "double duty" is an idiom that refers to doing two jobs, or having two uses. <S> The idiom is often used with "to pull", as "to pull double duty". <S> For example: ‘Star Trek 3’: <S> Simon Pegg to pull double duty as co-writer, costar <S> ( http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/star-trek-3-simon-pegg-to-pull-double-duty-as-co-writer-costar/#/0 ) <S> meaning that Simon Pegg will do both jobs: being a co-writer and being a co-star. <S> Or When Restaurant Kitchens Do Double Duty: Two Side-by-Side Restaurants, With Two Different Menus <S> But One Kitchen, Attract a Trendy Clientèle ( http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-restaurant-kitchens-1419897572 ) <S> meaning that one kitchen can serve two restaurants at once. <S> In any case, the phrase has nothing specifically to do with danger, although the author may be trying to make you think that there is something dangerous. <A> In this case duty means purpose or responsibility , and double takes its usual meaning <S> two of . <S> The ingredients have been genetically modified for two purposes: To help them grow bigger and healthier (the usual and assumed reason people genetically modify food), and also to kill insects when they try to eat them. <A> To 'pull duty' as in to pull KP duty or to pull latrine duty means to be assigned a task, often an unpleasant, boring, disgusting, or onerous task. <S> The document quoted is conflating these two idioms, IMO.
| The much more common idiom is ' do double-duty', that is, to perform two functions or serve two purposes, as this ngram attests.
|
I haven`t learned it for one year VS I haven`t learned it in a year there~I hope you could help me with these^^ I haven`t learned it for one year. I haven`t learned it in a year. What is the differece?? I haven`t practiced playing basketball for one year. I haven`t practiced playing basketball in a year. What is the differece?? Actually, the original sentence I heard is "I haven`t had sex in a year." I haven`t had sex for one year. I haven`t had sex in a year. What is the differece?? <Q> I haven't learned it for one year. <S> I haven't learned it in a year. <S> These sentences can be different! <S> The first always means that you haven't learned it during the past year, but did before. <S> The second could also have this meaning with proper context, but would more likely be used to mean that you have been trying to learn it for a year, but aren't done. <S> I haven't practiced playing basketball for one year. <S> I haven't practiced playing basketball in a year. <S> These sentences have the same meaning, that you haven't practiced playing basketball at any time during the past year, but did before that. <S> I haven't had sex for one year. <S> I haven't had sex in a year. <S> These sentences have the same meaning, as above. <A> Both set of sentences are correct and bear the same meaning. <S> The choice between in and for in your sentences is not decided by correctness but by region. <S> The sentences with in is common in AmE, whereas the sentences with for is common in BrE. <S> Both for and in can be used to talk about time. <S> For (preposition) <S> we use for to say how long something lasts or continues. <S> Example <S> The toaster remained on for more than an hour. <S> For a few minutes she sat and on her bed watching the clock. <S> They talked for a bit. <S> In (preposition) <S> If you do something in a particular period or time, that is how long it takes you to do it. <S> Example <S> He walked two hundred and sixty miles in eight days. <S> (preposition) <S> We can also use in for a time in the future measured from the present. <S> Example Ella takes her exam in three weeks/ in three weeks' time. <S> Note 1 <S> You can walk there in half an hour (= <S> you need half an hour) <S> I'm going out in half an hour (= half an hour from now) <S> After a negative we can use for and in with the same meaning. <S> In is particularly common in American English: <S> I haven’t seen him in five years. <S> (or for five years .) <S> Note 2 Compare the following sentences. <S> We’re going to Cape Town for two months. <S> (= <S> We will spend two months in Cape Town.) <S> We’re going to Cape Town in two months. <S> (= <S> We’re leaving to go to Cape Town two months from now.) <A> I haven't had sex for one year. <S> I haven't had sex in a year. <S> While these have almost the same meaning, to me, the first ( one ) reads more precise and second ( a ) reads more approximate ( about a year ). <A> "Learned" describes a completed action. <S> Therefore, neither of these sentences makes good sense (and note that I have replaced your backquotes with apostrophes): I haven't learned it for one year. <S> I haven't learned it in a year. <S> Reasonable expressions include: I haven't taken piano lessons in a year. <S> I learned how to ride a bicycle over a year ago. <S> I haven't learned anything new about iOS since I switched to Android last year. <S> I failed to learn geometry last year, so I have to repeat the course. <S> I don't believe that there is any difference between this pair: <S> I haven't practiced playing basketball for one year. <S> I haven`t practiced playing basketball in a year. <S> I haven't had sex in a year <S> is a neutral expression. <S> I haven't had sex for one year <S> could have a connotation that you are deliberately abstaining from sex, and so far you have attained a year-long streak. <S> It doesn't necessarily have to be interpreted that way, though. <A> I haven't __ in a year. <S> means <S> For the past year, I haven't __. <S> They're the same thing. <S> Once you switch out "a" for "one", it makes it sound like you're providing exact data on the length of time, whereas you might have been approximating when you said "in a year"--as Paul Senzee points out. <S> That's a minor point, though. <S> Essentially the meaning is still the same.
| The difference in the example about learning is that learning is a process that can be completed, so in takes on a different meaning.
|
"I am hurting" in the meaning of "I am hurt"? Why? Once in a while I hear someone use the phrase I am hurting . It appears to mean I am hurt , not I am hurting you . For example, consider the text on this drawing: When and why is it correct to say I'm hurting in the meaning of I'm hurt ? Is there any difference in meaning? <Q> "Hurt" has two separate-but-related meanings that are relevant here: <S> To harm or injure . <S> For this meaning, "I am hurt" is appropriate. <S> It means "Someone or something has injured me." <S> In this construction, "hurt" is a one-time action. <S> To experience the ongoing effects of injury, especially pain . <S> For this meaning, "I am hurting" is appropriate. <S> It means "I am in pain." <S> In this construction, "hurting" is an ongoing state. <A> The main difference in usage is between physical pain and emotional pain. <S> "I am in pain" suggests there is ongoing pain, usually physical. <S> This is an example of sense 2b <S> the Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary : <S> 2 <S> a <S> [+ object] : to make (someone) sad or upset : to cause (someone) to suffer emotionally <S> Their lack of interest in her work hurt her deeply. <S> You're only hurting yourself by holding a grudge against them. <S> It hurt me to see her go. <S> b <S> [no object] : to feel emotional pain or distress <S> My sister has really been hurting [=has been very upset and unhappy] since her boyfriend left her. <S> And as for whether it's "slangy", here's a quote from a press conference Barack Obama gave in Nov 2014: ... <S> there are still a lot of folks out there who are anxious and are hurting and are having trouble making ends meet, or are worried about their children’s future. <S> [source] <S> There are hundreds more examples on www.americanrhetoric.com of speeches and interviews with similar examples of many different people using that word the same way. <A> I've always been under the impression that "I'm hurting on the inside" is slangish, and not exactly grammatically correct. <S> The problem is that we don't use present participle with passive verbs like that. <S> For example, we don't say, "I am stunning" to mean you are being stunned <S> , instead you say, "I'm stunned". <S> "I am stunning" means something completely different: that you're stunning other people (usually with your good looks.) <S> There are many other similar phrases that are commonly used, and grammatically correct, that I think "I'm hurting on the inside" is trying to copy. <S> For example: "I'm laughing on the inside," and "I'm crying on the inside."
| "I am hurting" suggests there is ongoing pain, usually emotional.
|
"Your bonus will be prorated for your first year." - Incorrect use of prorated? When I started at a firm (a number of years ago) I was going over the pay structure with my new manager. When it came time to go over the annual bonus, he said that for the first year, my bonus would be prorated for the time that I worked. I countered that it wouldn't be. To be clear, we both agreed I'd get the same amount of money. If I started halfway through the year, I'd get a bonus equal to half of what I would have for the whole year. I merely disagreed about the use of the term prorated. I argued that my bonus wasn't prorated, merely that I only earned half as much. I still would receive a full bonus since, by definition, the bonus is simply your amount earned times a multiplier. So to be clear, we can all agree that if a bonus was a flat amount that certainly it would. But when referring to bonuses that are a percentage of gross wages (including all the little things like on-call pay, overtime/emergency pay, etc...) is it still appropriate to call that prorated? If not, is there another word to describe that? <Q> I used to see it <S> all the time when I did tech support for a phone company. <S> If someone's phone service was unavailable for 5 days out of the 30-day month, then we would only charge the customer 5/6 of their usual monthly bill that month. <S> (The service was available for 5/6 of the month, so we only charge you 5/6 of your bill.) <S> We routinely described that as "prorating" the customer's bill. <S> If it would be normal to give you a $1,000 bonus for a year's work, but you only worked there for 9 months (3/4 of a year), prorating <S> your bonus would mean paying you $750 (3/4 of a year's bonus). <A> Yes, it is the "proper" use of prorate . <S> The annual bonus ( = the amount that the bonus is for that work year ) equals a sum; you are not receiving that sum but half of it. <S> That is how the word prorate is used all the time. <S> To me, this is not much more than a dictionary definition question. <A> It might be instructive to realize that the word "prorate" is an english variant of "pro rata" which invokes the words "proportional" and "ratio, or rate." <S> A rate is a ratio...an amount over a quantifying measure. <S> The quantity might be a period of time ($70/hour, $1000/month), it might be a volume ($50/bushel, $4 / gallon). <S> "Prorating" a value means to modify either the amount or the quantifier. <S> For example, "we will prorate your yearly bonus, which is a percentage of your yearly salary, for the fractional year." <S> So by common usage and by definition, your YEARLY bonus was prorated. <S> If the bonus was defined as "$5 per day worked, paid yearly on the last payperiod before Christmas" <S> then it would not be prorated for you.
| The most common use of "prorate" is "pay a fraction of the agreed amount, to match the fraction of the service that was delivered".
|
'will submit' or 'will be submitting' Which one is appropiate? I will submit my assignments by tonight I will be submitting my assignments by tonight. I want to express that before the end of the day, I will submit my assignments. <Q> First off, with the preposition by , we would normally mention a specific time or point in time. <S> I will submit my assignments by 10 tonight or by midnight tonight. <S> Or you can say by the end of the day , because that also refers to a specific point in time. <S> ( By tonight does not really specify a point in time, unless there is a previously defined specific time that tonight refers to, such as a deadline that everyone knows about.) <S> As far as which construction to use, either one is fine. <S> The first one has more of a promise meaning. <S> The second one has a more matter of fact meaning. <S> I explain the difference in detail here <A> I will submit my assignment by tonight. <S> I will be submitting my assignments by tonight. <S> Both the sentences express the future and are interchangeable, with a slight difference in meaning. <S> The first sentence formed with will + bare ininitive has the overtures of certainty, and intention and emphasizes the action. <S> On the other hand, the second sentence formed with will be + present participle is merely a statement, which means that the assignments will be submitted in the normal course of events or a routine. <S> It's therefore considered to be usual or not so promising as the first sentence. <A> In this case, "I will submit" is the correct usage. <S> "I will submit" <S> focuses on the fact that there will be an event, where you submit the assignment. <S> The listener can reasonably assume it will be swift. <S> "I will be submitting" <S> focuses on the act of you engaging in submission. <S> There will be a submission, but it concentrates on the time period where the submission is occurring, rather than the fact that it happens. <S> I would use the phrasing <S> "I will be submitting my assignments by tonight" if the listener knows I intend to submit my assignment in the form of an interpretive dance in the cafeteria drawn out over 3 acts, and I will be intentionally disrupting normal class to do so. <S> This is more obvious in other verbs. <S> "I will pray for you" may be as little as "I'll pray for you once, <S> but then I'm going about the rest of my business." <S> "I will be praying for you implies a longer duration and many prayers. <S> ( though some people will say "I will pray for you" and pray many times over a long duration. <S> Welcome to English. <S> We're not as consistent as we'd like. ) <A> 1 will submit 2 <S> will be submitting <S> In my view , the formula 2 here is not used for stressing the progressive aspect but simply to give the idea "will submit" more weight, simply because the formula "will be submitting" is longer. <S> Whether this emphasis of the submitting act is appropriate or not is another question.
| I have the feeling "will be submitting" sounds a bit like a cheap rhetoric effect.
|
discerning between until and by The 10th and last round of negotiations between Iran and the six world powers was held in Vienna in a bid to strike a final deal. However, after the sides failed to agree on a final deal they decided to extend the negotiations until / by July 1, 2015. In the original text the preposition until has been written. I am, however, wondering if we could use by instead, if so, is there any difference semantically? Any help would be greatly appreciated <Q> The time preposition by basically means before . <S> So: We need to finish the report by 5pm. <S> means: <S> We need to finish the report before 5pm. <S> So: Stay in the office until 5pm Means that the "staying in the office" situation should continue till 5pm. <S> In other words the sentence means: <S> Only leave the office after 5pm. <S> The Original <S> Poster's example: <S> Imagine that it takes some time to extend negotiations. <S> Perhaps everybody needs to fill in many forms. <S> There's a lot of administration to do, if you want to extend negotiations. <S> Now look at this sentence: They decided to extend the negotiations by July 1, 2015. <S> This sentence means that they decided to finish all the administration for the extension before July 1, 2015. <S> Now look at this sentence <S> : They decided to extend the negotiations until July 1, 2015. <S> This means that the minimum duration of the negotiations is from now to July 1, 2015. <S> The negotiations will not finish till July 1, 2015. <S> Hope this is helpful! <A> The two prepositions are not interchangeable: to extend by indicates the additional length, but to extend until indicates the new limit. <S> "... extend the negotiations by another week ... <S> " "... extend the negotiations until the end of the month ..." <S> Hope that helps! <A> There is no reasonable situation where "by" would be an acceptable substitute for "until" in your example sentence. <S> As others have pointed out, the only cases where you could use "by" are: 1) they decided to extend the negotiations by (x), where x is an AMOUNT of time 2) they expect to decide by (x) whether to extend negotiations where x is a DATE <S> Neither of these have the same meaning as your original sentence with "until". <S> The second rendering above would mean that they have NOT yet agreed even as to how long to extend. <S> (But your original sentence clearly indicated that they HAVE decided that question; i.e., they decided to extend the ending date of the negotiations to July 15.) <S> I suspect your puzzlement might not be with understanding how "by" and "until" work, but rather with understanding how "extend" and "postpone" work. <S> To "extend" negotiations means to let them continue from now to a later date than expected. <S> To "postpone" (or "suspend") <S> negotiations means to stop negotiatiating now, but agree to "resume" at some future date. <S> They could agree to EXTEND, negotiations "until" (or "to") some date. <S> This means negotiations will continue "until" then (they are expecting to finish "by" then.) <S> Or (and this is what I suspect you really meant) <S> they could POSTPONE (or, more accurately, SUSPEND) negotiations "until" some date. <S> This is the same as agreeing to stop negotiatiating now, and to RESUME talks "by" (on) that date. <S> No ending date for the negotiations is implied. <A> They have decided to extend the negotiations until July 1, 2015. <S> They have decided to extend the negotiations by July 1, 2015. <S> When you use the preposition "until", it means "up to the time of". <S> In other words, it expresses the continuity of an action. <S> So the first sentence means that they have decided to extend the negotiations that may continue up to July 1, 2015. <S> On the other hand, you use the preposition "by" for a deadline to mean any time before a particular time, but not later than that. <S> In other words, it's a one time action. <S> So the second sentence means that they have decided to extend the negotiations any time before/at the deadline of July 1, 2015.
| Until signifies the minimum duration of a situation or activity.
|
The construction "make" [noun][verb] vs. "for" [noun][infinitive] My question is that whether the below sentences have the same meaning ? I have talent enough to make people believe I am something else. I have talent enough for people to believe I am something else. <Q> <A> I have talent enough to make people believe I am something else. <S> I have talent enough for people to believe I am something else. <S> First, though it's a bit common to use enough after the nouns time and fool, it is old-fashioned to use enough after other nouns. <S> Its normal place is before a noun or after an adjective. <S> Second, both the sentences have the same meaning, with a slight difference. <S> The first sentence means that because you are talented enough people believe you are something else when you force them to do so. <S> On the other hand, the second sentence means that because you are talented enough they believe, without being forced or persuaded, you are something else. <A> The first construction can easily be taken to mean that your talent is specifically in fooling people. <S> "talent...to make people believe" The second construction has no such implication; it leaves it open to conjecture as to what kind of talent you might have. <S> For example, you might be a writer who also happens to be able to juggle; so people who had only seen you juggle might not think of you as a writer, even though you had no intent of deceiving them.
| They are very similar, but there is a slight difference in the act of making people believe something versus them just believing it with no intervention.
|
What is the difference between "job" and "job opportunity"? Currently, I am looking for a job. Or am I looking for a job opportunity? Or is the hiring company having a job opportunity for people like me? Can I use "I am looking for a job/job opportunity" interchangeably, or is there a difference? <Q> You are looking for a job. <S> I don't think you would be satisfied with just a "job opportunity". <S> If you were offered a "job opportunity", you would want to follow through until you either got the job, or did not get the job. <S> Similarly, a child who wants to pet a cat does not want a " Schrödinger's cat ", because Shrödinger's cat has a 50% chance of being dead when the child tries to pet it. <S> The child wants a real, live "cat". <A> You are looking for a job. <S> However, in order to find one, you will have to look for job opportunities and apply to them. <S> Perhaps you will search job adverts for potential job opportunities, or recruiters and hiring managers may tell you about job opportunities that they have. <S> This is because they are offering you the opportunity to apply for the job (they are not offering you the job yet). <S> A job <S> opportunity has the potential to turn into a real job. <S> If you apply to a job, get invited to interview and are successful, then you will be offered the job. <S> So, if you are talking specifically about the process , you might say that you are looking for job opportunities, but if you are talking in general, you say that you are looking for a job , because that is your end goal . <A> It's a false dichotomy; you are looking for both, and either is idiomatically correct after "I am looking for a ...". <S> It's similar to if you were going shopping for shoes. <S> Are you looking for a shoes, or are you looking for a shoe shop? <S> Well shoes don't lie around in the middle of the street <S> (well, not any that you'd like to wear I assume), so strictly speaking the actual aim of the search, initially at least, is to find a shoe shop. <S> Shoes live inside the shoe shops and you're not going to get the former without first getting the latter. <S> But clearly the end target is the shoes, because ... , well, you can't wear a shoe shop. <S> In the same way, although your ultimate aim is a job, jobs don't sit around waiting for you to take them. <S> Job opportunities , do. <S> And jobs live behind those opportunities. <S> Even if someone grabs you in the street and says "Neftas! <S> We need you to take this job right now!! <S> " <S> , it's not a job until you've signed the deal. <S> Any salesperson will be very sensitive to that distinction. <S> Another analogy is travel. <S> If you're going from San Diego to London via New York, and someone asks you as you enter at SD "Where are you going, New York or London", the answer is that you are going to both. <S> Addition <S> Compare: <S> "I am looking for a job" , vs <S> "I am looking at job opportunities" (note the "at" and the pluralization) <S> The first would usually imply that you are looking at a job from a current state of unemployment . <S> The second would be more likely to be taken to mean that you are open to taking other jobs, but that you already have one. <S> More precisely, the first implies a greater need on your part than the second, and so for sales-tactical reasons, although both are strictly true, the second approach may be better. <S> In the same light, just for completeness, the following: <S> "I am looking for a new job" <S> would mean that you currently have a job but are in some way not satisfied with it and so are actively hunting out a new one. <A> They are trying to convey a feeling that this is a rare "opportunity" that you should snatch quickly, otherwise you will regret for the rest of your life.
