source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Using the past perfect in questions From an ESL textbook. Write about something you accomplished : What did you accomplish ? How long had you been preparing for it ? How had you been preparing ? I don't know why it sounds weird to me. :( ?? <Q> It should not sound weird to you. <S> If it does it might be because you don't see this structure very frequently. <S> This is the past perfect and it is only used for a very specific situation. <S> It's a past tense about something that happened before <S> something else previously mentioned. <S> Something you accomplished (past) <S> Preparations for the accomplishment (happened before that) <S> Other Latin languages such as Spanish and French have exactly the same structure. <A> In my opinion there's no an overuse of past perfect here, like in the link <S> I provided: NOTE <S> The Romans had spoken Latin. <S> Remember that we only use the past perfect when we want to refer to a past that is earlier than another time in the narrative. <S> In our particular case there are two different past event sequences. <S> However this can be transformed in two different past event sequences using simple past: <S> What did you accomplish ? <S> How long did you prepare for it ? <S> How did you prepare ? <S> or to make it clearer we can use the adverb before : <S> What did you accomplish ? <S> How long did you prepare for it before ? <S> How did you prepare before ? <S> This said the use of either past perfect or past simple, in my opinion, depends on laying emphasis, focusing, style, etc. <S> though there might be cases (too many different past event sequences) when the use of past perfect becomes compulsory. <A> I don't see any sense in a single question in past perfect. <S> Past perfect is used in reference to another statement in the past, expressing a chronological order. <S> The statement in Past Perfect concerns something that was before the statement in Past Tense: <S> Last year we were on holiday in Italy. <S> The year before we had been in Greece.
| The most common mistake with the past perfect is to overuse it or to use it simply because we are talking about a time in the distant past.
|
When to use Finished vs Over? Why do we always say: The class is over. The time is over. The time of class is over. Why don't we say: The class is finished. <Q> Because in your experience, folks tend to use over to refer to discrete portions of a class (each class day) and to use finished to refer to the class as a whole. <S> As Fumble and JMB have noted, it would be equally credible and proper to use the word over as it would to use the word <S> finished and both words have definitions that denote ended ; completed . <S> That's where you can end up with a sentence like this: <S> He'd been slaving at his job over the weekend and is still there, even though it's now Monday and the weekend is over. <S> It may be for this reason that English speakers show a tendency to use over to refer to shorter durations or discrete elements, and finished for longer durations and entire collections, but that is entirely conjecture on my part. <A> The time is over sounds more natural to me than <S> The class is over , <S> According to the Longman dictionary, over is used for an event, an activity or period of time <S> The summer was nearly over To me, "over" means something like "exceed", time is always passing, but an event or period in time could be over (time exceed the period was assigned to it), <S> while finished means there is not much remained of something <A> The words are quite easily interchanged. <S> However, I have felt a slight preference to only use "finished" when the thing being discussed involved some sort of activity. <S> "Over" seems to be more applicable in any circumstance, but is more comfortably used for things that are not activities. <S> Thus we may say "Summer is over," or "My thesis is over," or "My thesis is finished," but it would be more unusual to see "Summer is finished," because a time period doesn't involve some activity. <S> If you see "Summer is finished," it means the same thing, but it may imply that the speaker felt Summer was doing something, and it completed doing that thing. <S> Likewise, if I were to say "My thesis is over," it means the same thing, but may imply that I felt the thesis was not completed, but some artificial time limit got in the way. <S> Most English speakers will not complain if the words are intermixed. <S> There are differences in emotional content between the words, but those are best grasped over time through use.
| The only substantive difference between the two words is that in addition to noting the completion or ending of something, the word over can also mean "throughout the duration of" or "while engaged in or occupied with" .
|
Difference between Adjective and Apposition Apposition : When one noun follows another to describe it, the noun which follows is said to be in apposition to the noun which comes before it. Adjectives : Words that are used to describe a noun. Aren't they both ( Adjectives and Apposition ) similar ? <Q> Adjective - a word like green, hungry, impossible, which is used when wedescribe people, things, events etc. <S> In numerous fixed expressions, an adjective is placed immediately after the noun it governs: <S> Examples : attorney-general, body politic, court martial.proper. <S> These are to be distinguished from cases in which an adjective justhappens to follow the noun it governs <S> Adjectives are used in connection with nouns and pronouns. <S> Examples : a green apple; She's hungry. <S> ========================================================================= <S> In the sentence - Sir James Murray, the lexicographer, was born in Hawick. <S> The second element, the lexicographer, is appositive to thefirst, Sir James Murray. <S> Similarly - The highest mountain in New Zealand, Mount Cook , is called Aorangi by the Maoris. <S> The second element, Mount Cook, is appositive to the first, Thehighest mountain in New Zealand. <S> The appositive is not an adjective .In <S> both cases the second element syntactically duplicates the first. <S> This is the most straightforward type of appositionin English. <S> (Reference-Fowler's Modern English Usage) <A> 1 <S> The capital of France, Paris, is the largest city of France. <S> 2 Paris, the capital of France, is a beautiful city. <S> In 1 the apposition is Paris, a single noun, in 2 the apposition is the capital of France, a noun group. <S> An appositon is always a noun/noun group, it is not an adjective. <S> Appositions can be derived from inserted explaining sentences which are shortened as 1a its name is Paris <S> 2a <S> it is the capital of France <S> Of course, if you call everything that modifies a noun an adjective you can easily get confused. <S> Adjective is a word class and the term should not be used as a cover name for articles, adjectives, relative clauses and appositions, which all modify a noun. <S> If you need a cover name you could use noun modifier or attribute (the Latin term), I use subelement to a noun. <A> There is such a thing as an appositive adjective. <S> In the clause, "John was a big boy, tall and strong, the adjectives "tall" and "strong" are appositive adjectives.
| An apposition is a noun/ noun group, after a noun, giving additional information to the first noun and separated with commas.
|
Why can't we say: "a person getting crossed"? You say to another "get dressed" (1. You say this when someone asks you what you are doing? "I am getting dressed.") But in the same way, why can't we say "get crossed" (crossing a street)? Edit: Sorry, but this question is about: a person getting crossed vs. a person getting dressed . <Q> You are exploring a parallel between "dress" and "cross": After one dresses, one is dressed. <S> After one crosses (a street), is one "crossed"? <S> The answer is no. <S> When one is finished dressing, one is dressed. <S> "Dressed" is a state that one takes on after dressing, the state of wearing clothes. <S> We can check whether a person is in this state by looking at him or her and noting whether we can see clothes or a naked body. <S> When one is finished crossing a street, one has not changed state, but location. <S> There is no state of a person being "crossed" (at least with respect to this meaning of "cross" -- see footnote). <S> Looking at a person, it is impossible to tell whether the person has crossed any given street. <S> Another possible explanation for this difference is that dress is intransitive -- it does not take an object -- or reflexive (I am dressing myself ). <S> Cross, on the other hand, is transitive. <S> Its object, in the example, is the street. <S> (footnote: <S> A famous example is Shakespeare's "star-crossed lovers," Romeo and Juliet. <S> Another common phrase is "double-crossed" as in " <S> the criminals were double-crossed by their associate.") <A> You can say the street is getting crossed, but that sounds unnatural because it sounds like the street is doing something. <A> I think it would be grammatically correct to say that the street is "getting crossed" when someone is currently crossing it, although it would be better to say that it is "being crossed". <S> A Street Being Crossed vs A Person <S> Getting Dressed <S> I think the difference, when compared to getting dressed, is that being 'dressed' is a persistent state. <S> Once I am dressed, I stay dressed until I undress. <S> How does a street become 'uncrossed'? <S> Instead, the street is either being crossed right now, or it isn't. <S> It won't stay 'crossed' after someone crosses it. <S> I mean, technically it is a street that has been crossed, and therefore could be describe as 'crossed' forevermore, but that's not a useful concept. <S> Once again, compare this to getting dressed. <S> You could say that one is "being dressed", but that means that clothes are currently being placed upon them, not that they have had clothes on for some time and still do. <S> For that persistent state, or condition, we say that they "are dressed". <S> In the process of "being dressed", they "got dressed", and now "are dressed". <S> Crossing a Person <S> To cross a person means to upset them. <S> If someone stole my red stapler, you could say that they crossed me. <S> One would not however say "I am crossed". <S> One would say that "I have been crossed" and that "I am cross". <S> This is another situation, rather than a condition, so we don't usually use 'get' here either. <S> In other words, one would not normally say "when I get crossed", but instead "when I am crossed". <S> Other Examples of "get [verb]-ed" <S> Get tattooed. <S> Get ripped. <S> Get injured. <S> Get drunk. <S> In all of these, "get" means "become". <A> Getting dressed is a reflexive action which can be reworded as I am dressing myself. <S> In other words, the person is acting upon himself, putting clothes on his own body. <S> Since the street is not part of the person's body, the phrase I am getting crossed makes little sense. <S> It has nothing to do with crossing a street, since that action is not performed by the person on himself but on another object (the street). <S> This is the best answer I can come up with given how you have worded your question. <A> Even in your revised sentence, it's the street that's being crossed because it's the subject of the sentence. <S> When a person says, 'I am getting dressed,' they are making themselves the subject. <S> It usually implies that they are dressing themselves, but could also be true if they are being assisted, as by a parent or costumer. <S> To address the other part of the query, there is an existing, though not very common, idiom. <S> A person 'getting crossed' would refer to them being disobeyed, or thwarted in some action by another person who is 'at cross purposes.' <S> You'd most commonly hear/see this sense in a story where someone says "Don't cross me." <A> As others have noted, dressing is a reflexive action—you do it to yourself, and when you are finished, you are in a different condition which is called dressed . <S> Others have also noted that "cross" is transitive; when you finish crossing, you are in a different position . <S> This position is called across the street , that is, on the other side of the street from where you started. <S> So you don't "get crossed", you get [yourself] across the street . <S> Incidentally, there is a reflexive sense of "cross". <S> It is called crossing oneself . <S> This is a religious practice, also called making the sign of the cross . <S> See, for example, http://www.kencollins.com/instructions/how-01.htm
| It is possible to say that a person is "crossed" when we use the sense of "to cross" that means "to oppose."
|
Can "of all strands" mean of "of all sorts"? Can I use the word "strand" to mean a "sort" of a "kind" of something, as in: Multiple books of all strands have been written on the issue? If not, what would be a good alternative? <Q> One could argue that it would be understood but it may not be accepted since it's not idiomatic. <S> Other options: types kinds sorts flavors ilks <S> forms <S> styles <S> varieties <S> If you want to be more specific, then be more specific . <S> Don't just make up a term and expect it to imply what you're trying to say. <S> Multiple books with differing opinions, motivations, and ideologies have been written on the issue. <A> The ODO defines the noun strand as "An element that forms part of a complex whole." <S> definition 1.2 of the noun . <S> This is an extension of the meaning of 1.0: "A single thin length of something such as thread, fiber, or wire, especially as twisted together with others <S> [my emphasis]." <S> So if I go outside and yank <S> some grass up <S> , I'm likely to end up with not only grass but maybe some weed(s), and/or a flower. <S> So, in a limited manner, I'll have plants of all strands in my hand. <S> And although I will also gave plants of all types/kinds , the meaning is not the same. <S> Strands are part of a complex whole (1.2). <S> Types and kinds do not have this meaning. <S> Synonyms for strand include: element, component, factor, ingredient, aspect, feature, strain <S> There are example sentences with strand in the ODO and other dictionaries that you can look at and learn from. <S> After examining these sentences and you feel that your original sentence works, then go for it. <S> You could perhaps also say something such as: Multiple books by authors of all strands (or: every strand) of thought have been written on the issue. <S> People come from all strands of life , and often authors write from all strands of thought . <S> In this sense, they are each a part of the complex whole. <S> And even though people of all kinds probably include people of all strands , the two terms are not the same. <S> This answer has attempted to show why. <S> If this is not what you want, you probably want to go with one of the synonyms for types that other answers have listed. <A> I personally have never heard of the expression of all strands . <S> Or something like this: Multiple books of different types... <A> "Strand" might be possible here <S> but I don't think it would be usual or the best choice. <S> There are many possible alternatives. <S> "Types" or "kinds" are the ones I would use. <S> There are probably better alternatives. <S> I would also consider changing "multiple" to "many" "a great many" "a huge number" or something similar.
| You could, however, use of all kinds to say what you mean: Multiple books of all kinds...
|
"drinking alcohol" vs "consuming alcohol". What's the difference? eg. He would will recover from his ailment if he stops consuming/drinking alcohol. <Q> You can use either consuming or drinking here, without any difference in meaning. <S> However, the use of the verb "consume" is formal. <A> It's a matter of which register you use. <S> Consuming alcohol is used for more impersonal registers. <S> What's a register, you ask? <S> Don't mind if I do. <S> English has more than just 2 registers (formal/informal).We <S> have (at least) 5 academically recognized registers. <S> Source: ( wikipedia ) <S> Frozen: <S> Also referred to as static register. <S> Printed unchanging language, such as Biblical quotations, often contains archaisms. <S> Examples are the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America and other "static" vocalizations that are recited in a ritualistic monotone. <S> The wording is exactly the same every time it is spoken. <S> Formal: <S> One-way participation; <S> no interruption; technical vocabulary or exact definitions are important; includes presentations or introductions between strangers. <S> Consultative: <S> Two-way participation;background information is provided – prior knowledge is not assumed. <S> " <S> Back-channel behavior" such as "uh huh", "I see", etc. is common. <S> Interruptions are allowed. <S> Examples include teacher/student, doctor/patient, expert/apprentice, etc. <S> Casual: <S> In-group friends and acquaintances; no background information provided; ellipsis and slang common; interruptions common. <S> This is common among friends in a social setting. <S> Intimate: <S> Non-public; intonation more important than wording or grammar; private vocabulary. <S> Also includes non-verbal messages. <S> This is most common among family members and close friends. <A> The verb drink is very often used to refer specifically to the sipping and swallowing of alcoholic beverages. <S> If a bartender asks, "Do you drink?" <S> she probably means "Do you drink alcohol?" <S> To consume (a cake) is to eat it, the idea being that you ate the whole thing. <S> As stated by @Khan,"consume is formal". <S> ( vocabulary.com) <S> He will recover from his ailment if he stops drinking alcohol. <S> Moderate drinking can be healthy—but not for everyone <A> I think there's rarely a difference in meaning, since almost all alcohol is consumed by drinking it. <S> As a result, the main reason why you would see one, instead of another, is likely to be due to formality. <S> However, technically, there are other ways of consuming alcohol - e.g. eating chocolates with liqueurs in them. <S> Also, it's not quite true that cooking completely removes all alcohol from food, so if you have, say, a wine-based sauce, or a Christmas pudding soaked in brandy, you're consuming some alcohol. <S> So "consume" could also be used more generically to mean 'any intake of alcohol by any means'. <A> "Consume alcohol" is formal, and it includes any method of ingesting alcohol that gets alcohol into your bloodstream (drinking, eating, or that other way we won't talk about) <S> "Drinking" is casual register; most people would NOT say that they "consume alcohol", and they don't usually say they "drink alcohol", they are more likely to say they drink beer, or wine, or whiskey, or tequila, etc. <S> (So If someone asks "Do you drink?" <S> or "Have you been drinking? <S> " they're not talking about drinking water, milk, or Coke!)
| Drinking any alcoholic beverage is generally referred to simply as "drinking".
|
Anymore in Affirmative Sentences Do you use anymore in the meaning of "no longer" only in negative or interrogative sentences? Will it be grammatical, if I use that adverb in the affirmative sentence? I see no possibility of managing this problem of climate change anymore . <Q> In Standard use (whatever that is), any is a Negative Polarity Item —it is used only in negative contexts. <S> Note, however, that your example I see no possibility of managing this problem of climate change anymore provides that negative context: you speak of no possibility, and that licenses any more (or anymore ). <S> In dialect use, however, the temporal expression any more is occasionally used in positive contexts, with the sense of being the antonym of the temporal expression not any more , meaning "no longer". <S> It has thus two possible senses. <S> If the ordinary negative <S> He doesn't go there any more. <S> means <S> He used to go there <S> but now he does not <S> , the positive version <S> He's going there <S> any more † may mean either He used to go there <S> and he still does. <S> (This was the sense when I heard the expression, and I think the sense in Yohann V.'s Lawrence quotation.) <S> or He didn't go there in the past, but now he does. <S> (This is the sense in Yohann V.'s Pynchon quotation.) <S> Only the context can inform you which is meant. <S> But both are non-Standard uses; avoid them. <S> † <S> This is in fact an actual utterance which I heard in the Missouri Ozarks in 1982 and remembered because it was the first time I had ever encountered positive any more . <A> Wiktionary gives three possible usages : any more (not comparable) <S> (in negative or interrogative constructions) From a given time onwards; longer, again. <S> They don't make repairable radios any more. <S> (colloquial, chiefly Northern Ireland, US, in positive constructions) <S> Now, from now on. <S> 1920, DH Lawrence, Women in Love: ‘Quite absurd,’ he said. <S> ‘Suffering bores me, any more.’ <S> 2009, Thomas Pynchon, Inherent Vice, Vintage 2010, page 268: <S> He's no longer <S> the wholesome Chamber of Commerce bigshot we used to know in the olden days, Doc, he's bad shit anymore. <S> To a greater extent (than). <S> I don't like Braques any more than I like Picasso. <A> Yes, you can use it exactly like your example. <S> See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anymore for an example very much like yours.
| While you are using a negative ( " no possibility" ) and talking about a negative sentence, it is possible to use it in both forms under conditions.
|
Difference between "faster than" and "as fast as" I want to say that, speed-of-A = (7/4)* speed-of-B. The two sentences that I can think of are: A runs 7/4 times faster than B. A runs 7/4 times as fast as B. I'm told that 1st version is incorrect. I do not understand why. Does it mean speed-of-A = (7/4)(B) + B? I remeber reading sentences like, this processor is 2 times faster than its predecessor . What does faster than actually mean? <Q> The first version is ambiguous. <S> In a mathematics course, it would be considered incorrect for this reason. <S> As you state in your question, the phrase times faster than could be taken to mean a multiplicative increase <S> (A = 1.75B) or an additive <S> increase <S> (A = 1.75B + B) . <S> By using the phrase times as fast as you are eliminating the possibility of the increase being additive by explicitly stating that it is multiplicative. <A> A runs 7/4 times faster than B. <S> Mathematically it means that the difference between A's speed and B's is 7/4 times B's speed, <S> that is A's speed is equal to B's speed plus 7/4 times B's speed. <S> So if we consider B's speed 1 (one unit) <S> then A's speed would be 1+7/4=2.75 units. <S> Conversely: <S> A runs 7/4 times as fast as B. means that the A's speed is 7/4 times B's speed. <S> So if B runs at 1 (one unit) <S> A runs at 1x7/4= 1.75 units. <A> The person telling you the first one is wrong is probably thinking of a different circumstance. <S> Suppose instead of "7/4 times" you had said 175% <S> , then you could say "75% faster" but still you would say "175% times as fast" (except nobody actually uses that phrasing, so it would confuse people). <S> And note that your way (either phrasing) is better because it is unambiguous. <S> Anyway, I'd guess that the person saying the first one is wrong is thinking of that circumstance and thinking you should say "3/7 faster" but again, with your inclusion of 'times' that is not the case. <A> The second is correct. <S> Or if you insist on fractions: A is 3/4 faster than B. Note that your first version is akin to 175% faster. <S> https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/186730/calculate-x-slower-faster
| Both of your versions are correct and mean exactly the same thing. The first version is wrong. If you still want to use "faster than" you could say: A is 75% faster than B.
|
Difference between "Thanks God" and "Thank God" What is the difference between Thanks God and Thank God, and can we use them in the same situation? For example: God gives us relatives; thank God, we can choose our friends. Can we use " Thanks God " instead of " Thank God "? If not, why? <Q> "Thanks" is an abbreviation of "thank you", so "Thanks, God" would be saying thank you as if speaking to God itself. " <S> Some Examples: <S> After narrowly avoiding a car while riding his bike, James looked up at the sky and said, "Thank you God!" <S> "Thank god!", responded Jennifer after hearing that James was unharmed. <S> I'm not certain <S> but it seems like the phrases expand to: <S> Thank God <S> > Let us thank God Thanks, God <S> > <S> Thank you, God <A> Thank God! <S> Thank heavens! <S> Thank my lucky stars! <S> are all interjections expressing a grateful emotion or sentiment. <S> It can be expressing more of a relief that you found your car keys or eye glasses or purse or cell phone... <S> *Thanks <S> God is not a standard expression. <S> In other words it's an error to use it by itself. <S> As others have said, you can have Thanks, God. <S> Thanks to God... <S> Thanks be to God... <S> The last one is slightly strange sounding due to its use of the subjunctive. <A> You would only say "Thank God". <S> "Thanks, God" would be colloquial in a strange way. <S> Religious individuals will often turn to the sky and say something more formal, perhaps "Thank you, my lord" in a rare and very positive circumstance. <S> However, many people will say "Thank God" at any small positive thing.
| Thank God" is a phrase spoken to someone else, suggesting that they are thankful to God for their good fortune.
