source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
can i use the verb "furnish" for kitchen equipment? I know I can say that an apartment is furnished or not, but can I use the word furnished with a kitchen? I am trying to describe a kitchen that is equipped with the necessary tools for cooking and refrigeration. <Q> Yes, you can. <S> and a kitchen is a room, so it would fit. <A> While furnish is usually used to mean "provide with furniture," it <S> can also refer to other needed items. <S> When I say: I fully furnished my brand new apartment over the weekend Few people would suspect that I mean that I only supplied a brand new apartment with furniture, without other appliances. <S> However, when talking about specific rooms that have a special designation, then "furnished a kitchen" or "furnished a bathroom <S> " can sound quite odd, though not technically incorrect. <S> In the case of a kitchen I'd say: I equipped the kitchen / <S> I got the kitchen equipped or <S> I bought all the necessary appliances for our kitchen <A> Usually you would say: Appliances included <S> In the context of apartment rentals, this would mean that the apartment has a stove and a refrigerator. <S> That said, such a short phrase doesn't necessarily eliminate all ambiguity, as is discussed on this website . <S> Getting back to your question, one could also say fully furnished kitchen <S> I would understand this to mean that the kitchen has all appliances, even a microwave.
| "Furnished" means "to supply (a house, room, etc.) with necessary furniture, carpets, appliances, etc."
|
would you throw a light on the concept of the sentence? In these clinical cases, as in other phobias, the more likely cause is a displacement of diffuse anxiety to an external focus which can be avoided. I am wondering what this sentence could mean or what is the concept if it. What is more, would you please in a more readily way show me what is meant by the word clinical cases? And, really what does external focus mean there?? Extracted from the following; Psychopathology: Any feed-back would be greatly appreciated I cannot yet get the following: the ... cause is a displacement of diffuse anxiety to an external focus which can be avoided. UPDATED : Thanks. Yet, could anyone please show me the concept of the sentence through a vivd example? <Q> This sentence means that a person who has general unspecific anxiety ("diffuse anxiety") may subconsciously choose something specific to be afraid of (like spiders, for example), and they will then direct all of their previously undirected anxiety onto that external object, which they seek to avoid. <S> In other words, in those particular cases, specific phobias are thought to be a phobic person's attempt to cope with generalized anxiety. <S> A clinical case is a case that has been presented to a clinician. <S> Displacement is a shunting or redirection or transposition of some feeling onto another unrelated entity which thereby becomes associated, in the mind of the person, with that feeling. <A> Good explanation of the anxiety and phobia relationship, @TRomano. <S> I will add that "clinical cases" here refers to the examples that I think were probably given in the previous paragraphs. <S> They would have been examples taken from real life doctors' and psychologists' treatment experiences. <S> In the world of medicine and behavioral health, people talk about "clinical practice," which means that the practitioners, or clinicians, have built up years of experience applying their book knowledge on real people, and they acknowledge that this is an important tool in their toolbox. <S> "Clinical practice" comes from the idea that when a doctor is in training, s/he takes classes, and attends lectures, but also, at least half of what s/he gains from the training program comes from the practical experience gained treating patients in the clinic associated with the program, or in the hospital wards, as the case may be. <A> Diffuse meaning: "to spread or scatter widely or thinly" ...cause is a displacement of diffuse anxiety to an external focus which can be avoided. <S> e.g. if you feared having no money (a broadly focused anxiety), it could be transferred to a fear of being fired from your job (an external focus), which can be avoided by for example never working or being good at your job or by running your own company. <A> In these clinical cases, as in other phobias, the more likely cause is a displacement of diffuse anxiety to an external focus which can be avoided. <S> It's uncommon, but possible for displace to take an object. <S> So the sentence is attempting to convey that "diffuse anxiety" is being displaced onto or into an external focus - a focus which can then be avoided. <S> (Internally, the anxiety causes issues, but if projected onto an external focus, it can be avoided) <S> External focus probably means something visible or experiencible outside of the mind, i.e. an object or type of objects. <S> I believe redirection could be used instead of displacement <S> and it would mean the same.
| Displacement meaning: "the transfer of an emotion from its original focus to another object, person, or situation. "
|
What is the exact meaning of "3 is not a factor of m or of n"? 3 is not a factor of m or of n. Meaning of the above statement the way I understand it is 3 is not a factor of m or 3 is not a factor of n . I think that I might be wrong because here I suggested an edit which was rejected. My question: Is the meaning of 3 is not a factor of m or of n the same as 3 is not a factor of both m and n . If yes, then please correct me by helping me understand what is it that I missunderstood. <Q> Unfortunately, English does not always work in an entirely logical way, especially with 'logic words'. <S> From a logical standpoint, "3 is not a factor of m or of n" should mean <S> 3 is not a factor of m, OR 3 is not a factor of n. 3 might be a factor of m, and it might be a factor of n, but it is not a factor of both. <S> and "3 is not a factor of m and of n <S> " should mean 3 is not a factor of m, AND 3 is not a factor of n. <S> It can not be a factor of either. <S> This is actually backwards of the meaning in English. <S> The English meaning of the first one is: 3 is not a factor of m, <S> NOR is it a factor of n. <S> It is not a factor of either. <S> and the second one means <S> 3 is not a factor of both m and n. 3 <S> might be a factor of m, and it might be a factor of n, but it is not a factor of both. <S> Think of it this way. <S> "Do you want ice cream or cake?" <S> "No, I'm full." <S> (I do not want ice cream, nor do I want cake.) <S> "Do you want ice cream and cake?" <S> "No, I'll just take some cake." <S> (I do not want ice cream and cake, but I do want some cake.) <S> That is the first reason your review was rejected. <S> The second reason, is because "contraposition" is not a typo. <S> According to wikipedia, contraposition is a law about contrapositives. <S> Therefore, a contraposition argument is an argument using contrapositives and the law of contraposition, but a contrapositive argument doesn't really exist. <A> Three is not a factor of m or <S> of n = <S> Three is a factor of neither m nor n. <S> "Three is not a factor of both m and n" is not a good way to put this, because it could be taken to mean "three is not a common factor of m and n". <S> Interpreted this way, it might still be possible for three to be a factor of either m or n individually if it is not a factor of the other one. <A> Here is my take on it. <S> "3 is not a factor of m or of n"= clarify <S> "it is not true that 3 is a factor of m or of n"= clarify <S> "it is not true that 3 is a factor of m nor that 3 is a factor of n"= <S> In mathematical notation not ( m | 3 or n | <S> 3)= De Morgan not m <S> | 3 and not n | 3= Back to English <S> "3 is not a factor of m and 3 is not a factor of n"
| Three is not a factor of m, and three is not a factor of n. =
|
"Five thousand tons of water flow/flows"? Every minute, five thousand tons of water flow/flows over a cliff into the river below. Should the verb 'flow' be conjugated in singular or plural in this sentence? <Q> Ordinarily, "flows" would be best, as the other answers have stated. <S> There are, however, exceptions. <S> Recognizing that "water" is the subject, "flows" is then the natural verb, but there are constructions in which attention is focused on "tons". <S> For instance, when describing a hydroelectric plant, you might find something like "Five thousand tons of water flow through the generators every minute, with each ton producing a kilowatt of power." <A> Partitive Construction denotes a part of a whole. <S> For example - a piece of cake [ = <S> > a piece (portion) from a large one] <S> Measure partitive nouns - The measure partitives relate to precise quantities denoting length, area,volume, and weight, for example (note the compulsory of ): Length: a foot of copper wire a metre (BrE) / a meter (AmE) / <S> a yard of cloth a mile of cable <S> Area: <S> an acre / a hectare of land <S> Volume: a litre (BrE) <S> /a liter (AmE) of wine a pint / a quart of milk <S> Weight an ounce of tobacco a pound of butter a kilo of apples a ton of coal Measure partitives can be either singular or plural: <S> a / one gallon of water two / several gallons of water <S> If count, the second noun must be plural: one kilo of apples <S> two kilos of apples [NOT apple ] <S> Reference - A Comprehensive Grammar of <S> English Language [Page No. <S> 251 (5.8)] <S> The expression in question is an example of measure partitive: <S> Five thousand tons of water <S> The verb that follows this expression can be either a singular or a plural. <S> It depends on the writer/style or what the writer emphasis on. <S> While the average human requires only about 4 liters of drinking water a day, as much as 5,000 liters of water is needed to produce a person's daily food requirements. <S> About a million tons of lava are pouring every day from the fissure which opened on the Sicilian volcano in December. <S> So in the following sentence both flow and flows are correct - Every minute, five thousand tons of water <S> flow(s) over a cliff into the river below. <A> This is a matter of identifying the simple subject. <S> The subject here is water, not tons. <S> tons is not what is flowing here. <S> The simple subject is the subject without any extra descriptions or qualifiers. <S> "thousands of tons" is just an extra description of water. <S> You'll know you have the simple subject because it can stand alone as the subject of a sentence. " <S> Water flows over a cliff into the river below" is a complete and valid sentence. <A> The basic rule is "Singular noun has a verb with an 's' and plural verb has verb without an 's'" <S> So since there are five thousand tons of water, you want just "flow". <S> Now if there's only one ton of water, say: <S> Every minute, one ton of water flows over a cliff into the river below. <S> Some nouns are not plural or singular. <S> We call these mass nouns . <S> If the subject is a mass noun, you would use verb with an 's'. <S> For example Every minute, water flows over a cliff into the river below. <S> Welcome to the site! <A> What a good question. <S> After much research, my best revised answer: <S> First, what is the subject? <S> The subject is "tons" because it can be counted (5000 tons); therefore, it does not qualify as a quantifier such as "lots of" (when "lots of" functions as an adjective). <S> That brings us to our problem--"lots of clothing"--for example. <S> Without proper context, it could be a quantifier + subject meaning many clothes, or it could be a plural noun + adjective prepositional <S> phrase--"Ten lots of clothing are for sale. <S> "--but, in this case, the proper context was given--5000 tons-- <S> so, the plural verb "flow" would be correct. <S> My English teacher would have argued that "tons" should not be used informally anyhow, but times change.
| It should be "flow".
|
Difference between "would" and "will" when talking about the future Which option should I use here: I often think about a big ideal house in the suburbs I will live in without noisy neighbours to disturb me. I often think about a big ideal house in the suburbs I would live in without noisy neighbours to disturb me. And why? Personally, I chose "will", but in the answers there is "would". <Q> This is a tricky one. <S> We use <S> will when describing the actual future: <S> I'm getting married next month! <S> We 'll live in a big house in the suburbs with no neighbors and […] <S> We also use it after verbs like want and hope , that describe a desired future that we hope will become real: <S> I want to live in a big house in the suburbs where I won't have noisy neighbors. <S> I hope the house we buy is a big one in the suburbs where we won't have noisy neighbors. <S> But we don't use it when we're describing a hypothetical future that we don't expect to become real, even if we would theoretically like it: <S> My ideal house would be a big house in the suburbs, where I wouldn't ( or didn't ) have noisy neighbors. <S> Your example falls into the latter category. <A> Your sentence #2 is using <S> would in an old-fashioned way. <S> Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say about this meaning: *a —used in auxiliary function to express wish, desire, or intent ("those who would forbid gambling") b —used in auxiliary function to express willingness or preference ("as ye would that men should do to you — Luke 6:31") <S> * (I included both a and b because I don't honestly see much difference.) <S> I will do my best to explain why your exercise book chose #2: <S> I think it's because the first part of the sentence is supposed to be a fantasy. <S> I often think about a big ideal house They've given us two clues that this is a fantasy: "I often think about," which sounds like daydreaming; and "ideal." <S> If it's a fantasy, then "will" doesn't quite fit. <S> "Will" implies certainty. <A> In grammar terms, "would" is the subjunctive mood. <S> It is used for aspiration, or for things that are out of one's control. <S> Spanish uses the subjunctive much more commonly <S> , it is probably dropping out of use in English and may be gone in another generation. <S> You might also say, "I dream of what it would be like to live in a big house..." <A> -I often think about a big ideal house in the suburbs I will/would live in without noisy neighbors to disturb me. <S> In fact, you use "will" to talk about the certainty of a future event. <S> On the contrary, you use the modal "would" about the uncertainty of or wish for an event to happen. <S> You usually use the verb "think" to mean "to believe that something is true" and "to imagine". <S> There is an indication of certainty when you use this verb in the former sense and when you use it in the latter sense, there is an indication of uncertainty; you usually use the "would" in this case. <S> As the verb "think" conveys the sense of "imagine" in the sentence, the use of "would" is more appropriate and natural here. <A> I think the best way to understand the difference between would and will is to think of <S> would as a contraction of the following: <S> I <S> will if I could To put this into the context of your example sentences. <S> I often think about a big ideal house in the suburbs <S> I will live in without noisy neighbours to disturb me. <S> I often think about a big ideal house in the suburbs <S> I will , if I can , live in without noisy neighbours to disturb me. <S> Now both are perfectly acceptable sentences on their own. <S> But the context is key as to which is best. <S> A forceful or determined person would use "will" whereas a meek or timid person will use "would".
| The use of "would" is more appropriate in the sentence.
|
spend time or take time I've had an English test recently.And there I had to choose a correct item: The online courses really take the pressure off because you can spend your time till you understand it all. The online courses really take the pressure off because you can take your time till you understand it all. I chose first item (with spend), as I remembered some sentences with spend time such as: I spent a lot of time cleaning that room. But I made a mistake!The correct answer was The online courses really take the pressure off because you can take your time till you understand it all. Why am I incorrect?What is the difference? <Q> You could follow this logic: <S> Imagine that time is money and that you are going shopping. <S> In the first case: you have a certain, limited amount of it <S> and you decide how to spend it, <S> but after you're done you have no more. <S> The second case: you need money (you don't know how much at the beginning). <S> Wouldn't it be great if you had a limitless supply of it (in a bank nearby) and you could just waltz in and take as much as you need. <S> Similarly, with time: you need time to understand the contents of the course, and with an on-line course you can take as much as you need; in a classroom-based course your time is limited, sometimes you can spend it on understanding, and sometimes on, let say, copying homework from someone else (not that I would encourage such practice). <S> For a more formal explanation, the phrase: take one's time <S> is idiomatic: to be leisurely about doing something <S> (MW definition) or <S> to go as slow as one wants or needs to; to use as much time as is required <S> (Definition from TFD ) <A> Let's say you are hiking high up in the mountains, and you come to a very narrow ledge. <S> Your mountain guide might say: Don't rush! <S> Take your time. <S> Now let's say you have an important exam in school on Monday. <S> But you do not study for it. <S> Instead you play football all day Saturday, and all day Sunday you sit in front of the computer watching "epic fail" videos on YouTube. <S> You can then write this email to your cousin: <S> I failed my history exam :( <S> I spent all day Saturday playing football, and I spent all day Sunday watching YouTube videos. <S> Or maybe you decide to get a perfect result on your exam. <S> Then you can write to your cousin: <S> I got the best grade in the class on our history exam. <S> I spent all weekend studying for it. <A> According to Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms take your time means to not hurry: Carlin took her time before she answered him. <S> For this reason you may select the word take which is appropriate in your context. <A> According to Longman Dictionary Of Contemporary English: <S> Take your time means: To do something slowly or carefully without hurrying E.g. <S> Marie took her time cutting my hair and did it really well. <S> So the second one seems correct.
| Take your time - this is a big decision, and you don't want to rush into it.
|
the outside of the page -- what is it exactly? Example with a context (YouTube link): I went back into the cafe and asked if I could look at the telephone book. I turned to L and ran my finger down the outside of the page . Soon I found the name I was looking for: "Las Cabanas". How do you understand the phrase the outside of the page ? I have a real hard time creating a mental picture of that. <Q> The outside of a page is the side (edge, really) away from the binding. <S> Mental picture: <S> This makes more sense if you picture a book being opened and laid flat. <S> Now the binding is in the middle, the innermost part of the object before you. <S> The left and right extremities are the outer parts of the book: the unbound edges of the pages. <S> So what is the person doing? <S> The individual might not be literally running their finger down the edge of the page (oww, papercut!), but running it along the part of the page near this outer edge: the margin, where there's no text printed. <S> Running a finger down the page is a way to keep track of where you are looking in a long list, and keeping your finger to the outside avoids obscuring the text and avoids smudging the ink (if the phone book is anything like newspaper print, that's a serious risk). <S> Caution: <S> The phrase "outside of the page" is not an everyday idiom (not where I'm from, anyway), and I don't have any sources to back this up. <S> This is only what I, a native speaker, immediately interpret "outside of the page" to mean. <S> It is different to what the image in the video shows, but I am inclined to trust my judgement more than a picture which may not be specifically meant to illustrate the exact words. <A> <A> Sometimes an image is worth 1000 words. <S> This person is running her finger down the outside of the page, to help her eye follow the column of phone numbers. <A> I agree it meant the margin, and not what would be "outside" the book when closed. <S> As a less common use, I've seen outside used as the opposite of middle. <S> So by outside, he'd mean the far right or left part of the page. <S> Another uncommon use I've seen is inside / outside used synonymous with near / far with paired items. <S> Ex. <S> If I'm sitting next to my girlfriend, I could hold her "inside" hand since it's near me, but couldn't reach the outside "hand."
| I think the writer here probably meant "the margin", or "outer edge of the page".
|
Why "at the moment" and "currently" are present continuous and present perfect? I teach English. Recently, as I was getting prepared for one of my classes, I came across an exercise in a coursebook that was pretty confusing. The exercise gives students a list of time expressions (like: now, nowadays, this year, now, usually, etc.). The students must decide which of the given time expressions should be used with the present simple or with the present continues or with the both. The exercise seems to be pretty easy, but some of the answers that I found in the teachers book key got me confused and I can`t wrap my head around them. So the key in the teacher`s book says: currently - Present Continuous and Present Simple at the moment - Present Continuous and Present Simple It kind of contradicts everything I`ve learned about the present simple.How can "at the moment" and "currently" be used with this tense, as they express the idea of something temporary? EDIT I`m afraid most of the examples that you gave have no explanation attached to them, or completely miss the point of my question. Let`s start from these: He needs your help at the moment. As we all know, the verb "need" cannot be used in the continuous form as it belongs to "non-progressive" group of verbs. It's simply a verb that doesn't take continuous form, even when used in the "present continuous" context. Adam currently lives in London. Ok, this example looks interesting, but no explanation is given to what exactly "currently" means here. Usually "currently" is typically used with the present continuous as it suggests an ongoing action or process (i.e. "I`m currently working on this very interesting project) Please, tell me why currently is used with a sentence describing a permanent state. I don't have any money at the moment. -The verb "to have" when used in meaning "to possess", doesn't change its form to progressive, even when used in the present continues tense context. So, this sentence doesn't really touch my point, as it presents a very typical, continuous context. I currently work in a computer company. Again, why use "currently" if the sentence refers to a general state. Please, when giving further examples, don't use "non-progressive" verbs, or special verbs like have/be as they don't take continuous form. <Q> Of the two, I would say that "at the moment" most often refers to a transient or ephemeral action/state, and yet, it most often takes present continuous. <S> What is your favorite color? <S> At the moment, I'm thinking. <S> Who robbed the bank? <S> At the moment, we don't have any suspects. <S> But in some cases (with non-stative verbs) it simply cannot take simple present: <S> Where are you going? <S> At the moment, I go home (wrong) <S> At the moment, I am going home. <S> "Currently", on the other hand, most often applies to actions or states that are continuing, and might continue indefinitely: : <S> Who robbed the bank? <S> Currently, we're looking into it. <S> yet it can reasonably take simple present: What inventory valuation method do you use? <S> Currently, we use FIFO. <S> So, all I can say is that your prior notions about simple present vs. present progressive were much too constrained. <S> By the way, for what it's worth: "currently" extends a litlle into the past , whereas "at the moment" doesn't. <S> And, as you well know, one can say "I am going to school tomorrow." <S> (But that's a different kettle of fish. <S> Or maybe a horse of a different color. <S> Or, more likely, a fish of a different color—namely, a red herring .) <A> The answer to your question is related to the something temporary . <S> Currently is an adverb and derives from the adjective current. <S> According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language one of its meanings is: Being in progress now. <S> (Definition #1, b). <S> As such, something temporary is actually not quite temporary but in progress now . <S> As regards the expression at the moment , similarly it can be seen in progress now too. <A> I think it's a misconceived notion that "currently and at the moment"cannot be used in the present simple. <S> Please look at the following sentences: He needs your help at the moment. <S> I don't have any money at the moment. <S> The Manager isn't available at the moment. <S> I am currently working/ <S> I currently work in a computer company. <S> Adam is currently living/ <S> Adam currently lives in London. <S> I am currently speaking/ <S> I currently speak three foreign languages. <S> Our company is currently producing/currently produces 20 cars per month. <S> I am currently spending/ <S> I currently spend most of my free time working in my garden. <S> He is currently playing/he currently plays golf. <S> We are currently using/ <S> we currently use computer for shopping. <S> Please note that the adverb currently means at the present time/period. <S> As a grammar rule, you don't use the continuous form with stative verbs (sentences #1 to #3). <S> Hence, the use of the present simple isn't possible in these sentences. <S> However, the use of the present simple and the presentcontinuous is equally common for the verbs live and work (Sentences #4 and #5). <S> For other dynamic verbs (sentences #6 to #10), the use of the present continuous is usual and common. <S> However, the use of the present simple, though not very common/not considered very good, is possible. <A> Speaking of examples, my favourite is: <S> Hello, you've reached Mrs. and Mr. X. <S> We are currently not available. <S> Please leave a message. <S> They are not available at this particular moment, and they will probably be unavailable for a while, but not forever. <S> And for something in progress: Neighbour A: <S> "Would you like to come over to watch the new episode of 'soap-opera X' with me?" <S> Neighbour B: <S> " I'm currently washing the dishes. <S> I'll join you in 10 minutes." <A> Consider a sentence as simple as: <S> I eat salted pretzels. <S> Without further context, the simple present in this sentence probably implies the habitual aspect. <S> As it stands, there's no real reason to assume that I will break this habit. <S> Let's add "currently" to the sentence and give it some additional context: <S> I currently eat salted pretzels. <S> Unfortunately, I need to do something about my high blood pressure under. <S> Now the possibly temporary nature of my established habit makes sense. <S> There is an implication that I may soon break this habit, and a reason that I would at least consider it. <S> The sentence is different than "I am currently eating pretzels." <S> Where the simple present can indicate a present habit, the present continuous indicates a present, immediate action. <S> At least a couple of the other examples could also benefit from added context: <S> Adam currently lives in London. <S> This is his last year at university. <S> I currently work at a computer company, but I've been in touch with a few financial industry headhunters.
| The time frames "currently" and "at the moment" can refer to a temporary situation, but they can also refer to a situation or action that might continue into the future.
|
What does "the C++ track" mean? From the book Thinking in Java : I found out, by creating and chairing the C++ track at the Software Development Conference for a number of years (and later creating and chairing the Java track ), that I and other speakers tended to give the typical audience too many topics too quickly. What does that actually mean? I tried to look up other definitions of the word track in dictionaries, but to no avail. I couldn't find anything that could even remotely fit the particular usage the author uses here. <Q> For example, if you look at the conference planner for OOPSLA 2014 , you'll see that they had four presentations on Program Analysis and the Web in one room, while there were four more talks on Runtime Systems in another room. <S> So, two conference attendees might be having lunch together, and say: <S> "Did you see that talk on garbage collection?" <S> "No, I was in the other track ." <S> meaning that she was listening to the talk in the other room. <S> Evidently, the author of the book started the C++ track at the Software Development Conference, and later did the same thing with the Java track. <S> The chair of a track often has the responsibility of introducing each speaker during that session, and making sure speakers don't go past their allotted time. <S> Incidentally, a corollary of Murphy's Law says: At a conference, the two talks you most want to attend will be held at the same time . <A> Literally, "track" means a trail or path. <S> As in, "The track through the forest was well-worn from all the people who had walked on it." <S> English-speakers hearing the word these days probably most often think of railroad tracks, the steel rails that trains run on. <S> Metaphorically, "track" is used to describe a path to a goal. <S> Like, "George is on track to be our next governor. <S> " That is, George is doing the things that will lead to becoming governor, maybe he's gone through other offices seen as stepping stones, or is conducting the right sort of campaign. <S> It is often used for classes that you must take to learn a certain subject, like, "I am on the quantum physics track", meaning, I am taking classes in quantum physics, probably an organized set of classes to get a specific degree. <S> In the context of a conference, it means a set of lectures on related topics. <S> So at a software conference, you might have a "C++ track" and a "Java track" and a "Python track". <S> That is, we'd expect the "Java track" to be made up of lectures about Java and not other languages, etc. <A> In an academic context, as stated in Merriam Webster's definition #3.c, a "track" is: one of several curricula of study to which students are assigned according to their needs or levels of ability. <S> A programming conference might have "tracks" for beginner/intermediate/advanced attendees. <S> Or, as in the example you cite, perhaps they break things down by topic. <S> In university courses, it's common to have your major field of study <S> but then you can choose a " track" within it to specialize and focus based on your interests. <S> A computer science major could for example follow a software engineering track, or an information security & networking track, etc. <S> As mentioned in another answer, a "track" has a sense of progressing from one known point to another, without being able to deviate too much. <S> If you stay on it, you can tell where you'll wind up. <S> In your example, the author is referring to his experience creating the C++ portion of the conference, and later the Java portion (as opposed to someone who worked on the entire conference or some part that didn't deal with a specific focus). <A> (Native American English speaker here.) <S> As J.R.'s answer says, "track" in "the C++ track" at a conference means a sequence of talks with a common, broadly defined topic. <S> Here's some explanation of how that relates to the other senses of the word "track". <S> The primary meaning of "track" is the mark left in the ground by someone or something as it moved along, implying that you can follow the same path by following the tracks. <S> For example, here are some "tire tracks": <S> A secondary, extended meaning, which is more common than the primary meaning, is a path that has been consciously designed to be followed. <S> For example, "train tracks" physically guide trains to move along a certain path. <S> When people or horses run races, they usually do so on a "race track". <S> When I go to a conference and see the "tracks" listed on the schedule, I can't help but imagine that each track is a straight path through the conference, parallel to the other tracks, and that the people attending the talks of one track are something like a herd of cattle, but moving along somewhat more deliberately and having the ability to choose to jump to another track at any time.
| In the context of a conference, a track is a series of related presentations all focused on the same topic. There is a strong implication that the tracks go in some sort of a line.
|
meaning of "deli", or what a deli sells I read an article with the conversation in it: “Did you pick up the Sunday Times ?” “No, I’ll get it tomorrow. The deli was closed.” Does deli refer to the kind of shop that sells cooked food? Do those delis also sell newspapers? I'm confused about why the person would pick up Sunday Times from a deli. <Q> "Deli" is short for " Delicatessen ," which originally referred to fine foods (delicacies) and/or the store that sold them: the corner shop that specialized in imported meats & cheeses, for example. <S> These days a deli (in the U.S. anyway) is typically a small local market that makes & sells sandwiches. <S> Unlike a convenience store (7-11 or a gas station market) <S> a deli prepares & sells food. <S> Unlike a chain restaurant (Subway), delis are often family owned or local to the area. <S> Delis often sell other necessities too like milk, eggs, snacks, candy, and newspapers/magazines, which is why the person in your quote went there looking for the Sunday Times. <S> You'll also see "the deli counter" in larger grocery stores where you can buy meats, cheese, sandwiches, and other prepared foods like pasta & salads, but you wouldn't call the whole large store a "deli." <A> But, it also usually sells many other things that you might purchase at a convenience store, such as newspapers, gum, etc. <S> This is particularly handy if you want to read the newspaper while you eat. <S> If this is set in New York City ( the Sunday Times ), they may be referring to a bodega, where you can also buy a wide variety of groceries, household items like laundry detergent, and who knows what else. <A> Does deli refer to the kind of shop that sells cooked food? <S> Yes. <S> Do those delis also sell newspapers? <S> Delis often contained a newsstand, especially in times past. <S> One would go to the deli for sandwiches, coffee, newspapers, periodicals, etc. <S> Not every deli sells all the above items, but many do.
| A deli is a shop that sells food for you to eat immediately.