| The phrase "Job opportunity" is used by recruiters when they are trying to convince you to apply for a job. Actually, idiomatically it's possible for there to be a very subtle usage distinction between the two.
|
Usage of "eyeglasses" and "glasses" I heard in some movies "I lost my glasses" (eyeglasses), but if I insert this word into search, this return some jars, bottles. Is it wrong? In a conversation I must use "eyeglasses", or "glasses" is enough?There is a difference between American and British English? "I want to buy glasses." or "I want to buy eyeglasses." <Q> I'm an American speaker, but I'm not aware of any difference in American and British usage here. <S> (See these Google ngrams for "glasses" vs. "eyeglasses": American , British .) <S> Generally, "eyeglasses" is uncommon (according to the above ngram links, and my personal experience) but will be understood perfectly. <S> I would expect to see "eyeglasses" used when you need to differentiate between an ambiguous use of "glasses" (which can also mean "drinking cups, made of glass"): <S> "Have you seen my glasses?" <S> "Yes, I just filled them up with water." <S> (This person assumes "glasses" here means "cups") <S> "No, I mean my eyeglasses !" <S> In fact, there is an old joke: <S> My grandmother is 90 years old, and she doesn't need glasses! <S> She drinks right from the bottle. <S> The first sentence suggests "glasses" means "eyeglasses" (since eyesight degrades with age) and the second sentence reveals that "glasses" actually means "drinking glasses" (since she drinks from the bottle instead of pouring her drink into a glass). <A> The word "glasses" has several meanings. <S> Among them are both eyeglasses and drinking glasses . <S> From the Merriam-Webster dictionary <S> : <S> 2 <S> a : something made of glass: as : tumbler ; also : glassware <S> 2 c <S> plural : a device used to correct defects of vision or to protect the eyes that consists typically of a pair of glass or plastic lenses and the frame by which they are held in place — called also eyeglasses , spectacles <S> Usually, the correct meaning is clear from the context. <S> I can't read these tiny letters. <S> Let me get my glasses. <S> We assume the speaker means eyeglasses, because you don't use drinking glasses to read. <S> Would you like some water? <S> There are glasses in the kitchen. <S> We assume the speaker means drinking glasses, because you don't use eyeglasses to drink. <S> Sometimes the meaning is unclear from the context, and then we may have to ask for details <S> : I have to go buy new glasses today. <S> Do you mean for reading or for drinking? <A> I think the main difference is that eyeglasses is somewhat archaic/formal and glasses is the usual term today. <S> Words tend to be trimmed over time. <S> Other examples of this kind are the archaic motorcar versus the modern car or aeroplane/airplane versus plane ; here too, the former ones in the pairs are unambiguous, but they do not need to be used to for disambiguation. <A> In the UK at least, if you want to avoid ambiguity, you would say " spectacles ", or, more likely in speech but very unlikely in formal writing, the slangy " specs ". <S> In order of formality awkwardness to a UK speaker, most-uncomfortable-first <S> , I'd put them roughly: <S> Pince-nez <S> Eyeglasses <S> Monocle <S> Spectacles <S> Glasses <S> Specs <S> apsiller's suggestion of viewing n-grams is valuable here, since it shows the relative frequency of the words between US and UK, but in the UK at least, it feels to me like "specs" is under-represented because it's slang, and they're analyzing books, not speech. <S> But it could be that it's only a regional slang: American , British <A> It is really about context: <S> Put on your glasses. <S> You would not think about putting on drinking glasses , but eyeglasses , here. <S> I can't find my glasses. <S> Usually a person will say the instead of my , when referring to drinking glasses, but this still could depend on what the person was last doing. <S> Were they searching for something to pour themselves a drink into? <S> Did they last say they were thirsty? <S> Were they looking for drinking glasses that are special and specifically owned by them? <S> If no to those questions, they probably mean eyeglasses , and most of the time, that is what an English-speaker is referring to. <S> That is why we will probably say more often: <S> Where are the cups? <S> instead, and most of the time the person says glasses , especially if they wear them, they mean eyeglasses .
| Of course eyeglasses is unambiguous as compared to glasses as other answers say, but I don't think it is that common when ambiguity becomes an issue.
|
a phrase indicating a (gold) winner in the contest I am not sure how to formulate correctly the phrase 'a winner that took the first place in the contest'. Could you propose any idiomatic phrases?My try is below: The corporation is a gold winner in the contest 'Brand - 2014'. The corporation was awarded with a "golden" prize in the contest 'Brand -2014'. The corporation is recognized [as] a gold winner in the contest 'Brand - 2014'. If they are ok, I will be glad to learn about that. The addition to the text I have no idea whether or not the prize is made of gold. I even don't know how the prize looks like. The second addition to the text: In my language and culture, a person or an organization, that took the first place, is named figuratively a 'golden winner'. I am not sure how to convey this meaning in English without mentioning the prize. The prize should not be mentioned at all in the situation that I described. <Q> I would strongly suggest to find out what the organisation that awarded the prize calls it, and use their description. <S> If you use any other description, the claim that you won the prize may actually backfire. <S> Suppose that somebody would claim: Our film took the gold from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. <S> It sounds unfamiliar people that do recognize you are talking about an Oscar <S> think you have a reason not to say Oscar — did you actually win it? <S> Similarly, a scientist who received a gold medal from the Nobel Committee will cause confusion by not simply calling it the Nobel Prize . <S> There are many companies and websites that claim to have won all kinds of prizes, and these claims are, alas, not always justified. <S> So make sure that if you did win a prize, you make utterly clear which prize that was: if the organisation calls it a "ribbon of merit", and you call it "a gold medal", what are you hiding? <A> It depends what the 'Gold' is! <S> Is it a certificate? <S> Or some item of gold? <S> Or the prize is labeled as 'Gold'? <S> But commonly, I'd write it in any of these ways for my company - (ABC) the winner of 'gold prize' for the contest of 'Brand 2014' OR ABC won the prize of 'gold' for the contest of 'Brand 2014' OR <S> ABC bagged a 'Gold Prize' for the contest of 'Brand 2014' <S> Please mind that these are just three ways of many possible . <A> The corporation which scored first in the 'Brand 2014' contest. <S> The corporation which was awarded the first prize in the 'Brand 2014' contest. <A> Are you speaking generically and possibly metaphorically, or does the group that awards the prizes call this the "gold prize" or some such? <S> If the prize is actually called the "Gold Prize" or the "Golden Award" or whatever, then you should call it whatever the people who give out the prize call it. <S> If the prize is called "the gold prize", don't you call it the "golden award". <S> Don't make up your own name; use the official name. <S> Anything else just gets confusing. <S> If the people giving out the prize don't call it the gold anything, and you are using the word "gold" in analogy to the Olympics and other competitions where first prize is called "the gold medal", then you can either use the full phrase, "The company took the gold medal in Brands 2014", or you can abbreviate it to just "the gold", as in, "The company took the gold in Brands 2014". <S> I would avoid straining the analogy beyond that. <S> I wouldn't say someone "won the gold certificate" or "won a golden award" when the prize is neither called that nor is literally gold. <S> At that point it just becomes confusing whether this is the name of the prize or an analogy to the Olympics. <S> The other alternative is to just say "won first place" or "came in first". <A> There are a number of common ways of saying "won first place" using gold as metonym. <S> Here are a few: <S> The company took the gold in "Brand 2014". <S> The company was awarded the "Brand 2014" gold medal.
| The company won the "Brand 2014" gold medal.
|
Place of adjectives in a sentence This topic confuses me very much.I'm aware that the meaning of words in a sentence depends on its place,but I can't still completely grasp the idea/topic.Could you help me with the next sentences, please? (a) Look out! There's a car coming! (b) I came across a group of children playing. The both look to me as incomplete, as if there's an implicit, deleted part of a sentence. Is this right? As if they should be kind of: (a) There's a car coming along the street. / There's a car coming toward you. (b) I came across a group of children playing in the playground. / I came across a group of children playing next to my house. -shouldn't they? I have no questions on these full sentences, but their shorter form confuses me. The second question is whether the words "coming" and "playing" can stand before the noun? Kind of: (a) Look out! There's a coming car. (b) I came across a group of playing children. Are these sentences correct? If they are, do they mean the same as ones above and sound native? And the last question : We know a phrase about English "the shorter the better". So why "There's a car coming!" rather than "A car is coming"? Are the both correct, do they mean the same and sound native? (a.1) Look out! There's a car coming! (a.2) Look out! A car is coming! Please, could you help me with all these questions? <Q> At most, you could say that there is an implied "which is" or "who is", like <S> I came across a group of children who were playing. <S> or maybe I came across a group of children who were in the act of playing. <S> But the meaning is simply <S> I came across a group of children, and they were playing. <S> For your second question, yes, both of those are grammatically correct. <S> In these sentences, "playing" or "coming" is something called a participle, which is essentially a verb form used like an adjective. <S> The children are playing , so they are playing children . <S> "Coming car" is unusual - we would usually say oncoming car - but it isn't grammatically incorrect. <S> For your third question, yes, shorter is usually better when it comes to spoken English! <S> But both of your answers are correct and can be found in live usage. <S> For example, "There's A New World Coming" ( http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/578780.There_s_a_New_World_Coming ) and " <S> A Blizzard Is Coming" ( http://www.wnyc.org/story/blizzard-coming/ ) <S> They differ at most only very slightly in meaning: " <S> There's a X coming" means that there exists an X, and its action or state of being is "coming". <S> "An X is coming" means that a specific example of an X has a state of "coming". <S> In practice, they're pretty close to interchangeable. <S> I would regard as completely normal <S> both <S> Hearing the sound of footsteps on the driveway, he turned to look. <S> "There's someone coming," he said. <S> and Hearing the sound of footsteps on the driveway, he turned to look. <S> "Someone's coming," he said. <A> "Coming" there means "moving towards us". <S> So there's no need for a complement such as "along the street". <S> In American English, Look out! <S> A car's coming! <S> is a normal warning to someone who might be about to step off the curb into the street without looking . <S> We don't have to say "without looking down the street" either, because "without looking" means "without looking in the direction(s) <S> one needs to look in". <S> Can you juggle? <S> Can you juggle without looking? <S> (this example brings in gerunds, which are like verb-nouns or noun-verbs, but the underlying principle is much the same.) <S> In the fable, Chicken Little does not say "The sky is falling down to the earth!" <S> but simply The sky is falling! <A> There's nothing particularly incomplete about these sentences. <S> Sure, you could add additional information. <S> The word "coming" implies "towards us" or "towards you" or "towards me". <S> You can't say, "There's a car coming away from us", you'd have to say "... going away from us." <S> So "There's a car coming TOWARDS YOU" is a little redundant. <S> You might add the "towards you" for emphasis, but it's not necessary. <S> Similarly, cars normally travel along a street, so it is rarely necessary to say that. <S> If the car was NOT coming along the street, you might want to specify. <S> Like, "Look out! <S> There's a car coming out of that driveway!" <S> or "There's a car coming across the grass!" <S> But again, it's not GRAMMATICALLY necessary. <S> Similarly with "childen playing". <S> Sure, you COULD give additional detail. <S> You could say where they are playing or what they are playing. <S> But it's not necessary to make the sentence grammatically correct.
| There is nothing incomplete about the first group of sentences you posted; they are completely normal.
|
A question regarding a modifying clause The subjunctive mood is the verb form used to express a wish, a suggestion, a command, or a condition that is contrary to fact .(cited from http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/subjunctive_mood.htm ) What does the adjective clause(in bold) modify? Does it only modify "a condition" or modify "a wish, a suggestion, a command, or a condition"? <Q> However, in general, a sentence of the form you're asking about is ambiguous. <S> The writer may mean for the clause to modify all the items, and was just sloppy about expressing it. <S> Often one can make the distinction based on context, especially due to pauses and intonation in conversation. <S> There are a few ways one can rephrase such a sentence to eliminate this ambiguity: Reorder the List Items <S> If the clause modifies only one item, reorder the items so that it is clear. <S> Rather than <S> The subjunctive mood is the verb form used to express a wish, a suggestion, a command, or a condition that is contrary to fact. <S> say <S> The subjunctive mood is the verb form used to express a condition that is contrary to fact, a wish, a suggestion, or a command. <S> Break it Up <S> If the clause applies to all the list items, break it apart from any of them. <S> Rather than The post office returns packages, letters, or postcards with wrong addresses. <S> say <S> The post office returns items with a bad address, which might be packages, letters, or postcards. <A> In this use, the condition that is contrary to fact is one that is hypothetical and untrue. <S> It's probably easiest to illustrate this through examples: <S> I quit drinking several years ago and someone asks me about my habits. <S> If I were still drinking I would probably have died by now. <S> I meet a girl I was secretly in love with in high school and find that she was attracted to me as well, but I'm now married. <S> If I weren't married then I would sweep you off your feet right now, but I love my wife. <S> A vicious dog is contained behind a fence, snarling and snapping at passersby. <S> If that fence weren't there, that dog would have killed someone by now. <A> If + past subjunctive indicates an irreal condtion. <S> Irrealis was the Latin grammar term that is substituted by a lot of similar terms as hypothetical, contrary to fact and others. <S> Example from Macbeth. <S> The asterisk indicates subjunctive form for irreal condition: <S> Macbeth: <S> If it were* done when 'tis done, 'twere <S> * <S> well it were* done quickly. <S> Macbeth Act <S> I, Scene VII <S> In today's style: If it were* done <S> when it's done, it would be best it would be done quickly. <A> It modifies "condition" only. <S> The other words (wish, suggestion, command) are already "contrary to fact", because they haven't happened yet and may not happen. <S> A "condition", however, could be a fact, so the clarifying clause "that is contrary to fact" is needed.
| Given that answerers know about the subjunctive mood, they're right to tell you that in that particular sentence the clause modifies 'condition' only .
|
What's the meaning of "there you go"? I'm not a native English speaker and always get confused with this expression. For instance: Me: What's the current state of [some subject] discussion? Bob: There is none. It was brought up in the past and was rejected. Me: Last time I checked, it seemed like we couldn't decide which route to take for [specific topic]. Bob: there you go :-) If it wasn't for the smile emoticon I would be in trouble to interpret it was a positive reaction though I still don't know what it means exactly . It happens in other contexts too and I usually pretend I understand it. What does it usually mean? <Q> In this same case, he might just as well have said “exactly”, “you got it”, or “case in point” . <S> Saying any of these–including “there you go” as a flat interjection–is a way to point out the similarity of something said before to what was said just now, especially when the latter is a specific example or proof of the former. <S> If he wanted to spell out his sentiment thoroughly, he might have said something like “That’s the exact nature of the problem that caused it to be rejected when it came up before. <S> You and I actually understand the situation the same, even though we are saying apparently different things about it.” <A> " <S> It is slightly related to what @Jasper brought up, but does not generally indicate any censure or scolding -- although tone of voice may bring that in as well! <A> There you go. <S> = <S> You just answered your own question. <S> I suppose you could say it's a sort of positive feedback on what you just said or did. <A> The answers given are correct, but I'd like to offer a potential source of the phrase <S> "There you go" could be a short way of saying "You were going nowhere until I straightened you out. <S> Now that I've straightened you out, you're starting to noticeably go somewhere." <A> I think in this particular example, "there you go" means "I have nothing to add. <S> You have said all that needs to be said. <S> " <A> In the original poster's example, "There you go" effectively means "Q.E.D." <S> The emoticon is to "take the sting out of" winning a small argument. <S> The implied proof is "and since we are not about to decide which route to take any time soon, that means that we cannot move forward with [some subject], so of course there is no progress on [some subject]. <S> The current status is equivalent to its having been tabled or rejected." <S> In American English, "There you go again" is a mild (but utterly polite) scolding. <S> The most famous American example of this phrasing was during a 1980 presidential debate . <S> President Jimmy Carter: …. <S> These are the kinds of elements of a national health insurance, important to the American people. <S> Governor Reagan, again, typically is against such a proposal. <S> Mr. Howard Smith: Governor? <S> Governor Ronald Reagan <S> : There you go again. <S> When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. <S> I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. <S> Reagan implies that Carter has bad habits of confusing means and ends, and of not understanding alternate viewpoints.
| "There you go" in your example is used to indicate that "you've just demonstrated my point with what you've just said. In this context, "There you go again" is a gentle way of saying, "You keep making that mistake."
|
"Take advantage of" and "make the most of": What is the difference? For example, if I'm looking forward to spending a month in Spain, I could say: I will take advantage of the opportunity to learn Spanish. I will make the most of the opportunity to learn Spanish. What could the possible difference between them be? <Q> As you might have noticed, both phrases need an ".. <S> of" - we have edited your question. <S> "to take advantage of" and "to make the most of" have an overlapping meaning of "using an opportunity". <S> So you might use them synonymously. <S> But: to take advantage of sth. <S> or so. <S> also has the meaning of exploiting a weakness of someone or seducing someone, implying gaining something that is perhaps not rightfully yours either in an illegitime or immoral way. <S> It has a negative undertone. <S> to make the most of sth. <S> rather focuses on using limited resources in an ingenious or demure way. <S> It has a positive connotation. <S> So, if your employer sends you to spain, you could take advantage of the fact by learning Spanish in addition to your work. <S> But usually you would say you make the most of your limited time there and learn as much Spanish as you can manage. <A> To "take advantage" is to use an opportunity (or advantage). <S> It might be justified, as in learning Spanish, or it could be something completely unethical. <S> When it's ambiguous the negative sense is probably the one more likely to be understood. <S> "Make the most of" has more to do with maximizing the potential within the constraints of some limits. <S> Often it would be used to express optimism in the face of adversity but it might also fit a scenario as with your perfectly enjoyable trip where the amount of time is the primary "problem". <A> In the context of your example sentence ("I will take advantage of/make the most of the opportunity to learn Spanish"), there is little difference. <S> For example, I will take advantage of my wife's broken leg by reading War and Peace to her <S> means "Bwahaha! <S> She can't run away <S> so I can do whatever I want!", whereas I will make the most of my wife's broken leg by reading War and Peace to her <S> means "It sucks that she can't leave the house but that gives us the opportunity to spend some quality time together and share some great literature." <S> So, going back to learning Spanish, there's no abuse in learning Spanish on your month in Spain, so <S> there's no problem saying "take advantage of". <S> I suppose it's possible that people might imagine that you mean <S> "It sucks I have to go to Spain <S> but, hey, at least I'll get to learn Spanish." <S> However, the very first thing you said is that you're looking forward to being there, <S> so you obviously don't think it sucks, so nobody will think you mean that. <S> It's obvious that what you really mean is "Spain is going to be great! <S> And, as well as the fantastic weather and amazing food, I get to learn some Spanish, too! <S> Awesome!" <S> (Especially if you're talking to somebody and they can hear your positive tone of voice.) <S> If we consider an alternative situation where you've been asked to host a Spanish person for a month, you'd have to be a bit more careful. <S> But, as with the example of going to Spain, nobody would think you were unhappy if you sounded happy.
| However, "take advantage of" can carry connotations of exploitation (in the sense of abuse) and "make the most of" can carry connotations of doing the best you can in a bad situation. Taking advantage of their presence to learn Spanish would suggest you were going to bug them to teach you Spanish the whole time, whereas making the most of their visit by learning Spanish could suggest you were reluctant to host them.