|
Are these sentences simple or complex? They are not ever jealous for the cause, but jealous for they’re jealous. It is a monster begot upon itself, born on itself. In this example, are both of the sentences simple sentences? The first I think is compound. I'm not sure about the second one. Can anyone clarify for me? <Q> Simple sentences contain only one clause. <S> Your sentences both contain two clauses, so they are either compound or complex. <S> The difference between those two types is that compound sentences contain clauses linked by a coordinating conjunction such as and or a comma while a complex sentence links its clauses with a subordinating conjunction ( that , who ,...). <S> Your first sentence is complex. <S> But is a subordinating conjunction. <S> The first clause is your main clause and what follows the <S> but is your subclause. <S> However, this may not be clear due to ellipsis. <S> A large part of the second clause is omitted. <S> The two can also be combined into a compound complex or a complex compound sentence, but that is not applicable here. <A> The matrix clause has one subject, one verb, and two complements. <S> They are coordinate complements joined by the correlative conjunction "not ... but". <S> Subject: they Verb: are Complement 1: ever jealous for the cause Complement 2: <S> jealous for they're jealous <S> Inside the second complement is another clause. <S> The subject and verb of this clause are contracted: "they're". <S> The conjunction "for" attaches the clause <S> "they're jealous" to the preceding word "jealous". <S> The subordinate clause fulfills the function of an adverb, supplying a cause or purpose to the adjective. <S> The second sentence, although complicated, is not complex -- at least, not when I parse it. <S> There is only one clause. <S> It has one subject, one verb, and one complement with two participial modifiers. <S> Subject: it Verb: is Simple Complement: <S> a monster "Begot upon itself" is a participial phrase. <S> The "begot" is a non-finite verb. <S> It doesn't have a tense, it doesn't require a subject, and it doesn't form a clause. <S> "Born on itself" is the same. <S> Each of these phrases modifies the word "monster". <S> There do exist analytical frameworks which insist that non-finite verb forms do create clauses. <S> I don't use such a framework because I find that to be an unnecessary complication. <S> If you are using such a framework, then you'll have to consider your second sentence as a complex sentence with two subordinate clauses. <S> If your framework is like mine, then you should consider your second example as a simple sentence with two participial phrases in the complete subject complement. <S> Regardless of whether the sentence is simple or complex -- that is, whether the participles form phrases or clauses -- the sentence contains asyndetic coordination. <S> "Begot upon itself" and "born on itself" are joined by a comma. <S> Syndetic coordination would use a conjunction between those two constituents: "begot upon itself and born on itself". <S> Even though there are coordinate elements, and even if you consider those elements to be clauses, those elements are not independent clauses. <S> For that reason, neither one of your example sentences count as compound sentences. <A> I would say the second sentence is a compound sentence, too. <S> Compound sentences use coordination. <S> The means of coordinating two clauses can be a coordinating conjunction (and, but, so, yet) or simply arranging two clauses one after the other, mostly separated by a semi-colon, but often also simply by a comma. <S> It is a monster begot upon itself, (it is a monster) born on itself. <A> I would analyse the first sentence as a clause complex containing three clauses (clause separation indicated by '||'), and the second sentence as a clause simplex (simple sentence) which has a nominal group modified by an embedded clause (indicated by '[[ ]]'). <S> The embedded clause actually contains two clauses, but they are both functioning as modifiers of 'a monster' <S> and so it is one simple sentence. <S> (They) (are not) (ever) <S> (jealous) (for the cause), || but (they) <S> (are) (jealous) || for (they) <S> (’re) (jealous). <S> (It) <S> (is) (a monster [[begot upon itself, || born on itself]] ).
| Your second sentence is a compound sentence. As I parse it, the first sentence is complex.
|
what is the difference between nude/naked? What is the difference between nude/naked? As for me both has same meaning Naked - (of a person or part of the body) without clothes. Nude - wearing no clothes; naked. How to use these words separately? <Q> I think it was Robert Heinlein who said, "Nude is sexy. <S> Naked is defenseless." <S> This is one of those cases where dictionary definitions of the two words might well be the same, but there are subtle differences in shades of meaning. <S> As others have noted, we generally use "nude" to refer to art. <S> It's generally used to refer to lack of clothing in a "positive" sense: artistic or sexy. <S> " <S> Nude models", a "nude scene" in a movie, "nude beaches", etc. <S> " <S> Caught naked", "naked and helpless", "the prisoner was stripped naked", etc. <S> Also, "nude" is, I think, exclusively used for human bodies, while "naked" can be used in many contexts. <S> You can say "the naked blade of a knife". <S> No one says "the nude blade of a knife". <S> Or, "When he realized the danger he felt raw and naked terror." No one would say "... nude terror". <A> This is purely in the context of a person who's either naked or nude (not naked eyes, truth etc.). <S> While both mean the same (as dictionaries suggest), I think 'naked' is a bit offensive as compared to 'nude'. <S> Because in art colleges, they have 'nude' paintings. <S> Said that, if a girl is nude, maybe, the purpose could be artistic. <S> But, if a girl is naked, probably you peeked through some hole! <S> That is the reason that someone may pose nude, but never 'naked'. <S> Again, I repeat that both are interchangeable in many cases unless you want to stay totally clear. <A> OALD explains nude is mostly used in reference to art: a nude model, a nude painting, a nude photo. <A> Along with artistic, nude is also a legal term, which naked isn't. <S> In most states, indecent exposure (nudity) laws pertain only to post pubertal persons.
| "Naked" is usually used to refer to lack of clothing in a "negative" sense: defenseless, embarrassing, exposed.
|
When do I use "are" instead of "is" with a measurement? When writing measurements or time, do you use the plural form "are" or the singular form "is"? For example: There [is/are] 12 inches in a foot. There [is/are] 12 months in a year. <Q> You use "is" for singular words and "are" for plurals. <S> Examples: <S> There [is/ are ] 12 inches in a foot. <S> You need to use "are" because "inches" is plural ; there is more than one inch. <S> There [ is /are] 1 inch for every 2.54 centimetres. <S> The same rule is followed for your second example: There <S> [is/ are ] 12 months in a year. <S> There [ is /are] <S> 1 month until your birthday. <A> There are twelve inches in a foot. <S> There are twelve months in a year. <S> Here, "are" makes sense. <S> The inches and months are individual and countable. <S> Twelve inches is big enough. <S> Twelve months is long enough. <S> Here, "is" makes sense. <S> The inches or months indicate a singular measurement. <S> It's one given length or one given duration that is sufficient. <S> In the first example, we could say "twelve individual inches" or "twelve separate inches" without changing the meaning of the sentence. <S> We cannot sensibly say "individual" or "separate" in the second example. <S> The subjects there are one continuous twelve-inch length and one continuous twelve-month duration. <A> A priori, which one to choose depends on your point of view: Are 12 inches / 12 months plurals or are they measurements? <S> There are 12 inches in a foot. <S> (Last time I counted them, it was still true.) <S> There is [a length of] 12 inches in a foot. <S> (Last time I measured a foot, this statement was correct up to an error < 0.5%.) <S> There are 12 months in a year. <S> (I love every one of them.) <S> There is [a duration of] 12 months in a year. <S> (If you count February as a full month. <S> If we take a month to be 30.5 days, there is only about 11.97 months in a year.) <S> However, in English prescriptive grammar there is a tendency to regard such singulars where a plural would be more straightforward as errors, and even to treat measurements as plurals when this makes no sense. <S> For instance, those who subscribe to the prescriptive rule that since fewer cannot be used for uncountable quantities, less cannot be used for countables, tend to use fewer even when it gives the wrong impression, as in "I live fewer than 2 kilometres from the station". <S> (Technically this means that I live 0 kilometres or 1 kilometre from the station, but it is more likely meant to describe a distance strictly between 1 and 2 kilometres.) <S> Therefore, even though the variants with is occur in natural speech by native speakers, written English usually has are , and this is generally considered the only correct option. <S> (I am not a native speaker of English. <S> In my native German, the equivalent of the variant with are <S> is <S> definitely the only correct one, even in colloquial speech. <S> That's why I have paid some attention to the different situation in English.)
| You need to use "is" here because "inch" is singular ; there is only one inch.
|
What is the precise meaning of "scenic" and "wild" here? The Alatna River is one of the six federally designated wild and scenic rivers partially contained within the boundaries of Gates of the Arctic National Park, Alaska. It is called one of the most beautiful rivers in the United States. What is the precise meaning of scenic and wild here? ( source ) <Q> It looks like it's a classification from the US government. <S> Related to an act of the US congress to protect and preserve US rivers. <S> River Classification <S> Rivers are classified as wild, scenic, or recreational. <S> Wild River Areas – <S> Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. <S> These represent vestiges of primitive America. <S> Scenic River Areas – <S> Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. <S> Recreational River Areas – <S> Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. <S> Regardless of classification, each river in the National System is administered with the goal of protecting and enhancing the values that caused it to be designated. <S> Designation neither prohibits development nor gives the federal government control over private property. <S> Recreation, agricultural practices, residential development, and other uses may continue. <S> Protection of the river is provided through voluntary stewardship by landowners and river users and through regulation and programs of federal, state, local, or tribal governments. <S> http://www.rivers.gov/wsr-act.php <A> These aren't terms defined by U.S. Legislation. <S> Common English here, but precise. <S> Wild is an ecological term, which probably references the lack of human impact in these areas. <S> Human impact of any kind is absolutely prohibited in most federal and state parks in the united states. <S> Scenic probably means that it has facilities for tourists. <S> There are probably hiking trails, overlooks, a visitor's center, etc. <S> Not sure about this one, it could also refer to how the beauty of the area attracts tourists. <A> Actually, those terms are defined by U.S. legislation. <S> As noted earlier, when a river is designated into the National Wild & Scenic Rives System, it is given one of three classifications for management and protection purposes -- wild, scenic, or recreational. <S> Wild River Areas – <S> Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. <S> These represent vestiges of primitive America. <S> Scenic River Areas – <S> Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. <S> Recreational River Areas – <S> Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. <S> These are defined in Section 2(b) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, Public Law 90-542. <S> BTW: <S> This answer was written by a member of the Interagency Wild & Scenic Rivers Council, so this should considered the definitive answer. <S> Scenic River Areas – <S> Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. <S> Recreational River Areas – <S> Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.
| Wild is often used as the inverse of domesticated which refers to things that have been so heavily influenced by humans that their essence changes.
|
Can someone explain to me what are the subject and the object in this sentence? Example 1: Some of the grain appears to be contaminated. Why the subject is "some" and not "Grain"? Example 2: Pierre puts a lot of garlic in his food. The subject here is "Pierre," but what is the indirect and direct object?Is "Puts a lot of garlic" the indirect object? And "food" a direct object? I am very confused about subjects, direct objects, and indirect objects. Sometimes just "man" by itself is a subject. Sometimes "a man" is. Help me. <Q> Some of the grain appears to be contaminated. <S> The subject here is not some alone, but the phrase some of the grain . <S> Subjects can be phrases as well as words. <S> Pierre puts a lot of garlic in his food. <S> Pierre is the subject, as you correctly pointed out. <S> To determine the direct object, ask yourself, "What does Pierre put? <S> " <S> The answer is a lot of garlic , which is the direct object. <S> I don't think there is an indirect object here, in his food <S> is an adverb phrase that describes where Pierre put the garlic. <A> Why is "some" the subject and not "grain"? <S> Consider this analogous pattern: One of the singers is getting married next week. <S> You wouldn't expect "singers" (plural) to be the subject, right? <S> or A member of the crew has a fever. <S> Some of the food had spoiled, but the canned food was OK. <A> pierre (subject) puts (transitive verb requires an object). <S> the object is "garlic." <S> "in his food" is an adverb phrase which modifies/refers to where pierre put the garlic. <S> "Man" is best translated, perhaps, by "all human beings. <S> ""the <S> " man uses the article "the" to indicate you are talking about one, specific, male.
| The verb is puts .
|
Which form is suitable: "fall" "falling" or "a fall"? I hear a book fall . I hear a book falling . I hear a fall of a book. Which version is most natural? <Q> If you are narrating a story and it goes something like this: As I entered the room, I heard the creaking sound of the door being blown open by the wind. <S> The cupboards behind me were covered with dust and there were a few tattered books lying on the shelf. <S> As I stepped forward, I heard a book fall from the shelf. <S> If the book is still in the process of falling, you could use 'heard a book falling'. <S> The third one is a little too exaggerated. <S> We normally don't use 'the fall of' for things like books. <S> Hope that helped! <A> None of the above. <S> The action described is over so quickly, that it would have completed before you had the chance to speak. <S> Therefore you'd use the past tense. <S> The most natural expression is: I heard a book fall. <S> For a more literary, dramatic phrase, you could write: <S> I heard the fall of a book <S> but you'd be very unlikely to actually say this. <A> Of course, you don't actually hear it fall, you hear it hit the floor, but the presumption that it fell is so strong that the phrase is reasonable, <S> especially if the reason for the fall (did an unknown party/enemy knock it off the shelf?) <S> is important. <S> If there are many books, and they fall as part of a drawn-out process, you can say "I hear some books falling". <S> Finally, while books don't make an appreciable noise, some objects do, so you might say "I heard a bomb falling toward my position, so I jumped into my foxhole and prayed." <S> As Aishwara <S> A R has remarked, "I hear the fall of a book" is unlikely, but it's grammatically correct. <S> Subject to the objection that you don't actually hear the fall, but rather the impact with the floor.
| Ordinarily, you would use "I hear a book fall".
|
What is the difference between “refer the letter” and “refer to the letter”? I’m asking about usage of “refer” and “refer to”. Can one say “refer to the letter”? Is “refer the letter” enough? <Q> Refer to the letter basically means to check the letter for information. <S> Refer the letter <S> means send or forward the letter to someone. <A> Refer can mean that someone is referring to something, usually for information (e.g. refer to a letter, refer to Wikipedia, refer to the manual etc) and it can also mean to send some person to someone else for further investigation. <S> E.g. "I will refer my patient to a heart specialist", or "I'll refer you to an hand-writing expert to analyse the letter". <S> However, I cannot think of a valid usage case for referring an object in this way e.g. "I will refer the letter to a hand-writing expert". <A> You may also hear " I refer you to the letter ". <S> In this context, refer means "direct the attention of someone to". <S> "Refer the letter" is not a complete sentence, as it is missing a subject. <S> You might say "refer the letter to your legal team". <S> Here, "refer" means "send or direct someone to".
| "Refer to the letter" is an instruction asking someone to look to a specific letter for reference .
|
What does “dead-on” mean here? "Dead on" means accurate or exact. I don't find that the meaning fits its usage here well: Avoid frontal shots with straight lines Many camera phone lenses suffer from barrel distortion (straight lines appear to bow), especially when you get close to your subject. Avoid taking dead‑on photographs of building façades. Try to keep straight lines away from the edges of the frame, where the distortion will be greatest and most obvious. If you shoot from the ground up, buildings will probably appear to narrow near the top in your photograph. Unless you want this effect, photographing building corners and avoiding dead‑on shots of façades make perspective distortions less noticeable. Source: The Camera Phone Book, by Aimee Baldridge What does it mean in the text then? Thanks. <Q> Dead on a target means facing or aiming precisely at that target, or precisely centered at that target. <S> ELU has a post about its etymology . <A> It’s a bit of a strange usage, and I wasn’t able to find the intended meaning in any dictionaries. <S> It’s an extension of the meaning you found. <S> If you picture shooting something (other than pictures) at the front of the building, then shots from many angles would miss or glance off the surface while a shot directly facing the building will hit it squarely in the middle (accurately, exactly). <S> A dead-on shot would hit at 90°, like the red (left-most) line here: Dead-on, straight-on, direct, directly facing: Offset, corner, from the side: <A> With common buildings made with vertical walls, dead-on means that you are holding your camera in such a way that you are looking horizontally, neither slightly upward nor slightly downward and with the plane of the phone's viewing screen parallel with the plane of a wall of the building. <S> You might also take a dead-on picture of a friend by lining up your shot so that you aim your phone so that the person is looking directly at the phone, much as though they are looking squarely into a mirror.
| Dead-on in the camera phone sense occurs when the screen is parallel with the face of the building.
|
Putin's vice like grip -- what does "vice" mean here? Example with a context (Putin's Holy War And The Disintegration Of The 'Russian World') : The issue is not so much church governance, but a desire for greater political autonomy from the Kremlin in light of Moscow’s actions in Ukraine, a fact that both Belarussian strongman Alexander Lukashenko, who is trying to distance himself from Putin’s vice like grip , and Vladimir Putin, both understand well. I'm not sure how to interpret that part. <Q> The normal way to write that is with a hyphen: <S> vice-like grip See the definition of -like in the ODO. <S> Thus, a very strong grip. <S> In this context, it's not his handshake we're talking about, but grip in the sense of political control. <S> It's a colorful way to reference that power and control, with strong negative connotations—I can't imagine a non-ironic phrase where someone wanted to be in a "vise-like grip". <A> A vice-like grip commonly denotes a very strong grip, like that of wood being held on a workbench. <S> In the case you mention with Putin, some additional connotations and nuances are possibly implied: <S> Once in the grip of a vice , be it a literal or metaphorical one, it is difficult to escape. <S> Vice is a category of crime, and many state that Putin has led Russia into a kleptocracy, where the country is run by gangsters. <S> Of the many vices, avarice and covetousness come rapidly to mind in your example, headlined "Holy War". <S> In religion, the vices are categorized as The Seven Deadly Sins . <A> A "vice" is a mechanical device designed for holding objects (like bars of metal) and a key thing is - to not let go, even if there are strains and stresses on the thing that is being held (for instance sawing, drilling, etc) <S> The other thing is that the grip of a vice is so strong that you can easily deform the object that you place in the device. <S> So when we say a "vice-like grip" it is referring to grip of the vice as a point of reference so people will understand just how tight they mean - so tight that there is no way it is being let go.
| Literally, a vice-like grip would be a grip like that of a vise/vice , which is a mechanical device for holding things in place.
|
Do "living with no rules" and "living without rules" have the same meaning? As the title said, Do these 2 sentences have the same meaning? <Q> Both mean the same and are grammatically correct but 'live without rules' sounds better. <A> However, the first one can be (but does not necessarily have to be) used to emphasize the fact that there are no rules, while the second one is a statement without real emphasis. <A> The two formulations mean the same. <S> I would say "without" is the normal thing as it is one word and shorter. <A> I could just stop there, but I should mention that there is possibly a very subtle distinction. <S> "Living without something " can have an additional connotation that the something is too expensive to be worthwhile. <S> Illustration: <S> "You're telling me that the car's built-in GPS will cost $500 to fix? <S> In that case, I'll live without it." <S> Meaning: the GPS will probably remain in the car, not working, because I don't want to spend $500 to fix it. <S> For that usage, "I'll live with no GPS" would not be quite as good an expression, partly because the GPS unit is physically still present, and partly because "living without" can have the additional sense of "surviving or making do with a worse option". <S> So, you could say: "If the only way to make rules to control noise in the neighborhood is to form a homeowners' association, then we'll just live without the rules". <S> It wouldn't be quite right to say "we'll just have to live with no rules", since it's still not a lawless society. <S> I could just stop there, but I could go yet further and mention that "living without the rules" could have a completely different interpretation altogether. <S> Without can be used as the opposite of within , though such usage is archaic or literary. <S> Therefore, it is possible to interpret it as the opposite of "living within the rules", but that is a very twisted interpretation — probably one that no sane person would think of.
| For all practical purposes, an English language learner should consider "living with no rules" and "living without rules" to be synonymous. Yes, the sentences mean the same.
|
Why is "would" used in this passage? He retired to his country estate, where he recorded his reflections on politics. Two of his books would become classics in political theory: Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy, a set of essays on ancient and modern politics, and The Prince, a potent little book that would shock readers for centuries. I do not understand why this passage uses "would" and "would become" instead of "will" and "will become". It is a fact that they did, isn't it? <Q> It is a story-telling convention. <S> If something still lies in the future from the perspective of the narrative, we speak of it as conditional, not as a present fact. <S> So, within the narrative, Machiavelli has just retired to his country estate: the success of his books still lies in the future. <S> But we know that they will be successful, since for us that success is in the past. <S> So, instead of saying that they will be succesful, we signal the tension between what we know has happened and what (from Machiavelli's perspective) hasn't yet happened by saying that the books would be successful. <A> In this context, saying "will become" means that the event still lies in the future at time of writing. <S> That's not what the author wanted to say. <S> The event is in the past at the time of writing, and in the future at the time we're talking about. <S> English has (at least) two ways to express this. <S> We use "would" as a past form of "will" as in these examples. <S> It's also possible to say, "two of his books were to become classics " and "a potent little book that was to shock readers". <A> Example: <S> About Magellan: He married the daughter of Diogo Barbosa. <S> He had two daughters from her, both of whom died at a young age. <S> She would die in Seville around 1521.
| Sometimes "would" is used as a prognosis from the past.