|
Meaning of using “are” and “have”? Q a) Which sentence is correct in the below examples? Q b) If both sentences are correct then what are the meanings? Context:I realised that our Payroll Processing Team has missed to pay salary of Jan 15 to one of our employee. I want to Email them that we need to pay him his salary. We are to pay him salary for the month of January 2015 as we have missed to pay him. We have to pay him salary for the month of January 2015 as we have missed to pay him. <Q> and I'd probably put it above "have" on a scale of which is more common. <S> The bigger issue, actually, is the "missed to pay him" part. <S> This is completely ungrammatical and doesn't make sense... <S> I mean, I understand what you're trying to say <S> but it's very awkward. <S> Based on your added info, you have a couple of options: <S> We have to pay him [his] salary for the month of January 2015 as he did not get paid that month. <S> We need to pay him [his] salary for the month of January 2015 as we failed to send him a check for that month. <S> You can mix and match the first and second parts of the sentence as you like. <S> You can also use "give" or instead of "pay" in either case or do something like: <S> We need/have to send him a check for the month of January 2015 because he didn't get his salary that month. <A> It is not his choice. <S> In the second person ( you are to do such-and-such ), it's a rather brusque way of giving instructions. <S> For your case, I recommend <S> we need to pay... <S> or we must pay... <S> or we have to pay..., <S> which express that your company has a need or obligation, but isn't being forced by someone else. <S> (And, of course, pay attention to idiom and grammar in the rest of the sentence: pay him his salary, since we still have not paid him for January. ) <A> First off, when you fail to do something, you can use the verb miss in the patterns of miss + noun/pronoun and miss + -ing form, not to-infinitive. <S> So you should say "...... <S> missed paying the salary for the month of .... <S> " <S> You use the phrase "be to do something" to indicate a command, an arrangement made or a future action. <S> You use the phrase <S> "have to do something" to indicate that it is necessary for you to do something. <S> Although the use of "have to" is more appropriate in the context of this sentence, the use of "are to" is also possible; it also makes sense. <A> To be + {infinitive} means to be expected to - in the sense that there is a a plan or process and the action you are describing is the next or expected step of that plan or process (or as @user8399 says, someone has told you to do it - making it a planned activity). <S> To have + {infinitive} can mean this, but more often means obligated to , compelled to , forced to , or required to in a more direct sense. <S> My car tire blew out, I have to get it replaced. <S> ( have is appropriate) <S> In a week I am to attend my sister's wedding ( to be + <S> {infinitive} is appropriate) <S> My car tire blew out, I am to have it replaced. <S> (bad) <S> My wife's car tire blew out, I am to have it replaced tomorrow. <S> (ok) <S> In your example, are to pay is appropriate since normally you pay salary on expected, planned times. <S> But most people think of payment as an obligation when they perform work, so <S> have to pay <S> is OK as well.
| If someone is to do something, that person has been commanded to do it, or at least firmly instructed. Honestly, both of the options "are" vs "have" are ok, though "have" is better... "need" is actually a great option The person doing the company's payroll would more likely use are to pay and the person who hasn't gotten paid is more likely to use have to pay .
|
One of my friend's OR friends' wife? (My friend has only one wife) Anita is Neil's wife. Neil is one of my friends. Now, how do I refer to Anita? Think that I'm telling someone who does not know the couple. One of my friend's wife OR One of my friends' wife I know the structure one of [something] takes a plural but then, here it is about possession of a singular which should be made plural--> "....friends' wife?" . This is interesting. Suppose Neil has many wives. How do I again refer to Anita? One of my friend's wives? OR One of my friends' wives? <Q> The unambiguous way to say this in English is, "the wife of one of my friends". <S> If you are talking about one friend with multiple wives, you could say "one of my friend's wives". <S> If you have many friends, each of whom has one wife, you could say "one of my friends' wives". <S> There are many wives, one for each friend, so you must use the plural "wives". <S> Yes, the sentence is then ambiguous, whether each friend has one wife or many. <S> I understand wanting to say "one of my friends' wife", meaning -- "(one of my friends') wife", that is, you have many friends, each has one wife, and you are talking about the one wife of one friend. <S> But that's just not how we say it in English. <S> It's perfectly logical, but not what we say. <A> While the other answers address the use "one of" <S> well, I think it would be better to just drop that part altogether. <S> My friend's wife. <S> This sounds much less awkward to me and seems pretty clear, with or without including a name. <S> It's understood that you are referring to "one of" your friends, because the only other way it could be interpreted is "my friends' wife", and most people would not assume that your friends share a wife, especially in context of the conversation. <S> This still works if your friend has many wives. <S> It does not emphasize this fact, which may or may not be a benefit. <S> If that needs to be more clear, "one of my friend's wives" would work. <A> You are asking many questions so I am going to put your statements followed by how I would interpret them. <S> One of my friend's wife -- <S> Doesn't make sense to me as nothing is plural. <S> (Anita has many clones, but since they are all genetically the same Neil still has only one wife?) <S> One of my friends' wife <S> --The <S> wife of one of my friends <S> One of my friend's wives -- <S> One of the many wives of one of my friends One of my friends' wives -- <S> The collective set of women who are wives to one of my friends <S> Now in answer to how I would refer to Anita in your initial scenario I would simply say "my friend's wife" as I don't particularly see the need to point out that you have more than one friend. <A> You have multiple friends. <S> Neil is "one of my friend s ". <S> His one wife is therefore "One of my friend s ' wife". <S> Likewise, Neil's wives are "One of my friend s ' wives". <S> You also have the option of rephrasing the above, to 'the wife/wives of one of my friends' or other possible equivalents. <S> (Intriguingly, you can introduce one of the multiple wives as "One of one of my friends' wives"!) <A> It's actually pretty easy to get there if you break it down (as you have): <S> Neil is one of my friends. <S> Anita is Neil's wife. <S> Substitute the first sentence there for 'Neil', to get the answer <S> : Anita is one of my friends' wife. <S> If Anita isn't enough for Neil: Neil is one of my friends. <S> Anita is one of Neil's wives. <S> Therefore: Anita is one of my friends' wives. <S> Though this actually sounds like a colloquial mistake - many native speakers would mistakenly say this in reference to a monogamous relationship; so you might be better off with: <S> Anita is one of my friend Neil's wives. <S> Note that this actually provides the person you're speaking to with more information <S> - you tell them the name of your friend, and the name of the friend's wife. <S> No prior knowledge of either name is needed for this to make sense, although it would also make sense if they did know you had a friend name Neil. <A> "One of my friends' wives" is correct. <S> If we take the incorrect "One of my friend's wives" the possessive marker is on the noun phrase [One of my friend] which is nonsensical, as we can't take "one of" a singular. <S> Thus the initial noun phrase must be "One of my friends". <S> Therefore the possessive is [One of my friends]'s. <S> Since we use ' instead of 's at the end of plurals ending in s, we just write "One of my friends' wives". <S> The confusion is that both of them when spoken have the same form, i.e. we don't say "friendses", both "friends'" and "friend's" sound the same. <S> English speakers generally tend to prefer this ambiguous form instead of the clearer form mentioned in the top answer, so it's good to know how to write it.
| To refer to Anita as one of Neil's wives I would say: One of One of my friends' wives
|
What is the difference between a letter and a character? Can anyone tell me the difference between a letter and a character in the English language ? What I found so far: letter is the basic unit of alphabet and character is a symbol. Is there any elaborate explanation, please? I am having trouble understanding the nuances of what that means. When is something a character but not a letter, and vice versa? Is there any overlap between the two terms? <Q> You've asked for an "elaborate" explanation, so I'll elaborate. <S> A character is a typographical symbol. <S> For example, any of these could be classified as characters: $ A m ; <S> * 3 + <S> A letter is a symbol corresponding to a letter in an alphabet, such as M or G . <S> One dictionary defines it as: <S> letter ( noun ) a character representing one or more of the sounds used in speech; <S> any of the symbols of an alphabet ( from NOAD ) <S> Now, for some fun facts: The English language has twenty-six letters, which are represented using fifty-two characters (each letter has an upper-case and lower-case character version). <S> The same letter can be represented by different-looking symbols (also known as fonts ). <S> What might be a letter in some languages could be considered a symbol in others. <S> For example, µ is a Greek letter, but an English symbol. <S> Also, ñ is a letter in Spanish, but, in English, one might describe that as "the letter n with a tilde over it." <S> The two are not mutually exclusive – a letter can function as a symbol. <S> For example, the c in cat functions as a letter, but the c in E = mc 2 functions as a symbol for a constant (the speed of light). <S> In summary, all letters can be symbols, but not all symbols can function as letters. <S> Fun exercise for the learner From Wikipedia, under its entry for Angstrom : <S> The ångström or angstrom is a unit of length equal to 10 −10 m (one ten-billionth of a metre) or 0.1 nm. <S> Its symbol is Å, a letter in the Scandinavian alphabets. <S> ( emphasis added ) <S> So, is Å a letter , or a symbol ? <A> In general, a "character" is any mark or symbol that can appear in writing. <S> Basically, a character that represents a sound in the language and that can be combined with other characters to form words. <S> So in English, the letters are A-Z, in both capital and small versions. <S> Characters include the letters, and also punctuation marks like a period or comma, and other symbols included in writing, like a dollar sign. <S> Note that in the computer world, "character" has a somewhat more specific technical meaning <S> : it's a value from the "character set" represented by a code and that can be stored in a character or string variable. <S> The old ASCII character set includes a number of "non-printable characters", control codes that were sent between devices. <S> The idea of "non-printable characters" doesn't make much sense in conventional writing and printing. <A> According to a dictionary: character: - a letter, sign, mark or symbol used in wirting, printing or computers-e.g) <S> Chinese characters / a line of 30 characters long letter: - a written or printed sign representing a sound in speech-e.g,) 'B' is the second letter of the alphabet. <S> Write your name in capital letters. <S> So we can conclude that a letter is a kind of character that represents a sound in speech. <A> What these terms mean depends on the context. <S> Since we are using the internet, let's choose digital representations of text and Unicode as our context. <S> In Unicode, a character is an idea or abstraction, and what we in the past referred to as a letter (or glyph ) is the visual representation of that character, its image. <S> Character : "Infinity" Glyph: ∞ The character is a unique identity and is assigned a unique identifier known as its codepoint . <S> The codepoint for Infnity is 221E <S> (hex). <S> Character: "Exclamation Mark" Glyph: ! <S> It can get a little circular when the name for the character uses a physical representation of the character <S> it's naming: <S> Character: "Latin Capital Letter A <S> " Glyph: A
| A "letter" is a character that is part of an alphabet.
|
what shape are french fries? I would like to know what shape are french fries? For e.g, onion rings are circular shaped, sandwiches are triangular shaped so how would I described the shape of a french fry. The context I want to use it is something like this, Let's say I am cooking food with someone, I have to tell them to cut some vegetable like cucumber in the shape of a fry(fries?) basically flat, elongated. You can cut slices of cucumber circular also but I want to cut them flat,long. how should I say that? <Q> If you are talking to someone who understands cooking, you can use the verb french : <S> To cut (green beans, for example) into thin strips before cooking. <S> ( The Free Dictionary ) <S> So you could say "You should french these cucumbers". <S> (This is apparently an American usage and should probably be avoided in other regions.) <S> Technically speaking, french fries are in the shape of a parallelepiped : <S> A solid with six faces, each a parallelogram and each being parallel to the opposite face. <S> ( The Free Dictionary ) <S> But that's not very useful in ordinary conversation, and doesn't define the ratio of the sides (long & thin vs. short & fat); if you don't want to use the verb french , simply describing the shape as you have ("long, flat strips") or as the dictionary has <S> ("thin strips") should suffice, so you could say "cut the cucumbers into long, thin strips"; or, since french fries are a very well-known item to begin with, you could say "cut the cucumber into french fry-shaped pieces." <S> However, as french fries do come in different shapes and varieties (shoestring, steak-cut, waffle-cut, wedge, etc.), you may actually want to be even more specific and give actual dimensions: "Cut the cucumber into long, thin strips approximately 1/4-inch square and 2 to 3 inches long." <A> According to Wikipedia , this is ordinarily roughly equivalent to 0.25" x 0.25" x 2.5". <S> In metric, that is approximately 0.635cm x 0.635 <S> cm x 6.35cm. <A> I can think of a few in UK English depending on what you are cutting and the exact shape or size Technical <S> Cuboid <S> Square prism <S> Parallelepiped <S> Culinary - mostly loan words from French Crudités Batons <S> Juliennes (if really thin) <S> Colloquial culinary <S> Sticks Soldiers (UK English for toast in think strips) <S> Chips (UK English for French Fries)
| The technical term from a cooking perspective is "batonnet", or French for "little stick."
|
Word for 'go for the worse choice because the better one is unavailable'? What words can I use for 'restrict yourself to' or 'limit yourself to' or 'go for the worse choice because the better one is unavailable', as in 'you can't use this simpler method, so you'll have to __ using a more difficult one'. What came to mind was 'stick to', but I want to make it clear that the other method is more difficult. Or you can say 'you can't use this simpler method, so you'll have to refrain from using it', but it doesn't mention anything about the limitation to using the specific harder one and only says you can't use the simple one. edit: "resort to" (suggested by Jason Patterson's comment) is just what I need. <Q> The Free Dictionary gives the following definition: to agree to accept something (even though something else would be better). <S> We wanted a red one, but settled for a blue one. <A> In the sentence provided, I would fill in the blank with 'resort to' , which, as the idiom dictionary informs us , means 'to turn to something that is not the first choice' . <A> You asked about: going for a worse choice because a better one is unavailable <S> One rather common English idiom for this is: the lesser of two evils <S> The UE dictionary defines this as: an unpleasant option, but not as bad as the other [option] Here's an example usage of that phrase, taken from a book: <S> Howard and his friends presented their eagerness to enlist as the lesser of two evils , the alternative to being drafted. <S> from The Truth of the Matter by Robb Forman Dew, 2008 <S> I've often heard this expression used at election time, when voters aren't very happy with any of the candidates. <S> For example, here is a quote from a recent news story : <S> So if we want to make real change, you're not going to do that by choosing the lesser of two evils . <S> Or this one : <S> For too long, Bennett argued, the first-past-the-post electoral system had given voters a choice of the lesser of two evils with Labour and the Conservatives.
| In cases where there is a better choice and a worse choice, but for whatever reason the better choice is not actually available, the most common thing I can think of is that you have to settle for the worse choice.
|
How to understand "Not feeling flash this morning, so I'm going to sit out" "Not feeling flash this morning, so I'm going to sit out" This sentence is from an email of my colleague. I understand it as "I'm sick this morning, so I won't work today", but not quite sure what the accuracy meaning of the two phrases: "feel flash" "sit out" Is my understanding correct, and when to use them in daily life? <Q> This is a VERY, VERY common phrase used in British English, Australian and New Zealand English. <S> It is also commonly misinterpreted by American English speakers. <S> To "feel flash" means to feel great, to be in good condition. <S> In your example, the speaker isn't feeling too well. <A> Is your email written by a non-native speaker? <S> I have not come across any native speaker using 'feeling flash' till date. <S> But, if he is a non-native speaker... <S> he means he's not feeling energetic . ' <S> Flash' here is probably used to describe the energy within. <S> I myself use it, though very rarely <S> [The reason why I use is <S> I think it's closely related to the 'spark' , the energy]. <S> Mind it, it's not a standard usage. <S> It's not directly related <S> but...I found an entry in the WordWeb Dictionary : flash (noun, sense #1): <S> A sudden intense burst of radiant energy <S> The friend is not feeling energetic and thus, as the comment describes, he's not taking part in whatsoever event/sport. <S> There are rare chances that a non-native speaker might have heard the usage of 'flush' and thus misunderstood it. <S> The pronunciation of 'flash' and 'flush' is somewhat similar. <S> This is because 'flush' is typically used to say that you are 'sick' (hot feeling as in fever). <S> However, in such cases, in fact, you feel flush . <A> 1) I think feel flash refers to flash lightning, or a lightning flash. <S> The idea is that the person is usually full of spontaneous energy, usually electricity. <S> 2) <S> And sit out is kind of the opposite to stand up and be counted - if you don't agree with the motion, you wouldn't stand up, hence you would sit it out . <S> Which basically means not participating.
| To "not feel flash" means to be in a bad condition.
|
To a group of people: "I want all of your phone numbers." Is this sentence correct? If I'm talking to a group of people and I want the phone number of each person, how would I phrase that? Is "I want all of your phone numbers" correct? <Q> Your wording isn't incorrect, and would most likely be understood the way you mean it, but it is slightly awkward. <S> It could mean you want all the numbers that each person has (landline, cell, etc), whereas I'm guessing you probably want one number from each person. <S> In that case, you could ask for "a phone number from each of you". <S> In addition, "I want" has the feeling of a command, which may be what you want, and in a very informal setting is probably fine, regardless. <S> If you want to word it a little more politely, you might use "I would like a phone number from each of you." <S> Alternatively, you could sidestep the reference to yourself by using a polite command, such as "Please write down a phone number at which you can be reached." <S> "You" here would be understood from context to refer to each member of the group individually and not the group as a whole. <A> What you have is fine and would be generally understood. <A> As mentioned by Matthew W that it could mean you want all the numbers that each person has,instead of this statement you can use"I want a contact number from everyone." <A> I disagree partially with the other two answers; I think "I want all of your phone numbers" is totally fine and would not usually be misinterpreted as "give me your home/work/cell," as long as there was sufficient context. <S> But I agree that it is a little blunt; maybe "I'd like" is better.
| However, if you want to head off the potential ambiguity regarding getting every possible phone number from every possible person, you could say "I want a phone number for each of you."
|
usage of 'the' [the City Hall]/[City Hall] City hall City Hall the City hall the City Hall the city hall I need to write about certain city hall, but I don't know which one is correct. ex) Only the City Hall and the Central Post Office manage to keep their places. <Q> The issue is that City Hall is the name of a specific building or institution. <S> You can't fight City Hall. <S> My apartment is three blocks from City Hall. <S> The cases where city hall should not be capitalized are where you're not talking about a specific building, but a member of the general class of city halls: <S> The school had a crumbling Federalist facade, like the city hall of a mostly-abandoned farming hamlet. <A> The correct one is 4th option - "the City Hall" <S> In your example itself you have written it correctly. <S> Note: <S> It is based on my understanding and I tried to find reference but not able to find. <A> General usage of article <S> the <S> : This varies by location... <S> British speakers tend to drop "the", as in "Go to hospital. <S> " American speakers are more likely to say, "Go to the hospital." <S> Capitalization of "City Hall": If it is unique in this context, i.e. the only city hall under discussion, it would be considered a proper noun and would be capitalized and the article would not be required. <S> Certainly, if the city were to be mentioned it would be capitalized, e.g. "London City Hall". <S> On the other hand, if one were to write, "Norman Foster designed the city hall," then it would not be capitalized.
| Under the vast majority of situations, you should say "City Hall:" both words capitalized, no the.
|
Is "Call me when you are available to talk" correct? Call me when you are available to talk Is that correct? Can I use it that way? <Q> Yes. <S> Whether or not you should use it depends on your intended meaning. <S> The wording sounds a bit formal, but it would be acceptable in just about any situation. <S> If you want to express that they need to call you as soon as possible, you would say just that: "Call me as soon as possible" or "Call me as soon as you can". <S> If your request is not urgent, then you could say "Call me whenever you get the chance" or "Call me whenever you can". <S> It's also worth noting that if you mean to request that someone return your call, you would usually say "Call me back". <A> It really depends on a number of factors, such as how well you know the other person. <S> A few other comments that I hope will be helpful: <S> It rarely hurts to start off such a request with please : <S> Please call me when you have some time. <S> As far as the "to talk" at end goes, that's a tricky one. <S> In one sense, it's almost implied, so you don't really need it: Please call me when you are available. <S> I'd probably leave off the "to talk" with that wording, but if I changed my wording, I might be more inclined to leave those two words in: <S> Please call me when you have enough time to talk. <A> A couple of additional thoughts: <S> If I want you to tell me the number of widgets the store has sold today,I might use “[Please] call me whenever you can”,or one of the other shorter, less formal phrases. <S> Of course, if that’s all <S> I need from you <S> ,I would probably leave a message saying“[Please] let me know how many widgets the store has sold today.” <S> If I want you to explain why widgets are selling so poorlycompared to gizmos, and to discuss ideasabout what we can do to improve (increase) <S> the sales of widgets,I might use “[Please] call me when you are available to talk”as a way of indicating that the conversation might be a long one,and you should wait until you know that you will be availablefor a longer chunk of time than the “42 widgets” conversation would require. <S> If there’s a new employee in the storeand I want to ask you how he or she is performing,I might use “[Please] call me when you are available to talk”as a way of indicating that the conversation might be a sensitive one(containing personal <S> information),and you should call from a place where you have some privacy(so your half of the discussion won’t be overheard). <S> Whether the above are likely to be applicable depends on the contextand the relationship between the person sending the message and the recipient.
| That is a grammatically correct phrase. The phrase "Call me when you are available to talk" implies that you want someone to call you once their situation allows it.
|
Is there a polite, formal way to say "sh!t happens"? I am trying to write an essay and the only phrase I can think of is "shit happens". I'm wondering; is there any formal way to say shit happens ? <Q> I think the closest expression with the same meaning and very similar connotations would be the French expression: <S> C'est <S> la vie. <S> meaning <S> That's life. <S> You can use the French phrase as is because it is famous enough to be understood in any English speaking country. <S> Certainly there are some more possibilities to say it in a polite way as to avoid vulgarity: <S> Stuff happens. <S> or you can use the English idiom <S> : <S> Worse things happen at sea. <S> as a way of telling someone not to worry so much about their problems. <A> A polite and reassuring way: "It could have been worse" <A> Lucian's suggestion of "C'est la vie" is a good one. <S> There are a few other ways you could express the same idea: Depending on the context, you might want to reference Murphy's Law. <S> Murphy's Law is often stated as: <S> Anything that can go wrong, will. <S> This is a phrase you would use if you were talking about things going wrong before they did, or how they could have been avoided. <S> This is a more idiomatic way of phrasing Pazzo's suggestion. <S> The implication is the same: in life, things happen, good and bad, and you just have to deal with it. <S> For a more literary tone, you could use the Burns quote suggested by TRomano's comment, the actual original phrasing of which is: <S> The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley <S> This is often misquoted in more standard English as: <S> The best-laid plans of mice and men <S> Oft go awry. <A> Things happen in life that we may not like. <S> or Bad things happen. <A> To avoid the expletive, you could just say "stuff happens", which is somewhat idiomatic (though not nearly so idiomatic as "shit happens"). <S> That's still rather informal <S> but, in the right context and used only occasionally, informality can work well in an essay. <S> It lightens the mood. <S> Be careful not to over-use informality and be careful that it's only a little break from the serious stuff and that it doesn't ruin the flow.
| If you're talking about something going wrong after the fact, and especially something that could not have been prevented, you could also say: That's life!
|
Is it grammatically correct to say 'I've got Maths twice a week'? According to Michael Swan and Catherine Walter in their Oxford English Grammar Course (2011) 'Got-forms are not generally used to talk about habits and repeated actions'. But I can't get rid of the feeling that I have come across the usage of got-forms with school subjects though can't cite the excerpts here. So, is this usage common in English and if so, is it grammatically correct? <Q> I have got Math(s) twice a week. <S> The sentence is grammatically incorrect. <S> The phrase "have got" is mainly used in the sense of "have" when you talk about a possession, relationship, situation, or state, but not when you are talking about an action or event. <S> You can say I have/have got a car, but you cannot say I have got a bath every morning. <S> the verb "have" in the sentence in question <S> is indicative of an action. <S> So you cannot say "I have got Math(s) twice a week. <S> Instead, the correct sentence is: I have Math twice a week. <A> <A> You could say "I have Maths twice a week" - so what's the difference? <S> I considered a number of examples, and I think that the word "got" adds something. <S> It gives a sense of having received or having been allocated something. <S> It provides emphasis to the statement, and may have either negative or positive connotations. <S> The statement <S> "I have Maths twice a week" by itself <S> is quite neutral, whereas "I've got Maths twice a week" is more emphatic. <S> Depending on how one feels about Maths, the added "got" may give the impression of this being some foul punishment from the powers-that-be, or an exciting opportunity to learn the wonders of Calculus.
| It's definitely a very common way of expressing it, and I would say it is grammatically correct. It may be gramatically incorrect, but it will make you sound more like a native English speaker: "I've got maths twice a week", "I've got a meeting in 10 minutes" etc.
|
What is the name of huge ads along motorways Is there any special name for ads which are placed along highways and especially I would like to ask for McDonald's as in the picture.. For example I would like to make a sentence like : After you get on the highway, keep on driving .After about 30 minutesyou will see a huge McDonald's......... <Q> The example you show is a sign . <S> specifically, it is an advertising sign (as distinguished from, for instance, a traffic information sign). <S> The "M" (double arches) on the sign is a logo . <S> In the case of McDonalds, the logo is so universally recognized that the sign would be effective in drawing customers even if the sign did not include the McDonalds name. <S> It is not a billboard . <S> As commenter pointed out, a billboard is a large flat panel (board); it is usually on supports to lift it high in the air for visibility. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=webhp&tbm=isch&source=hp&ei=YMw9VbCtM8vWoAThhoDIBA&q=billboard&oq=billboard <A> We hear many words for these huge ads such as large advertising signs, largebsignboard, or just large signs. <S> In advertising industry, we call it a billboard both in AE and BE. <S> You can also call it a hoarding in BE. <S> Some advertising signs are also called neon signs, which shine at night because of neon (gas) when electric current is passed through it. <S> According to The Free Dictionary, a billboard/hoarding means a large signboard. <S> The highway was lined with large signboards. <S> According to The Free Dictionary, "sign" is a structure used for posting advertisements or for identifying a place of business. <A> Unipole or monopole advertising signs = advertising signs (various formats) standing on a single pole. <S> Volumetric signage could be mounted (see McPhoto above) billboards (like 48' x 14' bulletin boards). <S> Ressources: Wikipedia - about <S> unipole signs <S> Wizard Media - about unipole signs <A> It's either a hoarding or a billboard <S> hoarding - (British English) <S> (also billboard North American English, British English) <S> [countable]: a large board on the outside of a building or at the side of the road, used for putting advertisements on* <S> It typically talks what you are concerned about-roadside/outside the building. <S> The answer ends here! <S> found on other buildings/road sides . <S> However, what you are talking is the building of McDonald's itself . <S> because it's not an advertisement, it's the company's building itself. <S> They just need to show <S> that it's McD's building, not to promote . <S> You may say that without mentioning billboard/sign/hoarding etc.! <S> After you get on the highway, keep on driving. <S> After about 30 minutes you will see McDonald's. <S> If you still want to emphasize on the Big M or McDonald's words, After you get on the highway, keep on driving. <S> After about 30 minutes you will see McDonald's with a huge board . <S> I thought of signboard first, but it won't be correct. <S> Interesting <S> Soon, we'll notice a new oxymoron word: 'tiny hoardings'! <S> or lexicographers will have to come up with a new word that describes a small billboard. <S> Marvel will force them to do so with their movie Antman. <S> Tiny Billboards for Ant-Man Are Popping Up That Ants Are Really Going to Love
| If we see through a microscopic eye , hoardings are the advertisements As for McDonald's, you cannot call it a billboard or a hoarding; it's McDonald's sign. I'd call it as a 'board'
|
you're out a dollar -- what does that actually mean? Example with a context (an excerpt from "The Art & Science of Java: An Introduction to Computer Science" by Eric Roberts): If you put a silver dollar into a slot machine and pull the handle on its side, the wheels spin around and eventually come to rest in some new configuration. If the configuration matches one of a set of winning patterns printed on the front of the slot machine, you get back some money. If not, you're out a dollar . What does that actually mean? Can out a dollar be thought of as some sort of adverbial phrase? <Q> It means that, where you once had a dollar, you are now without a dollar. <S> "Out" here is used in the same way as "paid out" or "laid out" or even "without" implies that something you once had, or might have been expected to have, is not in your possession any more. <S> There is an added implication, if you use the phrase this way, that you have received nothing in return for the object that you no longer possess. <S> If you want to imply that the amount is trivial, you might say "out only a dollar" or "out only twenty pounds" or whatever your local equivalent might be. <S> The word "out" can also be used with non-monetary items, like "out twenty bucks and an evening" for a wasted night at the cinema. <A> From context, it seems to mean you lose a dollar (the dollar you put into the slot machine). <S> Other places use the same sentence in a similar sense: You're just buying a dollar item. <S> If you screw-up, you're out a dollar. <S> ... <S> the perfect place to buy a record just because you like the cover. <S> If it sucks, you're out a dollar. <A> As the other answers suggest, you're out a dollar <S> literally means you've lost a dollar and gained nothing of value in return. <S> Something the other answers don't mention: this phrase is typically used in a way that suggests the loss of a dollar is a trivial risk compared to the potential gain, i.e. that whatever you're paying a dollar for could be worth far more than a dollar to you, but if that doesn't end up being the case your loss is minimal. <A> It means that you've lost a dollar. <S> Just to be clear, as the other answers don't mention this, this is not a set phrase with "a dollar" - it can be used with any amount of money, or to a more limited extent for anything else of value. <S> For example, a search for the phrase "you're out ten bucks" finds "If you go to a bad movie, you're out ten bucks and an evening." <S> Note that ten bucks is ten dollars. <A> Money comes in when you earn it. <S> Money goes out when you spend it. <S> It's probably more common to talk about being "out a dollar" when you've lost the money in exchange for little in return as with a non-winning pull on a slot machine. <S> In that case it's clear that you pretty much got nothing for it. <S> I think you'll also hear it used in settings like this: <S> I had a great lunch over at that restaurant <S> and I'm only out three dollars! <S> I wouldn't say it always has to take a negative connotation. <S> Oddly we don't have this as a matching expression: <S> I'm in $1000 after a great day at the casino. <S> (*) <S> Here's one that you might still hear (if somebody got lucky): <S> I'm ahead $1000 after a great day at the casino. <A> If you're 'out a dollar' then you've experienced a net loss of a dollar . <S> This phrase is often used when you've lost or spent an amount of money and received nothing in return, as in your example where a dollar was inserted into a machine and nothing came out. <S> Alternatively, you may receive something in return, but not value it as highly as what you lost. <S> If I put ten dollars in a slot machine and get two dollars in prizes, then I'm "out eight dollars". <S> The phrase can also be used with other amounts of money, e.g. "I'm out ten dollars", or sometimes something else of value, e.g. "I'm out 10 cases of beer". <S> The usage without money is less common and could sound awkward. <S> This is an adjectival phrase , not an adverbial phrase. <S> In the sentence "I'm out a dollar", "out a dollar" is modifying "I", the same as "stupid" in " <S> I'm stupid" or "faster than you" in " <S> I'm faster than you". <A> Yes, it is an adverbial phrase. <S> Out is an adverb here: Oxford English Dictionary: <S> Out , adverb II. <S> Senses relating to position. <S> ** <S> In figurative uses expressing a state arrived at or result achieved. <S> 26. <S> In debt (by a particular amount); without a sum of money to which one is entitled; having spent or invested (an amount of money), esp. <S> with little prospect of return. <S> 1636 <S> R. Sanderson Serm. <S> II. <S> 59 <S> But the thing he stuck at most was the moneys he was out. <S> a1640 <S> P. Massinger City-Madam (1658) ii. <S> i. 116, <S> I am out now Six hundred in the Cash. <S> 1889 <S> Boston (Mass.) Jrnl. <S> 7 <S> Feb. 1/2 <S> Alleges <S> ..he is $5000 out, owing to the dishonesty of..an employe. <S> 1906 <S> U. Sinclair Jungle xxvi. <S> 315 <S> The game continued until late Sunday afternoon, and by that time he was ‘out’ over twenty dollars. <S> 1928 <S> P. G. Wodehouse in Strand Mag. <S> June 535 <S> Looking at the thing in one way, taking the short, narrow view, I am out a lunch. <S> Possibly a very good lunch. <S> 1977 <S> Rolling Stone 19 <S> May 40/5 <S> That left the U.S. companies..looking at enormous losses. <S> Westinghouse and General Electric are out more than $500 million apiece. <A> " This meaning is standard English, as shown by the definition and examples in the OED (provided in this answer ). <S> "Out a dollar" is an adverbial phrase modifying the subject "you." <S> There seems to be some confusion about this, so let's examine the sentence structure of "You are out a dollar. <S> " The subject of the sentence is "you". <S> The verb is "are," which is a linking verb . <S> What follows the verb is the subject complement : "out a dollar."