|
Difference between "fat chance" and "slim chance"? Is there a difference between "fat chance" and "slim chance," and if so, what is it? Taken literally, they seem to be opposites, but do they mean the same thing? <Q> fat chance is like a cynical <S> no chance : <S> You think you can win the lottery? <S> Fat Chance . <S> slim chance is when there is a small possibility. <S> It does not infer any hidden meaning. <S> Even though I did not study, there is a slim chance that I will pass the test. <A> Both of these mean that something is very unlikely to happen. <S> That said, I believe the difference is more one of usage than of meaning . <S> Fat chance is an informal expression; it's the kind of language you might hear among friends. <S> It can also function well as a standalone exclamation, sometimes carrying an undertone of amusement: <S> Do you think Donna would go out with me? <S> Fat chance! <S> Slim chance has a nearly synonymous meaning, but a much more formal tone. <S> It's the kind of language you'd expect to hear at a formal presentation: <S> Do you think your reseach shows that nanotechnologies might be hazardous to humans? <S> I believe there's only a slim chance of some undesired side effects that are not yet discovered. <A> What is the difference between "fat chance" and "slim chance". <S> These phrases don't mean the same. <S> There is a difference in their meanings, though very small. <S> When you say he has a fat chance of getting this job, it means that he has an extremely little chance of getting this job <S> (his chances of getting this job are one in a million). <S> In other words, it means almost no chance. <S> On the other hand, you use a slim chance to mean a slight/very little chance. <S> The former phrase is indicative of almost no hope whereas the latter one is expressive of a ray of hope. <A> A slim chance means a very small chance. <S> For example, suppose you have been playing chess for five years. <S> Then you have a slim chance of winning the Australian chess championship this year. <S> Calling the chance <S> slim is a playful, metaphorical way of speaking, referring to a small probability as if it were a skinny (slim) person. <S> By analogy with slim chance , a fat chance means a very large chance. <S> Only, notice the way I use it: Suppose you have been playing chess only for six months. <S> Then you have a fat chance of winning the Australian chess championship this year!! <S> It's sarcastic. <S> The literal meaning is that you have a high probability of winning, but that's so absurd that it can only be understood as a joke. <S> I'm calling it a high probability in order to point out how absurd it is to even think that you'd have any chance at all of winning. <S> It's like saying "Nice car!" <S> when you see a beater car . <S> People only say fat chance as a sarcastic joke. <S> Notice that slim chance can be used to emphasize that the probability, though small, is greater than zero. <S> But fat chance always emphasizes that the probability, though perhaps greater than zero, is very small. <S> (No offense intended to your chess-playing skills, and good luck in 2016.)
| People say slim chance as a playful metaphor.
|
A "user" is "it" or "he/she"? I'm not sure what is right and what not. I've searched on Google and could not find an answer to this. How should I write this: I'm speaking about a user. It is the main problem. The question is. Is this corect? In this context should I use " It " or " he "? <Q> In English, a person is almost never referred to as "it". <S> If you know that the person is male, say "he", and if you know the person is female, say "she". <S> If you don't know, that gets into the whole subject of what pronouns to use for unknown gender, which has been discussed at length in response to other questions on this site. <S> "It" IS used to refer to a person in some special cases. <S> The main one is when we need a pronoun as a place holder to connect to a noun. <S> For example, "A friend of yours called yesterday." <S> "Oh? <S> Who was IT? <S> " Especially if the point is to discuss whether the person is male or female. <S> Like, "Alice had a baby." <S> "Is IT a boy or a girl?" <S> Saying "Is he a boy or a girl would seem a bit of a paradox. <A> You don't use "it" for people. <S> (This usage of "they" to refer to a single person is called the "singular they".) <A> As others have mentioned, using "he or she" or "they" is far more appropriate than "it". <S> However, I'd like to point out that few people actually say "he or she" in practice, except in a more formal setting such as documentation. <S> In spoken communication, it is most common to use "they". <S> So, assuming your example was part of a spoken conversation, it would more likely be: <S> I'm speaking about a user. <S> They are the main problem. <A> Historically, referring to a person of unknown gender as "he" was common practice, and still is to some extent. <S> In attempts to be more "politically correct" some writers use "he or she," "he/she," or other variants. <S> Some readers react negatively if they perceive the writer is being too politically correct, though. <S> I would suggest using "they," <S> since it is near-universally recognized as a third-person singular pronoun for when the gender is unknown. " <S> He" is also still perfectly acceptable, though some overly sensitive readers might accuse you of sexism or ignoring women. <A> I think if you don't know gender of a user you can write "she/he" but it would not be appropriate to use "it" for people, even animals if you know their genders. <A> A user is most definitely "she", because it is living person you are referring to. <S> Historically, persons of undefined gender were referred to as "he", but it is considered politically correct to use "she" instead these days. <S> For example, in my college papers I always made a point of using "she" when referring to a person of undefined gender. <S> Be aware, however, that this may somewhat distract from the content of what you are writing about, since "she" is still a somewhat unusual form. <S> This has to do with the fact that, again, historically, "he" was used and was considered the default (and "she" seems to indicate that the gender of the person you are referring to is all of a sudden important, when in fact it isn't). <A> Another reason to consider the use of "they" instead of he/she, from https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/ <S> ( mirror ): <S> The dichotomy of “he and she” in English does not leave room for other gender identities, which is a source of frustration to the transgender and gender queer communities.
| For an unknown person, most writers will use either "he or she", or they'll use "they".
|
What do we say to a patient? When somebody is patient/sick (what is the difference?) when we see him and we want to make him feel better? For example : I hope you getting better soon. I hope see you good soon.. Which one? Any better words in such this cases? <Q> This meaning of "patient" is a noun. <S> There is another meaning of "patient" that is an adjective. <S> A person (or animal) who is "sick" has a medical (or veterinary) problem that is not merely a simple physical condition. <S> For example, a sickness can include the effects of a disease. <S> Simply having a broken bone (unless there is an infection) is not a "sickness". <S> "Sick" is an adjective. <S> Neither of your examples is grammatically correct. <S> The following options sound natural to my (American <S> ) ear: <S> I hope you get better soon. <S> I hope you get well soon. <S> I hope to see you soon. <S> As J.R. points out, "Get well soon" is an idiom. <S> Google Images has lots of pictures of " Get well soon " greeting cards. <A> Patient (in the sense of suffering from a disease) is used only as a noun, not an adjective, so you should say When somebody is sick or When somebody is a patient . <S> Sick is to my mind better; patient tends to refer to the relationship between sick people and their caregivers. <S> Hope takes two sorts of complement clause: a clause with a finite (tensed) verb, optionally introduced by that : I hope (that) you will be getting better soon. <S> OR <S> a clause with a marked infinitive (the 'marker' is to ), whose subject is the same as the person hoping: <S> I hope to see you well soon. <A> We will say I hope you get better soon. <A> 'I/we hope you get better soon.' <S> Or we can simply say: 'Get better soon' or 'You'll be better soon'. <S> You can also add: ' <S> You're in my/our thoughts (and prayers)'. <S> Note that as a noun, a patient is someone seeking medical assistance. <S> The plural form is patients . <S> This plural form sounds the same as the noun patience , which means tolerance toward delay or incompetence . <S> That the two words sound <S> the same allows many jokes or plays on word involving the two words, such as That doctor would have more patients if he had more patience . <S> In addition, the adjectival form of patience is patient which allows the following: A patient patient is a patient (someone seeking medical help) who is patient (showing tolerance toward delay or incompetence). <A> Nurses say: How are we today? <S> (with a brilliant smile, when one is slightly recovering from near-death)
| I hope (that) you get better soon. A "patient" is a person (or animal) who is being treated for a medical (or veterinary) problem.
|
Is "I never saw him yesterday" grammatical? Is "I never saw him yesterday" grammatical, used to mean that "at no point in time in yesterday did I see him"? Does the sentence sound weird to a native speaker of AmE? <Q> I didn't see him yesterday is a more standard way to express the basic idea. <S> I never saw him yesterday. <S> We would normally use never saw in this way only when there is a special reason to do so. <S> As Adam and gnasher729 point out or suggest, the reason for doing so is to communicate contrast. <S> For example, many prior occasions contrasted with none <S> Although I saw him several or many times before yesterday, I saw him zero times yesterday. <S> Or a lengthy period in which I might have seen him or numerous opportunities to check or notice <S> contrasted with zero sightings <S> I was here all day (or I looked for him many times) <S> but in all that long period (or on all those many occasions) I didn't see him even once. <A> It may be grammatical but it is a sentence that makes one stumble. <S> One reads <S> "I never saw him" and is astonished to find it limited to "yesterday". <S> Then one reads the sentence again to understand how you think, but it is an unusual formulation. <S> "Never" is used without any limitation as in "He left and we never saw him again". <A> 'Never' puts an emphasis on the statement. <S> In the affirmative sentences we use 'did' to emphasise on what you are saying. <S> For example I did see him at the party yesterday. <S> Here you affirmatively emphasized your point. <S> But what if in the same situation you want to say you didn't see him there. <S> Then it'd be, <S> I didn't see him at the party yesterday. <S> (Here 'didn't' does not denote any emphasis on the statement. <S> it is just a plain negative statement) <S> But what if when you want to emphasize the point that you did not see him at the party ? <S> So in these situations 'never' can be used <S> So you can say I never saw him at the party yesterday. <S> Another example <S> I was waiting for him outside the office. <S> But he didn't come. <S> I was waiting for him outside the office. <S> But he never came. <A> (AmE)Normally I would use "never saw" if there was an extended or repeated window when I might have seen someone or something. <S> Rick Astley used to play at a bar by my house each and every Wednesday, but I never saw him. <S> Now he is retired. <S> I lived in the Himalayas for twenty years. <S> People said there was a yeti nearby, but I never saw him. <S> These concepts could apply to yesterday too. <S> The mailman normally drives by my house at 5. <S> I waited and waited, but I never saw him yesterday. <S> Everytime I hear a bird sing I jump to my window to try to catch a glimpse of the oriole. <S> Usually I catch a glimpse, but I never saw him yesterday. <S> People do occasionally use never saw simply to impart emphasis, but with a specific time in mind (e.g. "Accuse me all you want, but I never saw him at six o'clock last night " ) <S> I don't, and it always sounds antiquated or uneducated to my ear. <S> I think it is a matter of style, though, not grammar. <A> A situation where it would be reasonably natural: "I saw him three times on Monday, and six times on Tuesday, but I never saw him yesterday".
| The normal way of saying it would be: I didn't see him yesterday. So the meaning you quoted in your answer sounds correct to me.
|
Should I say a question is "very long" or "large" or "big" or "huge"? Someone asked a question with lots of content, and I said wow a very long question after hearing his question. Was that OK? Later I was wondering which one I should use: wow a very long question wow a large question wow a big question wow a huge question Which one is correct? <Q> All four are correct for your situation; they just have slightly different meanings. <S> You can also use very with any of the four choices. <S> Think about it: all four are adjectives, so if using one is grammatically correct, then the other three will be as well. <S> I would alter the sentence a little, but the way you've phrased it is not wrong. <S> I'd put it like this: <S> Wow, what a * question! <S> Or like this: <S> Wow, that's a * question! <S> Replace * with any of the four words; all are equally correct. <S> The use of what or <S> that's focus the exclamation a little bit more, making the sentence a little more versatile, but aren't strictly necessary. <S> How about the differences in meaning? <S> The standout of the four words you're asking about is long ; the other three are quite close in meaning, but long is distinct from them. <S> If you say what a long question , you're remarking on the length of the content. <S> A long question uses a lot of words (or pictures, charts, etc.) <S> to ask. <S> A question described as big , huge , or large might be long , or it might be weighty, substantial, or of great significance or importance . <S> A big question might be long but unimportant, long and important, or important but short. <S> Here's an example of a question which is big but not long : what is the meaning of life? <S> Big , large and huge are all extremely close in meaning, but have slightly different magnitudes. <S> Big and large are roughly equal <S> (I would rate <S> big as slightly bigger, but this is largely a matter of opinion), and huge is significantly larger than either of the other two. <S> Since you want to describe the length of the content of the question, long is the unambiguous choice, but you can call it big , large or huge if you want. <S> People will understand that you mean the question has a lot of content, though depending on that content they might think you also mean the question is important or substantial in meaning. <A> I'm going to say that a question with lots of content is most accurately a long question. <S> A big question can also be a question with lots of content as well, but it can also mean a short question that's important. <S> For example: The big question is not whether we have enough money to go to the movies tonight, it's whether we have enough money to pay the rent tomorrow. <A> "Wow, a very long question" is the most understandable of the original poster's four alternatives. <S> These two options sound even more natural: <S> Wow, that's a very long question! <S> Wow, that's a long question! <S> Both the exclamatory tone of voice, and the use of "Wow", make these choices informal. <S> The exclamatory tone, or the use of "Wow", makes the "very" redundant. <S> The specific dimension is length, as measured in words, letters, time to read, or time to say. <S> Thus, "long" and "very long" are the best options. <S> If the question was about a very important topic, or would take a lot of effort to answer completely, it would be a "big" question. <S> A question about an unimportant topic would be a "minor" question. <S> A question that is very easy to answer would be a "trivial" question. <A> You need to use your choice #1. <S> It was a very long question. <S> We would generally not use big question to mean having "lots of content" because big question is a fixed phrase (semi-fixed; fixed expression) that has a special meaning. <S> When we position <S> big before question, <S> then big is understood to mean big <S> > <S> adjective 2 <S> >of considerable importance or seriousness. <S> We sometimes use huge in front of question to mean very big -- big in this sense of important. <S> We won't normally use large because large does not (at least not commonly) share this meaning. <S> A look through results of a web search for "big question" quickly shows its meaning, and the results of a search for "large question" quickly demonstrates that it's used rarely if at all. <A> Wow, what a great question! <S> Of the four choices, long us <S> by far the best. <S> However, depending on circumstances, more appropriate adjectives might be complicated or complex . <S> Since long merely describes the number of words or the time taken to convey the question, it could also mean that the person was being needlessly verbose. <S> (For example, some people like to include a lot of unnecessary background information before getting to the point, thus making a long question out of a simple one.) <S> Interestingly, the other adjectives have quite a different meaning. <S> A big , large , or huge question indicates uncertainty. <S> A: "Shall we start interviewing candidates for the project manager role? <S> " <S> B: <S> "No, we should wait until we find out whether funding for the position is approved — and that's a huge question." <S> That means that B thinks that there is a significant probability that funding will be denied. <S> In addition, big question can also mean that it is important as well as uncertain: <S> The big question on investors' minds this morning is, will the Federal Reserve raise interest rates?
| All of the adjectives ("long", "very long", "large", "big", and "huge") describe the size of the question.
|
Difference between "have done" and "had done" I want to know the difference between "have done" and "had done". When and where it should be used? <Q> Have done --- <S> Had done -- Had done is a past perfect tense , generally refers to something which happened earlier in the past, before another action also occured in the past. <S> For Example: We have done the work -- <S> Here the action completed recently/just now. <S> My friend offered me an apple in classroom yesterday , but I wasn't hungry because I had just eaten lunch -- <S> Here the action happened earlier(" yesterday "), and another action (" I had just eaten lunch ") also occured in the past. <A> "Have (or has) done" can be used as a standalone declarative phrase. <S> ("I have done my homework."), although other phrases can be added ("I have done my homework, so I'm going to visit a friend.") <S> "Had done" is always used in a multi-phrase construction ("I had done my homework, so I went to visit a friend." <S> or "If he had done his homework, he could have gone to the party.") <A> Here is the answer I found on one of English forums: <S> We have done our homework. <S> present perfect tense. <S> Completed in the very recent past. <S> We had done our homework, so we were allowed to go to the movies.past perfect tense. <S> Completed in the past, prior to the simple past "act" of being allowed. <S> Note that the simple present of "to have," third person singular, is "has. <S> "He has done his homework. <S> The "done" remains in the base form, and does not change. <S> Source: <S> https://www.englishforums.com/English/HadDoneVsHaveDone/xjczc/post.htm
| Have done is a present perfect tense , generally it is used when the action is completed recently/just now. "Had" is simple past, and does not change for person or number:He had done his homework, so he was allowed to go to the movies.
|
"It feels so good" vs. "I feel so good" vs. "It makes me feel so good" What are the differences between following sentences, in terms of meaning? It feels (so) good I feel (so) good It makes me feel (so) good For me it sounds like we need a driver/thing to say "it feels so good". For example, when we return to our parents' house after a long journey in the Himalayas, we can say "It feels so good to be home again." But we can say "I feel good" with or without a reason. We can say "Today is a beautiful day and I feel so good". Because a beautiful day is probably nice, but not too surprising, even in the UK:) But how about when we hear a song that makes us happy, or when we read an impressive novel, or stay at home to relax? And I don't know how to say this, but when we say "it feels so good", does it have double entendres ? <Q> I'm going to take an innocuous example - taking a shower… <S> Taking a shower feels so good <S> I enjoy simply the feeling of the water, the heat [or coolness, depending on the current weather] <S> I feel so good, when I'm taking a shower <S> I get a feeling of satisfaction from doing something healthy & cleansing. <S> It makes me feel so good, that I want to take more showers. <S> …hmm… maybe my choice of innocuous subject wasn't quite so innocuous - there are always going to be double-entendre opportunities in any form of 'enjoyment'. <A> These are all quite similar but have different nuances of meaning: <S> " It feels (so) good " is describing it. <S> " I feel (so) good <S> " is describing me. <S> So if I want to tell someone about <S> it <S> I might use the first. <S> If I want to tell someone about me <S> I might use the second. <S> And if I want to tell someone about what it does to me , I'd use the third. <A> When you say "It feels so good," you're using a pronoun: It. <S> And pronouns need antecedents -- something that they're pronouning for . <S> (Sometimes you can get away with "he" or "she," especially in fiction, because they are so commonly used for "a man"/"a woman.") <S> So yes, whenever you have a "It feels so good" or "It makes me feel so good," you need to have some explanation/context for what "it" is. <S> E.g., if you slip into a hot bath, you can sigh, "It feels so good," and anyone around you will intuit that the context means "it" refers to the bath. <S> When the context is lacking, then the "it" is unclear. <S> And yes, "it feels so good <S> " can have a double entendre because, at least in America, anything having to do with sex is frequently made vague -- <S> so if your use of "it" is vague, it will tend to attract a sexual meaning. <A> As you said: I feel (so) good <S> involves your personal feeling. <S> In the case of the other two, it depends on what "it" is. <S> If "it" is causing an indirect feeling, then: <S> Hearing that song makes me feel (so) good. <S> is better. <S> But if it is a direct feeling, then you could say: It feels (so) good <S> the way you are touching me. <S> Though probably there is some crossover regarding the last two, in that make implies a more forceful effect when used. <S> As for the risk of a double entendre, you need to be careful regarding the context where it is used.
| " It makes me feel (so) good " is indicating causation.