|
The use of an article before a possessive proper noun - The late Michael Jackson's old home I was pretty confirmed of not using any article before a proper noun that shows possessiveness. The Maulik's car -incorrect Maulik's car -correct But then, I came across this piece of news on PopDust The late Michael Jackson’s old home, Neverland Ranch, renamed back to its original name of Sycamore Valley Ranch, is up for sale for a reported $100 million. Explain please. <Q> Normally, a person's name is definite enough by itself, and there's no reason to add the definite article to it. <S> So, Maulik is simply "Maulik", and Maulik's car is simply "Maulik's car". <S> Sometimes, a person's name isn't quite definite enough. <S> Perhaps there is more than one Maulik. <S> We might need to distinguish between Mauliks. <S> I could say "the Maulik who asked this question" or "the Maulik from Ahmedabad". <S> Perhaps the other Maulik is shorter, and I could say "the taller Maulik". <S> Once we've added a modifier to your name -- anything from a simple adjective to an entire relative clause -- then we can no longer treat the name itself as definitive. <S> We have reason to use the definitive article. <S> That reason remains regardless of grammatical case. <S> We use "the" with the possessive case the same as we do with the subjective and objective cases. <A> I do believe that when an adjective comes before the person's name, then an article is common and fine, either to express a nominative or a possessive. <S> That is, if we can say <S> The late Michael Jackson , it appears we can also say The late Michael Jackson's old home . <S> For uses of the nominative case: The novel (also film): The Talented Mr Ripley And native speakers here in the US <S> and I presume the UK would have no problem saying the talented Mr Ripley's apparel , for instance. <S> Or: <S> The ridiculously popular Homer Simpson's son is named Bart. <S> For the indefinite article, consider A worn-out Mr Jones's worn-out jacket . <S> But you don't have to have an adjective. <S> A Mr Jones's worn-out jacket is all that kept the lad warm. <S> Here, the lad is wearing a jacket of a certain Mr Jones, whose exact identity is not critical. <S> I thought I already mentioned (in a comment to a question previously raised by Maulik about the following term) <S> The Maulik is not ungrammatical, however unusual or uncommon. <S> So, although unsual and representing a special usage, The Maulik's car was on fire <S> is also not incorrect, in and of itself. <A> In answer to Damkerng's question I think this whole topic is horribly complicated. <S> While the general rules of expressing possession are clear enough and we even teach them to children at a very young age, actually there are a number of special cases which are very complex. <S> The reason for this, as I understand it, is that although English has, over the centuries, tended towards simplification of rules, this possessive is a survivor from a time when noun endings changed as in Latin (genitive). <S> Most native speakers, even English teachers such as myself, get confused beyond a certain point. <S> If somebody had asked me or any of my colleagues the original question in class, not many of us could have given pazzo's answer which looks correct. <A> I'll go about this from a syntactic point of view using phrase structure rules. <S> The structure of a noun phrase in English is: NounPhrase -> (Determiner) (Adjective +) <S> Noun (PrepositionalPhrase +) (How English Works; <S> Curzan 175) <S> Determiner <S> : Words like "the", "a", etc. <S> Adjective : <S> Words like "late", "great", "strong", etc. <S> Noun : Words like "car", "computer", plural forms, possessive forms, proper nouns (names) such as "Michael Jackson", etc. <S> PrepositionalPhrase : <S> Phrases that start with a preposition (e.g. "at", "in", etc.), and are followed by a NounPhrase , e.g. "at the beach", "in the house", etc. <S> The notation of ( ITEM ) means that ITEM is optional, and not required to form the NounPhrase. <S> The notation of ITEM + means that there can be 1 or more of ITEM (e.g. "the strong, courageous woman"). <S> So, here's how The late Michael Jackson’s parses: <S> Determiner Adjective ProperNounPlural <S> If we look at our NounPhrase rule, this part of the sentence exactly conforms! <S> So, syntactically, this is absolutely correct, because determiners can precede nouns in a noun phrase. <S> As you have noted, it seems incorrect to use a determiner before a possessive noun, but the adjective is what compliments the determiner. <S> There are more complicated phrase structure rules, but even from the basics we can see that syntactically, the sentence is valid. <S> However, we also note that the adjective is used to compliment the determiner when used before a possessive noun, and is just another quirk of English! <S> Edit : You may also be interested in using the Stanford Sentence Parser in order to get a sense of what each word functions as, and what its place is in a sentence.
| Errors in the use of apostrophe for possession are often made by native speakers.
|
Care for a lift What does that mean? I've come across it in one movie: One guy is being chased by some other which are trying to kill him. And suddenly another man came on the car to help the chased guy out. He said: Care for a lift. What may it mean? <Q> In British English, offering someone a lift means offering to drive them somewhere in your car. <S> (An American might say ride instead of lift.) <S> "I gave James a lift to the shops." <S> "Care for a...?" is a polite way of asking if somebody wants something. <S> "Would you care for another cucumber sandwich?" <S> Using excessively polite language in a situation that doesn't call for it, and asking questions to which the answer is very obvious indeed are both found humorous in Britain. <S> So by combining both, the man is taking the opportunity to make a joke out of helping the chased guy. <A> It's a joke. <S> It's a very polite way of saying "Would you like me to take you with me? <S> " It's not really appropriate in that situation. <S> This type of joke is very usual in action movies. <A> If we were at a party, and you were going to walk home, I might say: It's cold outside. <S> Let me give you a lift. <S> That's essentially the same thing as: <S> It's cold outside. <S> Let me give you a ride home. <S> NOAD defines this as: lift ( n. ) a free ride in another person's vehicle <S> The phrase care for , when used at the beginning of a question, is essentially the same as <S> do you want or would you like . <S> So <S> : Care for a lift? <S> means: <S> Would you like for me to give you a ride? <S> or: Want to join me in my car, so I can take you somewhere?
| A lift is a somewhat informal term for a ride [in the car].
|
Does reading by itself lead to speaking well? I'm curious about how non-native speakers learn to speak well in their countries. Aside from today's technology, they don't have the access to the spoken language. But people living hundreds of years ago could speak in different languages. Do you find that reading can lead to speaking well? <Q> Reading a lot will among others increase your knowledge of vocabulary and culture. <S> However, it is very difficult to actually learn how to speak by just reading a language. <S> Even if you know how to read phonetic transcriptions, you're bound to make mistakes if you don't actually practice the language and speak it with others. <S> Learning a language and learning how to use it well is complicated and takes a lot of time and practice. <S> No, it will not help you speak a language perfectly. <S> For that you will really need to practice by speaking it yourself and listening to others. <S> So combine reading with listening and speaking. <S> This may even be listening to audio fragments or the radio etc and then repeating what has been said. <A> You have to learn to formulate in written form and find your own formulation exercises. <S> The oftener you formulate ideas about what you are reading the better your skill to formulate will become. <S> And your skill to speak. <S> Reading is something passive, formulating is something active. <S> Study how people write and talk on forums. <A> From my personal experience, anyway, reading (and writing) does not help all that much. <S> I can read & write several languages: I can't actually speak anything but English, and that not all that well. <S> My understanding of spoken language is also much less than written. <S> The last is even true of English. <S> I'd guess my written vocabulary - words I've seen written, would know the meaning of, and could use in a sentence <S> - is as least 5-10 times larger than the words I've ever heard used in speech.
| Reading alone won't help you much. So:Yes, reading will help you improve your skill in and knowledge of a language.
|
Joke about catching a tame rabbit I can't understand this: How do you catch a tame rabbit? The tame way I found that tame means: not dangerous or frightened of people; domesticated. But how does this fit into the joke? <Q> I suspect this joke is intended to follow one about catching a wild rabbit. <S> Therefore, it's a wordplay based on lisping "the same way [as you catch a wild rabbit]" as "the t ame way". <S> It's not really all that funny <S> , so don't worry about it. <A> Half the joke is missing: <S> Q: How do you catch a wild rabbit? <S> A: Dress in orange and make a noise like a carrot. <S> It is "funny" because carrots don't make noise, and it results in a goofy mental image. <S> Now follow up with the joke in the question: <S> Q: How do you catch a tame rabbit? <S> A: <S> The tame way. <S> It is "funny" because the listener is expecting an answer like the answer to the first joke — some sort of goofy visual imagery. <S> Instead, they are given a little bit of wordplay, as described in other answers. <S> The resulting cognitive dissonance provides hours of entertainment. <S> (The unexpected answer is funny.) <A> This joke is not actually a joke but more of a play on words. <A> I suspect the joke assumes knowledge of the Looney Tunes character Tweety Bird, and maybe Bugs Bunny. <S> Tweety pronounces 's' sounds as 't', so if you asked Tweety how to catch a tame rabbit (vs catching Bugs Bunny, maybe), he would say 'The same way,' and it would sound like 'The tame way.' <S> Or maybe I'm reaching too hard. <S> As Nathan Tuggy said, not all that funny. <A> Q. <S> How do you catch a rabbit? <S> A. <S> You sneak up on it <S> Q. <S> How do you catch a unique rabbit? <S> A. Unique up on it Q. <S> How do you catch a tame rabbit? <S> A. <S> The tame way, unique up on it. <S> I tend to regard the joke as a form of anti-humor. <S> There's a little bit of word play going on, using homonyms to create something that is nonsense but sounds like something meaningful, and therein lies the amusement. <S> It's along the same lines as a more famous type of anti-joke: <S> Q. <S> Why did the chicken cross the road? <S> A. <S> To get to the other side Q. <S> Why did the chicken cross the playground? <S> A. <S> To get to the other slide Q. <S> Why did the chicken cross the ocean? <S> A. <S> To get to the other tide <S> And there are many more of these kinds of jokes. <S> Sometimes they take on a cultural value where people entertain each other by taking turns reciting them. <S> They were all quite popular at my preschool.
| This joke is based on the way that tame and same sound or more specifally the fact that they sound similar.
|
Uses of "have you had" and "did you have" When to use have you had and did you have in sentence? e.g. 1) To ask some if he had his lunch or not? Have you had your lunch? Or Did you have your lunch? 2) To ask some if he faced this situation in past or not? Have you had this situation when you were doing this? Or Did you have this situation when you were doing this? <Q> 1) "Have you had lunch?" is preferred. <S> The phrasing suggests that you're asking something about how the person currently is, specifically whether he is hungry. <S> If you were asking about events from a week ago, then "did you have your lunch? <S> " would be equally as good as "had you eaten/had your lunch?" <S> 2) <S> In a similar manner, I suggest that "Did you have this problem when you were doing this?" is preferred, as it is asking about a past timeframe. <S> If they were both still working on the project, one could ask "Have you had this problem?" <A> I'll add another answer because your second set of phrases is slightly different when I read them: For the first set: Have you had your lunch? <S> My mind reads it as: <S> Have you already eaten/consumed your lunch? <S> While the second sentence <S> Did you have your lunch? <S> Means the same thing, but the tense is slightly different. <S> I read it as: <S> Did you already eat your lunch? <S> For your second set of questions, neither feel very good: <S> Have you had this situation when you were doing this? <S> Here, had <S> isn't a good word as it is not exact enough and when you were doing this is assumed from context. <S> My mind reads it as: <S> Have you ever encountered this situation? <S> where in your past experiences is implied. <S> The second one, <S> Did you have this situation when you were doing this? <S> is closer, but still sounds a little strange, mostly because you use this twice in the same sentence, but with slightly different meanings on both. <S> I understand it, but would avoid using this structure. <A> In most contexts, both are usable. <S> I would say the key difference between "Have you (done X)" and "Did you (do X)" is the timeframe. <S> While did specifies a particular time and asks if it happened then. <S> When you don't specify the time, have defaults to either ever or recently . <S> Since almost everyone has had lunch at least once in their life, we assume the more useful question of whether they've had it today. <S> Did requires an expected time. <S> In the lunch context, most would assume "at any time today". <S> This makes the second example interesting to me; I interpret the when statement as specifying the time for the did, but as clarifying the hypothetical event for the had. <S> Have you (had this happen when you did this)? <S> vs. <S> When you did this, did you (have this happen)?
| I believe have refers to a continuous past and asks if something has happened since a particular time.
|
I haven't slept well vs I didn't sleep well yesterday? If someone tells you that you look tired? What do you say? 1- I haven't slept well. or 2- I didn't sleep well yesterday. <Q> I haven't slept well. <S> This does not indicate any timeframe. <S> It is possible you did not sleep well for a day, week, month, etc. <S> I didn't sleep well yesterday. <S> Here we know it was only one day (yesterday). <A> 1 <S> I haven't slept well.2 <S> I didn't sleep well. <S> In 1 your sentence is an explanation of your present appearane. <S> Your sentence refers to the present situation. <S> In 2 you have in mind a thing in the past. <S> Both sentences could be used, but I think 1 would be more appropriate. <A> You could say either. <S> "I haven't slept well" could mean that you didn't sleep well last night or for several nights. <S> As another person explained, it doesn't imply a timeframe. <S> I would add that the seemingly similar phrase, "I haven't been sleeping well", actually means something different from "I haven't slept well. <S> " <S> This is because "I haven't been sleeping well" has a timeframe. <S> It implies that you haven't slept well in at least 3 or so days. <S> "I didn't sleep well yesterday" means that you only slept badly last night. <S> Although this phrase isn't technically incorrect, and virtually every English speaker would understand it, I would suggest saying "I didn't sleep well last night" because this is more similar to what a native speaker might say. <A> I can't think of any time or way I would ever say "I haven't slept well. <S> " If it's been a problem for some time, I would use present perfect continuous : I haven't been sleeping well. <S> I might add "last night" (although it's already implied), but "yesterday" is odd, unless you are someone who sleeps during the daytime. <S> I believe that the difficulty with present perfect in the negative is that it is often used to mean you have never done something. <S> For example: I haven't seen the pyramids. <S> Means you have never seen them. <S> So saying you haven't slept well could mean that you have never slept well in your entire life. <S> But even if that's what you are trying to say, it's very ambiguous. <S> It leaves me wondering what you mean, anyway. <S> I might use the present perfect if I put an actual time boundary on it: <S> I haven't slept well, lately.
| If it was just the one sleep period, I'm simply say: I didn't sleep well. You could say either one, though there is some difference between them.
|
Dangling modifier in sentence This sentence is said to be correct: Skeptical of the abilities of prophets to tell the future, a significant number of philosophers in Athens began to value reason over revealed truths. "Skeptical" modifies "number", but "number" cannot be "Skeptical." "Skeptical" should modify "philosophers." Can someone shed light on this sentence? <Q> Nope, a number can indeed be skeptical. <S> Something like: <S> A skeptical number began to value reason. <S> is just fine. <S> There's nothing wrong with this. <S> A valid meaning of number is a few from a larger group . <S> Of course, without context or previous conversation/text we'd be asking number of what? . <S> But that's explicitly stated your example, so <S> no confusion. <S> Numbers as in numerals can't be skeptical, so anyone hearing/reading something like this <S> won't be thinking that. <A> Simplify for Clarity <S> Let's strip this sentence down: <S> Skeptical of the abilities of prophets to tell the future, a significant number of philosophers in Athens began to value reason over revealed truths. <S> The first clause adds meaning, but isn't essential to the core sentence. <S> A significant number of philosophers in Athens began to value reason over revealed truths. <S> The last clause only tells us a bit more about how much <S> they're valuing reason, so it's not essential. <S> A significant number of philosophers in Athens began to value reason. <S> Significant is just an adjective, let's drop that. <S> A number of philosophers in Athens began to value reason. <S> Who cares where these philosophers are located? <S> A number of philosophers began to value reason. <S> "Of philosophers" is just a prepositional phrase describing what we have a number of . <S> A number began to value reason. <S> " <S> A number" is the subject. <S> This is one of the most common usages of the word 'number'. <S> Dictionary Definitions <S> Some different phrasings of its definition from a few dictionaries: Wiktionary: Quantity <S> Reference.com: <S> the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units, or the like Merriam-Webster: 1a. <S> (1) : a sum of units : total (2) : complement 1b (3) : an indefinite usually large total (4) <S> plural : a numerous group : many (5) : a numerical preponderance <S> Therefore, here are some other, mostly synonymous phrasings: Many (philosophers) began to value reason. <S> A group (of philosophers) began to value reason. <S> A preponderance (of philosophers) began to value reason. <S> A Skeptical Number <S> So the subject of the sentence being modified is not "philosophers", it's "a number". <S> It might be more useful to look at it as "a number of philosophers", but the phrase specifying what we have a number of may not always be present in the sentence. <S> It could be from context: <S> At this time there were a great many philosophers in Athens. <S> Skeptical of the abilities of prophets to tell the future, a significant number began to value reason over revealed truths. <S> So yes, 'skeptical' <S> can modify number, because "a number" is a group of things, and the things in the group can be skeptical. <A> Try thinking of "number" as "group" or "set."
| You're right that skeptical modifies number, but in this case the phrase "of philosophers" defines the number as a set of people, which can be skeptical. This is a perfectly valid sentence.
|
How to distinguish 'month' and 'months' in pronunciation? How to pronounce the two and distinguish them in pronunciation as I almost hear them the same. <Q> The s on the end can be difficult to hear, but both words are usually paired with a determiner: <S> I'll go in a month <S> I'll go in a few months <S> I'll go in one month <S> I'll go in two months <S> The word month always needs to be used with a determiner, such as "a month" or "one month". <S> The word months is different because it doesn't always have to have a determiner: <S> This project is months away from being done. <S> Correct! <S> This project is month away from being done. <S> Wrong! <A> The "th" sound is one of the most difficult phonemes in English for non-native speakers, as many other languages don't have such a sound. <S> It's quite possible that there is nothing wrong with your hearing, but rather your interlocutor isn't able to pronounce "months" correctly. <S> In that case, rely on context cues as @Mark suggests. <S> As with other countable nouns, "months" should be preceded by a determiner such as a , one , two , etc. <S> If there is no article, then it's plural. <S> The month(s) <S> is trickier; you'll have to think. <S> Examples: <S> I'll be away for a month(s). <S> "A" implies singular. <S> I'll be away for a few month(s). <S> "Few" implies plural. <S> It's that time of the month(s) again. <S> I suffer from seasonal allergies during the month(s) of June and July. <S> Only "months" makes sense. <S> I suffer from seasonal allergies during the month(s) of June. <S> Only "month" makes sense (even if it repeats every year). <S> That's more than I want to pay for what ought to be just one month(s) worth of work. <S> Trick question. <S> The answer here is "month's" — singular possessive. <S> Note that in practice, "months" should often sound more like [mʌnzs] than [mʌnθs]. <S> That is, in fast speech, the /s/ sound should never disappear completely, but the /θ/ sound might not be distinct. <A> In the Midwestern American dialect, months is often pronounced "mons" (i.e. məns or monce), emphasizing the "s" sound and virtually ignoring the "th" sound. <S> But honestly it virtually never matters. <S> If the number of months is important, then it will be specified with another word indicating the number (e.g. "a", "single", "one", "two", "few", "many"). <S> As a native speaker, I frequently drop the plural marker from words simply because they seem pointless. <S> E.g. I might say "bring me two beer" or "I saw some few turtle". <S> That is a rather idiosyncratic trait of mine, but people never seem the least bit confused by it in spoken communication. <S> Similarly, people sometimes use a plural marker erroneously. <S> For example, one might say "do we have pens?", when they only need one pen. <S> Or they might say "I have siblings" when they only have one sibling. <S> This is probably due to the fact that people tend to use the plural form when the number is unknown. <S> Also it takes fewer syllables to say "I have siblings" than "I have a sibling". <A> To distinguish the two words when listening, listen for the ss hissing sound at the end of "months". <S> It's not a z <S> , as many final esses are, it's a short hiss. <S> To pronounce the word, if you're not accustomed to pronouncing a theta, you can substitute "t" and add the small hiss for the plural. <S> It'll be easier, and many native speakers pronounce it that way: "muntss". <S> Then, when you can easily pronounce that form, you can stick the tip of your tongue between your nearly closed teeth and try out the theta, followed by a quick pulling back of your tongue to sound the hiss.
| Only "month" makes sense. Using month instead of months may identify you as a non-native speaker, but it should never cause any confusion.
|
What does "live down" mean in this sentence? I'm not sure if lives down means forgotten or that she lives in a floor down the protagonist: "When your teardrops go sour and no longer fall the splash cross the virgin that lives down your hall" <Q> In this case, 'lives down' means a neighbor (in this case the virgin), probably within an appartment complex, whose door shares an internal hallway with your own. <S> You would say that said neighbor 'lives down the hall' from you. <S> You run into this phrase at work or schools as well when telling someone to go further 'down the hall' to find the door to their office or classroom. <S> A hotel also would be a place where this phrase could apply as well. <S> You may also see 'a few doors down' or <S> even possibly 'up the hall' <S> to mean the same thing, though 'up the hall' feels to me like the direction specified is going the opposite direction than what is expected. <A> Ditto Michael Dorgan. <S> I'd add that you can also say that someone lives "down the street", meaning he lives somewhere else on the same street. <S> You can also say that you are "walking down the street", etc. <S> In general I think "down the ..." in this sense can be followed by any word that describes or refers to a line of things: a hall, a street, an aisle, etc. <S> Maybe not quite the same thing <S> : People also say "up the river" and "down the river". <S> In this case "up" and "down" have clearly distinct meanings: "down" is in the direction that the water flows; "up" is in the opposite direction. <S> Addendum <S> The phrase "live down" is also an idiom meaning, "get people to stop thinking and talking about, or stop thinking badly of you for". <S> As in, "Bob showed up for the staff meeting drunk! <S> He's never going to live that down!" <S> But that's pretty clearly not the intended meaning in the example you gave. <S> It doesn't make sense in context. <A> The "down" doesn't belong to "live" in this case, it belongs to "the hall".
| "Down the hall" means "further along the same hall", so on the same floor.
|
What is it called in English a term that describes the self dependency of a technical device? What is it called in English a term that describes the self dependency of a technical device, without refueling it? For example the distance a car can go without refueling or the time a battery can function without recharging it. I need to translate into English a technical catalog and I don’t know if self dependency can be used technically (in techniques). In my language the term is autonomy but all English dictionaries describe this only politically, i.e. independency, self governing, freedom etc. On the other hand, on the internet I saw the term drone autonomous air refueling which means that the term can be used technically. So can I use the term autonomy or self dependency ? high autonomy; or high self dependency. about a product? Or there is/are better term/terms <Q> 'Range' or 'Battery Life' Your two examples, while similar, are not well-served by a single term. <S> The best choice for expressing a vehicle's 'runtime' would be 'range.' <S> This would describe the maximum distance a vehicle could travel without being refueled/recharged. <S> These are typically expressed as either 'under ideal conditions' or using terms like 'city' or 'highway' to describe a use case. <S> For a vehicle such as a drone, DJI uses terminology like "27 minutes of airtime at 15 mph" to describe the amount of time a user might use the device without recharging/changing batteries. <S> The 'Battery Life' would be more appropriate for describing the length of time <S> a non-vehicle device will function without recharging. <S> It could be described in units of time at a given current, i.e. Ah ratings; or something more directly relatable to non-technical folks such as 'number-of-iphone-recharges.' <S> Or else, it could simply describe runtime, such as a flashlight that will run at max output for 2 hours on a charge. <A> The distance a car can go without needing refueling is its range . <S> The efficiency with which a car travels <S> distance using fuel is its fuel economy . <S> It's a different term for different objects. <S> There are general terms, such as endurance which describes anything a human or animal does without needing to stop, but it can't be used for non-living objects. <S> There's also some similar meaning words, e.g. Mileage <S> which describes how long a car has run since it was made and lifespan <S> which defines how long a human, animal, or product will survive before dying. <S> Autonomy is the wrong word, since in your examples it defines a car that can move without a human driver. <S> I don't believe there's a word that is general enough to be applied to anything, but apart from cars and batteries please let me know if there's anything else that you need a word for that means 'length of time it can run without needing refueling'. <A> It is a uninterruptible power supply (like in computers to back up in case of power failure) but it is powered by a car battery and thence the time is longer <S> I'd call it the battery run-time : <S> See especially this . <S> "The car battery extends the run-time."
| The time a battery can go without needing to be recharged or thrown away is called its battery life .