| The meaning is "You've lost a dollar.
|
What is the difference between an adjective before the noun and after the noun? For a long time I'm having trouble understanding the difference between two kind of expressions like those below in terms of meaning, not grammar: Excited people are looking forward to seeing this event. People excited are looking forward to seeing this event. EDITED TO USE CLEARER EXAMPLES: "All navigable rivers are being patrolled." "All rivers navigable are being patrolled." As a native speaker, how do these expressions in bold sound to you? Is there any difference in meaning between examples #3 and #4? If so what is it, and why is this so? <Q> The problem is that grammar is somewhat tied to meaning here. <S> The position of an adjective in a sentence depends on its role. <S> When used attributively (to describe a noun), as stated in other comments and answers, the adjective comes before the noun: <S> All navigable rivers are being patrolled. <S> If you say: All rivers that are navigable are being patrolled. <S> (Others are not) <S> This can become: <S> All rivers navigable are being patrolled. <S> At first glance this doesn't really seem to change the meaning since: rivers that are navigable = <S> navigable rivers <S> Edit: <S> But... <S> When an adjective comes after the noun it describes (like in the 3rd example), it functions as a postpositive modifier . <S> Changing the position of the adjective (relative to the noun it describes) may bring a slight difference in the meaning of the sentence (the meaning of the word itself does not change!). <S> When used postpositively an adjective connotes an ephemeral quality, one that is present at the moment, but doesn't always have to be. <S> On the other hand, the adjectives used attributively may express either an ephemeral or a permanent characteristic, depending on the context. <S> The difference between attributive and postpositive use of an adjective is explained in more detail in (the middle of) this post and in the comments. <S> Only some adjectives can be used both attributively and postpositively (while retaining the same word meaning), and these are the ones ending in -able and -ible (such as navig able ). <S> (But not even all of those - see later: responsible). <S> To cover another aspect (this is where grammar kicks in again): if an adjective is used predicatively (in a pattern: subject + verb + object + complement (here an adjective)) it would be in a sentence like this: <S> Signalisation on the banks made rivers navigable . <S> (Or something like that, I'm not really an expert on rivers). <S> The upcoming event made people excited . <S> The meaning of some adjectives (when used as modifiers) changes depending on whether they are used attributively or postpositively. <S> Some examples are: concerned , responsible, present etc. <S> Neither navigable nor excited are among those. <S> Here the meaning of the word itself changes and the difference can be determined by checking the dictionary definitions. <A> In modern English adjectives are put before the noun they qualify. <S> There are however archaisms where this rule is violated, reminding us of older usage : <S> The Astronomer Royal, a knight errant, God Almighty, the Surgeon General. <S> And foreign expressions like Persona non grata, spaghetti bolognese. <S> Since I'm French, let me end with our dangerously irresistible Femme fatale who might lead one to actions later ascribed to Force majeure. <A> Excited people are looking forward to seeing this event.
| In modern English, the adjective should come before the noun it modifies.
|
The word that describes the things you do as a person I know that there is a term for the things someone does. Little things, like the way you fold your arms or the filler words you use in your sentences. I would like to know what the word is if anyone knows what I mean. <Q> Source: <S> Definition of “mannerism” in Oxford Dictionaries <S> For instance, I might say “[my pet] Aki has an idiosyncrasy <S> where he's prone to running in circles when it's snowing at night.” <S> ¹ <S> That is a specific behavior that is unique to that particular individual. <S> Conversely, I could say “David Cameron has adopted all the mannerisms of Tony Blair, including using his hands a lot to show he's sincere.” <S> ² <S> Many people gesticulate or use their hands while talking, and some patterns resemble one another, so this is not an idiosyncracy of Cameron or Blair, but a common mannerism that they purportedly share. <A> The closest match that comes to my mind is idiosyncrasy . <S> idiosyncrasy <S> (plural idiosyncrasies ) <S> 1: A mode of behavior or way of thought peculiar to an individual one of his little idiosyncrasies was always preferring to be in the car first 1.1: <S> A distinctive or peculiar feature or characteristic of a place or thing: the idiosyncrasies of the prison system <A> There are a few words that mean that. <S> The first ones that come to mind are "habit" and "tendency." <S> Go on dictionary.com and check whether they are what you are looking for. <S> If not, clarify your meaning further and I will see what other words will work. <S> Hope this helps,Pyraminx
| “Idiosyncrasy” is a great word for referring to the unique things a person does, while “mannerism” might suit certain uses better as a more general term: mannerism noun a habitual gesture or way of speaking or behaving; an idiosyncrasy.
|
black—his gloves of finest mole -- what is mole? The theme song to the first episode of the television series The Black Adder : The sound of hoofbeats 'cross the glade, Good folk, lock up your son and daughter. Beware the deadly flashing blade Unless you want to end up shorter. Black Adder, Black Adder! He rides a pitch-black steed. Black Adder, Black Adder! He's very bad indeed. Black—his gloves of finest mole . Black—his codpiece made of metal. His horse is blacker than a vole; His pot is blacker than his kettle. Black Adder, Black Adder! With many a cunning plan. Black Adder, Black Adder! You horrid little man! There are actually two things that I don't understand in this song. 1: What exactly is mole? A type of material? 2: Beware the deadly flashing blade — Shouldn't it actually be beware of ? Because, we don't say beware the dog , but beware of the dog ! Right? <Q> A Mole : <S> Their pelts are regularly used for various purposes and are extremely desirable for their soft texture: Moles' pelts have a velvety texture not found in surface animals. <S> Surface-dwelling animals tend to have longer fur with a natural tendency for the nap to lie in a particular direction, but to facilitate their burrowing lifestyle, mole pelts are short and very dense and have no particular direction to the nap. <S> This makes it easy for moles to move backwards underground, as their fur is not "brushed the wrong way". <S> The leather is extremely soft and supple. <S> When the quote says "Gloves of finest mole", it means gloves made out of mole skin. <S> Beware <S> These are music lyrics (poetry), first of all, so <S> the rules are more fluid and grammar often is ignored to allow for meter . <S> That being said, beware was often used without "of" in historical texts, like Shakespeare : <S> This meeting is famously dramatized in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, when Caesar is warned by the soothsayer to "beware the Ides of March." <S> And in other poetic forms, like the iconic poem " Jabberwocky " by Lewis Carroll: <S> “Beware the Jabberwock, my son! <S> The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! <S> Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun <S> The frumious Bandersnatch!” <S> Remember that Blackadder is supposed to take place in various historic eras, starting in 1485, so <S> this use is actually quite appropriate for the show. <A> Mole leather became very popular when the wife of King Edward VII, Alexandra, ordered a fur garment. <S> She did this because moles had become a serious agricultural problem in Scotland, and by ordering the garment, she started a fashion trend favoring mole leather. <S> Thus, mole leather almost overnight became a sensation, and hunters started killing off moles by the hundreds. <S> As for beware , the use of "of" is optional. <S> It's perfectly alright to say, "Beware the dog! <S> " It's also ok to say, "Beware of the dog." <S> "Beware" is a verb that can be used either transitively or intransitively without significantly changing the meaning. <A> Before the mole became a protected species (EU), moleskin was used for the lining of winter gloves, furry side in. <S> Mole leather itself is not suitable for the upper material of the glove as it is too fragile. <S> Mole fur was also used to produce a very soft felt for premium top hats, as were rabbit fur for the cheaper version and american beaver fur for everyday purposes.
| In this context, "mole" refers to a small animal, the hide of which makes for very soft and supple leather.
|
What does "hardcore" mean in this picture? I saw a picture on Reddit. What is the meaning of hardcore in it? Thanks, <Q> Hardcore can mean several things. <S> A genre of music. <S> The most active, committed, or doctrinaire members of a group or movement. <S> Sexually explicit. <S> It's rare that the best definition is from Urban Dictionary, but this is one of those few times. <S> In this case it is slang for cool, rebellious, intense or bad-ass, <A> DJ McMayhem covered the basics, but since humor tends to be very regional and subjective, here's a further explanation. <S> It's being used as an adjective. <S> (An article would be required for it to be used as a noun, and none is present. <S> I'm positive <S> it's not a bad translation <S> ; see below) <S> I found multiple reposts of the same picture on Reddit, imgur, and tumblr, all with humorous intent; the phrase was also used as a caption for unrelated images, and commented on unrelated threads. <S> Clearly, a minority are trying to turn it into a meme . <S> Had the original caption meant hardcore in the literal or formal sense, the image never would have gained any popularity, as it wouldn't be funny. <S> The Spanish caption also would have translated the word - leaving the word in English suggests that it is a loanword, only having a meaning in English. <S> The caption is funny in a "verbal irony" sort of way - the very nature of being rebellious suggests a disregard of authority, yet <S> Jorge's desire to be hardcore is clearly impeded by the instructions of his mother, an authority figure. <S> In short, his mother's wishes wouldn't be a concern for Jorge if he were actually hardcore. <A> The noun 'hardcore' has many meanings <S> but I think they should be two separate words like this - hard core if its used as a noun in this context . <S> Here is the video of the entire episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdXSnsgqH4Y in which, his mother is complaining a lot about this kid. <S> The kid wants to behave in his own way and thus, losing good grades at school. <S> Hard-core in this sense is 'doing things the way someone wants but without changing their behavior'. <S> His mama agrees that she'll let this guy be hardcore but then, she wants good report card at the school. <S> To support a little , I quote OALD's entry here hard core (n): <S> singular + singular or plural verb] the small central group in an organization, or in a particular group of people, who are the most active or who will not change their beliefs or behaviour <S> [However, I may not prefer using this in such case].
| The Urban Dictionary definition is correct: hardcore is meant as rebellious .
|
Do I need to place a comma before "then"? Example: "The helicopter will land in a minute or two ." "Why can't we see it, then? Do I need that comma before the then ? Why and why not? I got both versions on Google: ...wouldn't they be in the way then? ...wouldn't they be dead, then? <Q> The comma can represent a syntactic pause and/or a change of intonation that accompanies and corroborates a syntactic pause. <S> P.S. <S> Its being at the end of the sentence is not the deciding factor. <S> Consider: <S> ** <S> I'm away Monday, but I'll be in town on Tuesday . <S> Can I see the apartment then ? <S> [no pause before "thenn"] <S> The answer on the rental form is incorrect. <S> I have no pets. <S> I can rent the apartment, then? <S> * <S> * [pause and different intonation to mark the meaning "in that case"] <A> No it doesn't. <S> Commas are often used to represent the natural pauses we make when talking, and the phrase "why can't we see it then?" can be spoken naturally with or without the pause before the word "then". <S> The only time I can think of where commas are required is when you use nonessential relative clauses. <S> Here's an example from the linked website: <S> My dog Floyd, who eats too much pizza, has developed pepperoni breath. <A> With a comma before it "then" becomes synonymous with "in that case". <S> Without the comma, "then" is more likely to be a temporal reference (refer to a particular time). <S> Compare: <S> It's visible? <S> Well, why can't we see it, then? <S> and You're free tomorrow? <S> Well the film is on tomorrow afternoon; shall we see it then? <S> Also +1 TRomano's syntactic pause.
| A comma would make clear that "then" as used here is not temporal but conditional; temporal and conditional uses of then have different syntactic pauses and intonational contours.
|
suspended with pay -- meaning? Example with a context ( Riots in Baltimore over man's death in police custody ): Monday's riot was the latest flare-up over the mysterious death of Freddie Gray, whose fatal encounter with officers came amid the national debate over police use of force, especially when black suspects are involved. Gray was African-American. Police have declined to specify the races of the six officers involved in his arrest, all of whom have been suspended with pay while they are under investigation. How should that exactly be understood? <Q> The reason for suspending them with pay is because if they're guilty, they shouldn't be acting as police officers whilst the investigation continues. <S> On the other hand, if they're innocent they shouldn't be punished by having their salary withheld. <A> I agree with Mark's answer, but will elaborate on the phrase "with pay". <S> Prepositional phrases that use "with" (with pay, with malice aforethought, with gusto) are often adverbial: they describe a manner or, in the case of "with pay" (pay=salary), a state, condition, or circumstance. <S> The hungry man ate with gusto . <S> (=> hungrily, enjoying the food) <S> The murderer acted with malice aforethought . <S> (=> <S> maliciously, intending malice) <S> He acted with great haste . <S> (=> very hastily) <S> He was suspended with pay . <S> (=> still receiving salary) <A> Suspension with pay means that the officers are temporarily not being allowed to come to or perform their job, but they are still receiving payment for the job they would be doing. <S> The reason for this distinction is because there is an alternative: Suspension without pay, which would be temporarily suspending the officers and not giving them a salary while they are suspended.
| It means they won't be working, but they'll still be paid their salary.
|
Phrases that express "afraid of wife" in English Are there any English idioms that are used to describe a man being afraid of wife? In Chinese there are lots of ways to express it, formal ways, condescending, or colorful. Please describe the situations to use them when giving your suggestions. <Q> While it does not explicitly mean "afraid of wife", henpecked refers to a man who is controlled by his wife. <S> Much more vulgar, pussy-whipped has the same meaning. <A> In Chinese, 怕 is not exactly a direct translation of the English "afraid" in the main sense of the word. <S> Afraid usually means feeling fear, a distressing emotion of impending pain or danger - it's more like the Chinese 恐 in most cases. <S> For example, in Chinese you can say 怕冷, but this does not mean you are actually "afraid of the cold" in the English sense - this is too strong. <S> It's more like you are "intimidated by the cold." <S> So I would say 怕 more like "intimidated by," and 怕老婆 as "intimidated by my wife." <S> Or, as others have said, browbeaten, whipped, or henpecked. <S> However, be aware that all of these have a negative connotation in English (of the man being weak), so I feel that "intimidated by my wife," which is neutral, most closely captures 怕老婆. <S> These are subtle differences, but I feel it's these little things that make learning a language both fun and challenging. <A> a man who does everything he is told to by the lady in his life [and vice versa], often for fear of reprisals, can be described as under the thumb . <S> see 'under my thumb' by the rolling stones... <A> A wife may "wear the pants in the family," meaning she has runs the household. <S> Not so much fear as a lack of control. <A> As I said in my comment, henpecked is the closest term to what you are searching. <S> Logically, all henpecked men are afraid of their wives. <S> I mean, that's why they are henpecked. <S> If you take liberty, you may toss a word - wife-o-phobia ! <S> It is not standard <S> but I'm quite sure that it'll be understood since 'phobia' is not an unknown term anymore. <S> The word 'ridden' in this sense may be used to describe someone having control over someone up to an extent that it develops 'fear' in the subject being controlled. <S> As a doctor, I know another word. <S> From New Latin, from Greek gametē (means wife) <S> the word comes ' gametophobia '. <S> Ideally <S> it should be 'fear of wife' but sources say that it's gamete+gamos (marriage) <S> SO <S> it's actually 'fear of marriage'. <S> So, if we describe a bachelor 'gametophobic', he's afraid of getting married but if we refer a married man a gametophobic, he's afraid of his wife? <S> I'm not sure! <A> Another word I can think of is obedient husband . <S> ;-) <S> Obedient husband can sound even poetic! <S> I am, with the utmost affection, your obedient husband, and most humble servant. <S> -- <S> Elegant Epistels: Being a Copious Collection of Familiar and Amusing Letters <A> One of my favorites is, "If mama aint happy, aint nobody happy." <S> Meaning, "If the mother of my children is unhappy, everyone in the family is unhappy." <A> Another one that comes to mind is whipped . <S> If you say a guy's whipped <S> you mean he's been beaten into submission by his partner and is unwilling to do anything that might anger her. <S> For example, "he's too whipped to go to the bar tonight." <A>
| An obedient husband will say that he is not "afraid of his wife" per se, but if you observe his behavior closely, whatever his wife wishes, he will comply, for her wish is his command. For a clinical-sounding term, you could describe the man as uxoriphobic , which is not listed directly in any dictionary that I could find, but comes from the Latin root uxor , meaning "wife", and the suffix -phobia , meaning "fear of". Another word that comes to my mind is 'wife-ridden' .
|
Which preposition should one use: for, with, in, or by? If one needs to say that the product may be purchased in a certain currency, which preposition should he use? The product may be purchased (in | for | with | by) U.S. dollars. If one needs to say that the product may be purchased for a certain amount of money, which preposition should he use? The product may be purchased (in | for | with | by) 40 dollars. <Q> The product may be purchased in U.S. dollars. <S> In my opinion ... when you say this, the implication is the seller accepts currencies other than U.S. dollars, and there may be a possibility the seller would convert the currency for you - i.e. the sentence is short for "The product may be purchased in an amount of U.S. dollars." <S> The product may be purchased for U.S. dollars. <S> Doesn't make sense. <S> Purchasing means you get something in exchange for money, it doesn't make sense to get money in exchange for something (that's selling, not purchasing). <S> The product may be purchased with U.S. dollars. <S> This would be the typical way to say this. <S> The implication is that the seller requires you to have U.S. dollars, <S> otherwise he/ <S> she won't sell it. <S> The product may be purchased by U.S. dollars. <S> Doesn't make sense. <S> It sounds like you are saying the U.S. dollars themselves are doing the purchasing. <A> with You're saying with what the item will be paid for. <S> for <S> You're saying what price the item goes for . <A> English prepositions are endlessly tricky. <S> "With" means that the object accompanies something else, or is used as a means to accomplish something else. <S> Note these are two very distinct meanings. <S> "I assembled this bookcase with Bob." <S> Bob worked with me on the project. <S> We built it together. <S> " <S> I assembled this bookcase with a screwdriver. <S> " The screwdriver was used as a tool. <S> "For" indicates purpose, or it can mean approval or support. <S> " <S> This screwdriver is for Phillips-head screws. <S> " I am describing it's purpose. " <S> Senator Jones is for new gun laws." <S> He favors or supports such laws. <S> "In" can mean, located on the interior of, like, "A new battery is in the cell phone. <S> " It can also identify a unit of measure, a language, etc. " <S> The length is given in inches." <S> "The book is written in German. <S> " It can describe a condition. " <S> Sally and I are deeply in love, and deeply in debt." <S> "We paid by credit card." <S> "We travelled by car. <S> " It can indicate passage past a place. <S> "We passed by your house." <S> "We drove by the grocery store." <S> Adjacency. <S> "The barn is by the house." <S> There are other shades of meaning for all the above. <S> So in these cases: The product may be purchased WITH U.S. dollars. <S> The thing you are using to buy the product is U.S. dollars, so you are buying it WITH dollars. <S> The product may be purchased FOR 40 dollars. <S> This is the amount required to accomplish the purpose of making this purchase. <S> You could make logical arguments why other prepositions would work in each case, but these are the ones normally used by native speakers. <S> Note other related sentences: <S> All prices are given IN US dollars. <S> This was the currency used to express the price. <S> I paid WITH a credit card. <S> A credit card was the tool or means of payment. <S> But I paid BY credit card. <S> A different way of saying that this was the mechanism. <S> But WITH indicates a specific object, so an article is required, while BY indicates a more general concept, so no article is used. <S> But: I paid WITH cash. <S> I paid IN cash. <S> Both valid. <S> The p
| "By" can be used for a means of accomplishing something.
|
The concise way to express the idea "I don't know Python" within a sentence I want to say that I don't know Python (a programming language), whose precise meaning is that I have zero knowledge on Python. I want to say it in a concise way, i.e., using it as a construction part in a longer sentence, e.g., something along the form of I am Python-agnostic or I am Python-blind , is there something like these? UPDATE: My choice is " python illiterate ". To use it in a sentence -- He has turned himself from Python illiterate to Python expert. Any other answers just can't beat this. <Q> The simplest, most concise way to say you don't know Python is " <S> I don't know Python. <S> " It's what a native speaker would normally say. <S> Python-illiterate would probably be understood to mean the same thing, but it might be heard as a somewhat humorous what to phrase it because it's so different from the usual. <S> Depending on the listener, they might need further clarification, because this is an unusual way to say you don't know a language. <S> So using it is riskier than using "I don't know Python." <S> The example of Python-agnostic would imply that you've got an ideological issue with python, because agnostic is commonly used in religious contexts. <S> I've got no idea what Python-blind would mean. <A> I'm python illiterate. -- might serve. <S> Agnostic would miss the mark quite widely btw . <S> Agnostic suggests a lack of preference in code speak, or open-mindedness -- <S> people who can use *nix and Windows may say that they are OS-agnostic. <S> In this way agnostic denotes familiarity with and ability to use, rather than a lack of understanding. <A> I agree with comments of others that "I don't know Python" does the job. <S> To me, either of your two choices "python agnostic" and "python blind" says that you don't know python <S> and you don't really care. <A> Slightly terser and clearer (in written form, at least) than the already acceptable <S> "I don't know Python" would be " <S> I know no Python". <S> This clarifies that you have, in fact, not merely relatively little Python experience, but none at all. <A> Those would be easily understood. <S> Here are a few other possibilities: <S> I'm Python-naive. <S> I'm a Python novice. <S> I know no Python.
| "I don't know Python" is probably the best, and "I'm Python illiterate" is pretty good too.
|
What exactly did the Western-style diet do to the native African volunteers' guts? I can understand everything from this article except one single word that causes me trouble in getting the complete meaning of the following sentence: The dietary swaps appeared to cause significant changes to the cells lining the gut as well as the bacteria that live in the bowel - with the US volunteers faring better. I understand that the new diet caused important changes to the cells, modifying their structure, but what exactly happened to the gut by lining it and also to the bacteria (were they lined too or what?) I quite can't get. Checking The Free Dictionary for the verb to line , I couldn't find an appropriate sense for the context in question. So, please let me know which one of the following dictionary definitions matches: v. lined, lin·ing, lines v.tr. To mark, incise, or cover with a line or lines. To represent with lines. To place in a series or row. To form a bordering line along: Small stalls lined the alley. <Q> The closest match is the fourth definition. <S> They are spread around the gut's walls creating a bordering protective layer of cells. <S> For instance, we often refer to the lining of the stomach, which is a layer of mucous cells which produce mucus to protect the stomach from its own secretions. <S> As such, the first definition of the noun " lining " may help you more than the definition of the verb. <S> The key part of the phrase in doubt when parsed is "cells that line the gut", so they should be understood to be spread along the inside of the gut in such a way as to create a layer of protection as described in the definition I linked above. <S> The bacteria simply "live" in the bowel, so I imagine them to be "floating around" and not providing a protective layer in the way the cells in the gut do. <S> As a final source of help, my mother used to "line her frying pan with butter" before she put it on the heat so as to protect it (and the foodstuffs inside) from immediately burning. <S> We also talk about "lining our stomachs" (not to be confused with the noun use above) before we go to the pub and imbibe quantities of alcohol. <S> This means eating some food which is intended to soak up/absorb some of the alcohol and reducing the chances of ill-effect from the impending alcohol. <A> The misunderstanding here is the sentence structure: "lining the gut" describes the cells , not the effects of the diet. <S> Here's a trimmed-down version of the sentence. <S> The dietary swaps caused changes to the cells lining the gut. <S> There are cells ("cells lining the gut"), and the diet caused changes to them. <S> (A slightly clearer alternative would be "... <S> cells that line the gut...", <S> but that's not what this author chose, perhaps because journalists habitually use shorter ways of saying things.) <S> Now, as for the meaning of "lining", your fourth dictionary definition is the appropriate one here. <S> Your gut is lined with cells <S> ; the cells are lining (verb) the gut; they are its lining (now a noun). <S> Check your dictionary for a professional version, but I would define "lining" (noun) as "a layer that covers the inside of something". <S> Lastly, because "lining the gut" describes the cells, it has nothing to do with the bacteria, so you don't need to ask what "lining the bacteria" means! <A> Compare: Commuters taking the subway are delayed whenever the electrical power fails. <S> The monks living in silence meditate and work all day. <S> The cells lining the gut are affected by diet. <S> These are modifying clauses not introduced by relative pronouns; they could be restated: who take the subway who live in silence which line the gut
| What "lining the gut" refers to is cells in the body whose location is the inside of the gut.