|
We have to go. It is time we… The question from the test: We have to go. It is time we… – A. Leave, B. Are leaving, C. Left, D. Must leave. The correct answer is C. Can you please explain why? What grammatical phenomenon is present in this sentence? (I thought that this sentence should include a subjunctive and so I chose the answer A.) <Q> As far as my memory helps, this structure is used when we want to indicate that something needed to be done a while ago <S> and we're a bit late . <S> Your hunch about the phrase after "we" being a subjunctive is correct. <S> And, you can use both present and past tense. <S> However, the present tense might give the audience a "shouting" connotation and thus, isn't frequent. <S> To be more precise, it's colloquial to have a "high" after "is": <S> It's high time I changed those socks! <A> Can you please explain why? <S> There's an interesting afterthought in a Language Log post titled <S> " It's time ": <S> Some of the comments below ask about why the preterite would be used, and others correctly identify the reason: the preterite tense in English is often used for what is called " modal remoteness " — <S> it takes us away from claiming something about the actual world. <S> If she knows where I am right now is about whether she knows in this world; if she knew where I am right now <S> is about what it would be like in an alternate world, unlike this one, a world in which she does know. <S> P.S. "preterite" - past tense form of the verb <A> A and C are both correct. <S> It really is a matter of choice in English. <S> Here are two examples: <S> "It's time I be made a partner. <S> ""It's time I were made a partner." <S> Both of these mean the same thing. <S> I know your ESL teacher wants the past subjunctive "left" used above and not the present subjunctive "leave", so he might frown on my first example; however, both are correct in my examples and both A and C are correct in your situation, whether your ESL teacher "believe" it or not (present subjunctive). <S> There are a few times in English wherein <S> the present and past subjunctive forms can be used interchangeably; this is one of them. <S> The second example using "were" or your example using "left" may give off a hint that it is more unlikely to happen than it would be if the present subjunctive were used therein, but it really is preference. <S> Other examples of present and past subjunctive <S> interchangeability:"I would rather he be in agreement. <S> ""I would rather he were in agreement." <A> I believe that we can find this pattern (or structure), <S> It's time , in most grammar books. <S> Here is what Practical English Usage by Michael Swan writes about it: 306 <S> it's time <S> 1 followed by infinitive <S> [...] <S> 2 followed by past tense with present meaning <S> <S> It's time can also be followed by a subject with a past tense verb. <S> The meaning is present. <S> <S> It's time she went to bed. <S> <S> It's time you washed those trousers. <S> <S> I'm getting tired. <S> It's time we went home. <S> The expression <S> It's high time ... <S> is often used in this structure in British English, to say that something is urgent. <S> <S> It's high time <S> you got a job. <S> I hope this is helpful.
| Letter A uses the present subjunctive and letter C uses the past subjunctive.
|
What do the British call the dish which is called 'pudding' in the US I think the word pudding is used mostly as a general name for sweet dishes in the UK, whilst in the US it is a specific dessert. What do the British people call it? It looks delicious innit? <Q> Speaking for the UK, if we served a dessert looking like that, it would probably be a chocolate mousse (although this seems to have been piped into the dish, which isn't what you'd normally do with mousse). <S> However, I don't know enough about US pudding to know whether that dessert pictured actually is something we'd call a chocolate mousse, or just looks like it. <S> A quick search for a US recipe for chocolate pudding yields something that probably isn't a mousse since it doesn't seem to have much air whipped into it. <S> Maybe it does from the boiling milk, but a typical UK home-made mousse you'd whip egg-whites then fold them into your chocolate ( <S> whereas chocolate mousse bought in a pot from a shop almost always has gelatine, I assume because it has to stay fluffy a lot longer). <S> There is such a thing as custard, and it can be (rarely) flavoured with chocolate, but if your pudding doesn't have eggs in it <S> then it pretty much isn't custard. <S> Anyway "chocolate custard" certainly isn't a common dessert here. <S> Based on the recipe I found, we might call it "chocolate sauce" and wonder why it's being served on its own! <S> So I suspect the problem is you're asking for the UK name for something that isn't typically served here, and doesn't really have a UK name. <A> I'm a Brit that's spent a number of years in the US. <S> There's no direct analogue. <S> But, if you want to describe it, remember, context is everything. <S> Just as dessert is the name of the 'sweet course of a meal' in the US, you can get things with the name dessert in them and not be confused. <S> Likewise with pudding . <S> Plus, in British English pudding isn't even a generic name for 'sweet things' in all contexts (because you'll be really surprised when you take a bite of steak+kidney pudding) but is actually a reference to a shape, specifically the 'pudding bowl' (and hence leading to the name 'pudding bowl haircut') <S> Anyone who knows what it is, will know, and anyone who doesn't, won't— whatever the name. <A> Quoting from Wikipedia : <S> In Commonwealth countries these [North American] puddings are called custards (or curds) <S> if they are egg-thickened, blancmange if starch-thickened, and jelly if gelatin based. <S> Pudding may also refer to other dishes such as bread and rice pudding, although typically these names derive from the origin as British dishes. <S> Gelatin pudding is very common in the US. <S> Anything you buy at a grocery store or make from a boxed mix will most likely be gelatin. <S> Egg-thickened custards are higher-quality but more difficult to make. <A> If it's a pudding made from milk, corn starch and flavourings mixed together and whisked, then the British equivalent is Angel Delight . <S> (This is a brand name, but it's synonymous with the dessert in the same way as Hoover is with vacuum cleaners.) <S> If the same ingredients are cooked and then cooled, then it's flavoured custard. <S> Egg-free custard made from corn starch, milk and flavourings is very popular in the UK. <S> Individual pots of chocolate custard do exist, although they're not as popular as American pudding seems to be. <S> Ambrosia is a popular brand . <A> I think is it 'vla' <S> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vla ) although probable no one will use that word ;) <A> A chocolate mousse is a hybrid of a pudding & a flavored whipped cream served on <S> it's own rather than as a topping. <S> Pudding in the US is milk mixed with cornstarch, gelatin, sugar, & flavoring, & often requires no cooking. <S> Custard is the most like pudding in consistency, but made with eggs. <S> Blancmange & Flan/Pudim are technically Jellos/Gelatins made with milk & eggs. <S> They're too stiff & jiggly to be puddings. <S> European puddings would confuse Americans. <S> A Rolly Poly Pudding there is a Swiss Roll Cake here, a Yorkshire Pudding there is a hollow biscuit here, a Kugel there is a casserole here, a Boudin & Kishka there is sausage here, Cheese Pudding there is Sweetened Ricotta here, Groaty Dick there would be an unsweetened hot breakfast cereal here, Pease Pudding/Pottage there is Split Pea Soup here, Toad in the Hole there is a deconstructed Corndog here <S> , Spotted Dick there is Fruitcake made with lard here, Figgy Duff there is "Brown Bread in a Can" here <S> (love that stuff), Sussex Pond Pudding there is basically a doughnut with a fruit filling made with lard.
| Just call it what it is, 'chocolate pudding'.
|
Does "I'm positive" mean "I agree with you"? In a drama, I heard the following exchange: person A : Oh, Today is very cold. person B : I'm positive. So I thought that "I'm positive" means "I agree with you" , but after googling it seems like that there is no such meaning. Can "I'm positive" have the meaning "I agree with you" ? What about "I'm negative" - can that mean "I disagree with you" ? <Q> That is not a usage I am familiar with! <S> If I saw it as an editor, I would write notes to the author of, " <S> What do you mean here?" <S> Was the drama's author a native English speaker? <S> Was the drama a translation into English from some other language? <S> Was there some other context going on such that person <S> B was not responding to A's most recent comment? <S> Or, to answer your question... <S> No, in American English, at least, "I'm positive <S> " doesn't mean "I agree with you," nor can "I'm negative" mean " <S> I disagree with you. <S> " <S> I could contrive situations where similar constructions could be understood as agreement/disagreement, but I would have to set up idiosyncratic speech patterns for Person B, where B tended to shorthand " <S> I'm positive you are right" to just "I'm positive." <A> I am positive <S> means <S> I'm certain . <S> It's usually used when there is reason to express certainty in some statement. <S> So, you could say: — <S> Do you think it will be cold tomorrow? <S> — I'm positive! <S> but not — <S> It's cold today. <S> — I'm positive. <S> Here are some other questions that might be followed by <S> I'm positive : <S> Are you sure it's safe? <S> Are you capable of delivering the product on time? <S> Are [sports team name] going to win tonight? <S> Do you think the weather will be good enough for a picnic on Saturday? <S> Did John understand the requirements? <S> Notice <S> that not all of them ask whether the person is sure, but they do all require the respondent to make some kind of judgement, which is why it is possible to respond with "I'm positive"; it's expressing the degree of certainty in that judgement. <S> Did you buy bananas? <S> This is slightly different. <S> Normally, the answer to this, if you bought bananas, would simply be "Yes". <S> However, there is a context in which you might say "I'm positive" - basically if there's some reason to not be certain of the result. <S> For example, person A goes to the fruit bowl (where there are no bananas, despite asking person B to buy some) and says, "Did you buy bananas? <S> " Then person B looks in the fruit bowl, looks in the shopping bag, glances all around the room and says, "I'm positive I bought them!" <S> before finally finding them in the cupboard. <S> N.B. <S> There is also another meaning of <S> I'm positive that would be apparent in a different context - namely if you have been tested for something. <S> For example, I was tested for HIV and I'm positive. <S> That means that the speaker is HIV-positive . <A> The answer to the question is 'No'. <S> The use of 'I am positive' in relation to the statement 'It is cold today' results in a non-sequitur; the response refers to the speaker, and not the weather. <S> ("Are you sure you left your keys on the table?" <S> "Yes, I'm positive!"). <S> Sometimes it is used similarly to 'upbeat' or 'optimistic', to refer to the person: "I've been unemployed for two years", said Bill, the electrician, "but I'm fairly positive!" <A> I have come across this usage of 'positive' too many times in English movies and tv serials. <S> This usage translates extremely well into my regional language. <S> But since I have to explain it in English <S> I'll try to be as accurate as possible. <S> This 'positive ' is used when you are extremely sure about something. <S> Suppose someone asks you <S> Are you sure you <S> it was Tim who you saw in the mall last night ? <S> Now how would you respond to express that you're extremely sure. <S> You'd say, Positive. <S> Are you good enough to drive right now ? <S> Positive. <S> (Though I have had few drinks, I am confident that I'll still be able to drive) <S> Let's modify your example <S> A <S> - It's too cold out here, isn't it ? <S> There are two ways to answer it 1. <S> Yeah, certainly it is !! <S> or when you think that it's way too cold out here, then you might respond with just one word i.e. 2. <S> Positive. <S> However I have never come across the usage where you say 'I am positive' in the above examples. ' <S> I am positive' doesn't sound good english. <S> You don't have to say 'I am positive'. <S> Responding only with 'positive' will do the job. <S> Note - this is a bit informal usage. <S> It has a meaning similar to 'very sure.' <A> Q: "I'm positive" can have meaning "I agree with you"? <S> A: <S> No. <S> Well, could be (sort of). <S> Q: and is "I'm negative" that "I disagree with you"? <S> A: <S> No. <S> Well, could be (sort of). <S> It looks like it's Asian English. <S> I think this is the best way to translate them (even though dictionaries would define positive as "completely certain ): <S> I'm positive = <S> I think 'yes'. <S> I'm negative = <S> I think 'no'. <S> So, replying "Oh, Today is very cold" with "I'm positive <S> " doesn't really mean "I agree with you", but it's more like "I'm positive <S> (that today is very cold)", or in other words, "I think yes, today is very cold", and that's why I said "I'm positive <S> " could be understood as "I agree with you". <S> (Because I'm certain about the same thing you're thinking of.) <S> So, no, it doesn't literally mean "I agree with you", but yes, it could convey roughly the same idea. <S> The same applies to "I'm negative". <S> I hope this helps.
| Strictly speaking, the phrase "I'm positive" should allude to something about which the person is positive, since it is an assertion of belief.
|
There are ten minutes to the train's departure I would like to ask what is the most common phrase in English which allows you to express the fact that (for example) only ten minutes remain to the train's departure. Is my version O.K.? Thank you. There are ten minutes to the train's departure. <Q> Your train leaves in ten minutes. <S> Your version is okay, but not idiomatic. <S> You could say There are ten minutes until your/the train leaves. <S> ( <S> The your in the above sentences applies to when a friend is telling you. <S> They would probably most often use your , but the is also possible. <S> Both give definite references to train <S> but your is more personal.) <A> There are several ways. <S> You could say: There are ten minutes until the train's departure. <S> There are ten minutes until the train departs/leaves. <S> or The train will be leaving in ten minutes. <S> until is a better preposition because you are going up to a specific future point in time. <A> In AmE, the informal way to say it would be: The train leaves in ten minutes <S> More formally, it would be: <S> The train will be leaving in ten minutes
| The train leaves in ten minutes.
|
How many are "a couple of twin brothers"? From "The Walking Dead", season 05 / episode 09: Still got a mom and a couple of twin brothers. I know that it means that in total there are 3 people: the author of the sentence and his two brothers, wo are twins. But can it also mean that he has more twin brothers, e.g. 4 or 6? (Mind that this is American English. ) <Q> A couple of twin brothers also refers to two brothers; the word twin functions as an adjective modifying brothers and has no effect on the number of people in the group. <S> If there were five people in the group, you might say: A mom and a couple of sets of twin brothers. <S> Or, if only two of the five were twins: <S> A mom and four brothers, two of which are twins. <A> Technically, maybe, but it would almost never be meant or taken that way. <S> In this case, "twin" is an adjective modifying "brothers", so the "couple" refers to brothers. <S> (If someone meant they had two sets of twin brothers, they would probably say "a couple of sets of twin brothers".) <S> Even without the "twin" (which fixes the number at two), most listeners would expect someone referring to his "couple of" brothers to mean exactly two, because most people know exactly how many brothers they have, and they would presumably not have any reason to hedge. <S> (On the other hand, for instance, someone might say that they had been arrested a "couple of times" to make it sound less than the three or four it actually is. <S> Or that they plan on taking a "couple of days off" next summer, even if they haven't specifically made plans for exactly two days, and it could end up actually being one or three.) <A> It's a little ambiguous, yes. <S> It could mean... 1: The speaker is one of triplets, and therefore has two siblings, who are boys. <S> 2: <S> The speaker was a single birth, and has two brothers who were born at the same time as each other. <S> 3: <S> The speaker was a single birth, and has four brothers, born in two sets of two. <S> However, #3 is the most awkward meaning to wedge into the words, though the "couple of twin brothers" almost allows it. <S> The more natural thing to say would be, "...and a couple sets of twin brothers" or "...and a couple pairs of twin brothers. <S> " It would be more likely that 1 or 2 would be the case. <A> “Twin” is a noun, sometimes used in adjectival role, indicating one of strictly two (that is literally the meaning of the word: one of two), see Oxford, Webster, Wiktionary or your preferred dictionary. <S> As such, to exist a single twin requires another matching twin, hence there cannot be less than two. <S> Per definition there also cannot be a single set of more than two twins each of which matches all the rest. <S> Now, from context we have our object which is “a couple”. <S> One of the possible meanings is “indefinite small number”, which is usually indicated synonymous to “few”. <S> The latter, however, does not provide definite limits. <S> Anyway, our object is “a couple” and it bears further identification “of twin brothers”, which is the object complement. <S> The closest structure I can imagine to describe this is when “of brothers” is the object complement and “twin” assumes some sort of predicative role to the object complement. <S> In the end this leaves us with the following semantic structure:“Has an undefined small number of brothers who are twins.” <S> To qualify as “twins” they have to meet two conditions:1) <S> Come strictly in pairs;2) <S> No more than two individuals matching each other. <S> Having no defined upper limit to their count (definition of “couple”), they can be two, four, six, or any other positive real number (cannot have a negative, complex or rational number of people) divisible by two, which number can be identified as “small” in your particular case.
| Twin brothers refers to two people. "A couple" generally means two, but it can be used to mean "a few", especially when the exact number is low, but not exactly known.
|
Do we use "its" or "their" with a collective noun? For example, which sentence is correct? The House's minority makes its voices heard. or The House's minority makes their voices heard. <Q> In this case, given that we are talking about a single minority, presumably acting in concert, I would lean toward "its". <S> The use of the plural "voices" complicates that interpretation slightly, but I think it still works. <S> However, if the plural "their" were used, then the collective noun should also take the plural verb "make". <S> "The jury renders its verdict." <S> "The jury eat their lunches." <S> I suppose a rule of thumb here is to think about what pronoun you would replace the subject with. <S> "It renders its verdict." <S> "They eat their lunches." <S> If you think "It makes its voices heard" fits the meaning better than "They make their voices heard", then it should be "its". <A> It depends on if you are using British English or American English. <S> American English considers such a noun to be singular . <S> So, if you are using British English, you say: "The House's minority make their voices heard. <S> " If you're using American English, you say: "The House's minority makes its voice heard." <S> HOWEVER, if you do say "The House's minority make their voices heard" to Americans, it will probably be presumed you are eliding words: "The [members of the] House's minority make their voices heard." <S> Personally, I'd rewrite the sentence to " <S> The members of the House's minority make their voices heard," and avoid the potential for confusion. <A> They are both right, depending on your reference. <S> If you use House Minority as a singular proper noun, you would use: <S> The House Minority makes its voice heard. <S> If you are referring to the House's minority as an informal group of individuals, you would use: <S> The House's minority makes their voices heard.
| British English, as far as I understand it, considers a noun-for-a-group-of-individuals to be plural . It depends upon whether the members of the collective noun are acting as a unit or acting individually.
|
"Forgetting to take my ID to the bank.." - why THE bank and not A bank? Here's a sentence that I don't understand. There's nothing before this example. This is the first part of this paragraph. Forgetting to take my ID with me to ' the ' bank is something that I am definitely guilty of. One time I needed to make a bank transfer urgently for my company, but ~~. I have no idea why ' the ' is used in the first sentence. Isn't it more right way that I use ' a bank ' because the bank have never mentioned before? How is it possible to use ' the ' in the beginning of a sentence despite it being the first mention of the thing to the readers? <Q> You could definitely say " a bank" in the first sentence and it would be grammatically correct. <S> I think the difference is that saying a means that it's any bank in the world, while the implies that it's his bank where he has an account. <S> Forgetting to take my ID with me to the bank <S> [that I go to] is something that I'm definitely guilty of. <A> "The bank" is assumed to be one's own bank. <S> Look at these: I have to get to the bank before it closes. <S> I have to cash some traveler's checks. <S> Do I need to find a bank or can I do it at the hotel? <S> Why don't you drop by the house on Tuesday afternoon and we'll talk about it. <S> I'm in the market for a new house. <S> The bank is my bank, the one where I keep my money. <S> In the next sentence, I need to find any bank, if I can't cash the checks at the hotel I'm staying in. <S> Next, "the house" is my house. <S> Finally "a house" is any house, which when I find it will be the house that I want to buy. <S> A refers to an indefinite instance of a noun, <S> the refers to a single specific (hence a definite) instance of a noun. <S> In some circumstances, such as these, using the definite article means that you are referring to a specific instance of a noun that is implied. <S> That "implied" part seems to be where you're having difficulty. <A> "A bank" means any bank. <S> I need to get to a bank. <S> This means the speaker needs to get to any bank they can find. <S> There is implied uncertainty for which bank it will be. <S> I need to get to the bank. <S> This means the speaker needs to get to a predetermined bank, or at least that they know what banks can potentially service their needs. <S> Both of these sentences are grammatically correct. <S> The difference between them is subtle, and native speakers understand the distinction without ever considering the possibility of the writer wording it the other way as you have. <S> If anything, "the bank" suggests both the speaker and the listener know which bank the speaker intends to use. <S> " <S> A bank," on the other hand, could be used in the same situation, but also in a different situation where the speaker is talking to a stranger who does not know which bank the speaker uses. <S> I hope this helps.