|
Using “Had Born” in English sentences Can I Use “Had Born” in English sentence to express past perfect i.e. past of past? 1) He had born when I reached to the Hospital. 2) This is where I had born. 3) Your father came to hospital but before that you had born. 4) He had born in India. Why Born is adjective and died is Verb?Also What verb for bron then? <Q> You need to use the passive with born ( to be born ). <S> Your sentences would be correct like so: 1) <S> He had <S> already been born when I reached the Hospital. <S> 2) <S> This is where I was born. <S> 3) <S> Your father came to hospital but that was before you were born. <S> 4) <S> He was born in India. <S> The past participle born is one of the two different past participles from the word to bear ( borne & born ). <S> Therefore you can only find it in combination with the verb have as an auxiliary verb in perfect tenses: <S> He has been born. <S> He had been born. <S> You cannot omit the verb to be in your sentence, it is required to form the passive. <S> Born cannot be used in and active phrase, not when you're talking about birth. <S> To form active sentences when talking about birth, you use borne . <S> However, with that past participle, it is the subject who is performing the act of giving birth while the object is the one that starts his life. <S> She has borne two children. <S> This website contains some solid information on the difference between born and borne : <S> Borne vs. born - Grammarist <A> Nos. <S> 1 and 3 are interesting sentences, here is how I would say those: When I reached the hospital, he had already been born. <S> Your father arrived at the hospital too late; you had already been born. <A> Any are valid if changed to had been born. <S> As far as tense <S> : born:dead :: to bear:to die Technically, born is a past participle, not an adjective. <A> Born is an adjective. <S> So you must use a form of to be with it as you would any other adjective, if you are saying X is that quality/state described by the adjective. <S> To bear is a verb which means to give birth, and the past participle form of to bear is borne . <S> However, the object of to bear will be whatever you are giving birth to. <S> She had borne a child. <S> If you want to identify your place of birth, say: I was born in Memphis.
| However, when referring to birth, born is used and can only be used in the passive form.
|
Use of the word 'revile' I am writing a story, in which a character thinks something which in retrospect he finds absurd and paranoid, and is frustrated for having thought it in the first place. To reflect his attitude, I want to write (in the first person): "Paranoid moron!" I revile. Is this a correct usage of the word 'revile'? <Q> Oh, I see what you're trying to do. <S> You're trying to use it as a more descriptive form of "said". <S> "Paranoid moron! <S> " I revile. <S> My apologies. <S> Honestly, though it seems some dictionaries allow for this use, it's not one <S> I've ever been familiar with. <S> " Revile " is more commonly used as a transitive verb , which means that it must have a direct object. <S> A transitive verb is a verb that takes one or more objects. <S> This contrasts with intransitive verbs, which do not have objects. <S> You have to revile something . <A> I don't think it reads well, for two reasons. <S> Catija already explained one; it's a transitive verb. <S> For another, it just doesn't seem like quite the right word. <S> Looking through my Mac's Dictionary app, I found an interesting usage note under the verb <S> scold : <S> Revile is reserved for very strong or even violent displays of anger. <S> (: <S> revile one's opponent in the press ) <S> Chide is a more formal term than scold , and it usually implies disapproval for specific failings Chide could work. <S> As a matter of fact, there's another interesting tidbit under the dictionary's entry for chide : chide ( verb ) trans. <S> scold or rebuke : <S> she chided him for not replying to her letters <S> | with direct speech <S> “You mustn't speak like that,” she chided gently. <S> It's that "with direct speech" part that I found interesting; that seems like a green light to use chide in the manner and construct you are using. <S> So, the line in your book could go like this: " <S> Paranoid moron! <S> " I chided. <S> but I wonder if it doesn't read a bit more naturally like this: <S> I chided myself. " <S> Paranoid moron!" <A> You could write: I revile thee! <S> assuming your character had a tendency towards the theatrical type of speech.
| To revile is to use highly abusive and contemptuous language
|
Using I am all ears in a professional Email? Before I ask the questions , here is a bit of context: I am planning to email few of our customers asking for their feedback. This is what I plan to write If you have any feature suggestion then let me know, I am all ears. So my question is .. . does it comes across as too casual? Is this suited for a professional email? Thanks in advance for all the answers!! <Q> It's a very colloquial phrase. <S> It would be correct in the following context: <S> A. <S> I know what happened to the missing sweets B. <S> I'm all ears <S> However, in a professional email, this is not particularly the best way to phrase it, as it seems quite unprofessional. <S> There are many other ways that you could phrase this, but the sentence above would be fine in a formal email. <A> I agree with the earlier comment; I think this phrase is too informal for an email to customers. <S> However, I'd probably use a dash instead of a comma: <S> If you have any feature suggestion then let me know – I'm all ears . <S> or I would leave out the "let me know" part, because that seems to be a bit redundant in this context: <S> If you have any feature suggestion, I'm all ears . <S> Back to your email to the customers – I think you are trying to convey an eagerness for their input. <S> This could be accomplished by adding one word – the word please – to your initial statement: If you have any feature suggestion then please let me know . <A> I agree with parkgatedev, and disagree with J.R. <S> It all depends on your customers and the sort of relationship you wish to develop with them. <S> If you wish to keep the relationship formal, then by all means don't use "I'm all ears". <S> If you wish to develop the relationship along more personal lines, then you can go with the phrase. <S> Have you dealt with the customers you're emailing on a one-on-one basis over some period of time? <S> Or are you dealing with customers you know only as names on a list? <S> It's important to know your audience. <S> If, for instance, your customer base is made up of recreational knitters (you sell knitting supplies) then they may be put off if you take a formal tone. <S> If your customers are large corporations and you've never spoken to the buyers, they'll wonder about informality. <S> It all depends.
| That said, I think this expression would be fine in an email to coworkers and colleagues, where a degree of informality is more acceptable. You could try the following phrase: If you have any suggestions then let me know, and I will be happy to take them into account.
|
Past continuous use for something that's accomplished The girl said, "Oh I thought Danny was giving me his scarf because it was so special, but he gave me it because he doesn't support United any more!" Why past continuous here? Is it because it is a regret? It is not a continuous action, it is completed because the girl has the scarf. <Q> This is easier to understand if you think of how this would be expressed in the present tense. <S> In Present-day English the present continuous is often preferred to the simple present in speaking of unique, individual actions because the simple construction is felt to imply repeated, habitual practise. <S> Thus, if the girl were speaking of the gift as it was occurring, she would not say: <S> Danny gives me this because it is so special. <S> although that is entirely acceptable, and three or four generations ago might even have been the most natural way of saying it. <S> Instead, she would say Danny is giving me this because it is so special. <S> In your example, she uses the continuous form because she is recalling what she thought at the time; in effect she is 'quoting' herself. <S> The past continuous is a 'backshifted' present continuous. <S> It is only when she realizes her mistake after the fact that she shifts to the simple past, which as you say expresses a completed action. <A> We use the past continuous to describe a scene in the past. <S> — <S> It was raining. <S> The wind was blowing. <S> — <S> — <S> At 7:30 this morning, I was waiting for the bus. <S> — <S> We use the past continuous and the past simple together to describe a sudden event that interrupted a longer one. <S> — <S> While I was having lunch, my cousin phoned. <A> This sentence is a little weak on grammar, though it does still sound like spoken English, where grammar can be estimated and not seem strange unless it is written down. <S> If I had written this, it would have been: The girl said "Oh! <S> I thought Danny had given me his scarf because it was so special, but he gave it to me because he doesn't support United anymore!" <S> "Was giving": in the past, had been in the process of giving. <S> Brings to mind what he was thinking while he did the action, and that it was the action in process that is important. <S> "Had given": in the past, has already been done. <S> Brings to mind what she thinks just after she was given the scarf.
| We use the past continuous to describe an event that was in progress at a specific moment in the past.
|
I was planning on doing, I was going to do, I was supposed to do, Is there any difference? You didn't do what you planned to do. In this case, I can think of three different sentences: 1) I was going to do.. 2) I was planning on doing... 3) I was supposed to do... I wonder if three sentences are interchangeable. For example: 1) I was going to meet with my friend yesterday. 2) I was planning on meeting with my friend yesterday. 3) I was supposed to meet with my friend yesterday. Do they mean all the same? If so, which is the most common? If different, could you explain it, please? <Q> I think they all pretty much mean the same thing, too. <S> There's even a fourth one that springs to mind: I was planning to meet with my friend yesterday. <S> (That's not any better than your three sentences, just another way to say the same thing.) <S> Where it gets a bit tricky, though, is if you wanted to change the "was planning" to "had planned" for some reason. <S> This works just fine when the verb is plan : I had planned on meeting with my friend yesterday. <S> I had planned to meet with my friend yesterday. <S> but doesn't work when was going to <S> is used: <S> I had going to meet with my friend yesterday. <S> I will say this about the three sentences: they all feel like they need a little more context to sound completely natural. <S> As written now, they feel somewhat "incomplete" (not grammatically, just informationally). <S> This could be done by adding more information after a conjunction: I was going to meet with my friend yesterday, <S> but her car broke down . <S> I was planning on meeting with my friend yesterday, until my boss asked me to work late . <S> Or by using the sentence to answer a question: When were you going to meet with your friend? <S> I was supposed to meet with my friend yesterday. <A> They are close, but the differences are quite subtle. <S> /#1 expresses a vague past intent, very casual that you might see you friend at some point. <S> /#2 <S> expresses <S> you had an expectation or desire to see your friend. <S> /#3 <S> expresses <S> you were compelled by some outside force to see your friend. <S> The outside force could be your friend, your boss or even a schedule you made, just not you at that moment. <A> was going and was planning in the examples roughly mean the same thing. <S> was planning <S> indicated more of a deliberate plan though. <S> As for suppose , this has a more indirect sense. <S> intransitive verb 5) to expect or obligate (always in the passive) <S> ⇒ <S> "you're supposed to telephone" <S> It adds an expectation of something happening. <S> There may have been a plan but not necessarily.
| I would call them all equally valid and even equally probable, more or less.
|
Using "The" before a specfic name I have this sentence: I changed [the?] command doc('t.xq') in front of [the?] variables $p and $q with [the?] variable $db as follows. Now it works (plus, I used [the?] function last() to have the last (lowest) common ancestor). Is my usage of "The" in brackets, before specific names correct? Is it a mandatory rule? Could they be said with or without "the"? What would be the difference? <Q> I agree you can use "the", or leave it out. <S> You don't have to be consistent and always use "the", or never use it. <S> As a native British English speaker I would probably write I changed the command doc('t.xq') <S> in front of variables <S> $p and <S> $q with the variable $db as follows. <S> Now it works (plus, I used function last() to have the last (lowest) common ancestor). <S> but I can't explain <S> why that "sounds right" to me, sorry! <S> Often in this type of writing, the reader already knows that variables must always start with <S> $ and function calls are always followed by (...) , etc. <S> So you can use the variable and function names as "proper names" (like the names of people, cities, etc) which are never preceded by "the". <S> For example I changed [the] command doc('t.xq') <S> in front of $p and $q with $db as follows. <S> Now it works (plus, I used <S> last() to have the last (lowest) common ancestor). <A> Yes, they all are correct. <S> We use the definite article while talking about the 'definite' things. <S> That's why it's definite. <S> In your sentence, you are talking about the definite command, variables, functions etc. <S> We say - open a document in your computer to refer to 'any document'. <S> But we say, 'open the document we had modified last' would specifically point to the specific document modified. <S> This goes with all instances in your example. <A> I generally agree with Maulik V's answer . <S> However, I would like to add one thing. <S> You use <S> the to define one particular variable (class/field/etc..). <S> There is no better way to answer "which variable?" than to give its exact name, so to me <S> the variable 'p' is even too much. <S> Examples: <S> Study Unit 5 for next week Turn to Page 394
| So, yes, putting 'the' is not incorrect.
|
"Partial Deaf" or "Half Deaf"? I'm stuck with a situation. Scene 1: Mike met with a serious accident and he lost his sense for his left ear. As a result, he can listen through only right ear, the left ear is not working. Scene 2: Gary cannot listen to you unless you speak loudly . Say, if you and I can hear the sound of 'x' decibels, he requires 'x+5' decibels. In my medical practice, we call 'partial paralysis' if the condition has not involved the organ fully . Said that, if you are partially paralyzed, you can still move the affected hand but not fully as there's no strength or power. The question: What do we call Mike? Half deaf? And what about Gary? Partial deaf? Is there any idiom, word for these men? I'm not looking for any medical jargon. <Q> Mike is deaf in one ear. <S> Gary is hard of hearing. <A> My answer is for what you hear in everyday conversation, not formal medical terminology. <S> Khan's example of "Hard of hearing" is probably the most common, polite way to describe Gary. <S> But he is also "partially deaf", and has partial hearing loss. <S> " <S> Partial loss of hearing," or "partial hearing loss" is how a doctor would probably describe Gary. <S> If he used to be able to hear better, but is gradually going deaf as he ages, he might be described as "Losing his hearing". <S> You won't hear that phrase relating to someone who was born with limited hearing, or who lost hearing due to a single event, such as a bad ear infection. <S> Mike would be easiest to describe as "deaf in one ear". <S> But if he didn't want people to know the details, he could also describe himself as partially deaf. <S> He might use hard of hearing, but it isn't a usual term for good hearing in one ear, and none in the other. <S> Half-deaf would be a very casual way to refer to partial hearing loss. <S> Someone who describes themselves as half deaf will have a significant degree of hearing loss, but it's a very general, colloquial term, and could be slightly disparaging. <S> There is no implication that hearing loss is 50%. <S> In the same way, someone who has a high glasses prescription might call themselves half-blind- <S> it just means they have bad vision, not that 50% of their vision is gone. <A> In addition to the "hard of hearing" answers already given, which I prefer, I also suggest considering hearing-impaired . <S> This term is more often used to refer to the group of people who have hearing problems than individuals, e.g. "The theater provides amplified headphones for the hearing impaired . <S> " It might be used by an individual to describe themselves if they dislike being referred to as "hard of hearing" because they don't want to be associated with the possible implication that they lost their hearing due to old age. <A> It seems logical to call someone who can hear with one ear but not the other "half deaf", though I don't think this is a common phrase. <S> I think people usually just say "partially deaf" or "hard of hearing". <S> Note that people also say "half blind" <S> meaning that someone has impairment to his vision but is not completely blind. <S> That is, it does not necessarily mean blind in one eye, or exactly 50% of normal visual ability. <S> It's just a way of saying roughly what is level of vision is like. <S> So it seems plausible to me to say that someone is "half deaf" meaning he has limited hearing but is not completely deaf. <S> I don't think people commonly say that, though. <S> I believe doctors use the term "hearing loss", as in, "The patient is experiencing hearing loss. <S> " I'm sure they have more technical terms for specific causes and symptoms. <A> I am a blend of both scenarios! <S> I was born with a mild hearing deficit in one ear, and deaf in the other. <S> I describe myself as hearing-impaired. <S> I also happen to be visually-impaired, so I probably just do it this way because "visually- and hearing-impaired" flows better than "visually-impaired and hard of hearing. <S> " <S> The phrase, "hard of" isn't used in any other context, so I don't really like it, anyway. <S> For example, have you ever heard the phrase, "hard of walking" for someone who uses a wheelchair? <S> Me, neither. <S> In a nutshell, I'd just stick with hearing-impaired for both cases, since it is truly nobody else's business <S> why there might be a communication barrier. <S> If the person wishes to explain in further detail, such as "talk to this ear," or some such, then that's up to them. <S> In somewhat-related news, there are now popular tattoos of the mute symbol behind the ear that some individual choose to obtain. <S> As I'm not a fan of needles, I now own a pair of deaf sign earrings! <S> One has the mute sign for my deaf ear, and the other has an unmuted speaker for my good ear. <S> It helps a great deal when I'm meeting new people!
| It's common to call someone who has difficulty hearing "partially deaf" or "hard of hearing". Someone who is blind in one eye but who can see with the other is often called "half blind".
|
Do you pronounce words in your head when reading? Whenever I read (silently), I hear a voice in my head speaking the written words. I've tried to mute this voice while reading, but have been unable to thus far. Is this a universal aspect of reading, or a personal development? <Q> What type of sound ? <A> I'm having trouble finding a better source, but Assessing the importance of subvocalization during normal silent reading <S> suggests that different people subvocalize more or less, in the sense that trying to talk while reading is easier or more difficult for various people. <S> Many tools and programs for speed reading claim that you can, will, and should minimize your subvocalization in order to read faster, which would support the idea that one can train/learn to decrease their amount of subvocalization. <S> That said, http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4229 refers to claims by professors that subvocalization can't be completely eliminated without sacrificing understanding. <S> For a personal example, I have little trouble being interrupted/carrying on conversations while reading (although I suspect my reading speed suffers), but a friend of mine essentially always subvocalizes and has a very hard time continuing where they left off when someone speaks to them while they are reading. <A> Actually, even people fluent in English sub-vocalize as well. <S> People often pick up this habit early on and carry it with them throughout their later years and stick with it. <A> It is both a fairly universal aspect of learning and a personal development. <S> When they transition to silent reading, a certain amount of the process remains, at least for a time. <S> Whether or not this is a good thing, and whether or not you should suppress your inner voice depends very much on why you read. <S> If you wish to absorb abstract information as quickly as possible, still the voice - it will just slow you down. <S> However, without the voice you will find it difficult to appreciate poetry, especially the parts which deal with pronunciation, and many aspects of recorded spoken speech. <S> As an example, Kipling's "The Explorer" can be read silently, although it may hardly seem worth the effort. <S> But read aloud, its hypnotic qualities are quite extraordinary. <S> Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes <S> On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated—so: <S> “Something hidden. <S> Go and find it. <S> Go and look behind the Ranges— <S> “Something lost behind the Ranges. <S> Lost and waiting for you. <S> Go!” <S> With, of course, due apologies for those who loathe Kipling. <S> "Do you like Kipling?""I don't know, I've never kippled."
| Sub-vocalization is a typical occurrence, especially among early English Language Learners. No whenever I read silently, I didn't hear any type of sound in my mind. Most children learn to read by reading aloud.
|
What's another word/phrase for "departure time"? I'm asking about the departure from a school/college or an office. When my college is over (it's time to go home), what expression can I use to say about that time? I'm an Indian and in India, we say "chhutti ho gyi" in Indian language. I want to know how we can say that in English. I've tried to look it up in dictionaries and found that I could say "it's departure time." Is this said to mean that I've got free from my college now it's time to go home? I would be grateful if anyone gives some similar expressions which I can use to mean the same. Please check whether my following sentences are correct to mean the same thing: When is your departure time? Has your departure time passed? When do you get free from job? My departure time has come now. Please correct the above sentences if they're incorrect or dubious. <Q> I can't think of any English term that is regularly used for this – at least, not in a noun form. <S> As Steve Ives mentioned in his answer, this is how I would ask the question: <S> What time are you leaving? <S> The term departure time is grammatically correct, but that expression is normally reserved for transportation: planes, trains, and busses. <S> And it generally refers to the time that the conveyance departs (everyone knows that passengers must arrive earlier than that so they can all board before departure.) <S> If you want to tell your friends that you'll be leaving the campus at 5 o'clock, you'd say something like: <S> I should be leaving the campus around five. <S> or: I should be done at the campus around five. <S> You'd only use departure time if you were trying to be funny by making something ordinary (i.e., leaving the campus) sound very official: <S> My departure time from campus will be 5 o'clock. <S> I could say a father saying this to his young children, if they were leaving for a trip the next day: Our departure time will be 8 AM. <S> but that would be overly formal and therefore deliberately humorous. <S> A more natural way to say it would be: I want us to get out of here by eight. <S> or: <S> Let's be pulling out of the driveway before 8 AM. <S> The same holds for arrival time . <S> We typically say something like: <S> We should be there a little before 10. <S> not: <S> We have a 9:55 estimated arrival time. <S> unless we are trying to be somewhat humorous by being overly technical. <A> It's time to go home is certainly idiomatic and would be understood by most. <S> E.g. <S> If it's the winter break and if we mean GOING back home ( moving, in transit ) <S> we would say 'Going (back) Home' . <A> School children (under about 16 years of age) will talk about 'home time' e.g. <S> "Is it home time yet?". <S> For college & work, you might say "What time do we finish?" or simply "Is it time to go home?. <S> At work, you might ask a colleague "What time are you leaving/finishing today?" <S> and you might tell a colleague "I'm leaving/finishing at 5 today". <A> छुट्टी हो गयी can fit into anything in this context. <S> For this, the best option is... ' <S> X' is over and 'x' could be anything you are talking about. <S> Office, college, school, duty, job etc. <S> [Mind it, I'm talking this in our day-to-day life. <S> I'm not concerned about something that gets over permanently <S> -say <S> Her education is over means it's now all done]. <S> Don't use the word 'departure'. <S> It means something different <S> and it's not related to <S> 'छुट्टी' you are talking about. <S> Even if you want to ask your friend, when is he free from his job/duty, <S> you may informally ask - "When your office/school/college gets over?" <S> This may seem interesting to you. <S> You may use an idiom to say - "चलो घर चलते है!" <S> Let's 'call it a day' <A> I made a quick search on google to see the statistics for different variations of the sentences you provided. <S> The results were interesting for me. <S> I thought it would be helpful to share what I found with my friends. <S> 1. <S> When is your departure time? <S> About 2,400 results2. <S> Has your departure time passed? <S> 1 result3. <S> Has your departure time changed? <S> 5 results4. <S> 1 result5. <S> When do you get free from job? <S> 1 result6. <S> When do you get free from office? <S> 1 result7. <S> When your office gets over? <S> 4 <S> results8. <S> When your school gets over? <S> 2 results9. <S> When your college gets over? <S> 0 result <S> 10. <S> What time are you leaving office? <S> 6 results11. <S> What time are you leaving? <S> About 33,800 results12. <S> I should be leaving the office around 0 result13. <S> I should be leaving the campus around 0 result14. <S> I should be leaving the About 199,000 results15. <S> I should be done at the office around 1 result16. <S> I should be done at the campus 0 result17. <S> I want us to get out of here by eight. <S> 0 result18. <S> I want us to get out of here About 149,000 results19. <S> I want to get out of here by About 148,000 results20. <S> Let's be pulling out of the driveway before 0 result21. <S> Let's pull out of the About 13,000 results22. <S> We should be there a little before About 7 results23. <S> We should be there before About 322,000 results24. <S> Is it home time yet? <S> About 7,390 results25. <S> It’s home time. <S> About 24,500 results26. <S> What time do you finish? <S> About 49,000 results27. <S> What time do we finish? <S> About 23,000 results28. <S> Is it time to go home? <S> About 367,000 results29. <S> Is it time to go? <S> About 39,300,000 results30. <S> What time are you leaving today? <S> About 2,330 results31. <S> What time are you leaving? <S> About 33,800 results32. <S> What time are you finishing today? <S> About 239 results33. <S> What time are you finishing? <S> About 5,040 results34. <S> I'm leaving at About 58,300 results35. <S> I'm finishing at About 3,140 results
| My departure time has come now.