|
Present perfect with 'since' or 'for' What does Present perfect with time phrase 'since' or 'for' imply? The action is still continuing or the action is finished? It is confused with the tense 'present perfect continuous' since this also expresses with time phrases 'since' or 'for' to indicate action is still continuing? I would like to know in detail what is the difference between both tenses if both contain time phrases 'since' or 'for' and how to choose between them. Examples: 1a. I have waited for him since morning. 1b. I have been waiting for him since morning 2a. He has washed the car for 2 hours. 2b. He has been washing the car for 2 hours. 3a. I have watched TV for a long time. 3b. I have been watching TV for a long time. <Q> Let us be clear about time phrases beginning with "SINCE" and "FOR". <S> SINCE/FROM refers to POINT OF TIME (10 <S> a.m./year1940/ <S> Monday last) <S> FOR refers to PERIOD OF TIME ( <S> 10 hours/ 3 days/ 4 months) <S> They have nothing to do with tenses. <S> However, they assume special importance as 'perfect continuous' form of tenses specially demands mention of time factor. <S> " Since/for/ from" can safely be used in any other tenses if their presence can by no means disturb the basic concepts of time element of tenses in use. <S> As regards Present Perfect Tense, it is not a self contained tense; as if it expects some thing else of undefined nature. <S> (e.g., I have sat for the exam.--just completed action--expecting may be result, may be outcome, may be any thing else) <S> We may use since and from here as well. <A> In the examples you provided, in those particular scenarios all of the present perfect tense usages are incorrect. <S> You are good going with present perfect continuous tense, i.e <S> the "b" examples. <S> Present perfect tense is about whether something has been true before until now. <S> Note that it does not mean such thing is continuous, e.g. "I have watched this movie before". <S> I was not watching it yesterday, and I am not watching it. <S> But "I have been living in the U.S. for 10 years <S> " means I moved to the U.S. 10 years ago and <S> 10 years later I am still living here. <S> As for "for" and "since", "for" refers to a range of time (number of hours, number of days) while "since" refers to a starting point in time (this morning, two years ago). <A> For finished actions, we use the present perfect simple. <S> In your sentences there's no much difference when using for , the continuous form is used for emphasise the action.
| Present perfect continuous is used to emphasise an action that started in the past.
|
What is the difference between "research" and "survey"? Many times I have seen these words "research" and "survey" in newspapers. Like a research shows that... or a study shows that... or a survey conclude that... From these statements it is not clear that what is the difference between the words research , study and survey . Previously I was thinking that research is a scientific word where as survey is a non-scientific word. Also I thought that survey is done over a large group whereas research is done over a small group. Please help me in understanding the basic difference between these words. <Q> Scientific research typically involves experimentation, although there are other kinds of academic research that do not involve experiments, which involve the analysis of primary sources and consultation of secondary sources. <S> A study is scientific research focused on a particular hypothesis, or a particular relationship (e.g. obesity and poverty); in non-scientific contexts, it can be the exploration of a particular subject (the causes of a civil war, say, or the literary works of an author). <S> A survey typically involves the posing of questions to a population of respondents whose size is statistically significant. <S> Surveys are often used in the social sciences. <A> In this context "study" and "research" have similar meanings. <S> The word "study" can be understood to mean "research study". <S> The word "research" is not stated but it's implied. <S> ("A study shows..." <S> can be understood to mean "A research study shows..") <S> A survey is a type of research where people are asked questions about their opinions and experiences. <A> Actually we should know three basic terms: <S> Statistics is the field of study or we can say a science and art of collecting, organizing, presenting and interpreting data for exposing a problem and finding solutions. <S> Research is a systematic process used by statisticians to achieve the aforementioned goals. <S> Research has different types and tools.
| A survey is a kind of research or we can say a method and tool of research for collecting data.
|
Is there a word/slang for 'keyboarder' - irresponsible internet critics In Mandarin Chinese there is an internet slang, literally keyboarder , which refers to people (especially internet users) who express a lot of groundless and irresponsible opinions but disguised as reasonable critiques. Those speeches are usually much more logical and lengthy than common trolls, but at the end they are based on wrong assumptions and trickery reasoning and are not constructive at all. Sometimes media uses this word to comment bad but real-life (as opposed to internet) criticisms. Is there a similar word/phrase/internet slang in English? <Q> I think a phrase that fits here is Armchair warrior . <S> From Wikipedia : Armchair warrior is a pejorative term that alludes to fighting from the comfort of one’s living room. <S> It describes activities such as speaking out in support of a war, battle, or fight by someone with little or no military experience. <S> This differs from slacktivism in that no action needs to be done by an armchair warrior beyond stating a point of view versus an act to give the appearance of making a difference from a slacktivist. <S> Or closer still: Keyboard warrior . <S> From Urban Dictionary : <S> A Person who, being unable to express his anger through physical violence (owing to their physical weakness, lack of bravery and/or conviction in real life), instead manifests said emotions through the text-based medium of the internet, usually in the form of aggressive writing that the Keyboard Warrior would not (for reasons previously mentioned) be able to give form to in real life. <S> I'd say both are informal, but fairly well-known. <A> <A> The word pundit is often used sarcastically in a similar manner. <S> Internet pundits <S> is almost a pejorative term. <A> I know you said "beyond common trolls", but I really feel that "troll" is the best perjorative term here. <S> It's at least the most ubiquitous, and though "troll" is a much more informal word than anything else suggested so far, it needs no explanation.
| You could also say "armchair critic" or "know-it-all."
|
Correct use of the word 'through'? I always had a doubt using the word through ; basically I would like to say this sentence: Thanks Alex for all the money saved through your tips. Is the use of the word through correct in this sentence? NOTE: I want to keep the sentence unchanged; if there's anything to be corrected, it must only be the word through . <Q> I think your sentence is correct. <S> One of the meanings of the word through is as a result of . <S> See the Cambridge dictionary . <A> Ciao, Federico <S> Good job. <S> I will say that it is not all that natural. <S> In other words, it's grammatical and understandable, but not idiomatic, not the most natural way to express the thought. <S> Through is often used as a result of a middleman, or to signify a process. <S> Neither of these apply to your tips . <S> Also, are you thanking Alex directly? <S> If so, you need commas before and after Alex: <S> Thanks, Alex, for all the money saved through your tips. <S> In addition, tips is ambiguous without further context, as the word can mean either (monetary) tips gained from working as a waiter, for example, or tips as in suggestions . <S> I assume you mean the latter, and in any case it does not much affect the choice of preposition. <S> Changing no word except through , the following are perhaps preferable: <S> Thanks, Alex, for all the money saved from your tips. <S> and Thanks, Alex, for all the money saved by your tips. <S> But, frankly, two more natural sentences are Thanks, Alex, for all the money you (have) saved me by (means of) your tips. <S> and Thanks, Alex, for all the money I (have) saved from/by (using/following) your tips. <S> Just as many native speakers would not normally choose the preposition through in either of these two sentences, we wouldn't normally choose it in your original sentence. <S> There is no explanation as to <S> Why , rather it's simply a matter of being familiar with which preposition sounds better, or "works" more naturally in a particular sentence. <S> I am a native speaker of American English. <A> I had a look through this post and found that a correct use was given through your example. <S> Essentially through is appropriate when you want to convey: <S> some kind of effect occurred through or via the method of some kind of cause. <S> The difference between through and because is that through implies that the action was required to produce the effect, where as because of only implies a reason. <S> Compare: <S> I drove the nail in to a piece of wood through careful use of a hammer. <S> I covered my ears because the fire alarm was very loud. <S> The alternative suggestions are of varying help... <S> From would only be the correct construction if you were implying you collected the money as with the sheep here: <S> This morning I gathered the sheep from the field. <S> By following or by using isn't too bad, but there's a subtle difference. <S> Constructing a sentence using one of these forms implies that the result of the action was final rather than part of a sequence of steps. <S> I reached my destination by following the signs. <S> I reached my destination by using public transport. <S> I reached my destination through the forest path. <S> I personally feel that only the third one implies that it is describing only part of how I got there, where as the other two imply that this was the only major part of the journey. <S> In the case of your sentence, by following implies that the tips were complete instructions and that following them is all that is necessary, while through implies that the tips need to be understood and adjusted to fit the circumstances. <S> It is also appropriate when something is moving within something else, such as: <S> I walked through the room. <S> The room was lit by the sun coming through the window. <S> Edit: <S> Also, because you asked Pazzo, yes I'm a native speaker. <S> Pazzo is also correct that there should be commas around "Alex" in your sentence. <S> Edit 2 <S> : I just noticed you asked Alex S, not Pazzo, oops.
| You have used through (definition 5, by means of ) correctly in your sentence.
|
Verb for something that flies because of wind (but not flying free)? It's flying...but not actually flying. It's waving...I'm not sure! I want to describe when wind flows, certain things 'fly'? or 'wave'? If the fan is directed to Mike, his hair will _________ Likewise, Clothes kept on a string for drying will _____ if wind blows harder. [Note -clothes won't get OFF the string, they'll just fly/wave/???] [In my mother tongue, it's the same word that we have for birds -fly] My concern is something 'flying' is actually flying without any support [bird flying, aircraft flying]. When the thing is stuck to its source (a scalp for hair, and a string for clothes), does the term 'fly' fit? <Q> It really depends on what you're talking about. <S> We do actually use fly to describe things that are up in the air but not literally flying, most notably, for flags. <S> As to the specific examples, there are many options. <S> Including ones you note, there's flap, flutter, float, blow, billow, dance, ripple... and many more. <S> It's all about what sort of emotion or feeling you want to give. <S> For example, pieces of fabric such as a curtain or sheet might be described to billow : <S> The curtains billowed in the breeze. <S> Or, in a stiffer breeze, to flutter : <S> Flags fluttered in the breeze. <S> If you want to be fancy, you could even say something like: <S> The clothes danced on the drying line. <S> This gives a very fun and energetic feel, the opposite of billow. <S> Hair, on the other hand, would probably float in a soft breeze or fly in a stiff wind. <S> When the breeze blew, her hair floated in front her her eyes, hiding them from my vision. <S> Her hair flew into her face as the wind blew around her. <S> Whichever word you use is part of the artistry of the English language. <S> As you see above, words relating to both air and water movement are possible, and it's largely a matter of personal preference. <S> If you start trying things out, be sure you are able to visualize the movement you're trying to describe. <A> Photographers often employ fans to give a model's hair a "wind-blown look". <S> Clothes hanging on a line do indeed wave in a wind, or even flap (fold in and out, making a slapping, snapping or whipping sound.) <S> These degrees all fall under the description of "blowing in the wind". <A> IMO, it is flapping movement of hair or clothes. <S> The Free Dictionary has an entry for this: flap <S> If the fan is directed to Mike, his hair will flap . <S> And Clothes kept on a string for drying <S> will flap if wind blows harder. <S> I am not a native speaker, but to my mind, flapping movement is a suitable word for such movement.
| Hair that is moved about by the wind is said to be "blowing in the wind".
|
The meaning of "slighted" in the specific sentence In Tennessee William's play, "The Glass Managerie", Amanda says: It wasn't enough for a girl to be possessed of a pretty face and a graceful figure although I wasn't slighted in either respect." What is the meaning of "slighted" in this sentence? <Q> Slighted in this sense means to be denied of something. <S> ( source ) <S> It is often used to refer to something you deserved or were promised. <S> In this context the character is saying she has both a pretty face a graceful figure, or is not lacking those features. <S> However, I don't believe it's common to use slighted in that context, I would use lacking instead. <A> I'm not totally sure of the context this quote is coming from - after a little research the following two definitions make the most sense to me ( source ) <S> To treat (someone) with discourteous reserve or inattention To treat as of small importance; make light of "Insulted" is a good synonym in this case. <A> It means she wasn't ignored in either aspect. <S> So she was both yet <S> it wasn't enough. <A> I would say the meaning comes from the root of alight: light, i.e., she wasn't illuminated, lit up in either respect. <S> But I would rather paraphrase it as: (...) <S> I didn't shine in either respect.
| It sounds like this person was told that being pretty wasn't enough - but that she was indeed pretty, so that she was not "slighted" (or insulted).
|
Using 'although' and 'nevertheless' in the same sentence Is this sentence correct? Although I would like to start, nevertheless it is not possible. Or should it be: Although I would like to start, it is not possible. I would like to start, nevertheless it is not possible. <Q> #Although I would like to start, nevertheless it is not possible. <S> (not good) <S> The problem with the Original Poster's sentence is not the use of although and nevertheless in the same sentence. <S> It is perfectly grammatical to do this: Although he was barred from operating on patients, he, nevertheless, agreed to do the transplant. <S> Notice that in the example above nevertheless comes in between the subject he and the verb agreed . <S> If we put it before the subject the sentence will not be good: <S> # <S> Although he was barred from operating on patients, nevertheless he agreed to do the transplant. <S> The Original <S> Poster's example can be made good, if we move the adverb to the same position: <S> Although I'd like to start, it is, nevertheless, not possible. <S> The Original Poster's second examples are both good: <S> Although I would like to start, it is not possible. <S> I would like to start. <S> Nevertheless, it's not possible. <S> Notice, though, that in the second example, it is better to use a full stop, not a comma to separate the two sentences. <A> Is this sentence correct? <S> Although I would like to start, nevertheless it is not possible. <S> Or should it be: <S> Although I would like to start, it is not possible. <S> I would like to start, nevertheless it is not possible. <S> Your example #1 is fine. <S> Consider this example from the 2002 CGEL, page 776, example [2.iii ], which is structured very similar to your example: [2.iii ] <S> Although he affects a gruff exterior in many instances, nevertheless he is fundamentally a man of warm heart and gentle disposition. <S> and their explanation: <S> Another very common case is represented in [2.iii ], where the connective adjunct has a reduplicative role: the relation between the main and subordinate clauses is already marked by although , so that nevertheless simply marks this relationship a second time. <S> ASIDE: <S> As to your other two examples, example #2 is fine; but example #3 might be a bit controversial in that some people might see it as being a comma splice , and so they might expect or demand a semicolon or period or em dash to be used instead of a comma. <S> Example #3 is okay to me for informal style, but if I'm writing in a very formal style or for a formal register <S> then I might think twice before using a comma there like that. <S> NOTE: <S> The 2002 CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum (et al.), <S> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. <A> The two are not normally used in the same sentence. <S> Judges may not wish to mete out life-sentences for non-violent drug-related crimes; <S> nevertheless , under current US law they must. <S> Although judges may not wish to mete out life-sentences for non-violent drug-related crimes, under current US law they must. <A> Short answer : <S> You can use either of the conjunctive adverbs to connect the two clauses, but they shouldn't be there together. <S> Also, some believe it's better to use a semicolon to connect two complete sentences. <S> Long answer : <S> Nevertheless is a conjunctive adverb : <S> A conjunctive adverb is an adverb that connects two independent clauses. <S> Conjunctive adverbs show cause and effect, sequence, contrast , comparison, or other relationships. <S> (Emphasis mine) <S> This option is at times considered correct if seen by some speakers: <S> I would like to start, nevertheless, it is not possible. <S> About although , it's categorized as a subordinate conjunction . <S> So this is correct also: <S> Although I would like to start, it is not possible. <S> Note that connecting the two sentences using both nevertheless and although isn't correct as both are some kinda "conjunctions"! <S> But wait ... <S> This is rather pedantic, but some people (including the author of this tutorial ) believe that if you are to connect two whole sentences, a semicolon is preferred over a comma. <S> So, the fully correct sentence with nevertheless is: <S> I would like to start ; nevertheless, it is not possible. <S> I would like to start. <S> Nevertheless, it is not possible.
| Your first sentence isn't correct at all.
|
How to translate the word "college" from Italian to English I am Italian and I've lived for a while in the US and I heard a lot of people using the word college as a synonym of university ; however in Italy the word college often refers to the place where you live and spend most of your time with other students when you are not in class. Basically it is the place where you eat, study, hangout and sleep when you cannot have your own house. You can imagine it as a fraternity house, but with strict rules where you have a principle and have to behave according to certain manners. So here is my question: what is the English word to express the Italian meaning of college ? <Q> In a US university context, as you know, college usually refers either to a faculty division of the university (e.g. College of Engineering ), to the institution itself if so named (e.g. College of Charleston ), or to postsecondary education in general (e.g. college sports , college students ). <S> But further, the institution you describe, where students live and spend much of their free time and participate in programming, is relatively uncommon in the U.S. <S> The vast majority of four-year universities house students in dormitories and apartments, and student recreation and social activities are based in a building known as a student union (which may have no relation to the students association). <S> The least ambiguous term would probably be residential college , although the implementation varies widely from campus to campus. <S> Many so-called residential colleges are nothing more than glorified dorms. <S> At some institutions, such as Yale and Rice , the residential college is the basis around which student life is indeed organized. <S> A number of institutions have created or are experimenting with residential college models, like NYU and Cornell. <S> Incidentally, any decent fraternity has house rules and operates according to principles. <S> It's the indecent ones who have lost them that show up in movies and in the news. <A> You might want to use dormitory <S> which is generally what we call student housing in the US. <A> (or slang, dorm. ) <S> According to Google, the definition of dormitory is: A large bedroom for a number of people in a school or institution. <S> "A dormitory" refers to an individual room, where as "the dormitories" refers to the building that holds all of these rooms. <S> The other word that might be what you're looking for is "campus" which refers to the dormitories and the classrooms and the place where students eat etc. <S> However, this isn't always the best word because some campuses don't have dormitories, and just have classrooms. <S> Also, the "principal" of the dorms is called a "resident assistant" or "RA". <S> The RA is usually a student themselves. <A> As far as a single word goes, I would use residence, or maybe residence hall . <S> Residence hall is a term specific to universities and similar institutions, while residence can refer to anyone's home. <S> The reason I'm suggesting residence over dorm is that while they normally have the same meaning within the US college system, their meanings differ when used outside the universities. <S> Dormitory is always used for a place where a lot of people sleep. <S> In colleges, it refers to the whole building, exactly the same as residence hall, or residence. <S> But if you've got a building housing a group of people, with shared sleeping space, the sleeping space is the dormitory, while the entire house is the residence. <S> Dormitory focuses on sleeping space, while residence implies the whole living space. <A> Some US universities and colleges have housing systems which are modeled more-or-less along the line of "colleges" at universities such as Oxford and Cambridge in Great Britain. <S> In these systems (referred to as "the House system" at Harvard, and "Colleges" at Yale) <S> students are assigned to a House or College - at Harvard this occurs during the spring of freshman year, while at Yale it occurs prior to arrival as a freshman - and then remain in that same residential hall for the remainder of their time at the institution. <A> Short Story: 'Residential College' is the most specific term, but 'dorm' is the one most likely to be understood. <S> " Residential College " is apparently an official term used to describe the sort of institution you're describing in America. <S> If you had said this to me prior to me reading the answers on this page, I would not have know what you were talking about, and I expect many American speakers would feel the same. " <S> Residential College" sounds like a place where I take classes related to residences. <S> I don't know what that would be, but perhaps it would be related to construction or hospitality. <S> After hearing your description and reading about institutions that use this term, I would describe them all as 'dorms', which is short for ' dormitories '. <S> This term is less specific, and does not necessarily imply as much organization and control as what you're describing, but definitely includes what you're describing. <S> I went to Iowa State University, where I lived in the dorms all four years due to a scholarship that paid for them. <S> Some of the dorms are highly organized. <S> For example, freshman computer science students can choose to live together in a community where they have scheduled study sessions and activities. <S> A dorm like this will have rules of conduct including quiet hours, visitation restrictions, and substance (read alcohol) bans. <S> Even in my less-organized off-campus dorm we had weekly meetings, often ate meals together, had an RA in charge, participated in officially sanctioned events like intramurals and floor competitions, and had facilities on site for meetings, conferences, and parties.
| I believe the word you're looking for is dormitory.
|
Is there any difference between "by means of" and "with the help of"? Can we use the phrase " by means of " instead of " with the help of ", and vice versa? Example: I wrote above text by means of / with the help of a keyboard. <Q> "By means of" is generally used when describing a tool or a mechanism. "With the help of" is more often used to refer to a source of assistance. <S> So, "I typed this comment by means of a keyboard." <S> Yes. <S> "I typed this comment with the help of a keyboard. <S> " I'd say no. <S> The keyboard did not assist you, it was a tool. <S> "I typed this comment with the help of my friend Alice." If Alice provided advice, or assisted you in using the keyboard, yes. <S> For the most part, I think people use "by means of" when discussing an inanimate object and "with the help of" when talking about a person or people. <S> But that's not a hard and fast rule. <S> "I sent this message by means of Bob" might be considered a reasonable sentence, if Bob was the messenger. <S> I think it's awkward, but possible. <S> "I found my way with the help of a GPS" works, if you're thinking of the GPS as assisting you in the task. <A> Often, but not always. <S> Saying, for example, that you finished a report "by means of my friend Jerry" sounds strange and rather unpleasant. <S> But saying you finished the same report "with the help of Jerry" is perfectly natural and clear. <S> I can't immediately think of a similar example for the converse, so you should be able to go with the rule of thumb that "by means of" is a narrower phrase that mostly belongs in a sentence when you're referring to something that's essentially mechanistic or impersonal: a tool, not a human or animal. <A> thus the difference is "through the use of" vs "with the help of" . <S> further, "through the use of" is certainly akin to "facilitated by" and near "because of" . <S> hence, "by means of" is a deterministic relationship, as in "it is done this way because i used this thing." <S> "I typed this comment through the use of a keyboard." <S> yes, because keyboards type things. <S> however, "I wrote the above text by means of a keyboard." no, because keyboards don't exclusively 'write'; they frigging type. <S> but <S> "I wrote the above text with the help of a keyboard." <S> yes, because typing helps in the process of writing -- but doesn't make it so. <S> most authors use keyboards to help them write their books.
| "by means of" means "through the use of" .
|
A better word for trying/ doing something you are not good at yet I'm not much of a writer , but I like to... ? What would be the best suited and appropriate word here for immature writers who like to write a diary? Or who are passionate for improving their writing skills? It would probably be a word related to 'trying', something that would imply both that I am not fully skilled yet and I that I want to improve (and possibly learn by doing.) <Q> You are still in the early stages of learning to write <S> and you know there is plenty of room to grow and become better, but you still love to write. <S> Your heading asked a general question, presumably covering a wide range of activities, not just writing. <S> Everyone is in that situation with respect to some aspect of their life - they are called amateurs . <S> My wife loves to cook and continually gets better - she is an amateur . <A> "Journal" is another word you could use. <S> From Dictionary.com : <S> verb (used without object), journalized, journalizing: to keep or make entries in a journal. <A> Make an attempt, or just attempt. <S> This implies that you are not a master of the activity.
| I love to play tennis and hope to get better - I'm an amateur .
|
equal size, equal-size or equally-sized? What of the following is the most correct and best styled?: There is a desert with two equal size water pools. There is a desert with two equal-size water pools. There is a desert with two equally-sized water pools. There is a desert with two water pools of equal size. <Q> "equally-sized" (adv + adj) does not require a hyphen. <S> "equal size water pools" (adj + noun + noun + noun) needs a hyphen. <S> So that leaves us a choice between the second and fourth renderings. <S> I prefer the fourth one: . . <S> Two [water] pools of equal size. <S> simply because it does not have three consecutive nouns. <S> (However, I put "water" in brackets, because I feel it is not needed. <S> Unless specified, a "pool" is assumed to be a pool of water—even in a desert!) <S> If you take out "water", #2 sounds just as good as #4. <A> COCA shows enough results for 'equal-sized' that serve as an adjective. <S> So, in your case, it could be... <S> There is a desert with two equal-sized water pools. <S> We then found cutoff points within each category to form 3 nearly equal-sized groups (COCA). <S> or , another way to say this is the last option you quoted. <S> There is a desert with two water pools of equal size. <S> Break the dough into 15 portions of equal size (COCA). <S> The words 'equal-size' is also possible but less frequently shown. <S> Fetch the dough from the refrigerator and cut it into eight equal-size pieces (COCA) Finally, 'equally-sized' is an improper use of those words. <S> Don't use it. <S> 'Equal size' without hyphen is also found. <S> Again, less frequently used. <S> By cutting between the uprights, I can get four equal size pieces of firewood (COCA) <S> So, to sum up: <S> There is a desert with two equal size water pools - less frequent <S> There is a desert with two equal-size water pools - less frequent <S> There is a desert with two equally-sized water pools - improper <S> There is a desert with two water pools of equal size - proper (and preferred?) . <S> And adding... <S> There's a desert with two equal-sized water pools - proper (and frequent?) . <A> I would rather go with: <S> There is a desert with <S> two equal- sized water pools.[In place of 1st sentence] <S> OR <S> There is a desert with two water pools (that are) equal in size. <S> [In place of 4th sentence] I'm not a native speaker, but I find above sentences correct. <S> IMO, 'equally' cannot be used before size or sized.
| Use 'of equal size' after the noun in concern.
|
How do I use the phrase "way back" properly? Can I say: Wish you a safe way back to home when I am trying to tell someone I wish them to return home safely? When I was googling, I saw that there is another meaning for the phrase way back , which means long ago . Because of that I'm unsure whether I am using it correctly in my sentence. Does my sentence sound ambiguous? If yes, how can it be rephrased? <Q> Way back is used for 'long ago'. <S> Check OxfordDictionaries's entry way back <S> (informal) <S> Long ago Your sentence sounds strange to me with those words in it. <S> Don't use it that way. <S> Probably , you are confused with this - make one's way back (to something) - to work one's way back to something or some place as in ... <S> I made my way back to the little town in the densest fog I have ever seen. <S> I went for a walk and got lost. <S> It took hours for me to make my way back. <S> So, read the entry and clarify your doubt! :) <A> You can simply say Have a safe way back! <S> if you mean to wish someone a safe trip back to the place from which they have come. <S> "Have a safe trip home!" <S> is probably the most common expression. <S> In my neck of the woods we say things like: Have a safe trip back home. <S> Have a safe trip back. <S> Have a safe way home. <S> Have a safe way back. <S> We're looking for a safe way back home. <S> Many of the roads are flooded. <S> Here's an attestation of "Have a safe trip back": <S> And here's an attestation of "a safe way back home". <S> In my AmE dialect, "way" can mean both "route" and "trip/journey". <A> The use of an article (i.e. " a ... way back" in your sentence) makes it unambiguous. <S> The phrase "way back" referring to a time long ago is an adjective phrase and does not accept an article - or, for example, a possessive pronoun, as in "my way back" in Maulik V's example. <S> I should note, though, that the way somewhere generally refers to the route , not to one specific trip. <S> I think this is the reason the others are reading your sentence as being awkward. <S> And I don't know about other dialects, but "back to home" is incorrect for American English, and should be "back to your home" or "back home". <A> "way back" is an idiomatic expression for "long time ago", short for "a long way back in time". <S> For example: "When did you meet Joe for the first time? " <S> "That was way back when I still was a teenager". <S> In your case, you are using by coincidence the word "way" followed by the word "back". <S> You could have said "wish you a safe journey back home", or "wish you a safe travel back home". <S> It has nothing to do with the idiomatic expression and is fine to use. <S> Dan Bron's suggestions are slightly better, but not to a degree where your sentence would be wrong. " <S> Wish you a save way back home" sounds maybe a bit too worried that something could go wrong. <S> Of course if you are a bit too worried then the sentence is exactly correct. <A> The phrase way back has two primary meanings, as others have pointed out. <S> " In this instance way is describing the word back as being very far back. <S> How far back was it? <S> It was way back. <S> This meaning could also be applied to distance, meaning that something was a very long distance back on a path. <S> Using way in this sense is fairly colloquial, not often found in formal writing. <S> The other use of way back is to refer to a specific path taken. <S> In this case back is modifying the noun way , and often includes a destination. <S> Which way did he take? <S> He took the way back (to the house). <S> This implies that the path in question has already been traveled once, but you are now returning. <S> Your case more closely relates to the second definition, though most people would not use it that way. <S> Instead, I would simply say Have a safe trip home!
| Using way back can be used to refer to a long time ago, such as "way back when.