| "The bank" refers to a certain bank, or a certain branch (brand) of banks.
|
"While you're *at* it" - Why *at*? I really have no problems understanding what the phrase means, so please do not answer with a description of the phrase. I was looking for the grammar behind this: Why, instead of any other preps, we have "at" used in this expression? My research didn't reach any results. I would write the questions relevant to give direction to what answers I seek. While you're at it . Why "at"? Is there any other preposition that is actually applicable there? Which use of "at" is this? <Q> At it is idomatic, as I suspect you know. <S> The OED defines at it under at as: <S> 16b <S> at it : hard at work, fighting, etc. <S> ; busy. <S> I point this out because I think the etymology of the idiom can be gleaned from the nearest definition of at : 16a: <S> With actions in or with which one is engaged: as at dinner, at work, at play . <S> Using this definition, I think the idiom can be constructed with it <S> either being something known from context, or a generic reference (meaning, tautologically, "whatever it is you are currently doing"). <S> So, "while you're at it" can mean "while you are engaged in [something apparent from context]". <S> I'm going to get a loaf of bread from the store. <S> While you're at it, get a gallon of milk. <S> The second sentence meaning, "while you're at (or, "engaged in") <S> the task you mentioned", [do this related thing]. <S> From this somewhat literal sense, we can easily jump to a more figurative sense meaning "to be engaged in that with which one is engaged", i.e., "busy", generically. <S> Edit: <S> To answer your other question, the only other preposition that I know of that might be used in at 's place is about . <S> Again, the OED, 11a of about : Occupied with, attending to; dealing with; interfering or meddling in; attempting... including: while one is about it : while one is doing something already undertaken, so as to save time or effort or as a useful addition. <A> This use of "at" is not so much a matter of grammar, you find it in dictionaries. <S> Longman DCE has it in at, no.15 (to be at it) and no.16 (to be at it again, disapproving). <S> http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/at <S> Just a word meant as a kind of explanation. <S> Today there is a discussion about the history of the continuous forms (to be doing).Traditionally "doing" is seen as a participle, though most neighbouring languages (Dutsch, German, Scandinavian) have a construction with prep + gerund. <S> And in older formulas as We went a-hunting/we were a-hunting "a- <S> " can be seen as a remainder of a prep (preposition). <S> The prep might have been "at/in/on". <S> In such expressions with "at+activity" such as to be at (doing) it (again) you might see older usage of to be at + gerund. <S> In continuous forms today no prep is used and the feeling that there was once a prep has been totally lost as it seems. <S> I know that this view is not generally accepted and in the history of the continuous forms constructions with participles were also used at an early stage, parallel to gerund constructions and both constructions intermingled. <S> All the same, perhaps this explanation diverging a bit from topic might help you to understand this special use of "at" - that astonishes you so much - a bit better. <A> Think of it as a contraction of: while you are [working] at it ... <S> or while you are [looking] at it ...
| In other words, at means to be engaged with, or performing actions related to, a thing.
|
How may I be "polite" in this situation I am a PhD student in US but my mother language is not English. I'm in the following situation and I wish to learn how I may respond it politely . The situation is simple. I have an appointment with my professor today but for some reason my professor forgot about it. He just never shows up in his office. Now I am about to send him an email to ask for rescheduling our appointment some time later this week. However, I just don't know how I should start my email... I feel it would be very rude if I start with something like: "Sorry professor but you didn't show up so I have to send this email to reschedule our appointment with you." But still, I wish to let him know that I made it to this appointment on time and this is not my fault.... Thank you for your advice! Maybe it is not a good idea that try to point out this is his fault... But still, I got stack on how should I start my email. This is what I have so far: Dear Professor: Good evening. I was wondering that could we reschedule our appointment some time later this week? For example Friday maybe? Thank you! But I still feel I should say something between "Good evening" and "I was wondering..." Any suggestions? Or should I just leave it as what I have so far? Thank you guys! <Q> You could say something like: <S> Dear Professor, Good evening. <S> In my calendar, we had an appointment this afternoon at 2 pm in your office <S> but it seems we may have missed each other. <S> I was wondering if we could reschedule our appointment for some time later this week. <S> For example Friday maybe? <S> (ALT: Friday is good for me if you have time.) <S> Thank you! <S> This states the fact that your calendar marked the appointment and allows for the possibility that there was an error on your part (or his) without being accusatory. <S> It allows that either of you have made a mistake and, if he claims that the appointment was at 3, you can graciously nod and smile and take the blame. <A> Let me know, if possible, another convenient time to meet with you. <S> Thanks." <S> If the professor has an admin who controls his scheduling, I'd say: <S> "Sorry I missed you on {day}. <S> I'll coordinate with your admin for another time, if that's OK. <S> Thanks." <S> and then ask the admin for another appointment. <A> That may or may not be a good idea, depending on how much of an a <S> ** the professor is (and some of them really are, so you've got to be careful). <S> And just why, may I ask, is it important to you to remind him that it's his fault? <S> That said, if you really must remind him that the missed appointment was his fault, something like <S> "I'm sorry you couldn't make it to our meeting", or something like that will do. <S> It's called being passive-aggressive.
| Say: "Sorry I missed you on {day}.
|
What's the difference between "hang out" and "play"? I just saw the movie Diary of a Wimpy Kid . The wide boy said, "Do you want to come to my home and play?" But the main character wanted him to say "hang out," and people around them jeered at the wide boy. So, what's the difference between hang out and play ? <Q> I haven't seen the film (or read the books), but based on your description of the scene, I would say that the other kids mock the "wide boy" for using play because it has more of a childish connotation than hang out . <S> Both terms have the same general meaning of people spending time together while engaged in some form of social activity, but hang out <S> is the "cooler" of the two and would be more appealing to kids once they've reached an age where they start wanting to feel more mature (i.e. "grown up"). <A> Hang out is a term used by teens, play is a term used by kids. <S> Hang out doesn't involve that much movement, maybe like chatting. <A> As other answers already say, hanging out sounds less childish than play . <S> There's a slight difference in meaning, though, too. <S> The word play often connotes playing around with some toy or game: playing marbles, playing with dolls, playing with Legos , etc. <S> If they are playing , then that gets associated with playing some game or sport. <S> Another key is that play <S> sounds childish by itself . <S> Much like in the movie, a teenager is susceptible to being mocked if he says, "Anybody wanna play?" <S> However, that same teen could probably get away with something like, "Anybody wanna play basketball?"
| The term hang out refers to spending time together, but not necessarily doing anything in particular: hanging out at the mall, hanging out after school . When kids are hanging out , they are probably just standing and talking – usually at some location away from home. By definition, there isn't much difference. Playing is playing a game or something.
|
'learning the ropes' should be followed by which prepositions? I am trying to use the idiom "learn the ropes" in a sentence as below: I am learning the ropes of my new job. Somehow, this doesn't "feel" right, and I think it should be: I am learning the ropes on my new job. Which usage is correct/better? An elementary internet search for usage of this idiom gives the following examples. None of them are using the idiom in the manner I described above. You'd better find someone to show you the ropes if you're going to fix the car yourself. Work slowly and cautiously until you have learned the ropes. Ruth will teach you what to do, and it shouldn't take you too long to learn the ropes. It can take quite a while for a new lawyer to learn the ropes in abig legal firm. Fabulous, now that I've learned the ropes I can take on more demanding tasks! I want you to learn the ropes before you start doing anything more sophisticated! <Q> Your intuition is right. <S> The customary preposition there is “at”: <S> I am learning the ropes at my new job. <S> This search on Google Books brings up 2,700 results. <S> The reason for “at” is to indicate a location without regard to its shape or structure. <S> If you imagine the job as a location, there are metaphorical “ropes” there which you have to learn. <S> At other locations, “the ropes” are different. <S> It’s natural to say in or of when referring to a subject or a skill: <S> Very few people will help you learn the ropes in science. <S> Learning the ropes of science can take many years. <S> A job naturally has a location, but science doesn’t, so “at” would sound wrong there. <S> This search on Google Books brings up 7,850 results. <S> You can say this: I am learning the ropes of my new job. <S> but it suggests that by “new job” you mean the occupation in general, not the specific place where you work. <S> For example, you might learn the ropes of real estate by learning the ropes at Century 21. <S> It's not wrong to say that you’re learning the ropes of Century 21, though. <A> (I'm not a native speaker. <S> As follows from others' reactions, native speakers on this site clearly prefer at .) <S> I am learning the ropes of my new job. <S> .. <S> this usage seemed strange to be. <S> I imagined some real-life ropes. <S> But I've checked Google Books, and found several instances of the phrase being used, apparently by native English speakers: <S> One phase is the candidate's professional transition (learning the ropes of a new job) and the other phase is the candidate's personal transition (adjusting to life after college in a new ... <S> (Craig Ross, Brent Beggs, <S> Sarah Young - 2011) <S> I am learning the ropes on my new job. <S> Google Books attested 3 results for me. <S> Here's one: <S> (Laurie Nadel, Judy Haims, Robert Stempson - 1992) I must point out that being attested with a meagre half-dosen results at Google Books would be highly untypical for a typical expression, so these examples might be marginal. <S> On the other hand, I might've used some unlucky combination of search words. <S> Personally I would use the expression either without any prepositional phrase attached to it, like here: You'd better find someone to show you the ropes if you're going to fix the car yourself. <S> .. <S> or with a prepositional phrase that is more attached to "learn" than to "ropes": It can take quite a while for a new lawyer to learn the ropes in a big legal firm. or with at : <S> I am learning the ropes at my new job. <S> (this way, the phrase is also clearly not attached to "ropes": at denotes location, so no ambiguity arises) <S> But here's one interesting Ngram : <S> Clearly of is widely used, but it must be used in ways that do not result in ambiguity. <S> I guess the tendency is to use it with prepositional phrases denoting something abstract, some thing that cannot have literal ropes - here are Google Books examples: <S> And your husband or partner will be exploring his new role as a dad and learning the ropes of child care . <S> ("Child care" cannot have real-life ropes; it's an abstract concept) another example: <S> Zimin is learning the ropes of being a house church pastor . <S> ("Being" is also a concept that cannot have real, hemp-and-tar ropes.) <A> I would use the phrase like this: I have been in my new job for 2 weeks, I'm still learning the ropes. <S> and it doesn't feel natural in my speech to use the formulation you are looking for <S> I am learning the ropes in my new job Varying <S> the preposition doesn't make me feel more comfortable. <S> For me the phrase is description of my status the whole "learning the ropes" is effectively a verb (reflexive? autocausative?) <S> which when used with a preposition loses its unity. <S> Hence I would say I am new to painting, I'm still learning the ropes <S> However that may a matter of my personal style, and if we do want to use the prepositional form I'd suggest that we select the preposition by considering what we'd use for a simpler verb. <S> I am a junior doctor working in this hospital <S> I am a junior doctor learning the ropes in this hospital <S> I am engaged as a painter <S> I am learning the ropes as a painter <S> The "of" formulation, seems odd to my ears, but I must accept CopperKettle's analysis that other native English speakers do use that style. <S> In this case the phrase seems to be focussing on "the ropes" being learned rather than the context in which the learning is happening. <A> Learning the ropes at <S> my new job Learning the ropes on my first day <S> Learning the ropes in work
| Learning the ropes on a new job means getting used to a new routine and meeting new people.
|
the opportunity coalesced -- how do you understand that phrase? Example: In some ways, writing the book was the easy part. The hard part is making sure not to forget to thank everyone who helped in its development! We had been talking about writing a book together for years, but there was always some reason why we didn’t get around to it. Finally, the opportunity coalesced and we couldn’t find a reason to put it off any longer. I don't know how you should understand the word coalesce in this context. Any thoughts? <Q> This sounds like a book that's written by multiple authors. <S> I'll start by saying that, while I understand what they are trying to say, <S> I, personally, as a speaker of AmE, don't think it's a particularly sensible statement. <S> Coalesce means: come together and form one mass or whole. <S> So, it would literally mean: <S> opportunity came together <S> What the author here is trying to say is: <S> We finally had the opportunity to write the book because none of the issues preventing it were in the way any longer. <S> This is emphasized by mentioning the fact they'd been planning to write the book for years. <S> This page on the ELU SE discusses a variety of more common phrases that mean the same thing, like "it all clicked into place" or "the stars aligned". <S> Here is an example of how the phrase is more correctly used: Interest, need and opportunity coalesced into an idea... <S> (From Entrepreneurship As Social Change: A Third New Movements in Entrepreneurship ) <S> This phrase is very different. <S> It has three things, interest <S> , need and opportunity <S> and they are coming together, or <S> coalescing , to create an idea . <A> I understand it as figurative language. <S> Literally, “coalesce” means to come together to form a united whole, like droplets of water coalescing into a puddle [ Wiktionary ]. <S> Or you could say that four independent-minded musicians, with conflicting ideas about how to perform their music, coalesced into a quartet—meaning that they learned to play cooperatively, forming a whole, performing as if they shared one spirit. <S> Metaphorically, in the context of the book preface, it means that the opportunity to write the book didn't exist until many things and people became ready at the right time, but eventually that did happen. <S> The previous sentence mentions that there was “always some reason” why, in previous years, they didn’t write the book. <S> That is, in previous years, some factors were always missing, which were needed to form an opportunity that the authors could act upon. <S> Unlike a literal coalescence, a bunch of independent factors needed for an opportunity don't grow together or unite. <S> The passage just asks you to think of it that way. <S> Or perhaps the coalescing was more literal, if perhaps one person's travels enabled them to make useful notes, which “attracted” an artist interested in converting the notes into drawings, which “attracted” a coauthor with the right qualiifications, and so on. <S> In that case, there is more of a feeling that the elements of the opportunity are growing together rather than independently happening to become available at the same time. <A> The Latin verb to coalesce means to grow together. <S> The formulation "the opportunity coalesced" doesn't sound very optimal, because one expects that two or several things coalesce, but not one single thing. <S> The Latin verbal prefix con and its variants co-, coll, corr mean together.
| When they use the word coalesce , they're meaning to imply that, through some combination of effort and luck or chance, they were finally able to meet up to write the book.
|
"Has me and the wife in fits every time." Found this in a YouTube video and people were commenting on his, apparently terrible, English skills. What's wrong with the sentence “Has me and the wife in fits every time?” <Q> Okay, there are two flaws with this sentence: <S> In English, it is generally considered polite to put yourself last in a list (assuming the list includes yourself). <S> So the phrase would be "the wife and me" rather than "me and the wife". <S> The sentence is not grammatically correct because it has no subject. <S> It should be, "IT has the wife and me ..." <S> But leaving off a trivial subject like "it" is often done in informal English. <S> If I was an English teacher and this sentence was on a term paper, I'd probably give a minor mark down for it. <S> But in conversation, probably no one would notice. <S> As others have noted, "fits" is a short form of a common phrase, "fits of laughter", meaning we were laughing so hard that it almost resembled an epileptic seizure. <S> I don't think I'd call that "wrong" in any sense, it's just abbreviated. <A> If you read the rest of the comments, you will see that most people actually attack the guy that said it was wrong. <S> The best comment that summarizes it all is that there are three mistakes, <S> two of them about capitalization and the third is a forgiveable mistake in word order. <S> Looking at the original comment, we can see those mistakes and fix them: had to share this. <S> has me and the wife in fits every time.... <S> Had to share this. <S> Has the wife and me in fits every time... <S> No big deal, just someone who for no clear reason thought the sentence was terrible, a bunch of people stating there is nothing wrong with it and some people who managed to find something wrong because they wanted to find something. <S> Another day on the interwebz. <A> The video is a scene from the comedy "22 Jump Street". <S> So yes, in this case the comment is short for " in fits of laughter ". <S> - <S> > An idiomatic phrase that means " to laugh a lot ", " to laugh convulsingly ". <S> It could also stand for "in fits of giggles", which has basically the same meaning. <S> There is another idiom with fits, " in fits and starts ", ( see also here ), with a totally different meaning. <S> Both originate in definition no.2 of " fit ", meaning " seizure " or " burst ". <A> It means "he has me and the wife cracking up all the time." <S> In other words: he makes us laugh a lot. <A> This is all very strongly idiomatic usage, and should probably be avoided if there is any doubt at all about the correct tone to use. <S> The omitting of the object as "( It )has...", the use of the idiomatic "the wife", the use and truncation of the idiom "in fits( of laughter )"... it all lends a very casual, conversational air to the line, and also a strongly regional, Northern-England sound. <S> Idiom needs careful handling, else it sounds just plain wrong. <S> For example, the suggestion of placing the casually idiomatic "the wife" into the stiffly formal "x and me" construction seems quite jarring to my ear, and I know of no dialect in which it would commonly be used in this way. <S> Google ngrams shows the "the wife and me" form to be far rarer, and I'd argue that the fact that the other form exists at all likely owes more to the prescriptivist hypercorrections of editors (and possibly use in sentences like "me and the wife of...") than it does to the native idiom of the authors: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=me+and+the+wife%2Cthe+wife+and+me&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15
| There is nothing wrong with it.
|
A human, the human, article problem I'm trying to say that all humans on planet earth are social creatures, without using plural form. A human is a social creature. The human is a social creature. Human is a social creature. What is the best way? Last one is probably wrong. I wondered whether it is possible to refer to the word "human" as one would refer to an uncountable noun. As, for example, with the word "time" which can be countable/uncountable. As in sentence: Thank you for your time. A new question has risen whether there should be an article preceding "other human being" in the sentence following the first one. The human is a social creature. Sometimes, interaction with other human being can become overly emotional and in such state we have tendency to act impulsively while not realizing that some of our decisions made can become permanent—beyond possibility of repair. The question now is whether there should be an article before other human being . <Q> The human is a social creature. <S> This is the best construction of the three. <S> It uses "the human" in the sense of "the class of things known as human". <S> Coincidentally, this is basically the same answer I just gave here . <S> The first sentence also could work, if it is crystal clear from context that you are speaking generally about the characteristics of all humans. <S> The third sentence is ungrammatical. <A> Option 3 is grammatically incorrect: You cannot use a singular noun in English without an article or one of a small set of adjectives ("one", "my", etc.). <S> Most people would either say: (a) <S> "The human is a social animal", using "the human" here to refer to an example member of the group. <S> Or (b) "Humans are social animals". <S> Personally that's what I'd say. <S> "A human ..." is also acceptable, but I think would be less common. <S> Yes, the word "time" can be used as a countable or as an uncountable noun: "How many times did you ask her?" <S> (countable) versus " <S> I have no time to do that" (uncountable) <S> As with many things in English, sometimes we use the same word for multiple roles like this and sometimes we have different words. <S> In the case of "human", we have different words. <S> In any case, that wouldn't really help. <S> You can't say, "Humanity is a social animal", because humanity as an uncountable mass group is not a social animal, it is the individual humans who are. <A> I would go with: <S> A human being is a social creature. <S> Sometimes, interaction with another can become overly emotional... <S> I would stick with "human being" though. <S> To some, just saying "human" might be considered objectifying who we are (maybe other than a scientific usage).
| The uncountable-noun form of "human" is "humanity".