|
What is the difference between "if he has got" and "if he got"? What is the difference between "if he has got" and "if he got" ? I know that "If he got" is used for wishes or to talk about 'impossible' situations. For example If he got the car, he would visit New Jersey but I do not know what is the difference when I use has got <Q> The verb construction have got is used to convey the meaning of possession. <S> So the sentence ' He has got the car ' means that he is in possession of the car. <S> Simply got however, means something a different. <S> It is synonymous to to obtain or to receive , which is what happens before someone becomes possessor of something. <S> This gives the following difference in meaning in your sentence: If he has got the car, he will visit New Jersey.= <S> If he is in possession of the car, he will visit New Jersey. <S> If he had got the car, he would visit New Jersey.= If he was in possession of the car, he would visit New Jersey. <S> You cannot use <S> got here in your sentence, because it is used to refer to obtaining something in the past . <S> Instead, you could say: If he were given the car, he would visit New Jersey. <A> "To get" has a lot of meanings. "To get something" normally means to obtain something. <S> "To <S> have got something" has the original meaning to have obtained something, but then this perfect tense developed a semantic change of meaning. <S> For example, "Have you got a car?" <S> (BrE) is the same as "Do you own a car?" <A> If he got the car, he would visit New Jersey. <S> One way to interpret this is in the past tense: that there were a number of different occasions when there was an opportunity to get the car, and on those occasions when he actually did get the car he used it to visit New Jersey. <S> Putting this interpretation into context: "Every day last summer he asked his sister if he could borrow her car. <S> If he got the car, he would visit New Jersey. <S> If not, he would stay home and watch TV." <S> Another way to interpret it is that the possibility of him getting the car was in the past, but if he did get it then he would visit New Jersey in the future. <S> "What would he be likely to do tomorrow?" <S> "Well he just went to ask his sister if he can borrow her car. <S> If he got the car, he would visit New Jersey. <S> " This interpretation is a bit awkward. <S> "If he got the car, he will visit New Jersey" sounds more natural. <S> If he has got the car <S> This could be talking about whether he has the car now , in which case "he would go" doesn't make sense. <S> It should then say "If he has got the car he will go to New Jersey". <S> Or it could be talking about a specific point in the future, in which case again "he would go" doesn't work. <S> "If he has got the car next Thursday, he will go to New Jersey."
| If you have got something then the consequence is that you have something and today this meaning in present tense is the normal meaning of to have got something.
|
to start out vs to start off What are the differences between "to start off" and " start out" ? I think they have a common sense which is "to begin to do something" but apparently also they have some unique usages. Do you think they are interchangeable in the following sentences I excerpted from Oxford Dictionaries. 1.She started out on her legal career in 2008. 2.When the band started out, they couldn't afford much equipment. 3.I started out to write a short story, but it soon developed into a novel. 4.The discussion started off mildly enough. 5.Let's start off with some gentle exercises. 6.We started off by introducing ourselves. 7.I started off working quite hard, but it didn't last. 8.Start out by accessing your list of Applications from your Androids Home screen. I read this thread about "start vs start off" and the answer is very good but that question does not overlap my question. <Q> That is a good question. <S> In pretty much all your cases, they could be interchanged, but would feel very slightly different. <S> One typically "starts off" on a journey - conveying a feeling of movement. <S> In #1, by using starting out, it points to the fact that the career had just begun - time reference, not necessarily to the length of time. <S> Again, #2 and #3 points to time. <S> #4, puts more feeling to the discussion as a whole, not that it had just begun. <S> #5, again, whole exercise experience here, also implying that things will change over time. <S> #6,#7, Journey and contrasting beginning to end with statements. <S> The last one: "Start out by accessing your list..." again is pointing to a specific point in time - when is being emphasised more than what you are doing. <S> Interchanging "off" for "out" on the above are all still valid, but changes (and only slightly) where the writer wanted the focus. <S> This is all personal conjecture here <S> and I welcome other opinions. <S> I really had to think hard about each reading to get a feel for the difference here, which should give you an idea of how subtle this topic is. <A> 1a. <S> She started out on her legal career in 2008. <S> 1b. <S> She started off on her legal career in 2008. <S> 1c. <S> She started her legal career in 2008. <S> I think 1a and 1b <S> pretty much mean the same thing, but I prefer 1c. <S> 2a. <S> When the band started out, they couldn't afford much equipment. <S> 2b. <S> When the band started off, they couldn't afford much equipment. <S> I like 2a, but 2b throws me for a little bit. <S> At first, I'm assuming the band has packed up their vans and are starting a trip somewhere. <S> It's only when I reach the end of the sentence that I realize that we are talking about the band members' careers, not a road trip. <S> I suppose someone could argue the same thing could happen with 2a, but I like out better than off in this sentence. <S> Still, neither is grammatically incorrect. <S> 3a. <S> I started out to write a short story, but it soon developed into a novel. <S> 3b. <S> I started off to write a short story, but it soon developed into a novel. <S> 3c. <S> I started to write a short story, but it soon developed into a novel. <S> I like 3a, <S> don't care much for 3b, but like 3c the best. <S> I'm at a loss to explain why, though. <S> I think perhaps these could all be improved if we say writing instead of to write : <S> I started off writing a short story, but it soon developed into a novel. <S> So maybe the consecutive prepositions are throwing me. <S> However, I still like my revised version better. <A> All of your sentenced are grammatically and semantically sound. <S> "Start out" and "start off" are interchangeable, EXCEPT <S> where using "start off" might be mistakenly taken in the sense of to literally start traveling , which is not a meaning normally attributed to "start out". <S> You have to be the judge of whether that misinterpretation might occur. <S> So, if you are speaking of an actual journey, "start off" works better, but note that both " start out for [destination]" and " start off for [destination]" unequivocally convey a sense of beginning literal travel.
| One can also "start out" on a journey, but it feels more like the point in time when you began rather than pointing at the whole journey itself. They're not wrong – we often see back-to-back prepositions when dealing with phrasal verbs.
|
Can you say "New York is in night time"? New York is in night time. New York is night time. Which one is correct? I know that you use "It's night time in New York", but does the inversion sound wrong apart from the grammar problem? <Q> No. 2 is definitely wrong; it's essentially saying that New York is night-time; night-time is New York. <S> New York obviously cannot be night-time. <S> As for No. 1, I have never heard anyone use it. <S> It makes sense, but I wouldn't consider it to be strictly grammatical. <S> As you mention in your question, it's best to use <S> It's night-time in New York . <A> The idiomatic versions would use a "dummy" subject: <S> It is night-time in New York or simply <S> It's night in New York . <S> Another melodramatic possibility: New York is still in darkness when Londoners begin their day. <A> Literally. <S> Astronauts on the space station making similar statements. <S> They watch the earth from a different perspective, and at some places in their orbit, are able to see the portion of the planet that is in daylight and the portion experiencing night. <S> It would be unusual, though, for a person on the ground to think of it from that perspective.
| "New York is in night time" is an out-of-this world expression.
|
"24 hours' notice" or "24 hours notice"? Which one is correct? 1: Well, you canceled on Tuesday and our policy is 24 hours' notice for all cancellations. 2: Well, you canceled on Tuesday and our policy is 24 hours notice for all cancellations. To me personally, the first one makes more sense grammatically. But I've also heard that the second version is how they typically write it on paper forms at hospitals (that's what native speakers say). Could you please clarify my confusion? <Q> You are correct. <S> "24 hours' notice" is possessive for the same reason as "a day's drive," "a moment's thought," or "in five minutes' time. <S> " I assume the apostrophe is dropped due to simple ignorance. <S> Expressions involving time with no apostrophe are in use, too, but they take forms like "two-hour meeting," where the hyphen makes a compound adjective. <S> If your example fit that pattern, it would be "24-hour notice," but that would imply a notice that lasted 24 hours, a nonsensical concept. <S> The possessive pattern is a much better fit. <A> It should be 1, as there is a possessive present. <S> See here for more details: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/possessives <S> Also, we can infer that the conversation is about an appointment or meeting, so there is no need to mention this again hence no object in required for cancelled. <A> Correct would be: <S> Well, you canceled on Tuesday, and our policy is 24 hours' notice for all cancellations. <S> You need the apostrophe after hours as well as a comma before and and a period. <S> This is an example of an inanimate possessive in English. <S> Time is actually an exception in this case. <S> Generally, they're expressed with of (The window of the car, and not the car's window), but time words use an apostrophe for possession. <S> Since it's an uncommon expression, most English speakers will use or write it incorrectly. <S> I'd recommend using the apostrophe yourself, but be prepared to interpret it if you see it either way. <A> I am puzzled by this as the answer refers to it being possessive, however my logic tells me that the possession is with the appointment (or possibly the policy) and not the hours (note I don't put an apostrophe on the word hours here). <S> The fact that the 'appointment' is not mentioned in the phrase means it cannot take possession.
| In my view the grammatically correct phrase would be: "Well, you cancelled on Tuesday and our policy requires 24 hours notice for all cancellations"
|
What does "it's in the game" mean? I understand "X is in the game", but without a definite subject this phrase becomes meaningless to me. It's been used by EA Sports and other companies to advertise they have something special about their games but this lack of specification of what's special about it troubles me. <Q> The original version of the slogan was "If it's in the game, it's in the game", meaning that EA's sports-based video games captured everything interesting about the sports they represented. <S> Eventually the slogan became so familiar to gamers interested in games of this sort that EA truncated it to just the consequence clause. <S> ADDED: <S> muru asks for a source. <S> Here 's the website of Jeff Odiorne, who with with Michael Wilde developed the original campaign at Goldberg Moser O'Neill and Riney. <S> A brief video about it is at the bottom of the page. <S> Here 's a story from Ad Age about Odiorne and Wilde's work after they left Goldberg and started Odiorne Wilde Narraway Groome with EA as their principal client. <S> It includes this: Goldberg won the account in August, just in time for Odiorne and Wilde to create a campaign to launch the EA Sports line for the Christmas season. <S> The two came up with the position of authenticity that was based on not only a knowledge of sports but a passion as well. <S> Their tag, "If it's in the game, it's in the game," was deceptively obvious, [Doug ] <S> Transeth [VP-sports marketing at EA] adds. <S> "It was so simple," he says, "it scared us." <S> [my emphasis] <S> And here 's a record of the trademark history, drawn from the US Patent and Trademark Office. <S> And just for lagniappe, to demonstrate what Odiorne and Wilde were after, here 's an example of a fan praising the attention to detail in a recent edition of Madden. <A> (compare you've got to be in it to win it ). <S> Advertising slogans don't necessarily need to follow standard idiomatic usages, and we don't have any specific examples to consider anyway. <S> But in normal speech the only variation you're ever likely to encounter is something along the lines of... <S> Manchester United were 2-1 down at half-time, but they've switched to a more attacking play now, and they're definitely still in the game . <S> ... <S> where it simply implies <S> United still have a chance of winning . <A> The idea is that whatever you might ask for or expect, It's In The Game. <S> There is a general idiom, in advertising, of a slogan answering a question the audience might be expected to ask. <S> From that, we get some slogans that answer multiple possible questions, cf. <S> Prego, " It's in there! " <S> Some of these start out in a longer form, like "If it's in the game, it's in the game" or "Homemade Taste: <S> It's in there" but over time change to the pithier version.
| Literally, to be in the game in such contexts means to be playing a [competitive] game , with the implication that you're a contender for winning
|
What is difference between "loosen" and "unscrew" for lid/cap? For example, could you help me "loosen" or "unscrew" this lid/cap? Which one is correct and more common? <Q> Think of it this way… If the lid takes 3 turns to remove, then only the first 'grab' will loosen it, but after that it still needs unscrewing the other 2.9 turns To actually ask someone, either version would probably do - they'd be aware that you were asking because you were having difficulty with that first part, not that you couldn't be bothered with the other 2.9 turns ;-) <S> "Could you open this for me?" <S> would also work just fine, by the same assumption. <A> Assuming you mean in normal conversation. <S> They mean pretty much the same thing. <S> If a asked to loosen a cap for someone I would turn the cap till is was almost off, then hand back the bottle. <S> If asked to unscrew a cap, I would fully remove the cap, handing them back the bottle and the cap in two separate pieces. <S> That said, they are really quite interchangeable, and a person may do either one if asked either way. <S> It just depends on the person. <S> If you mean in some kind of technical document, or instructions it would be normal to see something like <S> "Loosen the cap until product is accessible, but do not remove the cap completely." <S> "Unscrew the cap completely to access the product. <S> Once finished replace the cap." <S> Point being that even in technical documents the loosen/unscrew verbs are usually modified with further instructions to clarify the partially on or all the way off part of the definition. <A> "Loosen" means that the seal of the jar will be broken, but the lid will be left on the jar. <S> "Unscrew" implies that the lid will be removed. <A> (Though you probably only need assistance in loosening it, not completing the job.) <S> If it's some other kind of seal, "loosen", "open" or "undo" might be more appropriate. <A> Unscrew indicates the lid/cap and container are of the screw variety. <S> Loosen doesn't imply that the lid/cap must be of the screw type, it could be held on by friction. <S> Loosen also sounds less than completely remove. <S> One might loosen a screw in order to make room for something else to fit on it without removing it completely. <S> Unscrew without any other modifiers has more completeness implied.
| "Unscrew" is valid if the cap is, in fact, a screw type.
|
The opposite of "Template-based" A template based approach is an approach which rely on a template or a fixed structure to do something. Template based information could be information derived from a template. What could be the opposite of template-based? Non template based Template-independent Template free ... Update: Some asked me about the context, it's in the field of computer science and web data extraction tools ( web scraping , web wrappers). A web data extractor can rely on the template of a website in a template-based approach. The opposite could be non-template based approach. But for the second sentence above (template based information), I doubt the opposite to be "non-template based information"! maybe template independent or template free information?! or maybe just a description is required. Or maybe such combination is odd! <Q> The "opposite" of anything depends on context. <S> Therefore, the opposite of "template based" depends on context. <S> In the context of a particular content management system, the opposite of a template-based page might be a free-form page. <S> In the context of some particular web site, the opposite of a template-based page might be a static page. <S> In the context of bread baking, the opposite of template-based might be a bagel, or a round loaf. <S> "Opposite" generally means that which is "least like" something else. <S> But since this is a comparative term, a context is necessary to form the comparison. <S> Another example: Q. <S> What is the opposite of black? <S> A. Red. <S> Ask any accountant. <A> I'd say in this question, the two sentences have different meanings of 'template-based'. <S> In the first sentence, the meaning is 'using a fixed method or thing(a template) of action', here we just say 'non-template-based', as you say. <S> However, in the second sentence, the meaning is 'using a fixed template to extract specific data'. <S> Opposite would be 'template-independent', as in that case, we don't use a specific template that we used before, but either define our own, or don't use a template at all. <S> This paper may help: Template-Based Information Extraction without the Templates <A> A web data extractor can rely on the template of a website in a template-based approach. <S> Given this is for the web from a programming sense, I would change the second to read: <S> If no template exists, then other heuristics must be used to gather the relevant data. <S> (Then explain a bit about the techniques used ... <S> e.g. keyword searches, perhaps metadata, etc.)
| The opposite could be non-template based approach.
|
Is "I wish I knew who you are?" grammatical? I wish I knew who you are? Is the above sentence correct? <Q> Right,so: <S> 1- <S> I wish I knew [right now] who you were <S> [it is improbable I will find out]. <S> 2- I wish I knew [right now] <S> who you were [last week, I have since found out: you are rabbit]. <S> 3-I wish I knew [right now] who you are [right now]. <S> The difference between 1 and 2, is that they potentially can mean two things which would be clarified only by context, as I have tried to show. <S> 1- is likely to be something that will not happen2- is something I wish now. <A> I would say, "I wish I knew who you were," since it's subjunctive. <A> I would say "I wish I knew who you are". <S> More examples <S> : I wish I knew where you are. <S> (The speaker does not know where the person he is referring to is now). <S> I wish I knew where you were last night. <S> (Here the speaker does not know now where the person he is referring to was last night) <A> I wish I knew who you are? <S> The question mark is incorrect in this context, but I wish I knew who you are. <S> is grammatically correct, although a bit odd sounding and specific. <S> It's a correct use of the subjunctive <S> "I wish I knew..." but the "...who you are?" would only be correct if the speaker was talking to someone who they didn't know, and couldn't just ask " who are you? " <S> Perhaps if someone with a secret identity saved someone, and that person said "I wish I knew who you are" grammatically there is nothing wrong with that, it's the same as " <S> I wish I knew who Banksy is" but is just never said, since it would be more appropriate to simply ask the person being spoken to for their name. <A> It should be: <S> I wish I knew who you were . <S> This is because the verb knew is past tense, so the verb were needs to be the same. <S> Knowledge is something you already have, so even though you are wishing in the present, your wish is that you had that previous knowledge, hence the past tense. <S> You could make your present wish about the future by saying: <S> I wish I could know who you are . <A> The correct form is: <S> I wish I knew who you were. <S> Three points: <S> There is no need for a question mark in normal use. <S> It’s an assertion about your state of mind, not a question about their name (even if your underlying intent is indeed to ask them to remind you of their name). <S> Your original “knew” is correct. <S> The past tense is used to express subjunctive mood. <S> It is “you were”, not “you are”. <S> It is a wish sentence involving the verb “to be”, and that is almost always expressed with “were”. <S> You can find more details on this and other aspects of the Subjunctive Mood , here . <S> An example very similar to yours is given about halfway down. <A> I wish I knew who you are?Is the above sentence correct? <S> The sentence is incorrect by mixing the tenses of 'knew' and 'are', and it is not a question. <S> If you are stating that you wish to know somebody, which is not a question, then you would say, "I would like to know you." <S> "I wish I know you" is incorrect.
| "I wish I knew who you are" is commonly used and easily understood, but I think it's technically incorrect.
|
"if it works" and "does it work" phrase differences I recently was corrected in this SO answer. I am just curious if there are any differences between the following phrasings, and whether there is a difference in meaning or one phrasing simply sounds wrong: Not sure does it work and Not sure if it works As far as I know the second is subjunctive and the first is not, but both seem to be correct to me. <Q> Well, neither one is a complete sentence, but you probably realize that. <S> Let's go ahead and make them complete sentences anyway: <S> I am not sure does it work. <S> I am not sure if it works. <S> The only correct sentence is 2. <S> In 1, "does it work" is a complete question, also known as an interrogative clause. <S> Notice the inversion of "it" and "does," which are the subject and the modal auxiliary verb, respectively. <S> This is a sure sign of a question. <S> In this form, it needs to stand by itself: "Does it work?" <S> Rearranged into a regular declarative statement, it would look like this: "It does work." <S> So "does" is just part of the verb phrase. <S> It doesn't take on any conjunction-like duties. <S> In other words, not only is there no subordinating conjunction such as "if" to join "does it work" to the main, independent clause, but interrogative clauses can't be subordinated (although they can have subordinate clauses of their own, as in, "Are you sure that it works?"). <S> (The subjunctive mood is not present in either 1 or 2.) <A> "Does" is a verb (albeit an extremely flexible one). <S> "If" is a conjunction. <S> The mood is irrelevant, although the second is actually indicative, not subjunctive: it's expressing uncertainty about the functionality of something. <S> The first example is not grammatical, although with a bit of punctuation you could make it say something similar: <S> Not sure; does it work? <S> This is, however, a question that implies doubt, not a statement of doubt directly. <A> The first one really doesn't make natural sense to an English speaker. <S> Placing "does" at the beginning of the clause, as in "does it work", turns it into a question but yours is clearly not part of a question. <S> You were looking for something along these lines: <S> [I am] Not sure that it does work in ruby 2.0... <S> [I am] Not sure that it works in ruby 2.0... <S> The omitted "I am" would be clear in casual conversation but you wouldn't write this way in a formal setting. <S> It isn't really part of a conditional/subjunctive as you mention, it's really more about a list of choices. <S> In this case the choices are "it works" and "it doesn't work".
| They're not interchangeable (although sometimes you can construct sentences that are grammatically distinct but use identical sequences of words aside from "does" and "if"). Some people would argue that it's more correct to use the word "whether" rather than "if".