|
as author of this work -- no article? Example with a context ( Introduction to Graphical User Interfaces with Java Swing by Paul Fischer, 2004 ) (From the page that comes at the very beginning of every book and contains copyright and publisher information, see the picture down below): The right of Paul Fischer to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Why do you think there is no definite article in front of author ? Is it used like a title or something like that? ====================================================================== <Q> David Appleyard's Guide to Article Usage in English gives a possible answer. <S> An article is unnecessary in official job titles if there is only one person holding this position at any given time. <S> So, it's unnecessary to put an article in front of "author". <S> Let's take a look at the original text of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 : <S> Right to be identified as author or director. <S> (1) The author of a copyright literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, and the director of a copyright film, has the right to be identified as the author or director of the work in the circumstances mentioned in this section; but the right is not infringed unless it has been asserted in accordance with section 78. <S> They use both of the adaptations, the one with article and the one without article, in their text. <S> You could think of this as a way of telling the reader that he is allowed to use both of them. <S> Another possible explanation could be that authors refer to their "Right to be identified as author or director", because a "Right to be identified as the author or director" does not exist, since the corresponding section 77 does not include the article "the" in its title. <A> It's hard to grasp/explain, but "author of this work" is the name of a category/attribute/type under which the book can be described, and even though it looks like it, the actual author is not what the text is talking about. <S> Similar logically to: <S> This drink tastes like soda. <S> It's not the soda <S> unless previous context/conversation/text has talked about a specific soda, i.e. we're talking about a type of drink. <S> It's not a soda <S> because we aren't talking about a real instance of a soda, we are talking about the category of "things like soda." <S> Now - you might be thinking - <S> it's a book, of course <S> it has an author. <S> So why not an author ? <S> The subtle nuance of meaning here is this: "Author" is one attribute or category that the "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. <S> " needs (we're not really caring about the author per se even though they should be the same thing) - probably to register the book. <S> So a likely context could be that "Author" is the name of a field on a form, or something that needs to be filled out or given to obtain the copyright. <S> The "legal author" if that makes sense. <A> "Author" is a legal status/legal role under copyright law. <S> Articles are not needed with roles. <S> Compare "as executor of the estate".
| Paul Fischer is the only author of his work.
|
Do 'The picture is shown on the screen' and 'The picture shows on the screen' have the same meaning? Do the following two sentences have the same meaning? The picture is shown on the screen. The picture shows on the screen. The first one seems better to me. I'm not sure if the 2nd one has the same meaning. <Q> Both seem correct to me. <S> But it depends on the 'time' or 'period' you are talking in. <S> the picture is shown on the screen seems to be of a little bit past event. <S> As if you are telling a story to someone. <S> Yes, I visited that place. <S> It's quite interesting. <S> When you sit in the hall, the picture is shown on the screen and then, they explain the art <S> On the other hand, the picture shows on the screen talks more about the recent activity. <S> And when you speak this, either it's of current event (going on) or you are telling this to someone <S> but in present tense. <S> Say... <S> You go <S> ...sit. <S> And the picture shows on the screen <S> and then they explain the art (telling someone using present tense) . <S> Or Hey, check out, the picture shows on the screen (current event) <S> You may think that how does 'picture show' itself? <S> But then, I remember, I had ask quite a similar question that hand an answer that 'movie releases' is 'movie getting released'. ' <S> Movie' itself is not 'releasing' something. <S> We also use present tense to make a statement or to describe an event which is quite sure to happen . <S> Say -the train departs in 5 minutes. <S> However, it may require a time frame. <S> The picture shows on the screen in 3 minutes. <S> BTW, when it is about 'picture' and a 'screen', 'display' seems to be a better word to me. <S> The picture is displayed ( or displays) on the screen. <A> The first sentence is cast in the passive voice, the second in the active. <S> If the picture is shown on the screen, this implies that someone or something shows the picture. <S> In other words, the passive voice implies the transitive sense of the verb "to show." <S> If the picture shows on the screen, this implies that there is no external agent which shows the picture. <S> In other words, the active voice and the lack of direct object imply the intransitive sense of the verb "to show". <S> In effect, the picture shows itself. <S> What does the showing? <S> In the first sentence, we don't know, except that we do know it's not the picture. <S> In the second sentence, we do know, because it is the picture that does the showing. <A> The picture is shown on the screen <S> The picture shows on the screen. <S> But syntactically, they are different. <S> The sentence #1 is in the passive voice. <S> The verb "show" has been used as a transitive verb. <S> In the active voice, we may say "(They/We) show the picture on the screen". <S> This sentence like the #2 is in the present simpleand expressive of the action that happens regularly in the present. <S> As for the sentence #2, the verb has been used as an intransitive verb. <S> This picture is showing on the screen tonight. <A> I think the first sentence is used when you're describing software (as an example) or generally what you or a device performs: <S> First, a picture is shown on the screen and then the program records the response of the user .. <S> The subject is not the picture but your focus is on the program which does this. <S> But in the second sentence the focus is on the picture itself. <S> Picture shows on the screen and if one moves the mouse it hides
| Both the sentences in the present tense are grammatically correct, without any difference in meaning.
|
"Would have been given, I shall"; is it a valid construction? I say Having been given something, I am ready to do something. to express that now I am ready to do something because I was given something else. However, I want to say that if in the future I am successful at obtaining something I will be ready to do something else. Is this a correct construction? Would/Will have been given something, I will be ready to do something. <Q> If you want to say that, if at some future time you are given X, than when that happens you will do Y, you could say: If I am given X, I will do Y. or When I am given X, I will do Y. <A> You are saying "If I am given X, then I'll be ready to do Y." <S> This is a conditional expression <S> and you should follow the rules for that. <S> Note that your X can't be in past tense and your Y in future tense. <S> If X has already occurred, then there is no uncertainty and the whole thing needs to be in the past tense to make sense. <S> If I had been given X, I would have been ready to do Y. <S> (Expressing an uncertainty in the past which does not exist anymore by virtue of being able to say what happened. <S> If the uncertainty exists in the present, X and Y must be present tense.) <S> If I am given X, I will be ready to do Y. <S> (Expressing a present uncertainty and something that could/would/may happen upon a condition) <S> In present tense, Y can sometimes use the word would , i.e. If I am given X, I would be ready to do <S> Y. is still all present tense. <S> But will is never used to express anything in the past. <A> I want to say that, if, in the future, I am successful at obtaining something, I will be ready to do something else. <S> (Commas mine for clarity) <S> You would use one of many Conditional Clauses . <S> Should can be used in a Conditional Clause to express a possibility : <S> Should I be given X, I would be ready to do Y. <S> [ <S> If + Were ] Conditional Clause can be used to discuss what might happen but seem unlikely : If I were given X, I would be ready to do Y. <S> [ Providing + That ] in a Conditional Clause imposing specific conditions : <S> Provided that I receive X, I can do Y. Supposing in a Conditional Clause is used to imagine a situation : <S> Supposing <S> I had X, I could do Y.
| If you want to say that you will accept a promise or some other assurance now, but you don't necessary need immediate "delivery", you could say: If I will be given X, I will do Y.
|
(Grading vs Rating vs Marking) Which one fits better when its about a number? Please check the wording below. How would you mark/rate/grade me from 1 to 10? (By "How" I am asking about the number he is going to give me not the process.) <Q> "Rate" is the right answer, i.e., according to the context. <S> If you are using mark/grade, then, you must instead say: "What grade/no. <S> of marks are you going to give me?" <A> Or a better question would be: Where would you place me in terms of rating on a scale from 1 to 10 or grading on a scale from 1 to 10 or marking on a scale from 1 to 10 ? . <S> This way, any of the above mentioned options can be used. <A> Here's what I think, though keep in mind that I am not a native speaker of English: <S> Grading is evaluating . <S> You usually grade a report, a test, an exam, etc. <S> Rating is used in a broader sense than grading , but means about the same.
| Marking is putting the actual score on the exam, test, whatever after having graded it.
|
The use of a comma in dates I am a Dutch author and I am writing a book about Ancient Egypt with lots of dates. My question is: can I use for instance 4,510 B.C.E. instead of 4510 B.C.E. Is there a rule for using the comma in dates? <Q> Generally, we don't include commas in years. <S> The current year is 2015, not 2,015. <S> However, if the year contains five or more digits, then you generally do add a comma. <S> So there is no comma in 4510 B.C.E., but if you went even further into the past, you would add a comma to 14,510 B.C.E. <S> I found a few style guides to back this up, such as this one from National Geographic , and this one from ESC . <S> Style guides offer suggestions, rather than hard-and-fast rules, and different organizations may have different suggestions. <S> However, I think this suggestion is pretty consistent. <S> We definitely write modern years, such as 1996, without commas, so it makes sense to write older years in the same way. <S> Adding commas to larger numbers makes them easier to read, so you should do this with years, as well ( <S> 10000000 B.C.E. is hard to understand at a glance, you have to pause in your reading for a second to count the zeroes; 10,000,000 B.C.E. is much easier to read). <A> The current year is 2015 and we pronounce that as "twenty fifteen", not "two thousand and fifteen" which is how it'd read if it were written as 2,015. <A> The convention is to not put commas in years.
| Don't use a comma.
|
These look like fragments. Help me to understand why they are okay to use “How did I escape? With difficulty. How did I plan this moment? With pleasure. ” ― Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo I recently found out that when writing lists, items in a list don't have to be complete sentences, like "You might write to: Inform". After this writer utilizes a question mark, it seems to get written, "With difficulty". That's not a sentence. Maybe I don't get how sentences utilize a subject, a verb, and an object. Some writers don't seem to utilize this. I don't think I understand. When can I write a complete sentence or not, when some writers seem to write things like this? Is he writing with respect to what he formerly wrote? May these things get specified as fragments? May writers utilize fragments? Why are fragments sometimes utilized, sometimes not? <Q> There's no rule that utterances have to be complete sentences. <S> What they have to do is communicate . <S> Alice: How did you escape? <S> Bob: I escaped with difficulty. <S> Bob doesn't need to say I escaped here. <S> Alice already knows she's asking about how Bob escaped. <S> It's obvious from context. <S> But what about this conversation? <S> Alice: <S> Hello! <S> Bob: <S> # <S> With difficulty. <S> Now Bob isn't making any sense. <S> If Bob wanted to say that he escaped with difficulty, he'd have to use a complete sentence: <S> Alice: <S> Hello! <S> Bob: I escaped with difficulty. <S> He has to use a complete sentence because there's no context to allow the fragment as an answer. <S> The fragment doesn't make sense here; Alice needs to know what Bob did with difficulty. <S> In your example, the author is engaging in hypophora – asking and answering his own questions: <S> How did I escape? <S> I escaped with difficulty. <S> How did I plan this moment? <S> I planned this moment with pleasure. <S> It doesn't matter that it's in a list. <S> It'd be fine with just one question and answer. <S> The repetition is pleasing to the ear, though. <S> In this answer, the # symbol means "This utterance doesn't make sense in this context." <A> This is conventionally called ellipsis , the supposed "omission" of words which are not necessary to understand the semantic and syntactic meaning of an utterance. <S> I put omission in quotation marks because nothing is in fact omitted unless you hold to the theory that only utterances which constitute a full sentence are acceptable, coherent, and meaningful. <S> That this theory is in fact wrong is evident in virtually every actual conversation. <S> For instance: Going to Bryan's? <S> Nope. <S> Homework. <S> This can be expanded by inference to two formally complete sentences: Are you going to Bryan's home? <S> No, I have homework I must do. <S> But that is a paraphrase. <S> In fact, the two participants in that exchange know exactly what is meant, and have said everything that needed to be said, omitting nothing. <S> In the same way, the two questions posed in your example do not require a response framed as two complete sentences. <S> Ignoring the device of having both the question and answer spoken by the same speaker: <S> I planned this moment with pleasure. <A> Fragments bad? <S> Why no. <S> Fragments good? <S> Sometimes. <S> When fragments good? <S> Emphasis. <S> Sense of speed. <S> Rhetorical impact. <S> Sense of action. <S> Rapid response. <S> When fragments bad? <S> Too much. <S> Not enough detail. <S> Too many. <S> Tired reader. <S> I'd add also that the most common cause of people revising both fragments and misdiagnosed fragments—both when they needed such revision and when they were better to begin with—is probably when the grammar checker on Word complains "Fragment. <S> Consider revising", which is itself an example of sentence fragments.
| The interrogative how directs the hearer's attention to the speaker's lack of a particular datum, an adverbial, and the hearer replies by supplying what is wanted; he is not required to tell the questioner what the questioner already knows: I escaped with difficulty.
|
Common name of muscle fever Muscle fever is the official name for a very common (practically inevitable) ailment occurring for the few days following after intense physical labor/exercise for anyone not used to regular physical effort. After a good work-out, without regular training, you are guaranteed to have your muscles ache a lot on the next day and possibly some days following that. My editor/proofreader wrote: I had never heard of this until I looked it up. I think I can guarantee that your readers won't recognize it, either. Maybe you could explain this more? I just don't believe there's no more common name for this. It's far too common a thing; everyone not on a daily training regimen will experience this after any intense work-out. What is its called commonly? <Q> The 'official' term is Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness . <S> Most people would just say, 'sore muscles'. <S> So, if you just want a common term that readers will understand without footnotes or explanations, I'd go for that. <S> There is some evidence that 'muscle fever' was some sort of fashionable idiom some years back. <A> But if you like the term 'muscle fever' why don't you just add a short explanation in a footnote or in brackets. <S> muscle fever (= muscle pain, often occurring after intense physical labor/exercise for anyone not used to regular physical effort) or ask several people if they know the term. <S> It could be a local distinction. <S> Maybe in some areas muscle fever is the more common expression and in others it is not used at all. <A> I've never heard that term. <S> I find it perplexing, as "fever" means an elevated temperature, and having experienced the phenomenon in question, it has never involved the sore tissue feeling hot. <S> I would just use the term "soreness" myself, for the painful feeling in the days after such a workout. <S> It is during a workout that the muscles feel a burning sensation, referred to as "the burn", as in the expression <S> "feel the burn" . <S> But that doesn't seem to be what you're referring to.
| It is called 'muscle ache' or 'muscle soreness'.
|
Changing "The money was stolen" into active voice I have the following passive clause: The money was stolen. Is there any transformation of it into active voice? Or it will remain like this? <Q> There are two types of passive clause: <S> Short passive <S> The money was stolen. <S> Long passive <S> The money was stolen by a short man wearing six jackets . <S> Most passives are short. <S> They don't contain by -phrases. <S> Only long passives have corresponding active clauses: Short passive <S> Passive : The money was stolen. <S> Active : <S> *Stole the money. <S> The active clause is ungrammatical. <S> It needs a subject, but it doesn't have one. <S> Long passive <S> Passive <S> : The money was stolen by a short man wearing six jackets . <S> Active : <S> A short man wearing six jackets stole the money. <S> This active clause is fine. <S> It needs a subject, and it has one. <S> Your example is a short passive, so it has no direct active clause equivalent. <S> You'll have to rely on context to figure out what by -phrase works in your clause, if any. <S> In this answer, the * symbol marks a sentence as ungrammatical. <S> For more information about passives, see A Student's Introduction to English Grammar (2005), chapter 15. <A> If you make the transfer from passve to active or vice-versa, subject and object switch roles. <S> Example: <S> I (S) open the door (O). <S> <-> <S> The door (S) is opened by me (O). <S> In your example, there is only the subject "the money". <S> In order to make the transformation, you need to "invent" an appropriate object, like "by someone" before you can switch to active: <S> Someone stole the money. <S> Now you have to decide for yourself <S> wheter this sentence matches your specific needs or whether keeping the passive structure is the better choice. <A> One of the uses of the passive voice is to omit the subject, because it can be unknown or irrelevant. <S> If you want to convert the sentence into the active voice you should assume a subject, it can be a noun or a pronoun. <S> The money was stolen (by them). <S> They stole the money. <S> I supposed that the subject could be "they". <S> But since the original sentence has no agent complement, you cannot convert exactly the sentence from passive voice to active voice, but you can always suppose a subject. <S> A pronoun sounds to me more discreet, since it does not really reveal the subject identity.
| If you want to make it into an active clause, you'll need to add a by -phrase, turning it into a long passive.
|
What is the answer (or opposite side) for "Less is more"? I mean it's not always true. Sometimes it's better to do more than less. Is there any opposite idiom for "less is more"? ~~~~ <Q> If you would like to oppose the meaning of less is more which emphasises the advantages of simplicity over (too many) details: <S> The notion that simplicity and clarity lead to good design. <S> ( The Phrase Finder ) <S> you could use: <S> For want of a nail the shoe was lost <S> which is the beginning of a longer phrase that implies that overlooking small details can have disastrous consequences. <S> If you want to say that all work is appreciated and every contribution can be useful (to oppose someone's dismissal of extra effort of work): every little bit helps is another idiom. <S> To simply say that you want or it is necessary to put additional effort into something <S> : to go the extra mile as in: we need to go the extra mile in this case or <S> I like to go the extra mile <S> can be used. <S> or if it/a thing is worth doing, it's worth doing well <S> this doesn't specifically mention additional details or work, but this meaning might be implied. <S> I also agree with Catija and snailboat that "more is more" is easily understood and is the direct opposite of "less is more. <A> Less is more referred to a minimalist design philosophy. <S> A stock phrase that comes to mind, which means roughly the opposite and can be applied to any domain, is: <S> It's the Swiss Army Knife of ___________________ <S> [insert domain here]. <S> See these examples . <A> If someone else said, "Less is more" and you wanted to present a rebuttal, I think the obvious phrase would be, "Sometimes. <S> But sometimes less is just less" or " <S> But sometimes more is more". <S> When someone presents a paradoxical statement like that, the opposite is our normal common sense, intuitive idea, which often doesn't have a name or a catch-phrase because ... because it's the normal, common sense, intuitive idea. <S> We don't have common phrases to express the idea that heat is hot or that tall people are taller than short people or that sick people have sicknesses, because that's just what the words mean already.
| As a general philosophy, I think the common opposite idea is just the default.
|
How to write general words in a set with a more specific instance of the general word? SPSS 20, Eviews 7, and Minitab 16 software were used for analyzing results obtained for the study. Or Software of SPSS 20, Eviews 7, and Minitab 16 were used for analyzing results obtained for the study. How should I bring a general term e.g. software with a specific term e.g. SPSS in a sentence. And how would the arrangement be if there's more than one specific word, e.g. SPSS, Eviews, and Minitab? This question might be generalized to States of California, Pennsylvania, and Michigan or California, Pennsylvania, and Michigan states . Also names of seas, rivers, lakes, etc. What is the general rule when bringing a specific instance along with a general term in terms of precedence? <Q> I think you can put the general term before or after the list, but the article and preposition usage will vary depending on the terms. <S> SPSS 20, Eviews 7, and Minitab 16 software were used for analyzing results obtained for the study. <S> This is fine, but the next ones needs an edit: <S> The software SPSS 20, Eviews 7, and Minitab 16 were used for analyzing results obtained for the study. <S> As for using with states: <S> The states of California, New Mexico and Texas are having a severe drought recently. <S> In the other form, you could say: California, New Mexico and Texas are having a severe drought recently. <S> Since we put the state names first, using states is not needed unless someone didn't know they were states (such as writing for a foreign audience). <S> Also we generally don't say California state , just California . <S> But in the case of a county, we (in western US anyway) do use County as part of the county name, so in that case: <S> Shasta, Tehama and Trinity counties have plenty of water. <A> Unfortunately, it depends. <S> Usually we just use the specific words and not the general word, and rely on the reader to know the general category. <S> Like, "Oranges and plums were used to make the pies. <S> " You would NOT say "The fruits oranges and plums ..." nor "Orange and plum fruits ... <S> " If you really felt it necessary to specify that these were kinds of fruit -- like, I suppose, if you were including some unusual fruit in the list that a reader might not be familiar with, you would need a longer sentence. <S> For example, "The fruit used in the pies included oranges and plums." <S> " <S> The colors red and blue appeared on the flag. <S> " In other cases it works with "of", like "The states of Ohio and Michigan are ..." <S> But I'm hard-pressed to say what the general rule is. <S> (This can be the curse of the native speaker trying to answer a grammar question: I KNOW that people say this and not that, but I'm not sure why. :-( <A> I have the same problem, but somehow I make sure that I mention the general term somewhere. <S> For example: I think you should learn how to use PowerPoint, Excel, Visio, etc. <S> This software is essential. <S> Or: I think you should learn how to use some software like PowerPoint, Excel, Visio, etc.
| Sometimes you can put the general word followed by the specifics.
|
What do we call a baby's language? In my mother tongue, there is a word that precisely talks about 'baby's language', which does not have proper pronunciations. 'R' becomes 'L' in almost all cases. Is there any term that describes 'baby's language' or it's called 'baby's language' only? I know 'baby talk'. But I think it's different. There, you use different words (say: boo-boo for describing a wound ). Here, I'm using the same word but Indian babies replace 'R' with 'L' as in 'car' which becomes 'KAAL'. To clarify this further, baby talk is what 'you talk' with babies, I'm searching for the term in which a 'baby talks' with you! Again, I'm concerned about what do we call the pronunciation, intonation, accent or style the way babies pronounce. <Q> I think baby talk is the common and proper term. <S> It refers to the words or sounds a baby makes when it's learning to talk. <S> In addition, it also refers to special language adults sometimes use to talk to babies. <S> We also can call it babble. <S> We can use babble both as a noun and a verb. <A> If you are referring to the language that babies use before they learn REAL language, when they make funny sounds like "boo boo coo coo yoo yoo" or anything with no real meaning, we don't have a noun for that, but a verb, which is "to babble". <S> This same word is used for adults who speak without really making any sense. <A> (Native American English speaker here.) <S> * <S> I understand the conceit of "baby talk" to be the baby's own language. <S> You say "boo-boo" for a wound because you are pretending to speak in baby talk. <S> For the same reason, you talk in a higher voice than normal, slow down, use glissandos, etc., because you are imitating the sounds of babies. <S> Part of the conceit is that babies know very few words, or know only "natural" words like interjections. <S> That's why you use only the most elementary vocabulary when talking to babies. <S> Notice that the phrase "baby talk" is itself baby talk. <S> A more adult way to say it would be "baby language" or "baby-ese". <S> Saying "talk" in place of "language" substitutes an elementary word, used extremely broadly as people with very small vocabularies must, in place of a more-appropriate adult word. <S> Notice how condescending it would be to refer to a normal spoken language the same way: saying "Eskimo talk" instead of " Inuktitut " would suggest that its speakers are intellectually on the level of babies. <S> * The Wikipedia article summarizes research on how adults talk to babies. <S> It's not a good guide to the ordinary meaning of the term "baby talk". <S> See " Wikipedia is not a dictionary " for more information about this. <A> Just fun note on baby-talk. <S> Scientists use the words child-directed speech for the way in which parents or adults alliterate, rhyme, repeat, and use rhythm and varied pitch when they speak with babies. <S> That is how babies learn to speak and parents that are bi-lingual will have children that are bi-lingual as long as both languages are spoken to the baby. <S> Some families that are let's say Filipino-Americans, for example, will always use English in a formal context and Tagalog at home. <S> The baby will learn both languages this way. <S> Babbling is specifically an infant's repetition of certain syllables, such as ba-ba-ba, which begins when babies are 6-9 months old. <S> In the first few months of the 2nd year, spoken vocabulary increases at about 1 word per week. <S> When a baby uses a word like Mama or Dada, it's called a "holophrase" -a single word that expresses an entire thought. <S> This is because babies understand about 10 times more words than they can say. <S> Around 21 months is a "naming explosion" in which they know twice as many words. <S> It's called "Naming" because the words they know are usually nouns. <S> I don't about all cultures but some probably do have a word for it, as you mentioned. <S> The lack of proper pronunciations is simply a process of development and is subjective to the child. <S> All young children master basic grammar according to a schedule, this is called "universal grammar." <S> Dysfluencies in language – such as stuttering or repeating words or starting sentences over – may be a part of typical speech development as toddlers learn to produce these sounds. <S> A child who may be difficult to understand when they first learn to string words into sentences will usually develop enough articulation over time to be understood. <S> If they don’t, they may have an "articulation delay" or an "articulation disorder." <S> I hope you might find at least a tidbit of good information in here somewhere.
| I think "baby talk" is the right term even though people most often say "baby talk" in reference to the way adults talk to babies. By the age of 5 months, the baby already has a preference for the accents and rhythms of their own culture, so there's not really a global word for the specific area of child language development that you mention.
|
What does the phrase, "Money talks, BS walks" mean? What does the phrase, "Money talks, BS walks" mean? I replaced a bad word with "BS". I've googled it, and I've found several conflicting meanings. For instance, this Reddit thread has several interpretations. Ristin's response is basically the same as Urban Dictionary's, but his answer was downvoted: It means that money can influence people and be used to get things done, but "bullshit" like sales pitches, marketing, deciet and so-on usually get seen through by most people. So, if you have money it 'talks' and can get stuff done. If you have to rely on BS-ing people, you'll be shown the door. Another different definition appears on wikipedia . <Q> In very generalized terms, it means: <S> If you meet the stated requirements, I will let you proceed. <S> If you clearly do not meet the stated requirements and are attempting to convince me that I should let you proceed anyway, I will force you to leave. <S> Most commonly, the "stated requirements" are "can you pay the amount I am demanding" <S> , i.e. "do you have enough money". <S> For a literal application of the phrase, consider a couple of poor college students trying to get into a party for which there is a $25 entrance fee. <S> If they show up without enough money, and instead of paying they attempt to convince the gatekeeper that they are friends of the band, he might well tell them "Money talks, BS walks" as he refuses them entry. <A> "money talks" is an idiomatic expression meaning that you need to pay some money. <S> When you talk about someone or something "walking", it can mean (and in this does does mean) that that someone or something has to leave, has to walk away. <S> So "Money talks, BS walks" means that only money will do. <S> Any attempt to get around the money requirement is just BS, and will not work, and you will have to walk away without what you are trying to get. <A> Wiktionary marks it as a rhyming elaboration of the idiom "money talks" (1968, US) and provides a more extended explanation: <S> "Attempting to accomplish a goal by demonstrating possession of material resources will succeed while attempting to accomplish that goal through mere rhetoric will fail". <S> This proverbial idiomatic expression is "especially useful when real money is involved: money has more power to influence people than words. <S> For example, leaving a $1000 deposit on the car you want to buy is more convincing than saying you will come back and buy it tomorrow" (cited from here ). <S> Be careful! <S> This is is a very rude and aggressive way to express this idea. <S> A milder equivalent for it is <S> "Put your money where your mouth is" . <S> The general sense of these expressions is “prove to me that you are serious, or don’t waste my time” (same source).
| Money talks, bullshit walks , in a nutshell, means that actions are more important than words.
|
Past Imagination in English language How to say past imagination in English language? Please explain to me whether the examples below are correct. I want to say to my friend that he speaks English very well because he was trained by a good teacher. “He was trained by good teacher” I want to say this as imagination/Hypothesis. How would I say this? “Your English is good because your Teacher would have been good in English.” Or “Your English is good because your Teacher would have taught you good English.” Or Anything else? <Q> If you want to say that possibly something happened in the past, you can use the following forms: <S> Might have or could have. <S> However, if you realise something certainly happened in the past, you can use the form "must have". <S> You might have been taught by a good teacher (perhaps a good teacher taught you). <S> You could have been trained/taught by a good teacher <S> (It's possible a good teacher trained/taught you). <S> You must have been taught by a good teacher (I realize you have certainly been taught by a good teacher). <A> If you are talking about an imaginary event that "happened' in the past: Your English would be very good because you would have been taught by a good teacher. <S> On the other hand, you do not have to use <S> would or any other special word. <S> You can talk about an imaginary event using the simple past: Your English is very good because you were taught by a very good teacher. <S> Just like: <S> Alice fell down the rabbit hole because she got too close to it. <A> "Would have" doesn't really work here. <S> "Would have" simply doesn't mean "this might be the cause". <S> It can be used to indicate an expected RESULT of something that never happened, but not a cause. <S> Like, "You would have learned good English if you had a more experienced teacher." <S> The most natural way to express the idea you want is to use words like "maybe" or "perhaps" to indicate uncertainty, and a word like "because" to indicate cause. <S> Another possibility is, "A good teacher may be what led to your good English."
| I would likely say, "Perhaps your English is good because you had a good teacher."