|
Shall I say "Open your books" or "Open your book" when facing a group of kids? It might be a very simple question or even a silly one, but I am really a bit confused when saying "Open your books" while I am asking a group of kids to open a certain book(many students have one book or some books each). Sometimes I say "Open your book", and it sounds quite OK. For me, I want them to open their books which are many, but, for each kid, each one of them opens only one book. Which sentence is more prevailing? <Q> 1) <S> One student has one book = 'open your book'. <S> (easy)2) <S> (easy)3) <S> Many students have one book each = ??? <S> ? <S> 4) <S> Many students have many books each = 'open your books' (easy) <S> In situation 3), we can say both 'open your book' (because each student has one book each) or 'open your books' (because there are many books in total), and there's not much to choose between them. <S> Google Ngram Viewer doesn't help. <S> I don't think there's a answer on this one. <S> I would probably say 'open your books', because there are many books. <A> The plural Class, open your books or Students, open your books or Everyone, open your books is preferable . <S> You would say this even for just two students. <S> The concept is that you are giving a plural command. <S> Also, from your point of view, what are you seeing is more than book being opened, so books makes sense. <S> We usually reserve a singular for something like <S> Okay, everybody, raise your hand <S> if you know the answer. <S> This makes it clear you want each student to raise only one hand. <A> Speaking to more than one person: Open your books . <S> your as used here is plural, since it refers to a group of kids you are speaking to. <S> So you should stick with plural, books . <S> But if one student was daydreaming, you could turn to that student and say: Open your book .
| One student has many books = 'open your books'.
|
Is "without" the opposite of "within?" I've seen the famous quote from Hermes Trismegistus: "As above, so below. As within, so without. As the universe, so the soul." Is without actually the opposite of within? For example, these opposites make sense: On the ground, I have seen the clouds above me. On an airplane, I have seen the clouds below me. But, these don't seem to work. I struggle to contain the emotions within my heart. I struggle to contain the emotions without my heart. Is modern usage of without eclipsing the real meaning, or does this not make sense? In what context would it make sense? Examples and answers would be appreciated. <Q> In modern usage, no . <S> In historical (or deliberately old-fashioned) usage, yes . <S> Your Hermes Trismegistus quote is an example of this. <S> If we assume modern usage, your last sentence... <S> I struggle to contain the emotions without my heart. <S> ...means, "I have difficulty containing emotions when I don't have a [ or don't use my] heart. <S> " If we were to take it as old-fashioned English... well, it would still seem strange; since the heart is where emotions (metaphorically) come from, what emotions are you containing outside of your heart? <S> Lastly, it's worth noting that "without" isn't the only phrase meaning both "not inside" and "in the absence of"; "outside of" still means both in current usage, hence this joke from Jim Brewer : Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. <S> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. <S> " <S> Aside from" might also have this kind of double meaning, except that its literal meaning ("next to, beside" rather than "not inside") is pretty much never used! <S> It only ever means "in the absence of", or "if we ignore the (possible) existence of". <A> In modern usage, "without" means the opposite of within only when explicitly contrasted with it. <S> And it comes across as a bit archaic and poetic when used that way. <S> So your example: I struggle to contain the emotions without my heart. <S> Doesn't work. <S> But the sentence, I am overwhelmed by the storm of emotions within and without my heart <S> is okay, if very flowery to the point of fruitiness. <S> (Note, your example has an additional problem of using contain to refer to things on the outside of the referent. <S> That sounds weird, though is not strictly speaking wrong. <S> Your example does make me imagine the speaker running around trying round up his emotions like someone trying to herd ducks. <S> I assume you mean, by "the emotions without my heart", other people's emotions. <S> We don't usually speak of subjective experiences, i.e. feelings, being outside of one's heart – that's not idiomatic – but rather speak of other's feelings as being outside of our selves .) <A> "I struggle to contain the emotions within my heart," does work in modern usage, although it comes across as slightly self-consciously poetic. <S> Normal (American) usage would substitute "in" for "within". <S> However, modern usage overwhelmingly uses "without" in the sense of "a total lack", and your second example comes across as very strange. <S> "I struggle to contain the emotions without my heart," can be paraphrased as either " <S> Since I don't have my heart, I struggle to contain the emotions," or "I struggle to contain the emotions without using my heart," and neither of these makes a great deal of sense. <S> Note that in both cases, using "the emotions" implies that exactly which emotions are being struggled with was specified in a preceding sentence.
| "Without" is no longer used to mean "not inside"; it solely means "in the absence of".
|
Aerial "subway" in the US I know highway and aerial highway, the above-surface one. However, I do not know how to say aerial "subway" in the US. Thank you very much. <Q> Seattle has " The Monorail " (which is an elevated train that rides on a single, wide, concrete rail.) <S> As Matthew Read points out, Vancouver, British Columbia has a " SkyTrain " system. <S> Many cities have elevated portions of their light rail systems. <S> Although the underground portions are often called subways, and the ground-level portions are sometimes called streetcars or trolleys, most places do not have different names for the ground-level and elevated portions of the system. <S> For example: Seattle has "Link light rail" that has all three kinds of track. <S> The San Francisco Bay Area has "BART", which also has all three kinds of track. <S> XKCD has a collection of subway maps ; many of the route networks include elevated sections. <S> Most of the "tunnels", "ferries", and "submarines" on the map are as fictional as teleporters and wormholes. <A> In general, I would call that an elevated train or elevated railway , although as Jasper mentions, many places have local names for their own particular elevated trains. <A> @stangdon, thank you very much. <S> My comment is too long because of links, so I write it in the answer. <S> In fact, I found the phrase on a CNN news. <S> http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/03/world/taiwan-plane-crash-transasia/ <S> Your answer causes another problem. <S> For years I have learned English from CNN news, which should be authoritative and correct enough to learn from, I believed. <S> Now I realize that I may learn weird English from them. <S> Would you please check the accuracy of the phrase aerial highway in the situation? <S> The highway is not elevated at some portion to cross bridges or other roads. <S> All of it is literally built above ground to save land usage in Taipei, one of the most crowded cities on earth, as shown in figure. <S> You can see that there are three layers of road. <S> Two of them are elevated and you can see them on the picture. <S> One of them is block by the embank wall and you can not see it, but <S> it indeed in there. <S> Or, a big or, is <S> the reporter just try to do a authoritative tone by adding rare words?
| Chicago has " The El " (which is an elevated train).
|
Is "Your cooking made me happy" acceptable? Your cooking made me happy. Is this correct? Can " your cooking " be used as a noun? The more I read it, the weirder it sounded to me. <Q> Yes, it is grammatical. <S> Interestingly, "your cooking" can mean either "the food you made" or "the fact that you cooked." <S> So, for instance: <S> "Everything you made for the care package was delicious. <S> The food brought me great comfort during the stress of exams. <S> Your cooking made me happy." <S> vs. <S> "I know it was a big deal for you to take the time away from your job to do this dinner. <S> It means a lot to me that you did all the cooking personally. <S> Your cooking made me happy." <A> It does sound a bit weird to my (American) <S> ear, but not for grammatical reasons. <S> The "-ing" form of a verb can be used as a noun. <S> This "noun" form is called a "gerund". <S> I can imagine the example sentence being used in a scenario like this: <S> Older mother: <S> Looking back, what did you enjoy as a child? <S> Grown up child: <S> Your cooking made me happy. <S> If the conversation were between a man and a woman he was courting, or between a husband and wife, I would not expect this sentiment to be expressed the same way. <S> A statement in the present tense would make more sense, like: <S> Your cooking makes me happy. <S> or The way to a man's heart is through his stomach. <S> or a woman might say Someone needs to write a book On the Care and Feeding of Boyfriends . <S> I also know families where the father does much of the cooking. <S> In those families, I can imagine a child someday telling her father, "Your cooking made me happy." <A> In those roles it may still take the same sorts of complement it takes as a verb, and it may take either adjectives or adverbs as modifiers. <S> Cooking rice is boring. <S> I hate your cooking. <S> I love my mother, but her atrocious cooking drove me from home. <S> I must thank Cedric for heroically cooking such an enormous meal on such short notice. <A> The sentence Your cooking made me happy <S> is grammatical. <S> But the problem is the cooking in contemporary (American) English can refer either to (a) <S> the act of cooking (b) the result of cooking In the sentence you've made I would think it means (a), or to reword it: <S> That you cooked for me <S> made me happy <S> OR <S> That you always cook[ed] for me made me happy <S> If you want to express the other meaning, then I would say: I was happy to eat the food you made <S> OR <S> Eating the food you made made me happy <A> Cooking may be a noun referring to the art of preparing food: "The artful way you prepare food makes me happy." <S> Cooking may be a gerund. <S> Then this is a case of possessive with a gerund . <S> It is like: "I hate his singing in the shower" – I hate that he sings in the shower. <S> In your case: "It makes me happy that you cook. <S> " I guess that both forms could be understood as either "I am happy that you cook and nobody else <S> but you" or "I am happy that you stopped playing and started cooking."
| The -ing form of a verb may indeed be deployed as a noun (when this happens we call the -ing form a gerund ), and play the same syntactic roles as any other noun.
|
Is the collocation "rekindle a relationship" mostly British I have read this verb in newspapers many times where it is used mostly as synonym of restart and it is collocates with relationship.For example if a couple break up and then if they become couple again as far as I know they rekindle the relationship .. But somehow when I mentioned this verb in this sense to my American friend, she struggled to understand at first and then she said we can use it like start a fire . Then I said probably it is used in metaphorical way when it is collocated with the word relationship. So I would like to say especially native Americans, do you use the word rekindle in the sense I mention?Is it mostly a British word? http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/rekindle http://www.wikihow.com/Rekindle-a-Relationship <Q> I wouldn't say it's mostly British, and would have thought it was reasonably common in American. <S> (I certainly got it instantly.) <S> Perhaps the Amazon Kindle e-reader has begun replacing the verb in people's minds? <A> A way to check and see if something is used in American English is to check an American English dictionary, or one configured to give American English uses. <S> Whereas dictionaries are not geared toward specific collocations, the first two dictionaries listed below give example sentences with analogous collocations. <S> One could check Ngrams for current usage of a specific collocation. <S> ODO US English definition M-W dictionary definition American Heritage dictionary definition <S> However, most good dictionaries will specify whether something is an AmE usage or an BrE usage, including the Cambridge dictionary public school , which is totally different in the UK and the US. <S> On second thought the Cambridge AmE dictionary does not give both meanings . <S> Although both the M-W For Learners and American Heritage does. <S> As does the ODO of British and International English , the three I cited at first. <S> In fact the ODO AmE also gives both definitions. <S> So it seems Cambridge chooses (at least sometimes) to particularize, while others tend to generalize. <S> I prefer the Cambridge for many of its definitions, but around here the ODO seems more popular. <S> Fag is another word that has BrE-specific (if not AmE-specific meanings), and all the dictionaries listed here touch on both. <A> Searching the Corpus of Global Web-Based English (GloWbE) for [rekindle] * [relationship] : United States 27 results (out of 253,536,242 total words) Great Britain 31 results (out of 255,672,390 total words) <S> We find that it's used on both sides of the Atlantic with roughly the same frequency. <S> I'm an American English speaker, and I expect all American English speakers to be familiar with this phrase. <S> I'm not sure why your friend was confused.
| It is an English word, including an American English one.
|
Do Americans use the word dodgy as a synonym of the word shady What does it mean when a dictionary indicates that a word is British English? Does this mean Americans do not use it at all? For example: Do Americans use the word dodgy as a synonym of the word shady or is it used only in the UK (and also in some other English-speaking countries maybe) even though some Americans know what it means? <Q> (Native American English speaker here.) <S> With one possible exception, I don't think I've ever heard an American say “dodgy”, and this includes Americans who deliberately include bits of British English in their speech as an affectation. <S> For example, Americans I've known who say “petrol” <S> don’t say “dodgy”. <S> However, I think most Americans I know personally would understand “dodgy”, especially in context. <S> And if someone wanted to fake a British accent, some might well go out of their way to use the word “dodgy”, though probably not all of them would think to use it. <S> The one possible exception is an American housemate I had on long trip to Scotland last year. <S> I can't remember for sure if she said “dodgy”, <S> but in six weeks, she had unwittingly picked up some Britishisms, including “got it sorted”. <S> “Dodgy” seems pretty easy to pick up unwittingly. <S> I certainly do hear “dodgy” from British friends and co-workers all the time. <S> I think I'd use the word with them without it seeming like an affectation. <S> Other Americans' experiences will be different, of course. <A> I would say yes, but not very often. <S> In everyday speech I think the words "Shady", "Suspicious", "Shifty" or "Fishy" are more likely to be used in this context. <A> As the Oxford Dictionary Online (US English) states in her definition, the word 'dodgy' is used in BrE. <S> From which one could conclude that the American public at large does not use this word. <S> An exception could be Americans exposed to the word via a) friends who speak BrE and/or b) television programmes (see what I did there) that emanate from the UK. <S> But in the case of b exclusively, Americans would probably use dodgy only with folks who belong to groups <S> a or b . <S> We tend to use words that we expect others include in their everyday vocab. <S> I expect that less that 10% of Americans know what it means.
| Summary: I know what dodgy means, but I would only use it when communicating with other people whom I expect would know what it means.
|
Past simple vs used to vs would I feel a little tangled in grammatical nuances and would like you to help me clear some things out. I know it's possible to use either the past simple, "used to" and "would" to talk about past habitual actions. But is the use of the last two of them limited only to personal experiences, or is it also correct to utilize them while talking about, say, historical events? In other words: do these sentences mean exactly the same thing to you? Do you sense any differences between them? Jack the Ripper approached/would approach/used to approach his victims slowly and nonchalantly. The Aztecs fought/would fight/used to fight their enemies with wooden pikes. When he was a boy he practiced/would practice/used to practice playing piano. I read/would read/used to read a lot about astronomy even during my childhood. I know a lot of such cases depend on the context; past simple can mean both a specific action and a series of repeated events, right? Oftentimes it's the words that create the meaning, not grammar, but does it apply to the utterances listed above? <Q> Hmm. <S> I definitely prefer these: <S> Jack the Ripper would approach... <S> The Aztecs fought... <S> He used to play piano as a boy... <S> I read a lot about... <S> This is talking in context of another action already implied to be habitual, such as "When he was on the hunt, Jack would..." 'Would' is used when you place an actor in a scenario and talk about the possibilities of that scenario, what the actor's wills and choices are. <S> (Note: will -> would, using will in the choice or volition sense.) <S> This is tricky to explain. <S> The problem is that English has tenses that merged together in the modern language, but that are still separate in their logic. <S> I am not so sure 'simple past' is an accurate characterization of this verb. <S> In an earlier tongue, this could be written as "the Aztecs of old did fight their enemies with wooden pikes." <S> but modern sources consider that an intensifier instead of a tense creator. <S> I'm stumped. <S> I am okay with 'would fight' in this context, but prefer it as I wrote it above. <S> "Used to" seems appropriate for two reasons: this seems like a storytelling thing instead of a more formal context, and he is also implied not to practice piano anymore. <S> Used to should not be used in a formal context. <S> I prefer this simply because the sentence reads best when this isn't treated as a habitual at all. <S> This is entirely equivalent to both "at some point, I read..." and "several times during my childhood, I read..." but the distinction isn't important, just that the event did happen. <A> One way to distinguish among these locutions is to understand what kind of question they would answer. <S> What was Jack-the-Ripper's M.O.? <S> Jack the Ripper would approach his victims slowly and nonchalantly. <S> What weapon did the Aztecs use in battle? <S> The Aztecs fought their enemies with wooden pikes. <S> Is astronomy a hobby you have recently taken up? <S> No, I read a lot about astronomy even during my childhood. <S> But this last one is not quite idiomatic, and I'm not sure what to do with it: When he was a boy he practiced/would practice/used to practice playing piano. <S> Probably: Did he ever play a musical instrument? <S> He used to play piano. <S> He used to take piano lessons. <S> When he was a boy he played piano. <S> When he was a boy he took piano lessons. <S> P.S. Is any one of these sentences to be preferred? <S> The late Glenn Gould hummed audibly while playing Bach. <S> The late Glenn Gould would hum audibly while playing Bach. <S> The late Glenn Gould used to hum audibly while playing Bach. <A> For some reason with some of the examples when 'would' is used, I get a feeling that the author has some information that lets them write with certainty. <S> I can see someone asking 'how do you know that?' <S> when 'would' is used in some cases while it feels less likely the same question would be asked with the alternatives. <S> Also 'would' feels like the reader is almost being transported to the event being described. <S> So when you say that the Aztecs used to fight enemies with wooden pikes, you shouldn't leave the reader wondering about what weapon they switched to later on. <S> That sentence kind of is setting up the next where you would say 'Unfortunately for them, the high priests order the warriors to switch to pikes made of dried grasses, which didn't help...' <S> Also the 3rd and 4th example regarding 'used to', would only make sense if the boy in #3 didn't grow up to be a professional pianist, since it's likely he still practices just as much (unless your specific point was that he stopped practicing and his career as a pianist is failing because of that.) <S> Same goes for #4 , 'I used to read a lot about astronomy even during my childhood. <S> But after I got a degree in astronomy, I no longer bother reading about it at all.' <S> If the last 2 sentences is what you are trying to say, then ok, otherwise you shouldn't be using 'used to'. <S> Overall 'used to'/would/'simple past' are identical in use, except 'would' can't be used for past 'states' : <S> When I was a boy, I [ would live ]/[used to live]/[lived] in Brooklyn. <S> <-- not correct <A> Simple past can be used for repeated statements in the past. <S> Read books there you will find a lot of sentences with simple past referring to repeated actions.
| With 'used to' you are giving the audience a clue that something that was frequently done before is no longer being done.
|
Difference between "good at" and "good in" Can anybody help me by explaining the difference between theusage of "good at " and "good in "? <Q> (AmE)Chocolate is good in cake. <S> Sarcasm can be good in the proper context. <S> That actor was good in his last movie. <S> Wine is good in moderation. <S> She's good in bed. <S> What's good in this restaurant? <S> Was there some good in these examples? <S> She's good at math, but he's good at sports. <S> I think I'm good at English grammar. <S> I know I'm good at solving crossword puzzles. <S> I hope I was good at explaining to you. <A> Generally, someone is good at doing something . <S> On the other hand, someone is [simply] good in something . <S> However, depending on which dialect you are speaking in, it depends. <S> For instance, She's good at fooling people - at, following procedure/act <S> But then... ... <S> hiring candidates good in programming -simply, she's good in coding. <S> COCA <S> does show 23 results of the phrase "good in math" . <S> However, it's worth noting that good at something is NOT utterly incorrect. <S> In fact, I think it's commoner. <S> Some people just born good at math - Huffington Post <S> And... <S> Thinking you are good at math - News from the Ohio State University <A> I think this ngram will help dissolve the matter, at least slightly if not completely. <S> What <S> I can conclude from this (the wise can extract more significant meanings!) <S> Good at doing... , good at eating... <S> , etc. are commoner than good in doing... , good in eating... etc. <S> (The -ing forms used in these examples are actually used as verbs, see ngram) <S> Good in maths , good in singing , etc. <S> were commoner than good at maths , good at singing , etc. <S> though the difference in their usage has diminished. <S> (The -ing form used in these examples is actually used as noun, see ngram) <S> P.S.: <S> to know what those double underscores mean, like in _NOUN_, take a look at the ngram info . <A> It should be you are good <S> At, but weak In doing something.