|
When can I use "thy" instead of "your"? I have never heard anybody using it, I only came across the word in the title of the movie Honor Thy Mother <Q> This is a quotation from the best-known translation of the Christian Bible, the 'Authorized Version' or 'King James Version': Honor thy father and thy mother. <S> Possessive <S> thy and the subject/object forms thou / thee are old forms which are no longer used in Standard English, and are dying out even in the dialects where it has survived. <S> In ordinary uses it is today restricted almost entirely to religious contexts, where it employs the diction of the KJV; to works of historical fiction which imitate older language; and to translations from languages which maintain morphological or lexical distinctions between singular and plural and/or familiar and formal in the second person. <S> It is very unlikely that you will ever have occasion to use it. <A> When can I use “thy” instead of “your”? <S> When? <S> Pretty much anytime before about the year 1780. <S> In all seriousness, "thy" (and its other forms like "thou", "thee", and "thine") is the equivalent of "tú" (in Spanish) or "du" (in German). <S> It is just the familiar form. <S> Unlike every other Indo-European language , we stopped using the familiar form about 200 years ago, except when we are deliberately attempting to invoke an archaic ambiance, suggesting Shakespeare or the King James Version of the Bible. <A> A key thing not mentioned in the other answers is that thou, thy, thee, thine is the informal version of you, or at least many years ago it was. <S> In the same way that in french we have tu and vous , which can both mean you in the singular, so in english there was thou and you . <S> In french you have to be really careful when to use tu and vous , because to say tu to someone in the wrong context is very rude. <S> It is more respectful to say vous . <S> In the North of England it persists a bit - the phrase "t'art" is short for "thou art", which is equivalent to "you are".... <S> e.g. "t'art right useful" where right in this context means very. <S> So if you want to use "thou" or "thee" it should be to one person in a familiar context in speech from about 200 or more years ago. <S> These days if someone uses thou <S> it sounds a bit odd and more formal, which is not at all its original meaning, which is why in Romeo and Juliet there is the line from Juliet of "Romeo, o Romeo, wherefore art thou, Romeo" - - which translated is "Romeo, o Romeo <S> why are you Romeo" <S> (why a Montague and not a Capulet (like me) - thanks to all who pointed out my mistake - many apologies... <S> )- Note that it is uses the very familiar intimate version of you because of the intimate relationship between Romeo and Juliet. <S> edit - so I messed up in my original answer and thought wherefore= <S> where, but it does mean why.... sorry <A> If you were quoting someone from Yorkshire, you could use the modern equivalent 'thee'. <S> From personal experience it exists more as a stereotype than actually being common usage, but there are still people that do it. <S> Use of the singular second-person pronoun thou (often written tha) and thee. <S> This is a T form in the T-V distinction, and is largely confined to male, mostly older speakers. <S> Wikipedia <A> So unless you’re going to write a historic fiction story which takes place in medieval England, you’re probably not going to use it. <S> I think this article on Shakespearean English explains the use well. <S> It gives the following example from Romeo and Juliet : <S> Deny thy father and refuse thy name; <S> Furthermore, this Shakespearean English can also be used in role-playing (games). <S> However, most people would probably find it silly and/or too cumbersome to do so.
| As others have mentioned before me, thy is only used in historical and religious texts, or fiction which takes place in older times (usually medieval times).
|
What does "It can be common or split between the digital and analog sections." mean? In a technical data sheet , I found the following paragraph: Use at least one ground plane. It can be common or split between the digital and analog sections. In the latter case, join the planes underneath the AD7682/AD7689. What does the sentence in bold mean? I find two possible meanings for this sentence, depending on whether "common" is affected by "between" or not: It can be common between both sections or split between them. It can be split between the two sections or it can be common. <Q> In good design, the analog and digital circuits are confined to separate physical areas, typically one side or the other of a printed circuit design. <S> The ground (in this case a ground plane), however, must connect them all together. <S> This can be done in two ways. <S> The first, simpler, way is just to use a layer of copper that covers the entire board. <S> This depends upon layout to prevent digital function currents from straying into the analog section and causing noise. <S> Because both functional areas have the copper layer "in common", it is called "common", and does not mean "usual" or "customary". <S> A more effective strategy is effectively to create two separate ground planes on the same physical layer. <S> Each ground plane underlies only the functions it serves: digital or analog. <S> The separate (not common) ground planes are only connected together at one or two points - in this case, the ground pins of the A/D converters being discussed. <S> Other examples of the useage are "to have common interests" (to have the same, or shared, interests) and "to unite to resist a common enemy" (the enemy threatens both parties, so both have the enemy "in common"). <A> It means the two sections can be together (common) or separate (split). <S> In the image below, the wires are common. <S> If you remove the black casing they'd be split. <A> This can be hypothesized to be an instance of elision. <S> According to this hypothesis, there is some original sentence which is condensed. <S> Possibly, that sentence might be: <S> It can be common, or it can be split between the digital sections and the analog sections. <S> Or it might be this one (which clarifies that there are exactly two sections: one digital and one analog): <S> It can be common, or it can be split between the digital section and the analog section. <S> In either form, the second repetition of "it can be" (shown in bold) is omitted, and the two clauses are merged into one. <S> In the first form, the phrase "the digital sections and the analog sections" condenses by eliminating the repetition of the common noun "sections" (shown in bold). <S> The and is then applied the section attributes: "digital and analog". <S> In the second form, the phrase "the digital section and the analog section" condenses by factoring out the repeated "section" noun, and pluralizing it to refer to both sections. <S> The result is ambiguous: it no longer clearly spells out that there is a single analog section and single digital section. <S> It is remotely possible, even, that there are multiple sections which are not divided along digital and analog boundaries: each section has digital and analog domains, and "it" (the signal or whatever) is split between these. <S> I.e. there is a section A, which is digital and analog, and a section B, also digital and analog. <S> It is split between these two; i.e. between the digital-and-analog sections A and B. <S> For instance, if we take a phrase like "the black bird and the white bird" and merge it to "the black and white bird", we lose information. <S> This could be referring to a single bird which has black feathers and white feathers. <S> An article can help here: no such ambiguity is present in "the black and the white bird": since "the" occurs twice, there are two birds. <S> (Illustrating how articles are important in English!) <S> Without seeing more of document, including any diagrams and whatever, it is impossible to be sure. <S> The interpretation that there are two sections, of analog and digital kind, or two groups of such sections, is based on domain knowledge from electronic design, not on a pure interpretation of the words.
| This is a usage found in more than printed circuit design, and "common" in this meaning is the antonym of "separate".
|
Can I use "Dress" for men's wear? My friends laughed at me when I said "nice dress man" because "dress" is used for only females. Is this correct? I was always thinking dress is just synonym of costumes and clothes. Is there any gender specific usage of "dress"? In India girls/woman use word "dress" to differentiate from the traditional dresses that women wear like saree, lahenga, chudidar, ghaghra etc., so anything other than Indian traditional clothing is called "dress" including Ts and Jeans. <Q> The meaning of "dress" is context-sensitive. <S> In "Nice dress, man!", the "nice" modifier makes it sound like you are referring to a specific item of clothing that you like. <S> Therefore, I would assume that you are referring to a skirt-like garment. <S> The same goes for "a dress", "the dress", "this dress", "your dress", or any modifier that makes it sound specific. <S> There are, however, situations where "dress" has a more generic meaning: "Dress" used as an adjective is likely to be generic: <S> This company has a strict dress code : suits and ties for men, pantsuits for women. <S> "Dress" used as a verb is likely to be generic: <S> This party will be an opportunity to dress up . <S> It's taking you forever to <S> get dressed ! <S> "Dress" used as a noun requires thought: The wedding invitation says <S> formal dress requested , so I'll have to get my old suit altered. <A> As a native U.S. English speaker, if I heard someone say, "Nice dress!", I would assume that they were referring to a dress, a specific item of clothing usually worn only by women and girls. <S> To say that a male dresses well, you might say "Nice dresser!" <S> instead, or "Nice clothes!", or maybe even "Nice outfit!". <S> Similarly, statements such as "He dresses nicely", or "He arrived in formal dress" could apply to both male and female. <A> It's not generally used to mean the specific outfit that a person is wearing. <S> I would take "nice dress, man!" <S> to refer to a dress (singular noun) <S> that's visible for you to remark on, not to dress (non-count noun) in general. <S> A dress, singular, is a long skirted article of clothing that conventionally is worn by women and not by men (but, you know, it's the 21st century). <S> An image search for "dress" should give you the general idea. <S> Just to confuse matters, a "dress shirt" is an article of men's clothing. <S> In the US it means pretty much any smart collared shirt, in the UK it means a more specific style of formal shirt, which USians possibly refer to as a "tuxedo shirt". <S> I'm unsure because I've never been to an event in the US that called for one. <S> "Dress uniform" is the most formal military uniform, and I believe it can be called "dress" for short. <S> The term "battledress" refers to standard combat uniforms, especially old-style ones. <S> Not, as you might otherwise expect, to a kevlar frock. <S> So you might say, "nice dress shirt, man" or "nice dress [uniform], man", if the specific circumstances called for it, and that wouldn't imply women's clothing. <A> When used as a noun, a dress is normally used to refer a typical type of (perhaps fancy) clothing that women sometimes wear: <S> The definition from the Merriam Webster dictionary: <S> a piece of clothing for a woman or a girl that has a top part that covers the upper body and a skirt that hangs down to cover the legs <S> However, if you say to a man: <S> Nice dress! <S> ... <S> then it will most likely be interpreted as a sarcastic comment if the man is. <S> Unless he is actually and intentionally wearing a dress, of course. <S> However, people who do that usually want to look feminin (this is called crossdressing , a man trying to imitate the outer appearance of a woman). <S> If the man you're talking to is wearing a 'costume' like you said, I would just use the word costume instead. <S> This word is used for clothing worn by someone who is trying to look like someone/something else or a type of clothing worn by a specific group of people, especially in past times. <S> To compliment a man on his attire , there are plenty of synonyms, search for synonyms of clothing in the dictionary <S> and you'll find other suitable terms. <S> In any case, try to avoid using the word dress when talking about a man's outfit. <S> You could also try to be more specific, if it is a particular part of the clothing that you like: <S> Nice shirt! <S> Nice shoes! <S> or use a hypernym: <S> Nice outfit! <S> You look well-dressed! <A> In the military, a fancy formal uniform is officially referred to as "mess dress." <S> Also, the combat uniform used to be called a BDU for battle dress uniform.
| "Dress" can mean "clothing" or "attire", but it's usually used that way in the abstract, referring to clothes in general.
|
Slang words for person who is bad at language I'm searching for slang or informal words that describe person who is bad at language, especially English. Is there anything like this in British English or American? I think about people who had moved to - for example - UK, have lived there for years, but their language skills are still low and full of grammar mistakes.I would be really thankful if you could answer. <Q> There is the rather sarcastic… He speaks accent with a trace of English .. <S> a wordplay joke on <S> He speaks English with a trace of an accent which would be complimentary. <A> I have also heard referred to newcomers who are obviously not from the country they are in as F.O.B, "fresh off the boat" <A> Sadly, in English we lack anything as colourful as "parler français comme une vache espagnole" (to speak French like a Spanish cow) although a similar phrase "He speaks English like a native" can be used either with obvious sarcasm or with a delayed or implied "...of Outer Mongolia" or other faraway place. <S> The other one you may hear is that someone is 'mangling' the language - from the OED: <S> To make (words) almost unrecognizable by mispronunciation; to spoil, corrupt, misrepresent, or do violence to (a text or extract, or the meaning or essence of something); to distort (music) in a similar fashion.
| It used to be common for someone to refer to a person who speaks a little bit of English as someone who used or spoke "pidgin or broken English".
|
How to translate the company name? Here is the situation: I know one Russian woman named Oxana Volkova. She is a doctor dermatologist/cosmetologist and she has her own clinic.We made a bet: How to translate her clinic name? In Russia it looks like this: Центр медицинской косметологии Оксаны Волковой If I translate it step by step we will get: The Centre of Medical Cosmetology (created/founded) by Oxana Volkova But I feel it's wrong and I am not sure which one is correct: The Oxana Volkova Medical Cosmetology Centre Dr. Oxana Volkova Medical Cosmetology Centre Oxana Volkova Centre of Medical Cosmetology The Oxana Volkova Centre for Medical Cosmetology Other(s) ? <Q> I would call it Oxana Volkova Medical Cosmetology Center <A> This is what makes translation fun: there is almost always a degree of interpretation in every translation , so the "correct" translation is the one that the clinic owner, Dr. Volkova, likes best. <S> Personally, based on other clinic names I've seen, I would expect the following, but it's really a personal preference on her part: <S> The Volkova Center for Dermatological Cosmetology <A> In English, it is very common to use more lengthened premodifiers in a phrase. <S> The most idiomatic options would probably be either Oxana Volkova Medical Cosmetology Center or Oxana Volkova Center for Medical Cosmetology . <S> The first would probably be better than the latter. <S> This is often done in names, here are a few other examples: Oxford University Cambridge Online English Dictionary Whipps Cross University Hospital <A> Let's not forget the genitive: <S> I wonder if it should not be: <S> Oksana Volkova's Center of Medical Cosmetology (the difference is in the spelling of the first name)
| Oxana Volkova's Center of Medical Cosmetology
|
Meaning of the expression "compensate for" in driving context So today we want to talk about the subject of defensive driving. And the way I define defensive driving is, the ability to develop the proper driving habits, so that we can compensate for pretty much anything that goes on out on the roadways and that we can avoid a crash at any level. Does the word compensate here mean take an action to make up and eliminate the bad effect of what you have done during driving ? Or it simply mean to prevent sth bad from happening ? Which one fits here? <Q> I'd say it matches your first definition, although in this context the second one is an implied consequence. <S> I would just make a small adjustment to your first definition - you are not trying to eliminate a bad effect of something <S> you have done, but the bad effect of something that has happened beyond your control (that's what the rest of the sentence "pretty much anything that goes on on the roads" means). <S> The whole paragraph can be transformed into a sequence like this one: you acquire defensive driving skills so that when you are driving -> <S> (and) something unexpected, potentially dangerous happens on the road (beyond your control) - <S> > <S> your habit kicks in -> you automatically perform a defensive maneuver - <S> > <S> the effect of this maneuver counters the effect of the unexpected event -> <S> you emerge from the incident safely, without a crash (without bad consequences) <S> the bold part corresponds to the meaning of 'compensate for' in your context. <S> I would read it as the 2nd definition from ODO : <S> [no object] <S> (compensate for) Reduce or counteract (something unwelcome or unpleasant) by exerting an opposite force or effect <A> It means so that we can react proactively and promptly to a potentially dangerous condition or situation and in doing so avoid a mishap. <A> I would use 'react to' instead of 'compensate for'
| I'm not sure that 'compensate' is the best work to use, but it means that if something bad happens on the road, we can 'compensate' (i.e. negate the effect of) for the bad thing, so that there is no adverse outcome, or any adverse outcome is reduced.
|
Looking for a word that describes an inherent problem in a product I think there is a word to describe that a certain problem in a product was cause by a defect that inherently existed in the product from the start as opposed to something that broke during the usage of the product. Inherent is close, but I think there is some more precise word for it. <Q> In the UK we'd say a product 'has a design flaw' or 'is inherently faulty/flawed,' <A> I don't see that "inherent" is imprecise. <S> It's derived from the Latin for "sticking to", so it has the meaning of inextricable. <S> Or "innate", which has the meaning of instilled from the beginning, i.e., "from birth". <A> The word intrinsic describes the inbuilt nature of something. <S> It is a part of the product itself, not something added later by wear and tear. <A> The other answers give 'inherent' and 'intrinsic'. <S> This would usually be used to refer to problems that are an accepted part of the design of the product. <S> The 640KB limit was an inherent limitation of MS-DOS. <S> A design defect is a flaw in the design of the product, which prevents the product from functioning in the intended manner. <S> A manufacturing defect is a flaw in the product that was introduced during the manufacture of said product. <A> I think that Flaw, as in a Flawed diamond, describes an inherent problem well in fewer words. <S> Inherent is a good word to describe the flaw, but you didn't say if the flaw was of design or manufacturing. <S> If you're attempting to get redress, it's important to distinguish a "manufacturing flaw" (they messed up making it) as opposed to a design flaw (this item was poorly conceived). <S> The former is much more likely to get immediate redress, but the second at best will cause a new model or version. <S> If the product is software you can also use the word "bug" to describe any error that occurs.
| A flaw from the design would be intrinsic to the product. You could use "intrinsic", which carries the connotation of "essentially inside".
|
What is called the first container of a thing Consider the figure below, -----------| A| ----------| | B| | --------| | | C || | --------| --------------- ------------------ what is called "B"? the closest container of C the direct container of C the first container of C you suggest It is not actually the parent. <Q> These are sometimes called nested containers . <S> (In your example, the "second container in" and the "second container out" happen to be the same container, because there are only three containers. <S> But in a set of six nested boxes, B would be the second container in, and E would be the second container out.) <S> You could also call it the penultimate container, if you wanted to use a fancy word. <S> Penultimate means "second to last". <S> If you wanted to reference container B in relation to container C, I would recommend the word directly : B is the container directly outside of C; C is the container directly inside of B. <S> One meaning of directly is: directly ( adv. ) with nothing or no one in between; exactly in a specified position (definition from NOAD) <A> Since there are three containers, you could describe them easily this way: A) <S> The outer container B) <S> The middle container C) <S> The center container Note that you could also refer to C as the innermost container. <S> You could also refer to B as the second container, since it is the second container from the outermost container A. <S> If you want to be very clear when using "second container", you could describe it as "the second container in" or the "second container from the outside". " <S> Second container in" would be used more commonly as it is shorter and easy to understand. <A> I would say that B is the immediate container of C. <S> This is true <S> no matter how many other containers are inside of C or outside of B. see senses 1(a) and 3(a). <S> http://i.word.com/idictionary/immediate
| B could be called: the second container in ( in implies counting from the outermost container ) the second container out ( out implies counting from the innermost container )
|
How can I express 'teaching something to myself'? I know the verb "to learn". I also know "self-learn" as a noun. But can it be used as a verb? Like I self-learnt something. If not, how could I say I 'learnt' myself something in the past? <Q> We speak of teach-yourself books and courses . <S> In the past we would most likely say: <S> I'm self taught or I taught myself Russian or <S> I learned it on my own . <S> A more formal term is autodidact - a person who learns on his own, using autodidactic materials. <A> There may be a few people who say I self-learned it , but the typical idiomatic way of expressing the idea is to say "I am self-taught". <A> There are verbs of this type, i.e. you can find them in written language,e.g. to fine-tune, to force-feed geese, to peer-review a text, to speed-read, to test-drive <S> Such formations are mainly found in articles where specialists write about their special field of activity. <S> I think one should not exaggerate the use of these formations.
| For "to self-learn" one might also say to learn without a teacher or to learn on one's own.
|
Why do Americans say Star Trek like Star Track? Why do Americans say Star Trek like Star Track? Is this correct? Because the dictionary says /trek/. I heard several usual Americans say it this way. <Q> When I was six years old, I talked* about this with some of the neighbor kids down the street. <S> They pronounced it "Star Track". <S> I pronounced it "Star Trek". <S> This was in a small town in Wisconsin. <S> Here's why they pronounced it "Star Track". <S> The word "track" is very familiar, and the word "trek" is not. <S> Indeed none of the neighbor kids knew the word "trek". <S> Even though I loved the show, I did not even know what the word "trek" meant. <S> I just knew from the titles how it was spelled. <S> Even when people hear the name of the show pronounced "trek", they think it's "Star Track" because that sounds like a reasonable name for a TV show about traveling through outer space, since the primary meanings of the word “track” relate to travel: such as footprints and a path along which one travels. <S> Something similar happened in nursery school a couple years earlier. <S> A girl there consistently addressed me as Bend. <S> We talked about it a bit. <S> She knew the word "bend" but had never heard of the name Ben, so she went with the familiar word. <S> In fact, I started to think that maybe my name was really Bend! <S> If you're curious to read more about this, search for " priming " in connection with cognitive science and linguistics. <S> Priming explains why people easily mishear an unexpected word as something semantically relevant. <S> I don't know of a term for mishearing an unfamiliar word as a familiar word, but there's plenty of linguistics research about that, too. <S> * Argued. <A> American midwest here. <S> I do not pronounce it like "Star Track". <S> My grandparents down in Alabama would say it with a southern drawl "Stahoar Treyk" : try to mash "Stah" and "oar" together into one syllable here. <S> If you heard someone like my sister from New Jersey say it, they would drop the 'r' sound from star, to get "Stah Trek" <S> These are the two accents outside of my own that I'm familiar with. <A> I've never heard someone (seriously) pronounce it Star Track. <S> If I heard an average adult say it I would assume they were only passingly familiar with the show and messed up the name. <S> If they were a child or otherwise uneducated, I might assume as above that it's because they are unfamiliar with the word 'trek' as opposed to the much more familiar 'track'. <S> In fact, I have heard a child reason out that a 'trek into the wilderness' must be a long trip where they encountered new things and possibly aliens, because they were only familiar with the word as a part of the name 'Star Trek'. <A> I've heard many black people, including Arsenio Hall, refer to the program as "Star TRACK". <S> Might be that aforementioned familiarity theory. <S> "Trek" is not an everyday word and is probably used even more sparingly in the African American community. <S> You won't often hear: "I'm gonna TREK on down to da naybahoodlickka sto'"
| In my area we pronounce it like "stahr trehk" where the ah is like "Aha!", the eh is like "Eh.", but this can totally change depending on who you heard say it and where they are from.
|
during the time or throughout the time I am wondering if there is any difference between the following? I am confused. Or could you please introduce me other phrses fitted better rather than the bold ones? I have written the sentences by myself. A. Throughout the time One can come to realise plagiarism becomes more common. B. During the time One can come to realise plagiarism becomes more common. <Q> Throughout is used with states which are constantly present and events which occur repeatedly and frequently during the entirety of the period. <S> During may be used the same way (I just did!), but it does not necessarily imply constant occurrence; it may be used with single or relatively rare events and states which occur at some point in the period. <S> Throughout his visit to Scotland George travelled by bus. <S> During his visit to Scotland Harry travelled by bus only twice. <S> Note that both Throughout and during are generally used with specific timeframes: "Throughout the 19th century", "During my vacation". <S> If you mean merely that something happens during/throughout any stretch of time, use over time . <S> Over time you may come to realize that plagiarism is increasing. <S> You may come to realize that plagiarism is increasing over time. <S> Note that where you put the phrase determines what it modifies. <S> In the first it modifies <S> You may come to realize ; in the second it modifies plagiarism is increasing . <A> If you want to use "Throughout the time", you will need to qualify it more, such as " <S> Throughout the time that the subject was studied" For your examples, it's tough to figure out which option to go with without the context of any surrounding sentences. <S> "Throughout" typically lasts from the start of something all the way to the end. <S> So to say "I had a job throughout the year" would mean that you were employed in January and stayed at the job every month, including December of that year. <S> "During" is not quite as comprehensive. <S> It doesn't have to include the entire timespan of something. <S> So using the above example, "I had a job during the year" would mean that at some point in the year, you were employed. <S> It could have been only in March, and no other months. <S> It could mean you had a job for 6 months out of the year. <S> And it could also overlap with "throughout" and mean you had a job from January all the way through December, but that's not guaranteed when you say "during". <S> Just based on the options you've provided, I would go with " <S> During this time, one can realise plagiarism became more common." <S> Although in American English, using "one" in this context comes across as formal and stiff. <S> Something like "During this time, plagiarism became more common." or better yet, "During this time, individuals realized plagiarism became increasingly common." <A> 1 <S> It happened during the war. <S> - This can mean any point of time in the war. <S> 2 <S> Throughout the war we were suffering from hunger. <S> - This means from the beginning of the war to its end. <S> You could also say "during the whole war".