|
I hate to see you hurting Someone is hurt by a betrayal. I hate to see you hurting. I hate to see you being hurt. Is #2 correct and equally used?I don't see the logic of #1. It sounds like the person is hurting (himself). <Q> The word "hurt" has slightly different meanings when used transitively or intransitively. <S> Transitively, it means to cause harm or pain: <S> Jasper’s unkind remarks <S> hurt my feelings. <S> When we were wrestling, Jasper hurt my arm. <S> Intransitively, it means to be in pain : <S> Ever since the wrestling match, my arm has hurt . <S> This spider-bite hurts ! <S> So, "I hate to see you hurting" (intransitive) means the same as "I hate to see you in pain." <S> By the way, "hurt" is also an irregular verb: its past tense and past participle are both "hurt", as illustrated by the examples above. <A> I don't think #1 sounds like the person is inflicting the hurt upon themselves — <S> quite the opposite — "hurting" very strongly sounds like something which is happening against the will of the person being affected. <S> The latter, "I hate to see you being hurt", sounds far less idiomatic to me as a BrE speaker. <S> It's too long and roundabout. <S> You could, perhaps, use "I hate to see you hurt like this", but I think "being" is too strong here <S> (it almost sounds like physical hurt is happening right at the moment of conversation). <S> Use the former if possible. <A> Without getting technical, I'd say you can use both because it's more of a prose style choice. <S> You can also go with " <S> I hate seeing you (to see you) getting/being hurt." <S> Or "I hate that you're hurting." <A> 1) I hate to see you hurting. <S> In this situation, the person was betrayed and now is continuously suffering. <S> Here hurting indicates a continuing condition. <S> 2) I hate to see you being hurt. <S> In this situation, the person was betrayed, but maybe this was not the first time. <S> In that case, the person would be repeatedly hurt. <S> You would hate to see that happen, of course.
| "I hate to see you being hurt" (transitive, passive) means "I hate to see someone else causing you pain."
|
What is the part-of-speech of the word "O" in the exclamatory sentence? The sentence I'm considering is this: The boy said, "O King, live for ever." Is the word "O" in the above sentence an adjective? <Q> Oh, dear. <S> It's originally not a word at all, but an "ejaculation" or "interjection"— a (presumedly) spontaneous sound expressive of strong emotion, such as surprise, vexation, joy or grief. <S> It's also used frequently as a "discourse marker" to perform a transition or cover a momentary groping for words. <S> In the early 12th century, however, English writers adopted the Latin and Old French use of O to signal that the following noun phrase is a "vocative"—that is, that the noun designates the person addressed. <S> In the course of the evolution from Early Modern to Modern English it became conventional to spell the sound ‹Oh› when used as an interjection or discourse marker, reserving the bare ‹O› spelling for vocative uses, or to lend an archaic or exotic or "poetic" air. <S> It is not at all clear that vocative ‹O› has ever been anything but a literary form in English, except among people who conscientiously imitate literary use—there seems to have been a lot of this in the 19th century, and you occasionally hear it employed ironically by English professors. <S> I'm quite certain <S> I've never heard it used spontaneously. <S> So it doesn't really fit anywhere in the conventional parts of speech. <S> If I had to assign it to a category I'd call it a literary proclitic ; but I'd rather not. <A> Almost in all grammar books, the last or eighth part of speech is "interjection". <A> Yes, it is an interjection. <S> Just like the "O" in " <S> O, what fun it is to ride!" <S> or "Oh, I see." <A> There happens to be a specific technical term for that word. <S> You're looking at the vocative article. <S> Authorities seem to disagree as to whether articles are adjectives. <S> I happen to agree with those that say they are.
| O is an interjection used in the entence presented to express a sudden strong emotion (invocation or wish).
|
Is "Maybe he …, maybe he …" considered a comma splice? Maybe he told her everything, maybe he'd been watching me all this time. Is this considered a comma splice ? Why or why not? <Q> "Comma splice" isn't a term with a strict definition. <S> Generally, people use the term when they think a pair of independent clauses that are joined without a coordinator would be better written as separate sentences. <S> In other words, they call this sort of thing a "comma splice" if they consider it an error. <S> Sentences can sometimes be joined without an explicit coordinator like and or or . <S> Writers tend to do this when they're closely related in meaning or structure. <S> For example: I came, I saw, I conquered. <S> Although this has no explicit coordinator, this famous example has nonetheless been written as a single sentence. <S> All three clauses are similar in structure and are related in meaning. <S> It works. <S> When it works, people tend to call it asyndeton . <S> When it doesn't work, they tend to call it a comma splice . <S> But that's more of a judgment call than anything, because there's no strict technical definition that separates one from the other. <S> Maybe he told her everything, maybe he'd been watching me all this time. <S> I'd call it the asyndetic coordination of two clauses that are similar in structure and related in meaning. <S> It seems fine to me the way it is. <S> (I can't guarantee that an English teacher wouldn't mark it with a red pen, though.) <A> Yes it's a comma splice, as "maybe he told her everything" is an independent clause and <S> so is "maybe he'd been watching me the whole time". <S> However, it's not a style error as suggested by Wikipedia. <S> Using a comma splice makes the narrator sound scared and anxious, as he's too nervous to link the two clauses together. <A> The term "maybe" can and often does serve as an adverb, but in the structure "Maybe X, maybe Y" the uses of "maybe" behave as conjunctions similar to "either" and "or" in the construct "either X or Y". <S> The construct with "maybe" may be extended to an arbitrary number of items--not just two--and generally requires that items be separated by commas and that "maybe" be included before each. <S> In some cases, it's possible that "Maybe X or maybe Y", "Maybe X and maybe Y", "Maybe X, but maybe Y", etc. would all have inappropriate implications about how the truth of X and the truth of Y are related. <S> Saying "Maybe X; maybe Y" would have the opposite problem, suggesting that X and Y should be considered independent propositions. <S> Saying " <S> Maybe X, maybe Y" suggests that the author doesn't want to imply that X and Y are unrelated, but doesn't want to imply any particular relationship between them either.
| In many cases it is appropriate to use a coordinating conjunction along with "maybe", but different coordinating conjunctions imply different relationships between the things being joined.
|
Capitalize i.e. and e.g.? When you start a sentence with acronyms such as i.e., e.g., or similar, how do you capitalize them? "I.e., ...", or " I.E., ..."? Thanks. <Q> At the beginning of a sentence, capitalize the first letter: E.g., a sentence like this one. <S> Both letters go in lower case, i.e., neither is capitalized. <S> Capitalization for Latin abbreviations works the same as if you were to spell out the words (which no one ever does). <S> They're not acronyms. <S> The second letter stands for the second word of the phrase ( exempli gratia or id est ), so you don't capitalize it, just as you don't normally capitalize the second word of a sentence. <S> If you did spell out the words, here's how the sentences would look: <S> Exempli gratia, a sentence like this one. <S> Both letters go in lower case, <S> id est, <S> neither is capitalized. <S> The principle is probably clearer if you see it with a Latin abbreviation where a word is abbreviated with more than one letter. <S> Op. <S> cit., which means "in the work (previously) cited" ( opere citato ), naturally gets only the O capitalized at the start of a sentence, since we normally capitalize only the first letter of the first word of a sentence. <S> More about "Latin in English <S> " is here , including an explanation of what the abbreviations stand for. <A> If you find that you have to start your sentence with such an abbreviation, then capitalize the first letter, as Ben explains in his answer . <S> However, it's usually best to avoid starting a sentence with such an abbreviation. <S> This should not be construed as any sort of a 'rule', simply a stylistic guideline. <S> Regardless of whether you capitalize it correctly or not, it's going to look odd. <S> As TRomano suggested in comments, You avoid the problem by using a semicolon (or a comma, if the syntax allows) rather than a full stop after the preceding clause. <S> As a general rule of thumb, don't start sentences with abbreviations for Latin phrases. <S> Most of them don't start a new idea in any case, but are continuations of the prior thought. <S> StoneyB goes so far as to suggest that By and large, if you're working in a register where i.e . <S> or e.g. would be appropriate you probably shouldn't be using them at the beginning of a sentence. <S> It's not strictly ungrammatical, but it's distinctly awkward. <S> Moreover, some academic style manuals now explicitly deprecate these Latinisms; use "that is" or "for example" instead. <S> I've found that a lot of people don't know what these letters stand for, and often mix them up. <S> Using English phrases instead is not bad advice, especially at the start of a sentence. <A> You capitalize the first initial, e.g. E.g., I hate rum. <S> and <S> I.e., I hate all rum. <S> The Chicago Manual of Style says not to italicize common Latin abbreviations (and words). <S> 7.53 Roman for Latin words and abbreviations <S> ibid. <S> et al. <S> ca. <S> passim <S> For example, see the unitalicized uses of <S> e.g. in Ulysses <S> , Vol. 1, by James Joyce; here for i.e. There is no rational reason not to start a sentence with <S> e.g. or i.e. , just as there is no rational reason not to start a sentence with and . <S> And note, the abbreviations are italicized in the above sentence, along with and , because I am talking about them. <S> I.e., I am not using them in their normal manner.
| Inside a sentence, both letters go in lower case: Commonly used Latin words and abbreviations should not be italicized.
|
Using neither...nor with ever Example: I never drink tea. I never drink coffee. I wonder how I can connect the above sentences using neither...nor . Is it correct: I drink neither ever tea nor ever coffee. <Q> I drink neither tea nor coffee. <S> I don't drink tea or coffee. <S> P.S. <S> If "ever" is a requirement: <S> I don't ever drink tea or coffee. <A> "I never drink tea or coffee." <S> That works, but it doesn't use a correlative conjunction. <S> The simplest correlative conjunction for this sentence is "either ... or": <S> "I never drink either tea or coffee." <S> This also works, but it doesn't use the exclusionary conjunction "neither ... nor". <S> There is a simple, obvious structure that uses "neither ... nor": <S> "I drink neither tea nor coffee." <S> The problem with this version is that the notion of "ever" ("never" in the original sentences) has been lost. <S> The sentence " <S> I ever drink neither tea nor coffee" doesn't seem well-formed. <S> The best I can do is tack the adverb on the end of the sentence: <S> I drink neither tea nor coffee, ever. <S> I can't explain why "I ever drink neither tea nor coffee" seems ill-formed. <S> I can, however, explain why "I drink neither ever tea nor ever coffee" doesn't work. <S> The "ever" is an adverb. <S> Placing it in front of "tea" and "coffee" makes it look like it's trying to be an adjective. <A> The examples in TRomano's answer are the ones I would expect to actually hear. <S> However, if you really want a grammatical sentence with some combination of 'nor', 'neither', 'never', and 'ever': I never drink coffee, nor do I ever drink tea. <S> There are several issues at play here. <S> One is that we need the correct number of negatives. <S> I can't squeeze 'neither' into there, as we already have a negative from 'never'. <S> I drink neither tea nor coffee, ever. <S> Can't squeeze 'never' into there, as we already have a negative from 'neither'. <S> Compare to <S> I drink either tea or coffer never. <S> This is a pretty odd phrasing. <S> Can't use 'neither' or 'nor' with 'either'. <S> Weird inverted phrasings: <S> Never is tea drank by me, nor do I drink coffee. <S> Never is tea drank by me, neither is coffee.
| The simplest way to combine the sentences is to use the coordinating conjunction "or": The idiomatic ways to say this: I never drink tea or coffee.
|
What does "Goodwife" mean? 2. Goodwife Used formerly as a courtesy title before the surname of a married woman not of noble birth. Although I have studied the explanation, in fact, I couldn't make a head or tail of it! Especially, what is the concept of the bold part? <Q> The easiest way to understand this usage of Goodwife is to think of it as "Mrs." but for married women ( commoners ) in the old days. <S> According to Wikipedia , Goodwife <S> (Scots: Guidwife ), usually abbreviated Goody , was a polite form of address for women, formerly used where "Mrs.", "Miss" and "Ms." would be used today. <S> Its male counterpart is Goodman. <S> Now, let's focus on the part you do not understand: a married woman not of noble birth . <S> But what does not of noble birth mean? <S> According to Macmillan Dictionary , noble <S> (adjective) 2. <S> belonging to the highest social class. <S> In the U.K., noble people usually have a title, for example Duke or Baroness of noble birth/descent/blood: a young man of noble birth <S> So, not of noble birth means "not belonging to the highest social class". <S> Thus, a married woman (who is) not of noble birth would mean "a married woman who is not belonging to the highest social class". <S> Bonus: <S> How to understand the definition <S> 2. <S> Goodwife Used formerly as a courtesy title before the surname of a married woman <S> not of noble birth. <S> = <S> "Goodwife" (the word) was used "formerly" (in the past) as "a courtesy title" (a polite title, such as "Mr.", "Mrs.", etc.) <S> before the "surname" (the last name or family name) of a "married woman" (a woman who is not single) (who is) "not of noble birth" (see the definition of "of noble birth" in my explanation above). <S> To make the parsing a bit clearer, here is how you can read it: <S> Goodwife: <S> [ Used formerly [ as [ a courtesy title ] before [ the surname of [ a married woman [ not [ of noble birth ] ] ] ] ] ]. <A> The term goodwife is rather archaic. <S> I can't confess to understand the intricacies of the term, but I'll go over it as best I can. <S> The term noble birth in this context refers to someone born to nobles, the upper class of a society. <S> A typical noble family would be rich, possess land, and perhaps political power. <S> In contrast, someone not of noble birth would be someone of a lower/middle class. <S> From the definition, you would refer to someone as Goodwife instead of 'Mrs.' If someone could provide more clarity here, (especially with regards to the location/time period in which this term would be used) I would appreciate it. <A> I remember a scene from the beginning of a novel (Black Magic Woman by Justin Gustainis). <S> A woman is accused of witchcraft and hanged. <S> The scene is set in Salem around 1650, I think. <S> The judge addresses the woman as Goodwife + name. <S> At that time it was an address for a woman as Mrs is today. <S> Then men were addressed as Goodman + name.
| You can understand this phrase as a married woman (who is) not of noble birth .
|
What does "counterstruck" mean? The earliest traceable specimens of this class are certain counterstruck imitation silver drachms of Phraates IV,... ( Source ) What does "counterstruck" mean? <Q> I found the following definition in a forum for coin collectors , unfortunately without the original source: OVERSTRIKE (COUNTERSTRIKE)- coin struck over an older and usually worn coin used as a planchet [eg, 1804 <S> Bank of England 5-shilling piece struck on a Spanish dollar] <A> First of all, coin striking is the process of taking a "blank" coin and stamping it with a die so that it now has a picture or other marking on each side. <S> Secondly, the author(s) <S> of the paper appear to use "counterstruck" and "countermarked" interchangeably, as indicated in this quote from page 27: <S> The strikers of the imitation Hermaios coinage were probably also responsible for a group of Arsakid drachms which were countermarked , or imitated and then countermarked (MA 1-5). <S> It has been demonstrated that the nature of these counterstrikings was benign, ... [emphasis added] <S> Finally, a countermark is: an additional mark or symbol punched into [a coin] at some point during its career as a circulating coin. <A> Counterstruck, overstruck, or countermarked means that a coin was 're-used'. <S> The original coin was freshly stamped with a new pattern/design, over the top of the existing pattern. <S> Often coins from one authority being re-struck [stamped] to become the currency of a new authority.
| If a coin is counterstruck (or overstruck), an existing coin is treated like a blank so that the old image is obliterated by the new image.
|
Plausibility notwithstanding and Otherwise? I looked up the dictionary but these two terms are very difficult to get. could any body clarify on me? Plausibility notwithstanding , rumors about unwitting folks engaged in otherwise low-risk activities contracting HIV have circulated for decades. Similar versions involved a booby-trapped gas pump, deliberately tainted ketchup dispensers, and adulterated pizza purposefully contaminated with infected bodily fluids. Source: snopes.com <Q> Plausibility notwithstanding It's not surprising that this confuses you: it involves both an unusual construction, an over-casual ellipsis, and at least one misuse. <S> Notwithstanding = “despite” acts here as a postpositive preposition —that is, as a preposition which stands after its complement. <S> † <S> Its object is plausibility = “believability”. <S> The preposition phrase may be paraphrased Despite believability X notwithstanding often occurs at the beginning of a sentence to designate some factor which has been overlooked or bypassed or overcome in the action of the main clause, something which you might expect to have prevented the action: <S> His grief notwithstanding, Herbert kept going to work after his son's tragic death. <S> Ordinarily, however, the noun X is ‘defined’ with a determiner or modifiers to make its semantic and syntactic relationship to the action clearer. <S> In the sentence above, for instance, his marks grief as Herbert's grief, not general community grief. <S> In your example, this definition is omitted, so it is not very clear what plausibility is involved. <S> What the author probably means is: Their plausibility notwithstanding, rumours . . . <S> have circulated for decades. <S> But that makes no sense at all—why should believeability prevent rumors from circulating? <S> Notwithstanding is not a common word, and almost never occurs in speech, so I think the second mistake is more likely; the author probably means: Rumors . . . <S> have circulated for decades without anyone stopping to consider whether they were plausible. <S> low-risk otherwise low-risk activities = activities which in other respects carry little risk (but happen to incur severe risk with respect to infection) <S> Other prepositions which may be postposed are apart and aside ; <S> ago is always postposed. <A> The construction X notwithstanding (and the somewhat less common sequence notwithstanding X ) is a "qualifier" that modifies the immediately preceding or following statement/assertion within the current utterance or sentence. <S> Essentially it means in the context of the associated statement, issues relating to X should be ignored. <S> So in OP's example it means the writer does not wish to explicitly express an opinion as to how plausible the rumours are ( <S> though the reader may quite reasonably infer that the writer thinks they're not plausible, otherwise why would he mention the issue at all?). <S> Adjectival/adverbial <S> otherwise (which in this context means in [all] other respects ) modifies low-risk activities. <S> That's to say, activities which are/would be considered low-risk (if it weren't for the fact that they're associated with the transmission of AIDS). <A> It's not the clearest sentence, and "otherwise" is not used properly. <S> Plausibility notwithstanding = <S> no matter how implausible it may seem otherwise low-risk activities = <S> activities that would typically be considered low-risk
| One of two things has happened here: either the author has mistakenly written plausibility when he meant im plausibility , or he has misunderstood notwithstanding to mean something like regardless . otherwise Otherwise here is an adverb meaning “in other respects”; it modifies the adjectival phrase
|
How to ask what time the bank opens When is the bank open? When is the bank opened? When does the bank open? I want to ask what time the bank opens. I thought the last one (#3) is correct, but I saw in a book that the first one (#1) is correct. Is it possible the second one (#2) would be correct? Basically, my question is: Which one or ones are correct? <Q> When is the bank open? <S> Answer: Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm. <S> When does the bank open? <S> Answer: <S> Tomorrow at 8am. <S> The first question asks for the bank's business hours, the other for the point in time when the bank opens up for the day. <S> Edit as requested: <S> When is the bank opened? <S> Answer: When an employee has opened the safe, booted the computer system, straightened his tie, unlocked the door and turned the "we're open/closed" sign. <S> This sentence is completely different from the other two: It asks for the "opened state" not for a time. <S> It can be used, but is arguably the rarest of the three. <A> All three are grammatically correct, but they have different meanings. <S> 1) <S> When is the bank open? <S> This is asking for the hours during which the bank is open. <S> Another way to say this is <S> "What are the bank's hours?", or "What hours is the bank open?" <S> 2) <S> When is the bank opened? <S> This is talking about opening as an action someone carries out. <S> The employees who are responsible for opening the bank will talk about it this way. " <S> The manager opened the bank at 8," means that she was the employee who unlocked the doors and did any other work to prep the bank for the day's business. <S> It wouldn't be used to tell a customer what the hours are. <S> 3) <S> When does the bank open? <S> This is asking for the time the bank opens. <S> This is what you want here. <S> It can also be phrased "What time does the bank open?" <A> It is possible. <S> It doesn't seem natural in my dialect, but it is a grammatically sound sentence. <S> The verb of "When is the bank opened?" is "is opened". <S> This verb employs the passive voice, present tense, indefinite aspect and interrogative mode. <S> An active voice equivalent would be "When does someone open the bank?" <S> The reason that this doesn't sound natural to me is that I expect the intransitive sense of the verb "to open" when the subject is a business or institution. <S> A perfectly natural example of the grammar in question is "When is the safe opened?" <S> I expect a bank to act on its own behalf, but I don't expect a safe to act at all. <S> In my mind, there should be an implied someone or something that opens the safe. <S> Your last example does seem natural. <S> The verb of "When does the bank open?" is "does open". <S> This verb employs the active voice, present tense, indefinite aspect and indicative mode. <S> In the active voice, the subject "the bank" performs the action. <S> There is no object for this verb. <S> This is the intransitive sense of the verb. <S> Your first example also seems natural. <S> The verb of "When is the bank open?" is "is". <S> In this case, "open" isn't a verb. <S> It's an adjective. <S> The grammar of "When is the bank open?" is the same as the grammar of "When is John happy?"
| The first and the third are correct, but mean different things:
|
What do you call this thing that comes with any Apple product I bought a MacBook Pro, and it came with this thing: I don't know how to use it or where should I stick it, that is why I need to ask about it in any Apple forum. Unfortunately, I don't even know the name of it. What is this called? <Q> I think they are stickers: <S> One that sticks, as an adhesive label or patch. <S> (AHD) <S> Apple stickers <A> As FumbleFingers said in a comment: Some people might call it a decal (2. <S> A decorative sticker) <S> Amazon sells them as decal stickers . <S> My immediate thought (even before seeing the image) was "decal". <S> "Sticker" is a great word and it is perfectly accurate but " decal " (Google Image search) <S> has the added meaning (in my head, at least) of being a simple image, often a logo. <A> It's Apple's invitation to you to express your love and fealty to their brand. <S> In the wild, I have often seen those decals on vehicles, file cabinets, and coffee mugs. <S> However, one is also free to put them into the trash or recycling in accord with local laws and capabilities. <A> It's just a sticker. <S> I don't think it has an official name. <S> I use one of these stickers to identify which external hard drive is used to backup my macbook. <S> Or you could stick them on your Subaru. <A> Originally adhesive decal was used for those that had pre-applied glue <S> but sticker has become a synonym even though it is more closely associated with pressure sensitive glues (rather than water or heat activated glues). <S> As mentioned in an answer this is a sheet as it contains more than one decal . <S> Decal implies some form of decoration or information and can be affixed in a multitude of ways, and this comes from the French word decalcomania . <S> -
| To be even more precise, that's a decal sheet since it contains more than one decal (or sticker).
|
"You should go to school" vs "You must go to school" What is the difference between these two sentences: You should go to school. You must go to school. And when should I use them? <Q> Describing modal auxiliaries in English is difficult because most of them can have multiple meanings, and sometimes the exact same sentence can have different interpretations depending on context. <S> You must go to school. <S> This could mean: Obligation or necessity (deontic modality) <S> You can not end up like your old man. <S> You must go to school. <S> I believe it is necessary that you go to school. <S> This is a strongly worded statement of obligation. <S> This sounds relatively stiff and formal. <S> Because it's so strongly worded <S> , it's more likely to be used for attending school in general rather than physically going to school on a specific day: <S> You have class today. <S> You must go to school or you'll be late. <S> This is possible, but sounds rather stiff and awkward. <S> Inference (epistemic modality) <S> Wow, you're smart! <S> You must go to school! <S> I believe based on inferences from observations I've made that it is highly likely you go to school. <S> This doesn't sound stiff or formal. <S> You should go to school. <S> This probably means: Obligation or necessity (deontic modality) <S> You have class today, right? <S> You should go to school. <S> I believe it is a good idea for you go to school. <S> This is less strongly worded, and doesn't sound as stiff or formal as must . <S> Because it's not as strongly worded, it's easier to imagine this refers to attending school on a specific day, rather than the more important idea of attending school in general. <S> The alternative is possible, though: <S> I want you to do something with your life. <S> You should go to school and study engineering. <S> This isn't as stiff or formal as the version with must . <S> With this particular example, the other meanings of should are hard to imagine. <S> Should is more common than must overall. <S> Must is significantly more common in British English than in American English, particularly in conversation, where American speakers use must much less frequently. <S> (Source: Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English , Biber et al 1999, p.488.) <A> The speaker/writer is persuading you to go. <S> Must is saying you are required to go to school. <S> The speaker/writer is compelling you to go. <S> Now, if you don't do something that you must do, of course there will be negative consequences, but those would be typically stronger than if one said should . <S> You must go through that door to leave the building. <S> You have to go through the door to leave. <S> If you don't go through the door, you won't be able to leave. <S> Saying: You should go through that door to leave the building <S> implies that there are other ways out of the building, and that the speaker/writer is recommending this to you. <A> These are modal auxiliaries. <S> Different auxiliaries indicate different things. <S> should: suggestion or advice. <S> must: necessity.
| Should is also used in place of must if the speaker is trying to be polite or gentle. Should is saying there will be advantages to you if you go to school, or negative consequences if you don't go to school.
|
"You can't eat that" vs "You mustn't eat that" What's the difference between the two sentences: You can not eat that and You must not eat that <Q> While they could be used for anything where eating the object is forbidden, on their own "You can not eat that" would be applicable to things that you literally could not eat (Like a rock, or a plate of food too large for you to stomach), while "You must not eat that" is more applicable to something that is wholly edible, but forbidden. <S> "Cannot" has connotations regarding ability, while "must not" is more about authority and requirements. <A> Perhaps some examples would help. <S> You can't eat that (because it's physically impossible) <S> : <S> a bowling ball <S> the ocean argon gas <S> You mustn't eat that (because doing so would be wrong or inappropriate): <S> your sibling's birthday cake another diner's food in a restaurant the offerings at a shrine <S> You can't eat that (without suffering health consequences), therefore you mustn't eat that: expired or tainted meat something to which you are allergic a kitchen sponge <A> The meaning is actually quite similar. <S> In both sentences the speaker is telling the addressee that eating that food is a bad idea. <S> More specifically: <S> You can not eat that : It may imply a prohibition, e.g. as in a mother to her child. <S> But it could also mean that the speaker does not necessarily have authority over the addressee, e.g. as in a friend to another friend (one telling the other not to eat chocolate because he has diabetes). <S> Generally speaking, must not sounds much more constraining than <S> can not ('authority' is the key word). <S> Saying "You can not" might as well sound like simply stating a fact rather than giving an order.
| You must not eat that : It definitely implies a prohibition uttered by a speaker who has the authority to forbid the addressee to do that action (see mother/child example above).
|
Is your English getting better? or Does your English get better? In a book, there's a question: Is your English getting better? And not Does your English get better? And Where does you mum and dad live. Where do your mum and dad live. They both sound right to me. <Q> You should use the present progressive: is your English getting better? <S> in most circumstances. <S> I would almost never say, my English gets better. <S> The simple present is for characteristic, habitual, or repeated action, and, the way we normally talk about it, getting better at English is something that happens once. <S> But we can imagine a person saying: <S> Whenever I spend a few months home in Hungary, I tend to lose my confidence speaking English, and when I come back to London, I sound like a foreigner again. <S> But my English gets better after a couple of weeks. <A> The main difference has to do with the way <S> the passage of time is involved and emphasized when using the -ing form. <S> is getting = is becoming with timedoes get = <S> certainly becomes <S> Let's say two young lovers split up, and one of them is especially heartbroken. <S> An older friend, who has been through this pain before, might give this advice: <S> It will take time, but the sorrow you are feeling does get better . <S> In other words, experience shows that this kind of sorrow usually fades. <S> It is a general truth or fact . <S> After several months, the older friend and the sad younger friend meet again. <S> The younger one might say: You were right. <S> The sadness is getting better . <S> The sadness it becoming less with time . <S> (a general truth) <S> Your language skills are getting better . <S> (from practicing ; the improvement is happening over time) <A> Where does you mum and dad live. <S> Where do your mum and dad live. <S> The second one is correct. <S> There are two people, so you have to use the third person plural form of the verb. <S> He does. <S> They do. <A> For the second one, whether to use Where does your mum and dad live? <S> or Where do your mum and dad live? <S> completely depends on the context. <S> If we are referring to them as living in two different places, we would say "do" because of the third person agreement/plural rule. <S> However, if we are referring to them living in the same house, then "does" would be the correct choice.
| So, with respect to language: Language skills do get better with practice.