| "good at" however, means adept at performing a particular activity, whether physical or academic.
|
Software for learning pronunciation? Is there some kind of program/app like Duolingo for learning pronunciation of the English language? With consistent use of English as a written medium, you cannot not get better (in most cases), but how to improve pronunciation without studying/reading phonetic notation? <Q> That helps aquire a specific accent as well. <A> To “movies and the radio” <S> I’d add audio books. <S> The readers tend to speak clearly. <S> When you can afford it, you can get the audio book, the printed English book and the printed book in your language, and compare them. <S> It should find English pronunciations for most words. <A> One of the most important tools you can use in working on pronunciation is a small mirror. <S> Use it to check the shape of your mouth, what your teeth and tongue are doing, etc. <S> -- but only focus on your mouth. <S> It is too distracting to have your eyes, <S> etc., in view.
| Based on my personal experience I believe the best way to learn the correct pronunciation (and improve your English in general) is by watching movies/videos and listening to the radio. To toot my own horn a bit, ( BRAAAAAAP! ) try Anki with my audio download add-on.
|
Yuppie, DINKs: Acronym or portmanteau? yuppie is short for Young Urban Professional DINKs is short for Dual Income, No Kids For each of these two words: Is it an acronym or a portmanteau ? It sounds to me like they are not real acronyms, not being strictly one letter per word. References appreciated. <Q> Neither of these are portmanteaux . <S> To form a new word, a portmanteaux has to use parts of at least two words, more than their initial letters but less than the complete words (although it can use one of the words completely, but not all of them). <S> If you can imagine a scale (with "0' on the left and "10" on the right), portmanteaux are in the middle range, abbreviations are on the far left and compound words on the far right. <S> With your examples, you would have to have something like "youbanfessional" or "duacomenoids" for <S> them to be portmanteaux. <S> DINK is an initialism <S> that is a strict acronym- <S> it is made from the first letters of each word and is pronounced as a new word. <S> Because most people don't know of any other names with which to describe it, "yuppie" is sometimes referred to as an acronym or an abbreviation. <S> It is neither since: 1) it is not strictly formed from the first letters of it's forming words although it is pronounced like an acronym, and 2) it is not an abbreviated form of a full word. <S> It isn't a portmanteau because we know its forming words and it is not formed from parts of them. <S> The word "yuppie" is a simple initialism. <S> I hope this helps. <A> In the UK, there are pedestrian crossings called 'Pelican' crossings. <S> They get their name because they are PEdestrian LIght-CONtrolled crossings. <S> Similarly, 'Puffin' crossings are Pedestrian User-Friendly INtelligents crossings. <S> Finally, another crossing, designed for both pedestrians and cyclists, is named the 'Toucan' crossing because the TWO CAN cross here. <S> All are examples of contrived portmanteau words with three, four and two elements respectively. <A> DINKs does seem to be an acronym to me, because the s at the end is only intended to express plurality. <S> Yuppie is a bit different of a situation, because I don't think that it really fits either description well. <S> I would classify that as slang , because it's an abbreviated form of the phrase that doesn't really have a consistent form. <S> Generally if something doesn't fit the description of an acronym or portmanteau you can just call it an abbreviation . <S> In the case of other vernacular things like Yuppie though, slang is usually best fitting.
| It wouldn't be an acronym, for reasons you have already listed, and portmanteaus are usually more fluid than that. Both "yuppie" and "DINK" are examples of initialisms.
|
Could "curved" be the opposite of "flat"? What is the opposite of flat? and is it curved? e.g. the tabletop is flat the tabletop is (not flat or curved). In other examples could curved be the opposite? <Q> Curved and flat can be direct antonyms in certain cases, but they usually aren't. <S> As related to a tabletop, the proper antonym would be uneven , not curved , because tabletops are flat by definition. <S> A curved table would mean that the tabletop is not rectangular or oval in shape, or that it has rounded edges. <S> Something similar to a table but with a vertically curved surface would be a basin or perhaps a bowl or dish . <S> In mathematics, one can use curved and flat as antonyms for describing the slope or rate of change of the graphs of functions (which are generally called curves ). <S> Here's an example on ELU suggesting <S> flat and curved as antonyms in the context of learning curve . <S> Outside of technical ones, I can't think of any cases where curved and flat are properly used as antonyms. <A> Example: <S> Are curved TVs any better than flat TVs? <S> After years of pushing ever-flatter, thinner TVs, manufacturers are throwing buyers a curve—literally, with curved-screen sets. <S> … <A> If the table top is unintentionally not flat, I'd probably say that it is "warped".
| Flat has many antonyms , one of which is curved .
|
Why does the i in naïve have two dots? I have observed that the word naïve is written with two dots on the i. Why is this?Is it correct to write the word with a single dot, as in naive? Are there any other English words with such two dots? <Q> It's called a dieresis. <S> It's used to show that the "a" and the "i" are not to be pronounced as a single sound. <S> So it's pronounced something like "na-eve" and not like "knave" or with the "ai" rhyming with the "i" in "knives". <S> But in 50 years as a native English speaker/writer, I have never written it like that, and have rarely seen it so either. <S> Another example is "cooperative" where the second "o" in theory has a dieresis. <S> It's pronounced "coh-op...." and not to rhyme with "loop". <S> Again, I've never written it with the dieresis, and don't recall seeing it like that either. <A> The two dots on the letter i are a French diacritic sign. <S> The two dots in the French spelling <S> naïf / naïve <S> show that ai has not its normal pronunciation but is spoken as two separate vowels /a-i/. <S> In English you can write naive or naïve. <S> The French term for the two dots on e/i/u is tréma . <S> The Greek term diaeresis means separation and refers to the separate pronunciation of two succeeding vowel letters. <A> I think it is worth pointing out that perhaps the most common use of this diacritic to indicate diaresis in modern English is in the personal name Zoë, which is not pronounced to rhyme with "toe" but instead as "zo-ey". <A> It is actually very un common for native English speakers to spell it with the diaresis, largely because, as you've noticed, the diaresis is not normally a part of the English language. <S> The vast majority of English keyboards don't even contain a modifier to add a diaresis (or a tilde, accent, or any other marking, for that matter) to a letter. <S> However, the auto-correct feature in some computer programs will change naive to naïve, as my browser has done in this post. <A> In some cases in English, the two dots indicate an umlaut , typically seen on loan-words (predominantly from languages like German and Swedish), to indicate a special pronunciation of the vowel: <S> ångström, Bön, doppelgänger, filmjölk, föhn wind, fräulein, Führer, gemütlichkeit, glögg, Gewürztraminer, Götterdämmerung, Gräfenberg spot, jäger, kümmel, pölsa, smörgåsbord, smörgåstårta, über, Übermensch, surströmming... <S> As others have stated, however, this is not why we find it in words like naïve. <S> For this class of words, the symbol is not an umlaut but a diaresis (or diæresis ). <S> For these, it is to mark a vowel as being unassociated with another vowel, either adjacent as in naïf, or elsewhere in the word, as in Brontë. <S> This class of words includes both loan-words (particularly from Romance languages: naïveté ), and home-grown English terms (reënter). <S> Boötes, Brontë, caïquejee, Chloë, continuüm (rare), coöperate [-ion, -ive], coöpt, coördinate [-ed, <S> -ing, -ion, -or, -ors], daïs, faïence, Laocoön, naïf, naïve, naïveté, Noël, noöne (rare), oöcyte, oölogy (rare), opïum (rare), öre, preëminent <S> [-ly] <S> (rare), preëmpt [-ion, -ive] <S> (rare) <S> , reëlect [-ed, -ing] <S> (rare) <S> , reënter [-ed, -ing] <S> (rare) <S> , reëstablish [-ed, -ing] <S> (rare), residuüm, spermatozoön, Zaïre, Zoë, zoölogy <S> Especially now in the days of the keyboard, both forms of this diacritic tend to be omitted for simplicity when writing or printing English. <S> The only words that appear to have any extra resulting ambiguity from homographs are Öre , Bootës and Coöp . <S> The New Yorker style guide is the only one in common use in the US which still advocates their use: for most people, both umlauts and diaresis are considered as archaic as digraphic ligatures (æ and œ). <A> Think of the two dots as being a sort of divide, so the two syllables are "nai" and "ive" rather than <S> the i only belonging in one of them (na-ive or nai-ve). <S> Another example is the word "weird". <S> While most of us would pronounce it as "weerd" this isn't the case in Scotland. <S> As with naive, the word has evolved - to a greater extent - to exclude the use of two dots (Shakespeare always spells weird with both, so it definitely used to be that way). <S> This gave the word two syllables, "wei" and "ird". <S> After the Revolution, America became determined to shorten words to simplify them as much as possible (part of the reason the letter u was removed from words like "colour" and why "z" often replaced "s"), which is why over there "weird" is always said quite short. <S> In other places, such as England and Australia, the word is often still drawn out very slightly so it almost has a second syllable. <S> This is a remnant of when it was always pronounced with two syllables - the second syllable is still very prominent with a Scottish accent because of how the r is rolled. <A> The adjective "naïf" (or naïve which is the feminine writing ) is a French word. <S> The pb is that French language "marries" some vowels together to produce another sound. <S> Normally, a+i makes a [e] like in n a vy: the a of navy equals the a+i in French among other ways of writing that sound. <S> to prevent it, there can be either an H between the a and the i <S> or there will be what is called a "trema", the 2 points above the letter i to indicate that the a and the i are pronounced separately. <S> I hope this clarification will be helpful. <S> Kind regards.
| The purpose of it is to show that the word is two syllables, and that the i falls into each. Basically the answer is that naïve is sometimes spelled with the diaresis because it is derived from French which spells it that way.
|
"Hope this help" or "Hope this helps"? Good evening all,I often see people write "hope this helps" at the end of a communication, especially when they are trying to answer other people's queries about computer problems. Recently, my english teacher pointed out that both "hope this helps" and "hope this help" are grammatically incorrect after she saw a classmate of mine writting the three words in his assignment, but my teacher just didn't explain it in detail why the expressions are wrong. So, could you tell me why both "hope this helps" and "hope this help"are grammatically incorrect please? I had asked this question in school. Some of teachers told me that "hope this helps" was perfectly acceptable and they had been using it for many years. But some told me that "the correct expression should be: Hope this help or I hope this help" Please help me!Which is correct? 1: hope this helps 2: hope this help 3. I hope this will help. (my suggestion) Kitty <Q> So my original answer was incorrect. " <S> Hope this helps!" is a declarative, not an imperative. <S> Instead of deleting my answer, I think it might be helpful to explain why I should have known it wasn't an imperative, and pull out the bits from the original that were correct. <S> Imperative clauses are usually in the second person, like: "Hope for the best!" <S> (You should hope for the best.) <S> A declarative clause is just a statement, like: "I am editing my answer." <S> or, "Hope this helps!" <S> The second person and first person form of hope are the same, so I got a little confused because I didn't think about it carefully. <S> I should have been able to tell that the clause wasn't an imperative because an imperative is usually a command directed at another person, and "Hope this helps!" is stating something in the first person. <S> I would expand "Hope this helps!" <S> this way: <S> I hope this (answer) helps you. <S> You would say "This answer helps me." <S> and not "This answer <S> help me." <S> because the subject of "help" is third person singular. <S> So, "Hope this helps (you)!" <S> is OK, but "Hope this help (you)!" <S> has a verb agreement problem. <S> In your suggested sentence, which is grammatical, you changed the wish from the present (helps) to the future (will help). <S> This is OK, but it's not exactly what the original author expressed. <A> 1: hope this helps - <S> Informal but commonly used as the subject (I) is implied. <S> Technically, it is not a complete sentence as it does not have a subject. <S> 2: hope this help - Informal and wrong as there is no subject-verb agreement between "this" and "help" 3: I hope this will help. <S> (my suggestion) <S> - This is perfectly acceptable. <A> I will answer this question from a native speaker's perspective. <S> 3 is very commonly used and is grammatically correct as it has an explicit subject and as Kevin mentions "help" is used as an intransitive verb which does not require a direct object. <S> 1 is also acceptable in common use. <S> However, a pedantic perspective would identify that 1 is not a complete sentence because it does not have an explicit subject. <S> (2) "hope this help" is grammatically incorrect because it has improper subject-verb agreement . <S> Hope this helps! <S> ;) <A> Hope this helps vs hope this help! <S> Alternatively, it's correct to say " <S> (I) hope this will help". <A> One of the finest points of english grammar as my English professor said. <S> Subjunctive mood. <S> The correct answer is I hope this help. <S> Whether the subject is singular or plural, you use the base form of the verb. <S> Why base form for singular as well? <S> The reason is because it’s not a declarative. <S> The action word is not happening yet. <S> Subjunctive mood expresses a hope, a wish or a request.
| It's more natural and common to say "hope this helps!"
|
Is it a good practice to map English words and verb tenses to my own native language? I've a general question about understanding and memorizing English words and phrases. Sometimes when I read a sentence or phrase with complex verb tenses (like continuous perfect forms) I can't understand and get sense immediately, I should do some mapping/translating to my own native language. So my question is : Translating/mapping English words, specially verb tenses, to my native language, Is it a good practice or not? I'm not sure but I've read a couple of days ago in somewhere in the Internet that says doing so could leads to worse performance on learning English. What factual information indicates whether mapping English tenses to the tenses in my native language will help or harm my learning of English tenses? <Q> Translations are almost always approximations. <S> Languages have contained within them all of the many subtleties that differentiate one culture from another. <S> Languages not only differ in their sounds and word order. <S> The people of every culture have many of their very own subconscious assumptions about how the world is ordered. <S> This order is encoded in the language. <S> That's why learning through immersion and use is so important, because you are in effect learning the cultural programming as you learn the language. <S> Translating will use neurological processes that are not conducive to tuning in to this phonetic and cultural programming. <S> I could go into detail about this. <S> If you're interested I'll comment below. <S> The short answer: don't do it or you'll hit a glass ceiling later on. <S> How do I know this? <S> I am a language immersion coach in São Paulo. <A> Being a visual learner I would say NO. <S> For example: Root word Walk <S> Past= walked Current= walking Future= <S> walk (future tense preceded by the word will ) <S> Rather than learning the mapping of the word learn the root word. <S> For example ran <S> is very different from its root <S> run . <S> If you have an example I could maybe provide more detail. <A> What troubles you has been under study for quite some time. <S> In fact, linguists prefer to study about it in the Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research. <S> This is a phenomena called language transfer . <S> Well-phrased and descriptive definitions clearly state this as: refers to speakers or writers applying knowledge from one language to another language. <S> -Still <S> wikipedia <S> Imagine me! <S> I'm a Persian (not really, but I'm very fluent in it). <S> So I can have transfer. <S> But it's either one of these two types: <S> Pot calling the kettle black. <S> : This idiom is commonly used in both languages. <S> If I want to comprehend the one in L2 (i.e.: The language I'm learning, in this case English), I can make use of the full understanding I have from the Persian equivalent. <S> This is known to be positive transfer. <S> Tenses ambiguity : For a Persian speaker (or any who opt Persian to be their L1) understanding present perfect could be troublesome in some cases, when they try to exactly "migrate" their understanding of Persian to English. <S> So there's no candy. <S> This is referred to as negative transfer, which is very common if you try to do L1 to L2 in an advanced level. <S> You might want to argue that "I'm no Persian!". <S> The point is, this happens at every language that is different from pure English. <S> This even happens to be instinctive in some cases. <S> So the short answer is now at hand: <S> No . <S> Mapping from your own native language to English isn't such a good idea, although if it may seem a boost in a start for learning English. <S> (It is a boost, but it isn't recommended, as habits hardly fade away and as I mentioned in my comment and concluded, in the general process of language learning, it's known to be harmful.) <S> Should you want to do more studying, <S> this article is a good choice, I'd say. <S> Also, it wouldn't hurt to take a look at this . <A> I'm going to beg to differ slightly with the other answers. <S> Yes, you can map words from English into your own language. <S> As a matter of fact, for very basic English and very simple communication this is a good way to start. <S> BUT. <S> There's a price. <S> No language maps perfectly into another, and English probably less than some. <S> English is a mongrel language, full of exceptions and ambiguities which can only be resolved by context. <S> As long as you try to speak English as a "mapped" version of your own language you will never learn to speak it well.
| Because english verb tenses generally have the same root word it would seem more practical to learn the root words and how tenses are applied to them.
|
What does "Lose Yourself" mean? The question is very small, what does the sentence "Lose yourself" mean? I searched on internet and got many different meanings. Two of which are quite contrary to each other. One is, "preoccupy yourself with something other than yourself". The second is, "to free your mind from worry" If someone preoccupies himself with something then he is not going to relax at all. I found many different meanings, e.g. here on Quora.com and here on yahoo.com. I guess it is a subjective phrase, which can have different meaning depending upon the context. So the question is: Does its meaning depend upon context, dialect in which it is used, or something else? If it has a fixed meaning then please tell that. Is its meaning opinion based? When is it used, that what meaning does it convey or in other words what is its purpose? <Q> Probably you refer to a song by Eminem. <S> Text here: <S> http://de.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lose+yourself <S> In the first line we have "You better lose yourself in the music..." <S> Here to lose has its original sense as in "Damn, I've lost my keys. <S> " <S> OALD has "lose yourself in something" as an idiom meaning <S> As a maxim of life of dubious value. <S> http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/lose?q=lose <S> You'll find "to lose oneself in sth" at the bottom of the page (phrasal verbs). <A> The free dictionary defines the phrase as "to lose oneself in " something or someone: <S> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lose+oneself+in : <S> to be thoroughly absorbed in someone or something; to become engrossed in someone or something. <S> Frank loses himself in his children when he is at home. <S> When I lose myself in my work, time just rushes by. <S> I would only add that is is the engrossment or absorption of ones' attention to the point where they have forgotten normal personal concerns, such as time, hunger, social engagements, minor aches and pains, daily routine, worries, anxieties, etc. <S> I agree with rogermue that the Eminem song probably has popularized the simplified "to lose oneself". <A> Perhaps it just means simply to lose yourself. <S> Lose who you are as a person, not for the sake of freedom and refreshment, but simply because your mind will not quiet <S> and so you tear yourself apart and in that process you are lost. <S> You have become nothing.
| Forget everything else and become one with the thing you are interested in.