| In general, use "Throughout time" and "During the time of" or "During this time".
|
Why "getting THE nails into fence" but "hammering _ nails"? Why there is no "the" in the second case? For me both of this cases look identical. His father gave him a bag full of nails. (...) On the first day he hammered in 37 nails, but getting the(1) nails into the fence was not easy. As the days went by, he was hammering in less nails, and within weeks he was able to refrain from getting angry and from hammering the (2) nails. <Q> "The" is used to signify a noun is the same as one previously mentioned in conversation, or the same as an instance of one directly observable (or obvious) by both parties in the conversation. <S> On the first day he hammered in 37 nails <S> This is the first mention of nails which establishes a context. <S> ( The would only be used here if there was a previous conversation or the people in the conversation can physically see the nails.) <S> but getting the(1) nails into the fence was not easy <S> If we don't specifically mean these nails, but any nails, the would be omitted. <S> ... <S> within weeks he was able to refrain from getting angry and from hammering the(2) nails. <S> Again, our established context with "nails" is the 37 nails mentioned previously. <S> We would use <S> the if we were still talking about those same 37 nails. <S> Unless you really mean to express that he's spent weeks hammering the same 37 nails, the would be omitted since you really mean "any nails" or "nails in general." <A> The first "the" refers to "37 nails". <S> The second "the" is incorrect because it doesn't refer to anything in the sentence. <S> If the second "the" still referred to "37 nails", it would not be correct because the sentence says he hammered in less nails as the days went by. <A> Either, neither, or both of the "cases" could be written without the definite article. <S> Not using the definite article with a plural count noun (such as nails ) makes an indefinite reference. <S> There are 4 places where the author can either use the definite article before nails or not use it: <S> His father gave him a bag full of A nails. <S> (...) On the first day he hammered in B 37 nails, but getting C nails into the fence was not easy. <S> As the days went by, he was hammering in less nails, and within weeks he was able to refrain from getting angry and from hammering D nails. <S> You would not use <S> the with less nails <S> because less already makes this an indefinite reference. <S> In any of the other four instances, you can use <S> the if you want to make a definite reference. <S> And not use <S> the when you don't want to make a definite reference. <S> So the usage depends on what kind of reference the author wants to make. <S> Authors make a definite reference most often when they expect you to know which 'things' they are talking about . <S> Note that this expectation does not have to be correct. <S> And this is not the only times that authors can make a definite reference. <S> Of course, making a definite reference and an indefinite reference changes how we understand nails, so the meaning of the overall passage will change accordingly.
| That is what the definite article does, it makes a definite reference. We say the nails if we are talking about the same 37 nails just mentioned. It's that way because the author wanted it that way.
|
Omission of preposition in a relative clause How much permissible to say, "I liked the breakfast the hotel we stayed served", omitting a preposition such as "in" after stayed? <Q> If your goal is to communicate, that sentence does not do a good job. <S> Without the preposition, the sentence is also ungrammatical. <A> You stay at/in a hotel; you don't stay a hotel. <S> You sentence is grammatically incorrect if you omit the preposition "at/in" in your sentence. <S> .I <S> liked the breakfast served at the hotel <S> we stayed at/in. <S> .I <S> liked the breakfast served at the hotel where we stayed. <S> .I <S> liked the breakfast served at the hotel in which we stayed. <A> "I liked the breakfast the hotel we stayed served" -- can you omit the preposition (e.g. 'in' or 'at') after stayed? <S> No, you cannot omit the preposition. <S> We don't 'stay a hotel'. <S> We 'stay in' or 'stay at' a hotel. <S> To 'stay {something}' means to stop it. <S> The governor can 'stay an execution'. <S> But we can point at, or mention, a hotel and say "I have stayed there ".
| The preposition is needed to make the sentence coherent.
|
Are "dude" and "man" disrespectful words? What is the exact nuance of dude or man ? I'm studying English from Japan. I want to know how people feel about dude or man .Is it just a friendly way to call close friends? Like addressing a boyfriend or girlfriend as honey ? Or does it include disrespectful meaning? In Japanese people don't use you if they're not close friends. Usually they call by name or just don't say you because people know talking to you.But many people call close friends anta , omae , that is meaning 'you' a lot. But anata is a little disrespectful and omae is a really disrespectful word. Maybe it's like strong "You!" or "HEY YOU!" in English. But using like dude or man a lot. But in English, dude and man aren't disrespectful words? People don't feel annoyed if friends use the words? <Q> Both "dude" and "man" are INFORMAL. <S> Whether or not they are disrespectful depends on whether you are expected to have a formal or informal relationship with the person you are addressing. <S> If you have a familiar relationship already, calling them either term reinforces that familiarity. <S> If I say to my friend "Check this out, man!" <S> the subtext of the message is that our relationship is such that we can use familiar terms, and it strengthens the relationship. <S> On the other hand if I find a traffic policeman writing me a parking ticket, and I say "You can't do that, man!" <S> then it is disrespectful. <S> Also, a lot depends on the TONE with which you say them. <S> As with any sentence, an aggressive tone makes the same word seem more offensive than a friendly tone. <S> See, for example: <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77v_Q0mhbZU (0:00 to 0:45) <A> I will also say that in an informal setting among friends, "dude!" <S> with a certain tone is used to express surprise or dismay at something that a man has done/said. <S> I'll give two examples. <S> Person 1: "I found out today that I got the job. <S> " <S> Person 2: "Dude! <S> That is so awesome." <S> Person 1: <S> drunk and knocks over a glass during a party and is becoming a bit aggressive Person 2: "Dude, chill out." <A> I suggest you watch "Dude, <S> Where's My Car?". <S> Consider though, for a moment, Prince William hanging off a cliff. <S> If you walked over to him and offered him your hand whilst uttering 'Dude', he would rightly accept that utterance as an invitation to be rescued, rather than an insult! <S> In this situation, 'dude' has become quite acceptable, and you will find that words often take on new meanings depending on the situation, and tone of voice of the speaker. <S> That said, you probably shouldn't go round calling everyone dude, but there are people out there that get away with doing just that, and rarely cause offence. <A> I will say that "dude" is definitely a more familiar word than "man". <S> If you were in a crowded location (for example grocery store, crowded street), you might say "hey man, can I get through?" <S> but you probably wouldn't say dude. <S> It should be of note that even in colloquial conversation you need to be more formal when addressing a woman. <S> You would say "excuse me, miss" or address the woman by name.
| As already suggested, 'dude' is typically considered an informal title. By using an informal term in a situation that calls for formality, I am refusing to acknowledge the authority of the other person and thus disrespecting their position. If you say "hey dude, check this out" you are definitely speaking to a good friend.
|
Come out in the sense of removing something How come is the meaning common in everyday speech? I mean, we may use just remove instead. For instance: The stains from the meat sauce won't come out. What is the difference between these two sentences? The stains from the meat sauce won't be removed . or The stains from the meat sauce won't be come out. <Q> The stains from the meat sauce won't come out. <S> The stains from the meat sauce won't be removed. <S> The stains from the meat sauce won't be come out. <S> The sentences #1 and #2 are grammatically correct. <S> You use come out in the same way as wash out. <S> The stains won't wash out. <S> The phrasal verb come out is an intransitive verb. <S> On the other hand, the word remove is a transitive verb. <S> That't why you have used "be" after won't with the past participle removed to make the sentence in the passive voice. <S> The sentence #3 is grammatically incorrect. <S> You cannot use it as a transitive verb or form a sentence in the passive voice. <A> One of the meaning come out is be removed . <A> Personally, I would use come off and not come out . <S> come out <S> does mean that something is being removed, but from INSIDE something else. <S> A similar meaning to extract (not a synonym): <S> This screw will not come out <S> I am trying to extract the screw from its hole, but I cannot (because it is too tight maybe?). <S> come off <S> means something is ON something else <S> and I want to remove it. <S> The stains from the meat sauce won't come off. <S> I am trying to remove the stains, but I cannot (because they are too thick?). <S> Now with this modification, on to your sentences: a. <S> The stains from the meat sauce won't come off. <S> b. <S> The stains from the meat sauce won't be removed. <S> b to me sounds like the act of removing the stains will not happen. <S> That is, nobody will do it or even try it. <S> a means that no matter how hard you're trying, you cannot manage to remove the stains.
| Come out is an intransitive verb.
|
Does word "someone" refer to both an animal and a human being or only human being? The word someone is used for human beings but I am having a hard time understanding if it is also used for animals! <Q> If you hear the word someone <S> it almost certainly refers to a human being. <S> Some people will use it fancifully to refer to a pet or other animal, but even then it will be ascribing human characteristics or personality traits to the animal. <S> For example, if the pet dog comes begging for food, the owner might say, "Well, looks like someone is hungry." <S> But if out of the blue you said, "Someone came to the door today," nobody would think you were talking about an animal. <A> Agreed with Robusto. <S> For example, in fantasy literature or New Age Spirituality. <S> "He had the feeling that someone was watching him. <S> " could mean a wolf in the forest, if the writer is ascribing some level of sentience to the wolf, for example. <S> However, such uses are very specific and outside the norm. <A> Re: the forest; If a human was the 'watcher' then the writer would use "someone" and this would communicate some form of danger or mystery. <S> If the writer wanted to suggest an animal, he/she would use "it" which leaves open the possibility of a threat (e.g. a predator) or mere curiosity (e.g. a rabbit or bird). <A> I would very much concur that "someone" would definitely be applicably in almost all situations in reference to a pet, even if that pet is diverse (antelope/lion/etc).However <S> this usually only applies to people who have had pets themselves, to someone who has never enjoyed an animal's company, nor seen it's desire to understand and better yet <S> actually observe it's learning. <S> To these people the idea of "someone" as in application of any being less than humanity seems to be the act of hysteria. <S> Having said all that, does anyone know of a word that would apply to both evenly?In any context, would you be able to say "I meet many people" and clearly mean both dogs and humans? <S> I don't think so. <S> You couldn't say "I meet many someones" that sounds terrible whichever side of this debate you are on. <S> I thought "personalities" maybe, but this sounds misleading at best.
| It could be used for (non-human) animals IF the user is implying that the animals have a "being" that is equivalent to humans.
|
Meaning of "was having", "had" and "have had" in English How to tell someone that I have observed fast full day? 1 I was having fast whole day 2 I had fast today 3 I have had fast today I feel all are correct to say Please, help me to understand the meanings of the above sentences. <Q> None of these options are particularly grammatical. <S> The most common versions would be to say: I fasted today. <S> This is a simple statement of fact. <S> I was fasting today. <S> This implies that you were fasting but are not any more. <S> I had to fast today. <S> This says that something required that you fast today. <S> This says that you've been doing it for a while and can (but does not necessarily) imply that you are no longer doing this action. <A> "I fasted the whole day" is fine for now. <S> If you provide more context the answer may vary. <S> 1) <S> Having fast <S> doesn´t sound correct because "having" is used whenyou are receiving/experiencing something (having classes, havingtrouble...) <S> , and you cannot receive fasting, you do fasting. <S> 2) and 3) are not correct, because "had" is used for past tense, and"today" is still going on. <S> "I have been fasting today" would becorrect in that case. <S> Hope it helps! <A> None of these. <S> The right way to say "I have fasted." <S> OR"i have been fasted. <S> " OR" I have observed the fast today. "
| I have had to fast all day.
|
"quick on the draw" vs "quick to draw" These two seem to stand for be quick to the uptake : quick on the draw quick to draw Can they be used interchangeably? <Q> It depends on the sentence or what you wish to convey. <S> The short answer is: that the first is an idiom that has meanings which are more general and are understood by people who know the idiom while the second is usually used in conjunction with what a person is drawing (verb) and so is usually more specific. <S> Quick on the draw <S> This is an idiom that, for the most part, means what you have said and can mean something positive <S> (i.e. someone is quick as in clever) or it can be negative (i.e. quick to act/judge, impulsive etc). <S> Here draw <S> is a noun. <S> Quick to draw <S> Here draw is used as a verb. <S> To my knowledge, quick to draw is not an idiom, at least in British English. <S> If you find 'quick to draw' in a sentence, it's usually something along the lines of: She was quick to draw conclusions. <S> She was quick to draw attention to the graph. <S> She was quick to draw her weapon. <S> None of which are idioms but stating something relatively clearly, be it literally or metaphorically. <A> The idiom Quick on the draw mostly means Able to react quickly and is used in situations that someone's reaction on something impresses you or causes notable results for him/her. <S> these reaction and/or results could be both positive or negative. <A> In addition to @amblina's answer, the idiom <S> Another idiom with the same meaning is " Quick on the trigger" . <S> As for the "Quick on the uptake" idiom, meaning "quick to understand or learn something", it's based on the meaning of the noun "uptake" as a process of taking up/using up/consuming. <S> So, the difference in the meanings of the idioms, slight as it may seem, is quite noticable
| "Quick on the draw" is based on a person's ability to take out (to draw) and shoot a gun immediately (quickly).
|
When two things should be done after something occurred What is the adverb to say another thing is done, when the first thing is also done? is it "At the same time"? Examples: The task begins to process. ...... an email is automatically sent to the user. My original sentence in which I used "meanwhile" is In the algorithm, after visiting a node which matches the beginning anchor “Results”, the state of the context changes into “Open” and the following nodes will be regarded in this context, meanwhile , a node labeled “Products” is created and added to the XML structure. <Q> "At the same time" does work. <S> At the same time the task begins to process, an email is automatically sent to the user. <S> If you're looking for an adverb, you could use simultaneously . <S> When the task begins to process, an email is simultaneously sent to the user. <S> With simultaneously "automatically" sounds redundant (as "simultaneously" implies the sending of the email is automatically done). <A> In computing and communications, we often use the words concurrency (noun) and concurrently (adverb) After visiting a node which matches ..., the state of the context changes to "Open"; concurrently, a node labelled... <A> An appropriate idiom would be : kill two birds with one stone <S> Refer : <S> idioms
| Concurrently operating or occurring at the same time running parallel
|
An understanding of a sentence - much + adverb You’re driving much fast. Does the sentence make sense to you, native speakers? I am wondering whether I could use "much" alone to modify an adverb.If the sentence make sense, does it mean "you are driving very fast"? <Q> You're driving much fast. <S> You cannot use much in the structure of much + adverb. <S> However, you can use it as an adverb in the form of much + a comparative or superlative adverb or adjective. <S> For example: You're driving much faster. <S> You can also use the phrase "much too" in front of an adverb. <S> (Do not confuse with too much, which is used before a noun) <S> For example: You're driving much too fast. <A> It may not look proper with 'much'. <S> Because, we generally use 'much' as an adjective and 'very' as an adverb. <S> Typically, in this sentence, you want to use 'adverb' <S> i.e. How are you driving? <S> So, it's <S> You are driving very fast. <A> You can say "You're driving much too fast. <S> " You still need the 'too', but adding 'much' intensifies 'fast' much more so than simply saying "You're driving too fast."
| The sentence isn't correct grammatically.
|
What is the difference between "go on" and "go for" vacation? For example,I will go Mexico for vacation next month.Vs.I will go on vacation to Mexico next month.Is there any difference? If not, which one is more common In colloquial AmE? <Q> But in my AmE dialect questions like these: Where are you going for vacation? <S> -- I'm going to summer camp. <S> What are you doing for vacation? <S> --I'm <S> working as an intern in a biology lab. <S> would be used when the vacation is not at an arbitrary time during the year (as the person taking the vacation sees fit) but at a time that occurs regularly, such as "summer vacation" (the summer months when school is not in session) or "winter break" (the time between Fall and Spring sessions). <S> What are you doing for winter break? <S> means "What are you planning to do during winter break? <S> " <S> In this pattern, for is complemented by a noun-phrase which refers to a time-span. <S> What are you doing for the year? <S> What are you doing for the summer? <S> What are you doing for the Fourth of July? <S> What are you doing for the next hour? <S> What are you doing for the next fifteen minutes? <A> They mean almost the same. <S> I've searched the collocation on vacation . <S> The Longman says that go on (a) vacation is more common in colloquial, so does the Excitingfinance . <A> In my experience, "go on" vacation is more common. <S> However, both will be understood: <S> "I will go to Mexico for vacation" means the same as "I will go on vacation to Mexico." <S> As a side note, it is even more common to say, "I'm going on vacation to Mexico next month," replacing "I will go" with "I'm going."
| To go on vacation is to take a vacation.
|
How do we translate a French master in English (UK)? I would like to know how the UK equivalent/translation for a French student who is BAC+5 and going to get his engineering degree. Is it under/post/graduate? <Q> According to Wikipedia the BAC + 5 is seen as equivalent to a Masters in Science , also known as 'MSc.' <S> in the UK. <S> A Master's degree qualification is a postgraduate qualification. <S> A potentially useful article for you would be the Wikipedia page for National Qualifications Framework . <S> The UK education system categorizes qualifications in 8 'levels'. <S> The BAC + 5 is level 7. <S> If you have a Masters in the UK is it assumed you completed previous study and attained at a bachelor's degree (or equivalent) <S> so it is offered as a postgraduate degree. <S> Masters programs are also known as 'graduate' degrees which is an import from US English. <A> Whether or not a student is an undergraduate or postgraduate depends on whether they have already got a degree. <S> Someone working towards their first degree is an undergraduate. <S> I don't know if 'is BAC+5' means this person already has a degree or not <S> but presumably you can work out the right word from the above. <A> For what it's worth: In America we normally talk about four "levels" of degree: associate, bachelor, master, and doctor. <S> When you don't yet have a bachelors, you are said to be "undergraduate". <S> An associates degree typically requires 2 years of study, and each higher level degree 2 more years over the previous.
| Someone who already has a degree and is working towards a higher degree is a postgraduate.
|
A while ago and a few minutes ago I was told that another alternative for 'a few minutes ago' is 'a short while ago'. Let's say I am a student of a 20- minute English phone class and my teacher asks me questions which I answer during the first 10 minutes of our class. On the second 10 minutes she corrects my sentences. She says, "A while ago you answered, 'I go to work yesterday'. It should be 'went'. Past tense." Is it correct to use 'a while ago' and not 'a short while ago'? The situation is very clear. We never talked before the 20-minute class. It means that she refers to the period of time within the 20-minute class. Thank you. <Q> A "while" is a length of time that is not defined. <S> Used without a modifier, it implies one or more of the following: <S> The exact amount of time is not important <S> The speaker can assume that listener is familiar with the moment in time being referenced. <S> In your example, both of these probably apply. <S> The teacher's point was made without specifying "10 minutes ago" because you knew of the conversation she was referencing. <S> The use of "short" or "long" becomes necessary if a more specific, but still vague, length of time is required for clear communication. <S> Let's continue with your teacher example. <S> Imagine that the conversation she was referencing had occurred not ten minutes before, but a week. <S> When she says that you said something "a while ago," you might reply "I don't remember saying that." <S> Then she might clarify, "Well, it was a long while ago." <S> In this example number 1 in my list above still applies. <S> The teacher can remain vague about the exact amount of time because the specifics are not important. <S> However, because you could not recall the moment she was describing, more context was needed. <S> For a final example, suppose your friend came up to you and said "I saw Brad Pitt at the grocery store!" <S> You would love to see Brad Pitt for yourself, so you want to know if he is likely to still be at the store. <S> You ask, "When?" <S> If your friend answers "A while ago," you don't have any new information to help you. <S> You would have to press them for more information. <S> If they answer "A long while ago," you might as well stay home and watch World War Z again, because there is no way Brad Pitt is still at the grocery store. <S> If they answer "A short while ago," then you can run out to your moped and zip over to the store. <S> He might still be there! <S> One final qualifier: "a short while" and "a long while" aren't very common in American colloquial English. <S> You'd be more likely to hear "a little while" and "a long time," respectively. <A> A while can be modified, depending on just how long ago it was… <S> A short while, a while, quite a while, a long while. <S> These are all subjective & relative. <S> When your friend was waiting for you in town & you were 10 minutes late, you thought it was a short while… he thought it was a long one ;-) <A> I have almost always heard "a while ago," but I'm American, so "a short while ago" might be more common in other parts of the world. <S> The phrase "a while ago" is older, as you can tell from this graph . <S> " <S> A short while ago" is more specific about the time, but both phrases would be understood.
| "A while ago" is correct.
|
He pointed towards the outside of the room He pointed towards the outside of the room I'm wondering if that's a grammatically correct sentence. It sounds a bit off, but after analysing it a bit, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong. He pointed towards the mountains. That sounds fairly well and there doesn't seem to be any problems. "The mountains" is a location, and "the outside of the room" is also a location, yet the first example sounds slightly wrong for some reason, but I can't see which part is wrong. <Q> As you say, there's nothing actually wrong with the sentence itself. <S> It is grammatically correct. <S> The reason it sounds 'off' to your ear is that pointing, as an action, is supposed to indicate something with a relative degree of precision, but'the outside of the room' is an indeterminate location - it includes the shop down the road, the nation of Paraguay, the International Space Station and the constellation of Orion. <S> How do you precisely indicate all that with one finger? <S> So the sentence doesn't really make sense, and gives little useful information. <A> It might be used in a room with a single entrance, and "pointed towards the outside of the room" would be used to refer to the area immediately outside the entrance. <A> There is one case where your example phrase makes logical sense. <S> If the person is in a very large room, and not in the center, then He pointed towards the outside of the room would be most likely understood as pointing towards the nearest wall, i.e. the shortest path to the outside of the room. <S> You could replace "the outside of the room" with "outward"
| Technically, any direction points toward the outside of the room, so the phrase does not necessarily have much meaning.