|
What is the meaning of "morning blues" or "Monday blues"? Just want to know the real meaning of: Morning blues or Monday blues Do these two have the same meaning? <Q> The noun 'blues' refer to 'sad' feeling. <S> This could be due to anything -laziness, no interest etc. <S> It has nothing to do with the color 'blue'. <S> If you have blues, you feel sad. <S> The commonest use is 'Monday Blues' referring to laziness one gets to get to work (as they just enjoyed 'work-free' weekends). <S> If you say, "Morning blues" probably it means the morning you don't feel to do anything. <S> No zeal, no enthusiasm. <S> Does this two mean the same? <S> No , they don't. <S> One talks about Monday, and another talks about the morning. <A> Monday morning blues and Morning blues are two different situations but <S> the word 'blues' mean the same. <S> Blue refers to the lack of joy, laziness, tiredness, stress, etc. <S> Monday morning blues is the feeling that comes to us as the weekend has passed by <S> and it is time to resume the work again. ' <S> Monday'is the universal start of week day in all countries across the globe except for the GCC countries. <S> Morning blues is a feeling which can come on any random day, not only due to work but also due to some other reasons. <S> Never confuse yourself with 'Monday Morning Blues' and 'Morning Blues' as there are a lot of differences between the two idioms. <A> The term "blues" in each expression means the same. <S> It is sadness, coupled with some lethargy. <S> In fact this answer from yahoo dot com <S> ( What is the meaning of monday blues? ) <S> contains a very good explanation, and it summarizes Monday Blues as To put all these together <S> , we can define MONDAY BLUES as: The low-spirited, cool, annoyed, sad, unlucky mood of those workers, students, or employees who feel that a mundane, difficult, unexpected Weekday is arriving to force them into going back to work, killing their joys and annoying them. <S> except that I would take out "unexpected" from that list. <S> The main meaning of blues is sadness, or expressing sadness. <S> Not laziness. <S> But sadness, or feeling really blue, contains an element not of laziness but lethargy, or lack of energy. <S> This is true whether it is Monday Blues or Morning Blues. <S> If you feel only laziness, you do not have the blues. <S> Here is a good article: Definitive Guide <S> To Beat The Monday Blues & Kick Start Your Week <A> I would argue. <S> Me personally went through a clinical depression, I have bipolar disorder, and I can tell that there is a HUGE difference in the perception of colors between normality (euthymia) and depression as well as between euthymia and mania. <S> When I was clinically depressed, my visual perception virtually lost <S> it's hue and vibrancy, so I was perceiving each color almost similarly, like in black and white, but there still was some "color"... <S> Let's call it blue. <S> Difficult to explain to people without this experience.
| In fact, if you say that someone has got the blues , it means he is sad or moody or depressed. The word "blues" has a lot to do with the color.
|
English word for a room in a company office that handles letters I am looking for a word to identify a room which exists in every institute or office, that receives/sends/distribute the letters that go through the office.Usually they stamp and number the received and sent letters.Google translator suggests the word SECRETARIAT . Does that make sense? Also, I want to find the English name of this room for an army headquarters. Should I say, secretariat of headquarters or Command secretariat ? <Q> I suggest mailroom or post room (see relevant Wikipedia article ): <S> A mailroom or post room (UK) is a room in which incoming and outgoing mail is processed and sorted. <S> Mailrooms are commonly found in schools, offices, apartment buildings, and the generic post office. <S> [...] In a large organization, the mailroom is the central hub of the internal mail system and the interface with external mail. <A> A "secretariat" is something entirely different. <S> That's a high-level government agency. <S> See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secretariat . <S> This may be a regional thing: I see several posters saying that an office that peforms secretary functions like typing and filing is called a "secretariat". <S> This is most definitely NOT true in the United States. <S> Such an office is called the "secretary pool" or "secretarial pool" or sometimes the "steno pool". <S> I think "steno pool" is mostly an old-fashioned word. <S> To the best of my knowledge, the military also call it a "mail room". <S> I just did a google search and was easily able to find references to the "mail room" at various army bases. <A> I also concur that 'mailroom' captures the essence of a central place where mail is delivered and then distributed internally throughout the organisation. ' <S> Secretariat' would be a place that provides services to committees [like a 'secretary to the committee'] or drafts outgoing mail for signature. <S> (I'm a speaker of Australian English.) <A> A secretariat will usually encompass far more administrative tasks than the ones you've specified, so if it's particularly dedicated to those purposes, saintjules' options are preferable. <S> Another possible option would be sorting room .
| In America, we refer to such a room as a "mail room".
|
Using “the” with names of functions, variables, constants in computer literature When I write computer-related text and want to refer to something (a variable, a function, etc.) that has a unique name, should I add “the” before the name? For example: “Here I call the printf function” vs “Here I call printf function.” Logically it seems that the name is a sufficient determiner, but at the same time I see that many people use “the” here. <Q> Function is a count noun, and it typically appears with a determiner of some sort: <S> I called a function . <S> I called this function . <S> I called the function . <S> I called two functions . <S> Lots of determiners work, as you can see above. <S> I called the printf function . <S> And in that case, you've made it specific, <S> so the is probably the appropriate determiner (unless you're in an unusual situation where you have more than one printf function to discuss). <S> But function needs a determiner, so these are ungrammatical: <S> * <S> I called function . <S> (ungrammatical) <S> * <S> I called printf function . <S> (ungrammatical) <S> By itself, printf doesn't need a determiner. <S> It's a proper noun: <S> I called printf . <S> This is fine too, and I think it's probably more common in speech, but I don't have a corpus to check, so that's really just a guess. <S> In this answer, the * symbol marks an utterance as ungrammatical. <A> The preferred and most common usage is simply "Here I call printf ." <S> A construct like "Here I call the printf function" is needlessly verbose. <S> The exception is when the word printf would appear at the beginning of a sentence. <S> It cannot be capitalized because its case is part of its correct spelling, and leaving it uncapitalized is typographically awkward. <A> 'the' should be used with printf because we are talking about a particular command. <S> We should use 'the' when pointing to a specific thing. <S> Here I call <S> the printf function is correct usage.
| You can add the name of the function as an attributive modifier:
|
What is the difference between gloomy and grim? What is the difference between gloomy and grim, I have read some examples which confused me gloomy place grim place I have read that grim is very serious or gloomy but still I am not aware about the difference between them, so please could anyone help me and explain the difference. <Q> "Grim" is a more severe word that is often associated with foreboding, death, or something bad happening. <S> "Gloomy" is a softer word that means something closer to low-key, depressing, or dark. <S> A rainy day can be gloomy, but it wouldn't be grim. <A> As usual, the best way to understand these subtleties is to take note of their primary meanings (which are sometimes rare or partly forgotten), and follow how people reasonably extend those meanings to describe different situations. <S> The noun " gloom " primarily means the dull or dark lighting that you find at twilight, on a very cloudy day, or within a shadow—with the connotation of the melancholy or despondent emotion that people often feel in places with this kind of lighting. <S> Here is a very gloomy place: <S> People often extend the primary meaning to describe anything related to that emotion, even if doesn't necessarily involve dim light, though usually the concept of dim light "colors" the description. <S> For example, the poet Langston Hughes wrote these words to describe the closing of the Newport Jazz Festival in 1960: <S> It’s a gloomy day at Newport. <S> It's a gloomy, gloomy day. <S> The music’s going away. <S> ( Source .) <S> Notice that the noun modified by "gloomy" is "day"; and the day is called gloomy to express the sad and discouraged emotion resulting from the loss of the festival. <S> The adjective " grim " describes a mental attitude of determination to do a cruel or harsh deed, usually serving a very serious purpose, such as executing a convicted murderer. <S> Secondarily, it suggests the facial expression of a person who has resolved to carry out such a deed and will not be stopped from doing it. <S> For example, death is often personified as " the grim reaper ", usually depicted like this: <S> When you call a place grim, you suggest that it's used for grave purposes and/or gruesome deeds. <S> The sorts of places you would most easily call grim are gallows, execution chambers, slaughterhouses, prisons, battlefields (especially just after the battle), mortuaries, morgues. <S> People often imagine that grim places are also gloomy; for example, in a painting or movie, you're likely to see a corpse-strewn battlefield depicted under a dark sky. <S> So, there's naturally some overlap in how people use and understand these words. <S> Source for the gloomy image. <S> Source for the image of the grim reaper. <A> Grim means forbidding, uninviting, or depressing. <S> Gloomy can mean dark in the sense of not being lit very well, often connoting or implying that it's scary or depressing. <S> Grim doesn't usually specifically talk about the light level of a place. <A> When used about people's emotions they have very different meanings. <S> A gloomy person is feeling negative in a general sense and is likely to often feel gloomy, but a grim person is feeling negative more specifically, maybe because of a difficult situation. <S> These different meanings - connotations - are carried over into the description of places, so gloomy is a place that makes you feel generally negative, yes, because of being dark. <S> Also in British English "grim" but not "gloomy" can be used as a general slang word meaning "really terrible". <S> "The situation looked grim" is not slang but "His street is grim" is. <S> It can be used with this sense in the North of England where I'm from. <A> gloomy Etymonline is very unsure as to the etymology. <S> I believe that the word is a derivation of Latin lum-en, which belongs to the Latin word family light(lux/lucis, lumen/luminis, luminosus adj). <S> Latin had a prefix in- used with adjectives having the meaning of not. <S> Compare nobilis noble and ignobilis <S> not noble ( <S> in- + n became ig-). <S> So I think that gloom has the primary meaning: without sufficient light. <S> Of course, such an adjective as gloomy denoting poor visibility can be used to describe atmosphere and mood. <S> Ben Kovitz's picture of a moon-lit landscape is a very good illustration for "gloomy". <S> grim Link to picture: Napoleon in Russia, retreat in winter <S> : The situation for the French army was very grim. <S> enter link description here <S> grim "grim" is an adjective with special collocations that must be studied in a larger dictionary with examples showing how this adjective is used. <S> It is not an adjective that belongs to the basic vocabulary. <S> The general meaning is hard, severe, serious, bad. <S> But one has to know in what collocations this adjective is used.
| So, when call a place gloomy, you suggest dim lighting and/or a melancholy mood. The words "grim" and "gloomy" are somewhat vague, so there isn't an exact distinction between them that most speakers would understand.
|
None so blind as they/them that will not see? What should come 'they' or 'them'? What rule should I apply here? None so blind as they/them that will not see. My thought process: The sentence has two independent clauses. "None so blind as they/them" is the first clause. The verb for the first clause is "blind". The subject for blind is they/them. 'they' is the nominative form. Therefore the correct sentence would be: None so blind as they that will not see. What would be the correct form below? Kindly mention what rule is being applied. It isn't for such as they/them to dictate us. <Q> Your conclusion is correct for "none so blind...". <S> However, this is not a sentence, and "blind" as used in it <S> is not a verb—it is an adjective. <S> As RJ Hunter pointed out, the verb "[there] are" is unstated. <S> So you got the right answer for the wrong reason. <S> As for <S> It isn't for such as {they/them} to dictate to us. <S> The analysis goes like this: <S> It isn't for (such as) <S> {they/them}. <S> . . <S> it isn't for . . . <S> {they/them}. <S> . <S> .Pronoun is the object of the preposition "for". <S> It isn't for such as them to dictate to us. <A> It's easier to deal with the second example first. <S> It isn't for such as them . <S> You may note that I've dropped the infinitive phrase. <S> That should have no impact on how you analyze the word in question. <S> This "them" is an object. <S> Specifically, it's the object of the preposition "as". <S> We use the same case for the objects of prepositions as we do for the direct and indirect objects of verbs. <S> There is an obvioius way to have the subjective case make sense. <S> Use the word as the subject of a verb. <S> One such example is: It isn't for such as they are . <S> In this case, "they are" is a clause. <S> The subject is "they" and the verb is "are". <S> We can still treat "as" as a preposition, but, if we do, we have to realize that it's the entire clause <S> "they are" which is its object. <S> Clauses don't change case. <S> It's also common to call this "as" a subordinating conjunction. <S> The verb in the subordinate clause is not a repetition of the verb in the matrix clause, although both verbs are forms of "to be". <S> none [are] so blind as them <S> none [are] so blind as they [are [blind]] <S> This example offers you a choice. <S> The "them" is the object of the preposition "as". <S> On its own and as an object, it takes the objective case. <S> It's also possible to treat the pronoun as if it were not on its own. <S> In this construction we can repeat the verb and adjective complement of the matrix clause to form a subordinate clause. <S> Since the clauses are parallel, we can even leave the predicate unwritten in the subordinate clause. <S> You may note that I've dropped the relative clause which modified "they/them". <S> Like dropping the infinitive, this should have no impact on how you analyze the word in question. <A> I always knew it as "There are none so blind as <S> those who will not see", attributed to John Heywood (1546 approx)
| The simplest choice is to treat this the same as the first.
|
The use of the definite article "The" They ran to the door of the cellar, but Toto was afraid, and he ran under the bed. -Chapter 1 of The Wizard of Oz (Oxford Bookworms Library Stage 1) In this book, There is no bed that have been mentioned. And I don't know anything about the bed. But as you can see, the definite article “the” is used in front of the word "bed". I really do not know what the definite article means. Could you explain me why the definite article is used? <Q> There are two possibilities here. <S> Consider: <S> I was standing in my kitchen. <S> I looked over at the sink. <S> The familiar context of a (typical modern) kitchen with one sink causes the speaker to use the definite article; the speaker doesn't stop to question the notion that a kitchen has but one sink. <S> It's almost automatic for the speaker to use "the". <S> If the speaker is standing in the bedroom of a person who does not share the room with another sibling, it would be natural to say "under the bed" as there is only one bed in such a room. <S> The second explanation: "to run under the bed" is a collocation which means "to run under and cower beneath a bed". <S> My dog is afraid of fire engines. <S> Whenever he hears one, he runs under the bed. <S> It might be the same bed, or any bed in the house. <S> The speaker does not care, for the speaker is not referring to a particular bed. <S> The speaker is referring to the act of hiding under a bed in fright. <S> P.S. <S> In English-speaking countries beds are frequently on a raised platform on four legs, with a small space between the mattress support and the floor below. <A> The is used to signify that a noun is something that: was earlier mentioned/talked about in conversation. <S> is directly observable by both parties of the conversation. <S> Take the ball there and throw it - when a ball is at a person's feet. <S> is something assumed to "directly observable" by default, i.e. something that is assumed to be known or obvious to anyone. <S> This, of course, depends heavily on context and culture. <S> If a house has only one bedroom, it may be referred to as the bedroom . <S> They ran to the door of the cellar, but Toto was afraid, and he ran under the bed. <S> I would say the author is assuming it's obvious that "the bed" refers to Dorothy's bed. <S> Of couse, we don't really know which bed, if there are multiple beds in the house (I haven't read this book), and the author may have chosen to let that detail be unspecified if it was deemed not important to the story. <A> I often read the article ' <S> the' even though the thing has never been described before. <S> This means, there's only one such thing as mentioned. <S> For instance, Ruby ran out of the house and looked at the tower. <S> This could be the first line of any novel. <S> Though 'house' and 'tower' are are not described yet, they convey the message that they are unique and the only ones as far as that event is concerned.
| It implies that there is only 'one' bed under which he runs.
|
How many flies does it take to screw in a light bulb? I encountered this lightbulb joke today, but I can’t figure out why it is funny: Q: How many flies does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: Two, but I don't know how they got in there. My best guess is that this is a play on the meaning of the word “screw”, suggesting that the flies are flying in circles inside the bulb, but I could not find this meaning in the dictionary. <Q> The joke is due to two possible interpretations of the sentence (its parsing): <S> How many flies does it take to screw in a light bulb ? <S> Means: How many flies are required to put the light bulb into the socket? <S> How many flies does it take to screw in a light bulb ? <S> Means: How many flies should be in a light bulb so that there is some sexual intercourse going on in said bulb? <A> Yes, this is indeed a play on the meaning of screw . <S> The second meaning being this one, from your dictionary: <S> 3.1 <S> [no object] (Of a couple) have sexual intercourse. <S> So the questioner is asking how many flies it takes to put a light bulb in place, but the answerer treats the question as if it were asking how many flies it takes to copulate inside a light bulb. <A> The joke relies on the juxtaposition of the dual meanings of "screw": <S> Screw in a lightbulb - To ensure a lightbulb is securely located within its holder so that it works as a lightbulb Screw in[side] <S> a lightbulb - to copulate inside a lightbulb
| So it subverts the classic "How many [x] does it take to change a lightbulb" joke with the punchline being that the copulating flies have no idea how they came to be within the lighbulb, which is the premise of the joke in the first place.
|
The meaning of "Having done my homework I will go home." Having done my homework I will go home. What does having mean in this sentence? <Q> The word 'having' in this sentence means that I have done my homework, therefore I can carry out the specified action (go home). <A> Having done is the perfect participle and indicates a completed action. <S> You did your homework and now you will go home. <A> Have can be either a main verb (with several meanings, one of them is to posses something) or an auxiliary verb which is the case here. <S> It doesn't have any meaning on its own; it is a part of grammatical construction called the perfect participle . <S> This construction is built with have in the -ing form + past participle. <S> It is used to show that the first action was completed before the second. <S> At first I thought that it would sound more natural if the perfect participle was used with another clause in the past (not future) <S> but I found this example published by University of Chicago Press (which I assume is a reputable publisher) and <S> some other examples <S> so I stand corrected.
| Having done/Having finished is an example of a perfect participle , indicating you have completed the past action, and can carry out the second action.
|
Is it correct to say "the margin of differences"? There are some instances of decrease in the average temperature of some place. I need to cast doubt on the significance of the decrease. can I say: The margin of the differences may not be notable. <Q> "Margin" is hard to use in this context. <A> I don't think the two words, margin and difference can go together so as to describe or modify each other. <S> According to definition #5 of margin from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language , margin is a measure, quantity, or degree of difference. <S> This said it wouldn't be appropriate to say the difference of differences . <S> So you'd rather use either margin or difference. <A> Perhaps you meant marginal difference . <S> Compare this to the economic concept of marginal utility , the utility gained from consuming one additional unit of a good. <S> As the other answers suggest, margin of differences isn't really meaningful.
| The usual language for this sort of thing is to say "the temperature decrease may not be [statistically] significant", or perhaps "the amount of the temperature decrease […]" (Preferably, though, you'd mention the level of significance you're using with something like "at p<0.05", and be able to say that it either is or isn't significant accordingly.) "Marginal difference" means the difference at the margin (i.e., the difference in the dependent variable (temperature) corresponding to a unit difference in the dependent variable (a single unit of time)).
|
What's the word for a picture that is turned over - is it opposite? As non-English native speaker, I need some help in expressing myself in the following context. Someone sent me a picture that turns opposite (I'm not sure I'm using in the correct words, sorry) so it's difficult to read the text in this picture. (You can compare it with a picture where the head is down and the legs are up). What is the correct way to express this condition? Can I say "This picture is opposite"? <Q> The term you're looking for is " upside down ". <S> in such a way that the upper and the lower parts are reversed in position Like this: <A> I agree with Catija and believe that the word you are looking for is: upside down : With the upper part where the lower part should be; in an inverted position <S> This means that the picture would be in a normal position if you rotated it 180 degrees . <S> But most image processing and viewing programs have the option to rotate the image or to flip it: <S> so you can get it in the upright position and read the text. <S> Edit: The second one will also turn it 'face down' so to speak (even if you flip it vertically), but sometimes this is what was done to it in the first place (so there might be two reasons for not being able to read the text - see Catija's comments below). <A> Catija and Lucky are correct to say that the picture is upside down. <S> More formally, this picture is a reflection. <S> In particular, it is vertically reflected. <A> Good question! <S> It depends on how the image was turned. <S> If it was turned only in a 2 dimensional way, as you would a physical photo, the image would be rotated. <S> A 180' rotation would be upside down. <S> But electronic pictures, like photographic negatives, can be turned in 3 dimensions. <S> "Flipping" is the typical word in this case. <S> Real-life usage of "flipping" is sloppy, but it is generally used to refer to a 3-dimensional action, e.g. "I flipped the playing cards over to reveal their face." <S> Flipping gives you a "mirror image". <S> (1) <S> If the image is only rotated, in 2 dimensions - you could easily read it by rotating it back to the original viewing position. <S> Your example might be flipped, and rotated to get it upside down. <S> See the graphic I have provided. <S> You COULD use the word "opposite" <S> - but it would need the proper context, and I do not think it conveys the meaning you want at all. <S> "Opposite" would normally apply only to the images inside the picture - and not to the picture itself. <S> Example: "The people are standing opposite their positions in the original! <S> " <S> This would be understood by most people to mean that the picture had been transposed, or flipped, from left to right. <S> I have drawn up a graphic to illustrate rotating and flipping. <S> You should also look at the usage of "tranpose", as it is similar in usage. <S> Flipping also transposes the elements of the picture. <S> What was on the left is now on the right, or top/bottom, etc. <S> Notice that #4, flipped on a horizontal axis, would be the same effect as if you flipped on a vertical axis, and then rotated 180 degrees. <S> (1) I am ignoring the tense aspect of the verbs for this description. <S> I think you will figure that out a-ok on your own.
| Head and foot oppositeness would be upside-down. Turn over or cause to turn over with a sudden quick movement
|
Is there need any "article"? A: The event has led to the creating of the new plan. B: The event has led to the creation of the new plan. I am wondering if the article the is necessary here. Meanwhile, could you possibly teach me what is the difference between those semantically? Thanks <Q> A: The event has led to the creating of the new plan. <S> B: The event has led to the creation of the new plan. <S> First, the difference between creating and creation : Creating refers to the activity of creating - not what is created or who is doing the creating. <S> These questions can be answered with objects to narrow this down - e.g. him creating the new plan - in which case you omit the article. <S> Creation can mean this too, but creation can also mean thing that is created . <S> Creating will never mean thing that is created. <S> Also creation is a "real noun"--not a verbal, and won't take objects like an -ing word. <S> In this case there is not a big difference in meaning between these two - but creating can give the impression it happened recently if you don't qualify that, and creation would give the impression the creating has completed. <S> So since these are nouns, you follow the usual rules with articles - which are confusing, but if creating of the new plan or creation of the new plan is an instance of something specified earlier in conversation, or well-known to both parties of the conversation, use the . <A> A: <S> This event led to the creating of the new plan. <S> B: <S> This event led to the creation of the new plan. <S> The When we use this type of of phrase in this way to modify a noun, the larger noun phrase will normally take a definite article. <S> Notice that the purpose of the phrase of the new plan is to show us which creation we are talking about. <S> Because we understand which creation the speaker is talking about, they need to use a definite article here. <S> Creating and Creation <S> We can make a noun from a verb by adding -ing to the plain form of the verb: <S> smoke -- <S> > <S> The smoking of cigarettes sink -- <S> > <S> The sinking of the submarine fly -- <S> > <S> The flying of the Irish flag Notice that nouns cannot take Direct Objects, so <S> the things that were smoked or sunk or flown are described in a preposition phrase, using the preposition of . <S> These look like -ing <S> forms of a verb, sometimes called gerunds or participles. <S> They are not! <S> They are nouns not verbs. <S> Sometimes we already have a noun to describe an action. <S> When there is already a noun we can use, if we use a special -ing noun, it can sound unusual (maybe in a good way). <S> Here there is already a noun we can use, creation . <S> In my opinion using the noun creating here puts more emphasis on the time or work needed to create the plan. <S> It brings out the human involvement in the creation of the plan. <S> But that's just my feeling. <S> Both sentences are perfectly fine and grammatical. <A> The first sentence is incorrect. <S> The is an article, which you can combine with a noun ( creation ). <S> Because creating is a verb, you cannot combine it with the . <S> So, your second sentence is correct, but your first is not. <S> Correct would be: <S> The event has led to creating the new plan. <S> Note that you also do not use of between creating and the new plan .
| We cannot use articles (the, a) with verbs either, but these nouns use articles just like other nouns. There is not very much difference in meaning between the two words creating and creation .
|
What is the verb for "to wake up from anesthesia"? Is there an English verb meaning "To become aware after surgery, to wake up from anesthesia (sedation)"? <Q> The phrasal verb come to , meaning to regain consciousness, is what immediately springs to mind. <S> A doctor might say to a patient, "You will come to about fifteen minutes after the surgery is complete." <A> I've been an OR nurse for 15 years. <S> We generally say the patient is "waking up," as if from a nap. <S> There is a verb for putting someone under anesthesia, we call that "induction" but there is no specific word for waking up. <A> A general anesthetic is usually divided into three phases: induction, maintenance and emergence. <S> As a means of demonstrating how we use the term, here are a few examples. <S> "The patient had a smooth emergence." <S> or "His blood pressure didn't become a problem until the emergence." <S> or "He became unstable as he started to emerge from the anesthesia. <S> " or "I will give him the reversal just before he begins to emerge."
| The term we use in anesthesia is "emerge" or "emergence".
|
Do you have a phrase similar to "iritating my soul" Do you have a phrase or word with the following meaning? For instance: He irritate my soul ( he annoy me) updated: If we would like to say that someone has so drastically bothered me that even my soul, mind, or all of my existence is in an extraordinary bad mood- the worst mood. <Q> In English, "soul" usually occurs in contexts of a more serious nature than mere annoyance or irritation. <A> There are several expressions for that, a few examples are: <S> He gets on my nerves. <S> He bothers me. <S> He bugs me. <S> You can find a lot more synonyms here . <A> I think we can use the following idioms: <S> He rubbed me the wrong way <S> or He ruffled my feathers <S> See also usage note: <S> sometimes used in the form smooth ruffled feathers (to make someone feel less annoyed or upset): The candidate went out of her way to smooth ruffled feathers. <A> I agree with others that if you're simply expressing annoyance, "he irritates my soul" would be too strong. <S> However, given your update, if you want to convey that a person has upset you in a profound way, you might say "He broke my heart." <S> However, keep in mind that this expression is frequently (although not always) used in the context of a romantic relationship.
| For irritations and annoyances, we'd say: He gets on my nerves.
|
how to say "I want to take revenge on somebody" I don't leave you alone until I take revenge on you for these bitter days Have I correctly written that? I am seeking for other phrases rather than the bold one. Thanks in advance <Q> You can say: to take revenge (against somebody) to seek revenge (against someone) <S> get revenge against someone <S> take revenge (on someone) (for something) <S> The words between parentheses are optional and do not necessarily need to be expressed. <S> Also, I don't leave you alone until... <S> is incorrect. <S> Since you're using a future expression here ( until ), you need the future verb form won't here. <A> If you're looking for other phrases, you can use this one: <S> I won't leave you alone until I pay you back for these bitter days. <S> The Century Dictionary defines <S> repay as: <S> To make return, retribution, or requital for, in a good or bad sense: as, to repay kindness; to repay an injury. <S> Similarly, pay you back <S> can be used for either revenge or for kindness, but it's often easy to tell from the context which meaning is intended. <A> You're pretty close. <S> I won't leave until I take my revenge upon you for these bitter days. <S> another alternative would be to say get my revenge against you please note it is <S> wo <S> n't instead of don't due to your use of future tense (as sander van Hommelen has also pointed out)S <A> get even with you.. <S> make you pay for.. <S> rare: wreak vengeance on you for..
| Other phrases you could use: get back at you..
|
How to tell a person that they can come/go through a door before you... One thing that comes to my mind is "Please, come in" or just "Please" (this is what I use mostly). Come in suggests me that you are standing in a room, but what if you are in a corridor? What do you say in these cases? Formal or informal. Would be great if you could bring a few examples of what you say to your friends jokingly, like is it possible to say something like "fly in" or something along these lines? :)Thank you. <Q> If you're just standing about by the door, blocking someone else from going through, obviously you should apologise while moving out of the way, so <S> Pardon me or <S> Excuse me would seem reasonable. <S> Unless you want to make a virtue of being there, saying Allow me [to open the door] as you open it. <S> If you also intend to go through the door, After you as you step aside. <S> Depending on the situation you might say Ladies first or Age before beauty , but these are often somewhat facetious usages today. <A> These are similar expressions, but these mean that someone should move further in the direction he/she was going, not necessarily enter a specific place: <S> Go ahead <S> Continue <A> If you want to go in after them I would say "after you", otherwise I would say "this way(, please)". <S> In either case, I would move my hand and point into the doors.
| If you simply mean to say that the person should go inside, while you're standing outside, you can use: Go on in
|
I didn't ('go' or 'went') to party? I didn't go to party. I didn't went to party. <Q> I didn't go to (the) party <S> I didn't went to (the) party. <S> After the auxiliary verb DO <S> the main verb must be in the plain form . <S> This is the form you see in the dictionary. <S> It does not have any tense. <S> It is not past or present: <S> * <S> He doesn't goes to the gym. <S> (ungrammatical - main verb in present tense) <S> * <S> He didn't saw the film. <S> (ungrammatical - main verb in past tense) <S> He doesn't go to the gym. <S> (correct) <S> He didn't see the film. <S> (correct) <S> The Original Poster's examples Example (1) is correct because the verb go <S> is in the plain form after the auxiliary do . <S> Example (2) is incorrect because went is a past form, not a plain form of the verb. <A> "I didn't go to party" could also be correct if you're talking about the reason you went somewhere... <S> "I went to Bermuda on a business trip. <S> I didn't go to party." <A> This is a rule in English grammar: <S> The verb which comes after the auxiliary verb - " did ", always will be the base form (that called "infinitive" form, meaning without any inflection to the past tense). <S> Therefore: I didn't go to the party. <S> I didn't meet him. <S> I didn't know him. <S> I didn't see him. <S> As you can see, all of them are in the base form. <A> I didn't go to the party. <S> Also, it's <S> go and not went because the auxiliary verb did means that go <S> does not change tenses . <A> It must be "I didn't go". <S> "Did" is already in the past tense. <S> "Go <S> " does not have to be in the past tense if "did" was already in the past tense. <S> You could say I went. <S> But you couldn't say I did not went. <S> You could say I went not.