|
does "as often as" mean "every time"? I will pay for the meal as often as you make the reservation. This sentence is from a test. The task was to correct a mistake. I thought the mistake was " for the meal ", it had to be " for meal " (like "for breakfast").But the correct answer is I will pay for the meal as long as you make the reservation. I understand this sentence and the special usage " as long as " meaning " only if " ("I'll pay for the meal only if you make the reservation"). But I still wonder if it is really wrong to use "as often as". I'll try to explain my confusion. The expression " as ... as " usually used to emphasize an adjective/adverb.So for example there is the sentence " I'll wait as long as you need ", here " as long as " has a literally meaning - " duration ", " as much time as you need " rather than condition-meaning " only if ". So "as often as" might mean literally " every time " (is it correct?) I'll say "hello" as often as I see/meet you == here "as often as" means "every time" So I think the sentence "I will pay for the meal as often as you make the reservation." means, "Every time you make the reservation, I'll pay for the meal". Can it be this way?Or is the situation so odd/weird, that can't be in a real life? Is this the reason (unreality) why " as often as " can't be used in this case or is it still a grammar mistake? <Q> We find as often as in many sentences before a verb such as like, can, need <S> , want all specifying an unknown amount of times, but implying each and every time. <S> Connect to Wi <S> -Fi as often as you want throughout Europe, the Middle East, and Africa for a low monthly rate ( source ) As often as or as many times as refers to an unknown number or frequency of times. <S> But it does have the force of each and every time. <S> So, yes I will pay for the meal as often as you make the reservation. <S> very much has the force of <S> Either each occurence considered singly, or each occurence as a group taken singly: every . <S> Hopefully, this helps. <A> Frankly, I don't like the official answer. <S> To me, it should be ' <S> so long as' - a simple trade, one for the other. <S> You reserve, I buy. <S> So long as you book a table [your part of the deal] I'll pay for the food [my part of the deal]. <S> A one-off transaction. <S> It could be simply re-cast as 'If you book a table, I'll pay for the meal.' <S> You're right to be doubtful over the alternatives. <S> 'As long as' gives us the impression that the reservation takes some given length of time, during which you will be continually paying. <S> Makes no real sense. <S> Using 'as often as', as you mention, sets up the indefinite future that for each & every time you reserve a table, I will then pay for the meal - an unlikely proposition in real life. <A> Yes it can be that way. <S> It is grammatical, and would be understood as you suggest. <S> But you probably wouldn't hear a native speaker put ot that way ("as often as"). <S> It might be more usual to say "so long as". <S> Or, more simply <S> "If you make the reservation, I'll pay for the meal." <S> In any case, your "correction" of taking out "the" was not the right fix. <S> Yes, you say "pay for breakfast" and "pay for lunch", but you pay for A meal or for THE meal. <S> (or cornmeal, or oatmeal). <S> But not just "for meal".
| Every/each time you make the reservation, I'll pay for the meal.
|
Is "Do you even listen to yourself?" idiomatic? I wrote an answer for the question What does the phrase "listen to yourself" mean? . In my answer I mentioned that the question "Do you even listen to yourself?" is both idiomatic and rhetorical. It is indisputable that "Do you even listen to yourself?" is rhetorical, but then there was a comment that it was not idiomatic since it literally asks someone to listen to what they are saying. Well an idiom is a group of words that mean something entirely different from their literal meaning, like "raining cats and dogs" — to rain heavily. So I thought "Do you even listen to yourself?" is idiomatic because it indirectly asks the speaker to review/analyze what they are saying, yes they have to literally listen to themselves about what they are saying, but "Do you even listen to yourself?" tries to urge the speaker to consider what they are saying even before they say it, or urges the speaker to not saying anything else that is not suitable/stupid as their previous responses were already not suitable/stupid. So I wonder, is "Do you even listen to yourself?" idiomatic or have I got it wrong? <Q> I generally consider "idiomatic" and "idiom" to have approximately the same relationship that Damkerng T's comment suggests: an idiomatic construction is any construction that a native speaker would prefer for a given use, while an idiom is a set and rather quirky phrase or pattern that's unusual enough to identified and talked about by laymen, not just linguists. <S> Conveniently, that's also the dictionary definition . <A> It's not an idiom, because the words do in fact carry their literal meanings, but this question is rhetorical . <S> These kinds of statements are "questions" which have self evident answers. <S> The listener is not expected to attempt to answer the question; rather, it's being used to make the point that something obvious was overlooked or ignored. <S> The use of rhetorical questions is idiomatic , though, meaning that it's a standard way that native speakers construct expressions to convey particular, nuanced meaning. <S> However, we often use rhetorical questions in a negative way, where the obvious answer is no , often with a negative connotation. <S> That's the case here: do you even listen to yourself? <S> clearly states <S> you obviously don't bother to listen to yourself with the implication <S> and you ought to, because this is utter rubbish . <A> It's not quite idiomatic, but not in the way the commenter you mentioned says. <S> The problematic aspect is simply your <S> "Do you even..." . <S> More idiomatic forms would be: "Are you even listening to yourself?" <S> or "Can you even hear yourself?"
| Basically, yes, the question phrase is idiomatic; it's not really (much of) an idiom, since it's not very odd or exceptional or memorable.
|
"I had it all figured out" The source of this dialog can be found here . MARK: And this trip. I didn't know there were tornadoes. SARAH: It's OK. It's not your fault. MARK: I had it all figured out. I messed it up. I thought that I just— According what I have found in the dictionaries. "I had it all figured out" means "I had understood all of it" but I am not sure. I guess the meaning of that sentence might be something else. Am I right or not? <Q> Your understanding of the meaning of the sentence is exactly right. <S> The only thing you're missing is that the sentence is stated ironically. <S> Irony is speech or a situation that means one thing to an audience who lacks some information, and another thing to an audience that knows better, and the audience that knows better takes some kind of delight or bitter pleasure in understanding the difference between the two interpretations. <S> Here's an example of " dramatic irony ". <S> In a movie, some criminals are running from the police, they crawl through a basement window into what appears to be an abandoned building, and one of them says "Whew! <S> We're safe now. <S> " But the audience knows that the the building is actually a police station. <S> (It's called dramatic irony because it occurs in drama.) <S> In your example, Mark is playing both roles simultaneously. <S> His past self is the ignorant one, who thought he had it all figured out (that is, understood all of it). <S> His present self sees how wrong he was. <S> By saying it aloud, he is letting Sarah know that he has learned that in fact he did not have it all figured out. <S> He could have just said "I thought I had it all figured out. <S> " You could understand that literally. <S> But the ironic version carries a stronger feeling of contrition. <S> Actually saying the false sentence as if it were true makes it sink in more strongly, and sting (Mark) a little more. <S> This is a common use of irony in everyday speech: saying one thing and meaning its opposite. <S> Usually you say it to someone who will understand that you mean the opposite of the literal meaning of your words, and together you delight in the fact that they understand you correctly while someone less in-the-know would interpret your words literally. <S> Sometimes people speak ironically intending to be misunderstood, and then take delight that they understand and others don't. <A> The phrase means what you think it does with the following modification: but the speaker was wrong, and realizes it. <S> So it usually carries a subsequent "but" or "and then(something happened that did not fit my understanding)". <S> The speaker's error can be of two varieties - either the speaker's understanding proved to be faulty, as in the video you linked, or the situation itself changed. <S> An example of the latter might be, "I was making a killing in the stock market. <S> I had it all figured out. <S> And then 9/11 happened and I lost my shirt." <A> To figure something out is to solve a puzzle or untangle a difficult situation. <S> Therefore, "I had understood all of it" isn't quite the right sense. <S> The phrase often implies "I have a plan which I think will work". <S> Think of an engineering problem, where you've done all the calculations — the figures . <S> You have a plan based on abstract math, and you have confidence that it will work, but it hasn't yet been tested with reality. <S> So, while I agree that Ben Kovitz is generally right about this being an ironic use, where the speaker is acknowledging that that in fact he did not have it <S> all figured out, <S> another way of thinking about it is that the speaker had the figuring done — had what seemed like a good plan — but didn't take some aspect of reality into account in that figuring.
| To use another idiom, you've got it all figured out — on paper .
|
The brown bears found At / In / On? The brown bears found on / in/ at Kodiak Island are the largest in the world. Here's the prepositions that I will always get mixed up. on It is more likely to emphasize that bear was found on the Island not a land. So, the author might talk about how bear can be found 'on a island' or something about island at Using 'at' in this context is not suitable because island is big enough to have to use 'in', rather than 'at'. Like in the country, In NY not like at the ticket box. in It is more likely to emphasize the location, Kodiak, So it is more likely that the author talk about Kodiak itself, rather than how bear can be found on a island. This is all I can think of, but I'm not sure I'm right. So, could you help me fully understand it? <Q> The brown bears found on Kodiak Island are the largest in the world. <S> In AmE, at least, in relations to islands, we usually (if not always) say that something is on the island. <S> As if the island were a ship floating on the water. <S> You could expand the sentence: <S> The brown bears found on Kodiak Island in Alaska are the largest in the world. <S> Because the island is part of the state of Alaska (within the borders of the state) <S> we say in . <S> And, because I can: <S> The brown bears found at the North American Bear Center on Kodiak Island in Alaska are the [among] largest in the world. <S> Actually, in this case, since the Center is contained, like a zoo, you could also use in instead of at . <A> You must remember that these prepositions have multiple meanings . <S> Some dictionaries will list between one and two dozen meanings for each, and sometimes these meanings will even overlap! <S> The best way to fully understand these prepositions is to use a good dictionary (such as Collins or Wordnik ) to appreciate the flexibility of these words. <S> If you try to get locked into a mindset where you think you know what a preposition means, you're liable to trip yourself. <S> For example: Using 'at' in this context is not suitable because island is big enough use 'in' <S> That line of reasoning seems like maybe you're overthinking it. <S> After all, at can be used to designate a place (at the store), a time (at midnight), an event (at the opera), or a rate (at 10 meters per second). <S> And it's flexible enough to use with island , too: <S> There were huge Dolly Varden and another variety of trout in the bay where we were camped at the island . <S> (Paul L. Jones, 2010) I might have used on there, but these words are pliable enough that I wouldn't say that at is "wrong." <S> Your book claims the answer should be "on" probably because that's the more common and idiomatic preposition to use when talking about what's on an island. <S> Yet it's important to realize such usages can change over time. <S> For example, look at this Ngram : <S> You can see there was a time when in the island and on the island were both used, but for some reason, in the island fell out of favor about 100 years ago. <S> You'll still find modern hits for "in the island," but many of those are cases where island functions an adjective, such as: ... <S> despite the fact that tourism is an important element in the island economy . <S> Here's a sentence where I would have used on the island , not in the island : <S> The road here is the best in the island , though in many places steep and difficult . <S> however, that was written by David Porter in 1823, and, as I mentioned, preposition usage has changed over time. <A> The brown bears found ON Kodiak Island are the largest in the world. <S> I will flat out that the preposition,On is the best choice. <S> Life can be simple, let's not make it complicated.
| In your example, on is correct.
|
"With his closed eyes" vs "With his eyes closed" Context: (Sherlock Holmes and the Duke's Son / Oxford University Press) He was a large man, tall, well-dressed, and important-looking, He came into the room, walked to one of the big chairs, and suddenly fell into it. He sat there, with his eyes closed , looking white and ill. Can we say "with his closed eyes" ? instead of that sentence. And what's the difference between them? <Q> He did something "with his eyes closed" means that his eyes were closed while doing it. <S> Since there isn't much you can do with your closed eyes, the term isn't used much. <A> "With his closed eyes" might imply a permanent or long-term condition that caused his eyes to be closed. <S> In that specific sentence, I'd read "with his closed eyes" to mean that his eyes were also closed while he came into the room and fell into the chair, possibly because he was blind or had a muscle disorder of his eyelids. <S> It does not mean the same as "with his eyes closed". <A> When the clause describes him, use 'with his eyes closed' . <S> When the clause describes 'eyes ' , use 'with his closed eyes' . <S> e.g. "With his closed eyes, he could see for miles. "
| He did something "with his closed eyes" means that he used those closed eyes in doing it. There are slightly different meanings.
|
'Manhunt for three gunmen' vs 'womanhunt for three gunwomen' Some time ago, Paris police launched a manhunt for three gunmen. But, what if there are three women who carry guns, shoot and escape, is it still appropriate to say "manhunt for three gunmen"? Will it have to be "womanhunt for three gunwomen"? <Q> Yes, you would still use the word "manhunt". <S> For example, a review of Thelma & Louise includes this quote: Ridley Scott’s <S> 1991 road movie Thelma & Louise is often cited as the singular feminist movie of the decade, but <S> in reality it’s so much more than that. <S> Geena Davis plays Thelma, a housewife stuck in a mundane marriage. <S> Sarandon plays Louise, a waitress who always finds herself alone while her musician husband is out on the road. <S> The two decide to take a road trip but soon become fugitive when Louise shoots and kills a man who attempts to rape Thelma. <S> Soon, they find themselves the targets of a massive federal manhunt. <S> According to Google NGrams, "manhunt" is about 600 times more common than "womanhunt". <S> Similarly, "gunman" is about 600 times more common than "gunwoman". <S> Whereas "armed man" is only about 12 times more common than "armed woman". <S> Google NGrams does not find "female gunman" at all. <S> Men are much more likely to commit crimes using guns than women, so it is hard to find descriptions of female gunmen. <S> Here is an example of an author using a phrase to avoid choosing between "female gunmen" or "gunwomen": Nice Girls With Guns : <S> Kingwood High friends say the girls were "Sweet. <S> " <S> Adults say "Well-Mannered. <S> " Cops say "armed robbers." <A> Man is derived from a term that was gender neutral and this sense persists today in many terms, such as manslaughter, so manhunt is the correct term to use. <S> If you wish to find a gender neutral alternative to "gunman" and a more specific term such as "armed robber" is not appropriate, the term "shooter" can be used. <S> This is a widely used term (more common even than gunman) and has become much more frequent in recent years. <S> The term "Active Shooter" is defined by the U.S.Department of Homeland Security as ""an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area" and would be appropriate in this instance. <A> My humble opinion, as I am a not-mother-tongue-English-speaker, is "man" is coming from mankind which designates an human being, male or female. <S> I guess the same applies to "gunman" which is the same regardless if the gun bearer is male or female. <S> Try polling a dictionary with the term "gunwoman" . <A> It's perfectly acceptable to use terminology that implies a gender if you attach a male term to something negative or a female term to something positive. <S> It's only sexist when your words imply that something positive must be male or something negative must be female. :-) <S> In the 1920s the female equivalent of a "gunman" was a "gun moll". <S> I have never heard anyone say "womanhunt" or "gunwoman". <S> If someone was worried about implying that the person with the gun is male when that person's sex is unknown, they'd probably say, "A search for the suspect" rather than "A personhunt for the guncreature". <A> The word means "human hunt", not "male hunt". <S> The man- part of the word is meant in the larger generic sense, not the gender-specific sense. <S> I suppose in certain circumstances it could be used as a humorous double entendre, with the interpretation in your more limited sense furnishing the pun. <S> For example, a group of ladies out for a night on the town might say they are on a manhunt.
| So manhunt will be appropriate regardless the sex of the hunted.
|
Should I use an apostrophe for the possessive of "robot"? I would like to know the correct usage when referring to the personal experience that belongs to a robot, is it: Manifestation of robot's personal experience Manifestation of robot personal experience? From a simple Google search, the word robot's experience seems to be used frequently.And also robot experience sounds a bit weird to me. From this website , it is mentioned that apostrophe s is used to show that something belongs to someone or something. But I don't understand why the sentence "Britain’s coastline is very beautiful" is acceptable, but "the door’s handle" is not. Can anyone give clear explanation about this? <Q> Both the door handle and the door's handle are possible. <S> When do we use the one over the other? <S> That's an interesting question. <S> The palace was one grotesque extravagance after another. <S> There was even a golden toilet. <S> The toilet's handle was decorated with diamonds. <S> In the sentence above, we are considering the handle as a feature of that toilet in particular, hence the possessive. <S> He groped in the dark for the door handle. <S> In the sentence above, we are simply referring to the object that people grasp to open a door, not as a particular feature of that door; hence the use of the noun 'door' used attributively. <S> You can think of 'door' there as if it were attached to the handle (literally and linguistically): door-handle P.S. <S> In fact, it used to common to connect an adjunct noun to the main noun with a hyphen, though that practice seems to be falling out of use. <A> "Manifestation of robot's personal experience" ought to have an article before "robot's". <S> "this robot's" would indicate a specific unit's experience, while "a robot's" would indicate the experience of an unspecified unit's experience. <S> "The door's handle" is not necessarily wrong because the emphasis can be on either "door" or "handle". <S> For instance, "The door's handle was made of brass" is equivalent to "the door handle was made of brass", but the first phrase would be used as part of a description of door, while the second would concentrate on the handle. <S> For instance, the first phrase might be found as part of "The door was made of polished mahogany, which contrasted pleasantly with the gleaming brass of the door's handle." <A> I assume that it's a matter of " one package " In door's handle, you don't need to add <S> ['s] since it is one "package". <S> That will be different when you say: [ Britain’s coastline is very beautiful] where Britain has more than one coastlines , and this is not included as one package. <S> Other examples: <S> The door key . <S> Not the door's key, even though, the key refers to the door. <S> generally, ['s] always used, as in: to shorten the auxiliary verb [has], [is] and [was] possessive adjective. <S> Based on your question, when someone use ['s] in robot's experience, it could say that the robot has behavior or attitude like man or woman and does something routine programmed and acts as the robot experience. <S> therefore, in this case, it uses ['s] in robot. <S> This makes different of other robots.
| "Manifestation of robot personal experience" would refer to the personal experience of all robots.
|
What is the verb that better matches up with "achievement"? Is it better to say Earn an achievement or Obtain an achievement Which one is correct? Is there another verb that is more suitable for "achievement"? <Q> When discussing video games, you can say "obtain an achievement". <S> In video games, there is often a reward for doing something. <S> (For example, you might get an extra life upon scoring 5,000 points.) <S> In this example, the phrase "obtain an achievement" refers to both scoring your 5,000 th point, and obtaining the extra life. <S> The emphasis is on the moment at which you receive the reward, not on the previous 4,999 points. <S> In most other contexts, "earn an achievement" or "achieve <something>" sounds more natural. <S> This is because the emphasis is on the work you did to achieve that <something>, not on the action by which someone gives you a prize. <S> "Obtain a reward" and "win a prize" also sound natural. <S> This is because the emphasis is on receiving the prize, not on your effort to be worthy of the prize. <A> I'd say earn usually fits better. " <S> Obtain" means to get or receive something. <S> Earn means to get something that you deserve because of hard work and effort. <S> Although they both work in this context. <A> I would have to say neither. <S> Achievement : a thing done successfully, typically by effort, courage, or skill. <S> OR <S> Achievement : the process or fact of achieving something. <S> One can earn an award, but an achievement is not an object. <S> It is, instead, the recognition that an act has been successfully completed. <S> You can neither earn nor obtain it: rather, it is achieved. <S> And no, this does not mean that you can achieve an achievement.
| Achievement : something that has been done or achieved through effort : a result of hard work
|
Is it necessary to add "do it" in the following case? My headache was so bad by then I could barely go to class. And when I managed to do it , I couldn't listen to the professor at all. Can I just write, " And when I managed to, I couldn't... "? <Q> Yes, you can. <S> The to in " <S> And when I managed to, I couldn't... " links to verb in the preceding sentence, which is go . <S> So, when you say " And when I managed to, I couldn't... " the to acts as a to-infinitive for to go and thus it actually means " <S> And when I managed to go , I couldn't... ". <S> Hope that helps. <A> I would say that it sounds wrong. <S> It should be either "to," or "to do so,". <S> So, not only can you do so <S> , I would say you should do so. <A> No. <S> My headache was so bad by <S> then I could barely go to class. <S> And when I managed to, I couldn't listen to the professor at all. <S> In the second sentence above, 'to' acts as a pro-verb , which is like a pronoun , but for verb phrases. <S> That Wikipedia article includes this explanation and example: <S> Since a to-infinitive is just the particle 'to' plus a bare infinitive, and a bare infinitive can be elided, the particle 'to' doubles as a pro-verb for a to-infinitive: Clean your room! <S> —I don't want to [clean my room]. <S> He refused to clean his room when I told him to [clean his room].
| It is not necessary, you can leave out "do it".
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.