| Neither is correct, unless there's literally a place called "Party."
|
"I bought this shirt offline." Is this correct usage of the word 'offline'? "I bought this shirt offline ." Is 'offline' okay to use to refer to something that was bought at a brick-and-mortar store? If not, what's the preferred way to say it in everyday conversations ? <Q> "I bought this shirt online" sounds like normal, everyday conversation. <S> The most likely interpretation is that you bought the shirt through an internet application like a website. <S> "I bought this shirt offline" doesn't sound quite as normal and everyday. <S> It makes sense. <S> It's grammatically sound. <S> It's something that I might use myself. <S> Even so, it's not what I expect to hear. <S> What I expect to hear is "I bought it in person." <S> The "in person" suggests that you physically traveled to make the purchase -- that your own body was present for the transaction. <S> Even before the internet existed, this sense of "in person" was in common use. <S> It was (and still is) used to exclude possibilities like doing something through the mail or over the telephone. <S> It also excludes sending someone else to do the job. <S> A simple Google search for "online or in person" shows about a million and a half examples of those two phrases expressing the very contrast that you want. <A> I didn't buy this shirt online. <S> I didn't buy this shirt online. <S> I bought it at Muggy's. <S> You could also say something like <S> I didn't buy this shirt online. <S> I bought it locally at Muggy's. <S> or I didn't buy this shirt online. <S> I bought it at Muggy's on 5th Street. <S> or I didn't buy this shirt from Muggy's online, but from Muggy's locally (or: on 5th Street). <S> While the use of offline is grammatically correct, it is not the most common way to say it in everyday conversation, at least in American English. <A> I am not sure if it is correct, but it would not be normally used. <S> You could say: I didn't buy this shirt online <S> To me, offline would sound like buying it on a computer, without the use of internet. <A> Online originally meant connected to a network , usually the internet. <S> However, also in a company network, both clients and servers may be online . <S> Offline , as its opposite, meant not connected to a network . <S> A server could be on- or offline, or your workstation, or even a specific application on your computer. <S> With the raise of internet, online , in the sense of connected to the internet , became synonymous with while I was using an application that was online (connected to the internet) , as in “I bought this book online.” <S> It makes sense that offline , in a similar way, comes to mean: <S> A) while I was using an application that was offline (not connected to the internet). <S> However, it seems that offline more and more gets the sense of the opposite of the new meaning of online , rather than evolve from the old meaning of offline : <S> B) <S> while I was not (using an application that was online (connected to the internet)). <S> These two meanings are quite different. <S> I assume that most people would read your sentence as having meaning B, but you do risk people reading it as A, in which case your sentence makes little sense. <A> Offline could be used in a situation like that, but is generally not the most natural/common way to say it. <S> I might say that as I bought this shirt at [name of store]. <S> Or, if the context makes the meaning clear (e.g. someone asked <S> Did you buy that shirt online? ), simply... <S> I bought this shirt in a store. <S> (being American, I'd use store here, I believe British-English would use shop ) <S> If you're conversing over an informal text-based medium (e.g. text messages, IM, etc.) <S> you might use the acronym <S> IRL ( in real life ). <S> I bought the shirt IRL. <A> As in any language, words and usage evolve in English. <S> The word offline is commonly used to refer to retail stores (do a Google search for "buy offline"). <S> Though offline is not the most common way to express the idea, it does it very well and is going to become a part of my personal usage. <S> So @Bharath Manjesh <S> , I would say your use of offline is on the leading edge of English language development. <A> There is a common ( millions of Google hits documented ) phrase <S> I bought (or ordered or got) <S> this item off (name of source). <S> and someone hearing <S> you say <S> I bought this shirt offline. <S> is liable to misinterpret it as <S> I bought this shirt off Line. <S> and ask you why they've never heard of this store before. <S> Your usage has also been discussed on the English Language Usage and Grammar site where the clarification of "I bought it off the internet" is suggested, which is the exact opposite of what you mean. <S> Don't do this.
| I bought it at (name of store). While offline may be coming to mean "not using the Internet", it cannot be used in this sentence.
|
What does "with some flowers" modify in this sentence? I plant the garden with some flowers . Is it the same as "I plant some flowers in the garden."? What are their nuances? What does "with some flowers" modify in this sentence? <Q> The sentences mean the same. <S> However, to plant the garden with some flowers is ambiguous. <S> You could interpret some flowers as the tool with which you are planting something. <S> This phrase is much clearer and not ambiguous: <S> plant some flowers in the garden <A> It's the logical direct object. <S> Why is there a "with"? <S> Who knows? <S> It is probably like the "with" that turns up before the logical direct object in some indirect object constructions: "He presented a gift to her" = <S> " <S> He presented her with a gift". <A> I would see "with some flowers" as a second object that simply indicates with what as in: I fill the bowl with water.
| "With some flowers" is not a modifier, it's a complement of the verb "plant".
|
What is the difference between symbol and sign? What is the difference between symbol and sign ? In the following text which one is correct? dollar symbol or dollar sign <Q> A sign is an indicator or marker for something very specific, very concrete and, in general, unambiguous in meaning. <S> Road markers are called signs because they usually convey something very specific - the speed limit, "Stop", a street name, etc. <S> There is nothing open to interpretation with these markers (except in the minds of some lawyers, perhaps :-) ). <S> On the other hand a symbol, whether a cross, a dove, a ring, etc. can have a complex meaning and nuance that differs from one person to another depending on their experience, culture, upbringing, schooling, and so on. <S> A symbol conveys a message of deeper meaning and is open to interpretation. <S> A picture containing a dove could be meant to convey a message about peace, or it could be a picture of a bird. <S> A ring worn on the finger could mean a commitment to another person in marriage, and marriage itself means different things to different people, but it may also be just a piece of jewellery. <S> So the "$" is called a dollar sign , not a dollar symbol, because has a quite distinct and concrete meaning. <S> It represents a unit of currency, however, it doesn't mean any unit of currency but very specifically the unit of currency known as the dollar. <S> So, a "sign" is some unit of communication that represents something specific, while a "symbol" is a unit of communication imbued with deeper and more complex meaning. <A> You can use either, because they are synonyms . <S> Synoymns are words that mean exactly the same thing, at least for one instance of their definitions. <S> Google gives two definitions of symbol as a noun: 1) a mark or character used as a conventional representation of an object, function, or process, e.g. the letter or letters standing for a chemical element or a character in musical notation. <S> 2) a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract. <S> For a dollar symbol , either can be used. <S> Both have sign as a synonym. <S> Google's definition of sign includes: 2)d) <S> a symbol or word used to represent an operation, instruction, concept, or object in algebra, music, or other subjects. <S> So in this sense, the words are interchangeable. <S> However, sign has many more meanings than symbol , and this might influence how a reader views a particular usage of symbol versus sign. <A> Good question. <S> I would say the normal word is sign for graphic things. <S> The word sign is from Latin signum. <S> The Greek symbol has practically the same meaning, but is not so often used. <S> A fish was a symbol for Christians in ancient Rome. <S> It was a secret sign at a time when Christians were persecuted. <S> A white dove can be the symbol for peace. <S> In literature or films often symbols are used. <S> If in a film a raven occurs repeatedly before something terrible happens the raven is a symbol for coming disaster. <A> For the specific phrase "Dollar Symbol" vs. "Dollar Sign" any one of them could be used. <S> On the contrary, consider "Road Signs", one usually does not use "Road Symbols" to refer to the same. <S> The 'noun usage' of Symbol and Sign have similar meanings and one is often (but not always) used in place of the other. <S> As a verb, "Sign" is also used to identify oneself as a writer or sender. <A> A symbol is a simple single character (like a letter or a number) or object that represents something of a deeper meaning and that is not tangible like an idea, concept, or memory. <S> A sign is also a representation of something, but comes in any form from an illustration with multiple objects, a picture, a hand gestured, to an occurence each representing something much larger than itself.
| The difference between a symbol and a sign is that a symbol can convey a deeper and more complex meaning than a sign.
|
Pick a number between one and ten Pick a number between one and ten. Someone familiar with US practices would know that one and ten are included. A visitor to the US might think the range is two through nine, being between one and ten. What would be the best way to word the offer, so the visitor would not be at an unfair advantage in case the number to choose is one or ten? <Q> This is usually understood to be inclusive - going from A to Z <S> doesn't mean you start at B and end at Y, and working from Monday to Friday doesn't mean working only three days a week. <S> Or, if you want to be extremely precise, say "Pick a number from one to ten, inclusive". <A> @Matt's answer is the way I've usually heard it, but one way to be even clearer that 10 is included is to use "through": <S> Pick a number from one through ten. <S> and you can emphasize that you're including the endpoints with "anywhere": <S> Pick a number anywhere from one through ten. <A> I'm not sure why Talmu deleted his answer, because I think it's correct and what I intended to say. <S> If you want to be absolutely clear, you say "between one and ten inclusive" or "between one and ten exclusive". <S> The phrasing "between X and Y" is ambiguous on whether the end-points are included. <S> If you said, "Al's scores were all between 8 and 10", I'd probably understand you to mean that he got some 8's, some 9's, and some 10's. <S> But if you said, "Al's score was between Betty's and Carl's", I'd think you meant higher than Betty's and lower than Carl's, and not that it might have been the same as one or the other. <S> It all depends on context, and is often not clear. <S> As others have noted, there are other phrasings that are not ambiguous. <S> Like if you said "pick a number from 1 to 10", I think any English-speaker would assume that 1 and 10 are included in the range.
| You could say, "Pick a number from one to ten".
|
How is the word "arouse" used in English? How is the word arouse used in English? For example, which is correct to say: Do not arouse my anger or Do not raise my anger could anyone explain it to me. <Q> The first sentence can be used. <S> Both sentences are grammatically correct. <S> Both verbs (raise, arouse) take direct objects. <S> But we don't tell someone else not to "raise my anger. <S> " We might say "I do not want to raise my anger. <S> " We say "raise my voice" when we make our voices louder when we get angry. <S> But, still, "don't arouse my anger" also sounds a bit unnatural. <S> A more natural way to say this is <S> "Don't make me angry." <S> Most people do not say "arouse. <S> " They use this word in written English. <S> You can look at example sentences in the Oxford Dictionary: arouse . <A> Yes I agree with the previous answer . <S> Just to add that "arouse" is one of those out-of-date verbs which have fallen into disuse in modern English except when used in fixed expressions. <S> "Raise" on the other hand is commonly used in multiple situations. <A> The two words create different ideas. <S> If you say "raise my anger" it suggests that you're already angry and might get angrier. <S> If you see a person and they're angry but you're not scared, why would you care if they get a little angrier? <S> But if you say "arouse" it suggests that your anger is a sleeping giant. <S> Right now you are calm because your anger is sleeping, but if your anger awakes you will change dramatically so your listener should fear making you angry. <S> "Arouse" usually suggests a large change from a peaceful behavior to an alert and energetic behavior. <A> Since the other answers do not seem to address your actual question which is "How is the word "arouse" used in English?" <S> As a native speaker, we commonly use the word "arouse" in a sexual way, as in "sexually aroused". <S> So if someone has turned you on or made you sexually excited, you can say "Wow, you really make me aroused." <S> The word "aroused" is very seldom used in any other context, at least in American English.
| "Arouse" means 'to awaken' while "raise" means 'to increase or make higher'.
|
Is it incorrect to say "I slept at six" in English? I know there are many sentences like I went to sleep at six and I slept at six , but I want to know why it is incorrect to say "I slept at six" in English. <Q> In my English, at least, sleep can be specified with a period or length of time, but not a point in time . <S> (If you supply a point in time, it's intelligible, but doesn't sound natural.) <S> So I could say things like I slept from nine until seven. <S> I slept until noon. <S> I slept for thirteen hours. <S> But if I want to tell you what I was doing at a precise time, I need to say something like <S> I was asleep when the fire alarm sounded. <S> Or I could tell you about the point when I went from waking to sleeping: <S> I went to sleep around midnight. <S> I fell asleep as soon as my head hit the pillow. <A> It's not incorrect. <S> It's a perfectly valid sentence construction which is commonly used. <S> I slept at six. <S> I got up at six. <S> I ate at six. <A> In general, the other answers do a fair job of explaining why it's at least weird to use " <S> I slept at [time]" to describe the time you began sleeping. <S> But there are plenty of occasions when it works well enough. <S> A short nap could be described as "I slept at noon. <S> " This works especially when you're describing a sequence of events, e.g. "I slept at noon, then had lunch at 1." <S> Similarly, I wouldn't be confused if someone summed up their evening like this: "I jogged at 6, ate dinner at 7, and slept at 9. <S> " (i.e. they went to bed at 9) <S> If I asked someone "When did you go to bed? <S> " I'd understand what they meant if their response was "I slept at 10." <A> However (thanks Dog Lover <S> [Love the handle, BTW]), the way that sentence is constructed is a bit unexpected. <S> Consider, "I went to bed at six". <A> In contrast, "I woke" means "I changed from the sleeping state to the waking state" and it's perfectly reasonable to do that at a specific time. <S> Having said that, "I ate at six" is fine, even though it seems to mean "I spent a period of time eating at a specific time. <S> " It would, instead, be interpreted as "I began eating at six", which is again a change of state at a specific time. <S> This is somewhat inconsistent but that's how language is: all I can offer is that "to sleep" isn't used to mean "to begin sleeping" even though it would be logical if it was. <A> "I slept at six" is not incorrect. <S> It is a bit unusual, and feels a bit clumsy, and it means something different than "I went to sleep at six". <S> That happens quite often, some sentence is not incorrect as a sentence, but has a different meaning than you think it has. <S> "I went to sleep at six": I was awake at 5:59, but asleep at 6:00. <S> "I slept at six": I went to sleep some time before 6:00 and woke up some time after 6:00, so at the exact time I was asleep. <S> Example usage: " <S> I called you on the phone <S> but you didn't answer". <S> "When did you call?" <S> "I called at six. <S> What were you doing that kept you from answering?" <S> "I slept at six, that's why I didn't answer". <S> Usually you would say "I was asleep" instead of "I slept". <A> It's a little ambiguous as it's unclear whether you mean you started sleeping at six, or slept through six, though it would probably become clear from the context or question. <S> I world use " <S> I went to sleep at 6" or "I was still asleep at 6" to make it clearer.
| "I slept" means "I spent a period of time asleep." "I slept at 6" doesn't make sense because it's saying "I spent a period of time asleep at a particular moment in time."
|
What's the meaning of "thus far only" here? Is the writer saying that the US hasn't banned chloramphenicol? Many countries have not banned the usage of these harmful drugs in apiculture. The EU has banned all three while the US has thus far only banned chloramphenicol. <Q> Thus far is the same as so far . <A> it means - out of many harmful drugs, US has, so far, banned only chloramphenicol. <A> In this context, "thus far" means "currently" or "as of right now", with the presumed expectation that this can, will, or might change in the future. <S> This reads just fine, and would be considered reporting a fact: The EU has banned all three while the US has only banned chloramphenicol. <S> in comparision: The EU has banned all three while the US has thus far only banned chloramphenicol. <S> is going beyond just reporting a fact and injecting a probably non-fact. <S> Without clarifying why the phrase was added, the purpose is likely to try and convince readers that the US is slow to follow suit but may (or should) do so, or is possibly already in the process of expanding the ban to include more than just the one chemical mentioned. <S> Without a follow up of more facts stating the US currently considering changing, it forms (or tries to form) an opinion. <A> The author states that the US has banned chloramphenicol, but the syntax leaves a lot to the imagination. <S> As written, the sentence tells us that so far the US has banned chloramphenicol, but has taken no other action (fine the manufacturers, modify the drug, who knows?) <S> The word <S> only is probably misplaced and the clause should read the US has thus far banned only chloramphenicol which means that the US has not yet banned the other two drugs. <S> In general the word only should be placed as near as possible to the word it modifies, in this case chloramphenicol.
| So in your sentence: Only chloramphenicol has been banned so far meaning that for now, at the moment of speaking, there are no other drugs yet, out of those three, that have been banned by the US. The only purpose for that phrase is to make the insinuation that things can, will, or might change.
|
It was a tough question. I thought it through, though. Rules for 'ough'? Is there a rule, or rules, for how to pronounce ough ? trough (short o, gh pronounced f),thought (short o, silent gh),though (long o, silent gh),through (oo, silent gh),tough (short u, gh pronounced f). <Q> There are at least five ways to pronounce ough : <S> tough, enough (rhymes with cuff ) through (rhymes with blue ) <S> trough, cough (rhymes with off ) <S> ought, bought (rhymes with caught ) bough (rhymes with cow ) <S> As for the rules, the only one I can think of is that the pronunciation found in thought only happens with the ough <S> is followed by a "t". <S> Other than that, there's really no way to tell by looking at the word. <S> I remember the first time I met someone with the last name of Gough. <S> I didn't know if it was pronounced as "go", "goff", "guff", or "gow" (that last one rhyming with "now," not "know"). <S> English has many letter combinations like this; consider: <S> earth vs hearth <S> now vs <S> low eight vs <S> height <S> food vs blood <S> pint vs lint to name but a few. <S> Some words (like bow and wind ) have vowels that can be pronounced two different ways, depending on the meaning of the word, leading to some ambiguous sentences, like this one: <S> He took a bow as he gave her a bow. <A> I think it is just one of those things in English that doesn't necessary have a consistent set of rules. <S> You just have to learn them individually. <S> This my perspective as a native English speaker. <S> Someone approaching English as a foreign language may have developed a system of remembering these things, but this is outside my experience. <A> English is known for it's special spelling at times. <S> There's a dummy word that perfectly describes this: Ghoti , a respelling of the word fish and pronounced the same way (/ˈfɪʃ/). <S> It uses the sounds <S> gh from enough , <S> o from women and ti from intention (not necessarily those words, but those sounds). <S> It just goes to show that the English pronunciation can be quite unpredictable at times if your point when you're basing it on spelling. <S> So speaking the language correctly is just a matter of studying the pronunciation of tthe words or relying on your language instinct.
| There isn't a rule, really.
|
Does it sound ok to use "Feedback" as a verb? I like to know what you guys think about using feedback as a verb. I've seen it a whole lot in writing and email communications. What would be other alternatives? Your input is appreciated. Thank you, <Q> There are plenty of situations in which new verbs can be created in English. <S> If a noun such as "feedback" is used as a verb enough times and it sounds ok to enough people then it will be accepted as a verb. <S> The verb "to google" comes to mind. <S> If it doesn't sound ok to anybody then it will be considered wrong. <S> The noun "feedback" is relatively new in the English language and, for the time being, is usually used with the verb "give". <S> Personally I would never say "please feedback me" <A> If someone wants to spell it as feedback and extend its usage to mean to provide feedback , that is fine, but it would only be an extension of an already existing verb. <S> Both feedback (also spelled feed-back ) as a noun and as a (phrasal) verb exist from the early 1920s, first in the field of radio-telegraph technology. <S> So "feed back" is already a verb in English. <S> Whether feed back , feed-back , and/or feedback gains wider usage is unknown to me. <S> The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) provides the following. <S> to feed back (Electronics and Cybernetics) <S> (a) to return (a fraction of an output signal) to an input of the same or a preceding stage of the circuit, device, process, etc., that produced it. <S> Also transferable. <S> Chiefly in passive. <S> (Cf. feedback noun ) <S> 1921 Wireless World <S> 10 Dec. 571/2 <S> The magnified oscillations are fed back again into the grid circuit. <S> There are other example sentences and they are all spelled fed-back or fed back , whether used in the passive or not. <S> To me this looks like a phrasal verb. <S> (b) <S> In transferred sense also used intransitively. <S> of a result or effect of a process: to return as feedback ; to affect or modify the process that brought it about. <S> Here is only one example from the OED: 1966 <S> Rep. Comm. <S> Inq. <S> Univ. <S> Oxf. <S> I. 56 <S> There are also advances in social studies, at postgraduate level, that are likely to feed back into undergraduate work. <S> The verb already exists. <S> To feedback in the sense of provide feedback to someone would just be an extension of its usage. <A> Feedback is a verb phrase. <S> If you want to change the verb's tense, number, et cetera , you should modify "feed" separately from "back". <S> For example: Feedback loops occur when the output from a system is fed back into the system.
| Feed back (or feed-back ) is already a verb in English. I would say "please give me feedback"
|
Basketball equivalent to soccer's "goal" You say "goal" in soccer when the ball gets into the net. How about basketball, When the ball gets through the hoop? <Q> I agree with Maulik, in that basket qualifies as a generic term roughly equivalent to goal in some contexts: <S> Ronaldo scored a goal on the play. <S> Lebron made a basket on the play. <S> However, it's not a perfect synonym. <S> We're all familiar with the ecstastic call from the broadcasters at World Cup matches: Gooooooooooooooooooal! <S> I don't think a sportscaster in a basketball arena is nearly as likely to exclaim: Baaaaaas - keeeeeeet! <S> Also, if I'm summarizing a game, I might say: Ronaldo scored two goals. <S> but I don't think I'm likely to say: Lebron made seven baskets. <S> Instead, it would be: <S> Lebron scored 14 points. <S> Similarly, I might ask my son (the striker), "Did you score any goals today? <S> " but I would be more likely to ask my daughter (the point guard), "How many points did you score today?" <S> (not, "Did you make any baskets today?") <S> I imagine this difference holds for two reasons: <S> (1) there are far more points scored in a basketball game than in a soccer match, and (2) not all baskets are worth the same number of points. <S> So, the terminology goes more like this: Steve Kerr scored 21 points. <S> He was 7 of 9 from the field , he made 4 of 6 free throws , and he made one three-pointer . <S> A three-point shot in basketball is sometimes called a three-pointer, although, with enough context, that can even be shortened to a single word: three . <S> He made a three! <S> As Maulik's answer also hints, the term field goal can be used. <S> That term isn't used so much conversationally, but you do see it on stat sheets, like this one: <S> 3P refers to three-point shots, and FT refers to free throws. <S> FG is field goals, which refers to, well, baskets. <A> You make or shoot a basket . <S> OALD on it: <S> basket (n) : a point that is scored by throwing the ball through this net <S> This proves it further : <A> Generally, in basketball when someone scores it is called a two pointer or a three pointer depending on the distance from where the throw has been made. <S> But when a player is fouled, depending on the game's context they can be awarded three free throw attempts, two free throw attempts or one free throw attempt each attempt valuing one point. <S> More on this here. <A> There is no equivalent to soccer's Gooooooooooaaaaaaaaal! . <S> But in basketball scoooorre or she/he scooooorres! <S> is possible. <S> In baseball, it's back to <S> s/ <S> he scooorrrrres! <S> There are no goals in baseball, whereas in cricket everybody snores .
| In basketball, the term field goal refers to a basket scored on any shot or tap other than a... In hockey, goooooaaal is more likely than scoooorrre , although both are possible.
|
Help me to Identify whether a verb is transitive or intransitive I was doing an exercice about identifying types of verbs (transitive or intransitive) in a sentence. And I am confused about a sentence. An old baggar stood by the gate. In the answer for the above sentence, the verb is marked as an intransitive verb. But as per the explanation in the book, a transitive verb is one that passes over a subject to an object. And in the above sentence the object is gate . In the above sentence, is the verb stood transitive or intransitive? And how? <Q> There is no direct object in this sentence, by the gate is a prepositional complement in the sentence. <A> Unfortunately, Ghanshyam, for non-natives like us, there is only one way to learn things in English. <S> Memorize them. <S> Especially for Indians where we have our own rules to amend the language, there is nothing we can do. <S> Just observe native speakers and their styles and you learn. <S> That's it. <S> Well, now here, it's an intransitive verb. <S> True. <S> That's because transitive verbs requires something to transfer ! <S> [I remember that way -transitive transfer, intransitive, no transfer, thanks grammargirl] <S> Said that, intransitive verbs can stand alone without any support. <S> They won't look odd. <S> Say-- <S> He ran <S> the sentence is fine without any additional information. <S> But then... <S> I want is 'half'. <S> You want 'what'? <S> So, here, the verb 'want' is transitive which requires something to transfer . <S> You add 'what you want' <S> and it is a complete sentence. <S> They call it as an object. <S> I want a car <S> In your example, An old baggar[sic] stood (by the gate) 'by the gate' is an additional information but not necessary to complete the sentence. <S> Hence, they mark it with 'intransitive'. <S> The verb 'stand' is both transitive and intransitive but in its general (and most of?) <S> usages , it's 'transitive'. <S> More information is on OALD. <A> The verb stood , in your example is used intransitively, having the meaning of being placed or situated. <S> The gate is not the object of the verb stood . <S> Consider: <S> An old beggar, by the gate, stood. <A> A where-indication is no object and a direct object has no preposition. <S> Added <S> And I would not use the term object for two different things. <S> Actually that is confusion of grammar terms even if the use of "object of a preposition" is frequent. <S> Some use the terms complement, I would prefer a completely new term, perhaps preposition and its connected noun.
| So you answer your question, the verb to stand is intransitive.
|
apropos -- is this a common word in English? apropos Is this word part of your active or passive vocabulary? Do you ever use it at all? If yes, could you please give me some real-world examples related to how one would use this word in conversational English? I assume this is not a very common word to use, but at the same time it's very difficult to make sense of the definition lists they've got in the dictionaries because all the definitions there seem to be slightly different from one another. <Q> It is part of an educated (university-level) vocabulary, and can be used as a segue in a meeting, when the topic is going to change abruptly. <S> [Let's assume we've been talking about sales in the Euro Zone up to this point] <S> Apropos the Pacific Rim, we've appointed Cookie Monster head of emerging markets. <A> Apropos is not a very common word in English. <S> But it's not rare either. <S> Short and sweet meaning of apropos is appropriate . <S> You can learn this by saying <S> " How apropos! " <S> when you mean to say " How appropriate! " <S> (when you agree with someone on something) <A>
| "apropos" is a foreign word; I believe the most common use of this word is to indicate that someone has said something that sort of comes out of nowhere---hence the common expression "apropos" of nothing"--meaning--even tho we had been talking about X, Stella opened her mouth to comment on Y.
|
Cry over vs. cry all over What is the difference between the two sentences: I broke up with her and she cried over me. I broke up with her and she cried all over me. It's based in a song: Why does she sing her sad songs for me, I'm not the one To tenderly bring her soft sympathy, I've just begun To see my way clear and it's plain if I stop I will fall I can lay down a tear for her pain, just a tear and that's all What does she want me to do She says that she knows that moments are rare I suppose that it's true Then on she goes to say I don't care and she knows that I do Maybe she just has to sing for the sake of the song Who do I think that I am to decide that she's wrong She'd like to think that I'm cruel but she knows that's a lie for I would be No more than a tool if I allowed her to cry all over me But I don't know if this means that she would cry because of him or she cries to him, to persuade or use him like a consolation. <Q> When you say: I broke up with her <S> and she cried over me. <S> it means she was crying because you broke up. <S> It's your fault. <S> The object of cried over is generally the reason why. <S> I broke up with her <S> and she cried all over me. <S> To me (AmE) this does not sound natural, but pretty much it is literal. <S> She was crying and the tears fell on you. <S> But we don't know why she was crying. <A> For me, "cry over" means "cry about" or, perhaps, "cry because of". <S> If she "cried over me", then she cried about losing me, she cried, thinking about our relationship. <S> She lamented. <A> Both terms are used to look down upon someone for being emotional about something. <S> She cried over losing three points on her test <S> implies an over reaction. <S> To cry all over is an exaggeration of the same term: <S> She cried all over something as petty at that . <S> NB: either term can be used literally but that is not how I usually see them. <S> Maybe a cake at a picnic is ruined because the baby literally cried all over it, but that seems like a stretch.
| "Cry all over" would suggest that her tears actually fell on you.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.