|
How could I address students in a higher grade than me? I know the word upperclassman but it means a junior or senior student in an American high school, college, or university. If I was a freshman I cannot call a sophomore an upperclassman . What the word should mean: to not only be a junior or senior student but a student with any higher grade. What's worse, there is no a word like upperclasswoman for a female student (this is an additional reason why upperclassman wouldn't work for me). Edit : In China there are two words: 学长 and 学姐 referring to any students with a higher grade; the former is for male students and the latter for female ones. All of the following sayings are very normal: Hello 学长 , she's one of my 学姐 . Hey, 学长 / 学姐 , can you tell me how to get to the cafeteria? I'm her/his 学长 . These two words can refer to any students with a higher grade, no matter student in middle school, or university. Sometimes we just don't want/need to know his/her grade. For instance, as a freshman in the new students enrolling day I would address the majority male students on campus as 学长 in situations like this: Hey, 学长, can you tell me how to get to the cafeteria? I wonder if there exists such an equivalent one/two words in English, barring upperclassman . <Q> In the "West", the native English speaking countries in general, we don't have this concept, so there is no such term. <S> We would say Hello [name] or just hello. <S> If you need to describe how such a person is related to you (and to be understood by most native English speakers), you will need to describe it much as you did in your question: My schoolmate who is ahead of me, A woman who is in a more senior year than me, etc. <S> This is just like you have a specific term for younger sister in Chinese, but we must say younger sister. <S> You have specific words for older and younger, and maternal and paternal, uncles and aunts, but we do not. <S> We don't specify such relationships to such a precise degree unless we need to, and then we need to use multiple words. <S> If your listener is also East Asian (and so will understand), you could address him as big brother, or refer to him as my elder school brother, etc. <A> We don't use honorifics like this in English. <S> They're common in Chinese and Japanese and (I think) <S> Korean <S> but we don't use them in English. <S> You'd be more likely to find an upperclassman harassing or hazing a freshman and calling them "freshman" as an epithet. <S> Generally in the US, the years of compulsory education are referred to by grade number up to grade eight and by the terms freshman, sophomore, junior and senior for grades 9-12, respectively (though some school systems limit high school to grades 10-12). <S> She's in 4th grade (etc). <S> He's [in] a grade above me. <S> She's an upperclassman. <S> He's older than me. <S> So, for something like: <S> Hey, 学长/学姐, can you tell me how to get to the cafeteria? <S> One would simply say: <S> Hey, can you tell me how to get to the cafeteria? <S> Where's the cafeteria? <S> Honestly, at a public school, I don't think I could usually tell what year someone was just by looking at them, so <S> I'm not sure how one could always know they were correctly addressing a senpai (the Japanese version of 学长/学姐), particularly in a school of 3000+ teens. <S> I tried to find some info about the average school size in China but nothing obvious turned up for me. <S> Also remember that the system of schooling in the US is vastly different. <S> It's not uncommon to be in a single course with every grade. <S> For example, when I took a painting class in high school, there were members from all four levels in the same class, and no one really cared what grade you were in. <A> There is technically a word that would apply to your situation, but you shouldn't use it in a school context. <S> That word is "senior," under the definition "a person of higher rank or standing than another, especially by virtue of longer service." <S> Unfortunately, this would be very confusing in the situation you describe. <S> If you are a freshman and your friend is a sophomore, it would would be accurate but misleading to say "This is Jane, my senior." <S> As Jim Reynolds hinted at in his answer, westerners don't actually care about seniority in social situations. <S> The situations where it does matter are rare enough that using more words to explain it doesn't bother us. <A> If you want to force English to work the same way as the language in your OP, you can use the term " higherclassman . <S> " This will work for any class or grade that is higher than yours, including the sophomore class. <S> Feona is a freshman. <S> Simon is a sophomore. <S> Simon tells you, Feona, that you should refer to him as a higherclassman, since a sophomore is above you and you can't call him an upperclassman. <S> Okay, higherclassman, can I also carry your books for you? <S> You could also say a non-plebe or nonplebe. <S> This does not reflect regular uage, but the point is that nothing really does. <S> Since plebe only refers to a freshman, almost exclusively at a miltary school, anyone that is a student and is not a freshman is a nonplebe. <S> It is your English, speak as you wish, since there seems to be no other way to force English to work the way the language of the OP does.
| Regardless, if one wishes to say that another person is in a year other than their own, they would say: He's a [freshman/sophomore/junior/senior].
|
Using writes, wrote or have written I was reading an article in New Yorker. I found the following sentence: In his book “Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years,” the biographer Brian Boyd writes that, "as Nabokov ----." Question #1: Would it be writes/wrote/has written? Question: #2: Is the comma after that appropriate? <Q> In this case, writes seems to be the most appropriate choice, even if wrote and have written are correct too, but give a stronger sense of past, as if the author does no longer have this opinion. <A> 1 <S> Writes is used because it is referring to the text in a book. <S> Even if the author Brian Boyd is dead, we would still use "writes," because the book still speaks, and it speaks in the present tense. <S> Hemingway (a famous author who is dead) writes in A Farewell to Arms "blah blah blah..." <S> 2 <S> We can't really tell if the comma is appropriate, since you didn't provide the complete sentence. <A> The words "has written" are better to my ear than "have written" in the text in the question. <S> In that context "have" suggests either more than one or it suggests a person; it works in the sense "they have ...". <S> By contrast the word "has" suggests just one in phrases like "he has ..." or "she has ..." or "Brian has ...".
| As for the comma, it is perfectly correct and separates the quotation from the rest of the sentence. It is "writes," since that is what is written.
|
what is the term for someone who likes to be the center of attention, by talking about himself and his greatness I am not sure if it's duplicate, but what is the term for someone who likes to be the center of attention by talking about himself and greatness (and not sure about the word, but dislikes and fails what people say or do). Example: A guy with some people, he talks most of the time and does not always give people a chance to talk, he likes it when people ask him questions or give him advice, and when he talks, he speaks about the great things he did (I traveled to Paris with girls and spent nights at. . .) and if people talk about what they did he start to minimize that (oh I can do that its simple. . .) What is the term for this? I am not looking for ego or selfish . <Q> A bore. <S> Or you could say "They are full of themselves" or that "they like to belittle other's accomplishments". <A> There is a question on the ELU.se which is a little similar to this. <S> While there is no single word that completely covers all of the things you mention, this might be the closest you'll get. <S> marked by or fond of conspicuous or vainglorious and sometimes pretentious display <A> Maybe one of these is what you're looking for: conceited, big-headed, pompous, smug. <S> And a quote from "Use the right word" Boastful and vainglorious concentrate on this last possibility of egotistical, both referring to self-praise and attention-seeking in public. <S> Boastful emphasizes unsubtle and even boorish public displays of vocal self-approval: after a few drinks, he always became boastful about his wartime activities. <S> Vainglorious focuses more exclusively on hollow show, boastful self-praise, but conspicuous displays of status symbols are often involves: vainglorious dowagers dripping minks and diamonds. <S> I really like this book (I found <S> a .bgl for GoldenDict on internet). <S> Usually words that are used in explanations are difficult and not common, but they clearly convey the sense of every single word and clarify every single nuance nuances you are curious about. <A> Narcissist. <S> Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes. <A> In the states we say, "hogging the limelight" ( or spotlight) <S> so I like to say that such a person is a "limelight hog." <A> "Pretentious" adjectiveadjective: pretentious attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.
| The top answer on that question suggests ostentatious .
|
Pronoun use with preposition: "with *he* and his wife" or "with *him* and his wife"? This sentence was in a newspaper article: "Eddie smiled as Will talked with he and his wife." I feel it means "Eddie smiled as Will talked (with him) and (with his wife)." So it should be "Eddie smiled as Will talked with him and his wife. Which one is correct? <Q> Your version is correct. <S> My opinion is talk should be used with to unless the subject is not an expression. <S> Eddie smiled as Will talked to him and his wife. <S> Eddie smiled as Will talked with decency. <A> Eddie smiled as Will talked with him and his wife. <S> This is the correct version. <S> Because without and his wife you would say Eddie smiled and talked with him . <S> As for talk with versus, talk to see this question about the difference and this answer . <A> The rule to use the correct case of pronoun in standard English is to substitute the whole coordination and replace it with a single pronoun. <S> Now the case of the single pronoun is the case that we should use for the pronoun in coordination. <S> In the sentence below - ? <S> Eddie smiled as Will talked with he and his wife. <S> The coordination - he and his wife . <S> We have to determine the case of the pronoun he . <S> So we have to replace the whole coordination with a single pronoun, say them here. <S> Eddie smiled as Will talked with them . <S> The pronoun - them - is in object form. <S> So in coordination also we have to use the object form of pronoun. <S> So the correct Standard English sentence is - Eddie smiled as Will talked with him and his wife. <S> Aside <S> But the sentence you quoted is not considered ungrammatical, at least to some variant of English. <S> And maybe that is the reason it appeared in a newspaper article, though, I believe, it's recommended to follow correct standard English in newspaper articles, not regional English. <S> % Eddie smiled as Will talked with he and his wife. <S> There are many instances of such sentence. <S> Though the most common of them is the coordination where the pronoun (especially "I" ) is after the coordinator, and its case is subject case. <S> % <S> The present was supposed to represent Helen and I , that was the problem. <S> % <S> It would be an opportunity from you and I to spend some time together. <S> Though they are considered hypercorrection, the use of coordination with "I" as final coordinator is so common in speech and used by so broad a range of speakers that it has to be recognised as a variety of Standard English. <S> % - <S> > <S> Grammatical in some dialects only Reference - Cambridge Grammar of English Language
| The correct standard English sentence is - Eddie smiled as Will talked with him and his wife.
|
Water me. Give me water. Serve me with water Water me. Give me water. Serve me with water. Which one is correct? I say, “Water me.” This is good English. What are the differences between these options? <Q> "Give me water" and "serve me with water <S> " mean the same thing <S> but they can be impolite because you are commanding someone to do something for you. <S> If you are asking someone for water it would be better to say "May I have water?" <A> It will be very funny if you say "water me", because you water plants. <S> You also water animals, which means you give water to them to drink. <S> Give me water is OK if you are ordering someone to give you water. <S> To be polite, you should say "Please give me water". <S> The last sentence <S> "Serve me with water" also has an imperative tone like the second sentence and sounds unidiomatic. <S> You can say serve somebody with water but using the verb for yourself sounds a bit weird. <A> If you aren't a plant, saying "water me" is generally not appropriate. <S> Besides being slightly rude because it's a command rather than a request, it's just not how we ask for a glass of water. <S> A plant (should it gain the ability to speak) could say this, similarly to the famous " Feed Me Seymour " song in Little Shop of Horrors . <S> In very casual conversation, I've heard people say "Beer me!" <S> meaning "give me a beer" <S> but it is not standard conversation and one <S> generally wouldn't say it if you were talking to a waiter, for example. <S> What do people say? <S> May I have a [glass of] water? <S> May I have some water? <S> I'd like a [glass of] water [please]. <S> I'd like some water [please]. <S> The statement: Give me some water. <S> Is a command. <S> If you said this to someone, it could be taken as quite rude (assuming you weren't royalty of some sort). <S> And this one: <S> Serve me with water. <S> Is not only a command (and falls into the same issues as the other two), but it's not idiomatic at all. <S> It sounds like someone is asking to be served using water, which makes no sense and sounds impossible.
| "Water me" sounds like you are asking someone to water you like a plant (you obviously don't want them to start spraying you haha).
|
Is there a word for someone who is very good at starting wars among friends? There is no specific word for it in my mother tongue. Imagine the situation when he meets a group of people, maybe he just met them, with few words he can start a fight among them and the turn against each other.Any word for that? <Q> If any of you out there saw The Beatles' movie "A Hard Days Night" <S> Paul says his grandfather is a "King Mixer." <S> He further says that his grandfather hates group unity so he gets everyone at it. <S> I guess it means he gets friends arguing, or something like that. <S> It must be a term used in England. <A> In (fairly vulgar) BrE slang, there's... <S> shit-stirrer - someone who makes trouble for other people, especially by making known facts that they would prefer to keep secret. <S> In some conversational contexts you could use <S> He's a [right/real/etc.] <S> stirrer to tone down the vulgarity (which doesn't have to imply a deleted shit , but many native speakers would assume it did). <S> For more formal contexts you might consider... <S> It's worth paying particular attention to the different "common contexts" following especially in those two definitions. <S> But they don't always apply (i.e. - you might call someone a troublemaker because he habitually reveals sensitive personal secrets which will lead to conflict among others, just as you might call him a shit-stirrer if he's always encouraging others to defy authority). <S> Having said that, I must admit that because those two "standard" associations are so well established, I might sometimes "lapse" into the vulgar usage even in conversational contexts where I would otherwise tend to avoid it, simply because it's the only really precise term for that specific sense. <A> Heh, in 1960's British English, one of my favorite movies called a character like that "a real mixer". <S> I've never heard that in everyday speech in America, though. <S> I can think of words like "quarrelsome" that could be used that way, but usually mean getting himself into fights instead of others. <S> Well, if no one else comes up with something, maybe you can bring "mixer" back into fashion. <S> I'd love it if you did.
| troublemaker - a person who habitually causes difficulty or problems, especially by inciting others to defy those in authority.
|
"In such a people" — meaning? "It would be well for us to admire what is worthy of admiration in such a people , rather than to carp about their errors." what is meant by in such a people ? Is it (in such a people) a phrase or a clause and of which kind? Reference- Wren and Martin English Grammar and Composition Exercise in composition 91,Question no 25,page 144. <Q> what is meant by in such a people? <S> It means about a population that fits the description that was earlier give. <S> I did a lot of substitutions there, because you fail to tell us what you doe not understand. <S> Such means like that , where that refers back to something that was earlier said: The people had lived on that island for a very long time. <S> Such a people usually develop a fishing industry. <S> -> <S> People like that usually develop a fishing industry . <S> In means about . <S> Is it(in such a people) a phrase or a clause and of which kind? <S> Yes, it is a phrase, it is a prepositional phrase <S> and it modifies what is worthy of admiration . <S> Since a clause is a type of phrase that contains a verb/predicate, I would not consider this phrase a clause. <S> The phrase what is worthy of admiration in such a people is the subject of the sentence. <S> To admire what is worthy of admiration in such a people <S> Can be reworded as To admired what is admirable about a population like that. <A> "It would be well for us to admire what is worthy of admiration in such a people, rather than to carp about their errors." <S> Paraphrased: It would be well for us to admire <S> ~ <S> we should admire what ~ that which is worthy of admiration ~ is admirable in such a people ~ in a people of that character rather than to carp about their errors ~ instead of finding fault with them <S> NOTE: <S> such there means "of a kind|type|variety|character|sort previously mentioned or implied". <S> Consider: <S> What don't you like about such a hat? <S> -- <S> It is made of rat fur. <S> What don't you like about such a dog? <S> -- <S> It eats too much. <S> What can one say on such an occasion? -- <S> Gesundheit! <S> Do you need a tissue? <S> What should we do in such a storm? <S> -- Stay indoors. <S> Why are you in such a hurry? <S> -- I'm late for an English exam. <S> To my ear, such feels as though it is modifying the noun-phrase— <S> that such is not nominal and is not itself the object of the preposition that precedes it. <S> It feels like a demonstrative : <S> the indefinite article raises "hurry" to hurries of any and all kinds and <S> such narrows the set down to <S> this hurry <S> you are in right now. <S> "Why are you in <S> this particular hurry?" <A> The key word is "such". <S> Like in this sentence: <S> That dog was huge. <S> Such dogs must eat a lot of food. <S> In this sentence "such dogs" refers to "huge dogs". <S> It is dangerous to go outside during a storm. <S> In such circumstances, you should remain indoors. <S> In this sentence "in such circumstances" means the same as "when it is stormy." <S> People who live in a desert or the tundra must survive harsh weather. <S> You have to wonder about the toughness in such a people. <S> Here, "in such a people" refers to a (type of) people who live in harsh weather. <S> In your example "in such a people" refers to a type of people that were described earlier. <S> To help understand that sentence better, it can be reworded into : <S> We should admire the good things about such people instead of complaining about their problems. <A> "It would be well for us to admire what is worthy of admiration in such a people, rather than to carp about their errors. <S> "It is difficult to give a precise answer to your question without perusing the context from which sentence has been extracted. <S> There must have been references to the prepositional phrase - "in such people" in the text from which the sentence is purportedly quoted. <S> In other words ennobling qualities of such people must have been described in the preceding part of the sentence. <S> However,the particular sentence may be reworded to make it self explanatory as given below. <S> Look at the brighter side of life of others and just ignore blemishes if any.
| You can use "such" to refer to a type of something that was mentioned before. We should admire that which is admirable in a people of that character instead of finding fault with them. A people is a population : a group of persons that share a common ethnicity or habitat, as in the Spanish people or the indigenous people of an island .
|
What is the difference between a company, organisation, industry, firm, corporation and business? A company is any form of business whether it is small or large. Generally the term "company" indicates a particular kind of businessdealing in a specific product. An organisation is the larger form and generally comprises of a number of companies. Simply, a company is an organization, but anorganization is not just a company. An industry is the combination of companies in same line of business. Firm , corporation and business are synonyms of "company". An Agency is a particular kind of company, which serves as an intermediary between clients (other companies or individuals). Is this correct? <Q> They are all related but in different categories. <S> This is how they are related: Industry Organisation Company; Profit Organisation ("Business") Corporation ("Co.") <S> Public Limited ("Ltd") Private Limited ("Pte Ltd") <S> Incorporated ("Inc.") Trust company Agency Firm Partnership Limited Liability Company ("LLC") Limited Liability Partnership ("LLP") <S> Non-profit Charity Foundation <S> Disclaimer: <S> The chart above is incomplete as it is just to let the OP to have the image of how they are related. <S> Disclaimer 2: <S> I am unsure whether Industry includes Non-profit. <S> I don't think so <S> , I think it includes categories of businesses like Automobile, Telephone, Internet, etc. <S> The most common mistake people make is the usage of Company , Corporation and Firm . <A> There are many more aspects than what you present. <S> For one thing, "organization" includes non-profit entities such as churches, charitable enterprises, sports organizations, etc. <S> For another, "firms" include such things as law parnerships. <S> You do not mention corporations <S> The only one where you are close to correct is that an Industry is indeed the sum of all companies in the same type of business. <S> I suggest you investigate further in several dictionaries, to discern the nuances. <S> Then ask a question about one or two of these terms, not four. <A> Corporation: <S> The business is a separate entity from the individuals that run the business. <S> Various individuals working in several different management roles like shareholders, directors and officers. <S> Firm: A business concern, especially one involving a partnership of two or more people. <S> Company: A commercial business. <S> Agency: <S> A business or organization providing a particular service on behalf of another business, person, or group. <S> Organization: <S> An organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or government department. <S> Institution: <S> An organization founded for a religious, educational, professional, or social purpose. <S> Industry: <S> Economic activity concerned with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of goods in factories. <S> Business: Commercial activity. <A> I think of companies and organisations as more of the same, except for a few differences like: companies are majorly for business (profit making), while organisations can either be profit making, non profit making or carry out both. <A> Difference between firm and company must be examined from two main perspectives: Legal perspective <S> and; Linguistic perspective. <S> From legal perspective there is no such business structure as firm. <S> The word "firm" is used interchangeably with the term "company". <S> From a linguistic point of view company is a broader notion of business entity. <S> The notion of “company” embraces the notion of “firm”. <S> Only those of companies that are partnerships are usually referred as firms. <S> (E.g. law firms, accounting firms - those are usually partnerships) <A> "Company", "firm", and "business" are synonyms. <S> They all mean an organization engaged in producing some product or service for sale and profit. <S> Though note that "company" can also mean "a group of people" in general, as in, "As I entered the town, a large company of men came out to meet me." <S> "Company" is also a size of a military unit, in the US, it's a unit bigger than a platoon and smaller than a battalion. <S> An "organization" is a group of people organized for a particular purpose. <S> It is more general than "company". <S> A social club, a government agency, or a church would also be "organizations" even though they are not "companies" and don't sell their products. <S> A "corporation" is a specific kind of company. <S> Namely, a company that was financed by selling stock, so that it is owned by the share-holders. <S> While laws vary between countries, typically the share-holders liability for debts is limited to the value of their stock, that is, if the corporation goes bankrupt at worst the share-holders stocks become worth zero; people the corporation owes money to can't demand that share-holders pay more from other sources. <S> An "agency" can be, (a) a government organization or a division within a government organization. <S> Like in the US we have the "Environmental Protection Agency" and the "Central Intelligence Agency". <S> (b) <S> A company that is in the business of representing people. <S> The person represented is then called a "client" and the company acts as the client's "agent". <S> That is, they act as a go-between for other people. <S> For example a "real estate agency" takes on the task of selling your house for you, and represents your interests to potential buyers, the bank, etc. <S> An "industry" is the set of all companies producing the same product or service. <S> For example, the "cell phone industry". <S> "Industry" can also mean manufacturing. <S> If we say, "The economy of this town is centered on industry", we mean it has a lot of factories, as opposed to getting most of its income from office work or retail stores.
| In simple words, all business entities are usually referred as companies.
|
What does the slang word "hammered" actually mean? I have recently posted a question in English Language and Usage the use of nailed, screwed, and hammered in one sentence. And I used this sentence for correction: Can someone be so screwed because someone nailed an argument that made him hammered? Someone commented that my sentence is wrong because I used the word hammered incorrectly. He stated that it means drunk. However, according to my research about hammered, it can also mean to attack or criticize forcefully and relentlessly . What does the slang word actually mean? <Q> The problem you ran into is that idioms are often fixed grammatically—you have to use them in certain grammatical contexts for them to mean the same thing. <S> When you use "hammered" as an adjective, it can mean drunk , and usually doesn't mean <S> attacked : He is hammered. <S> He was so hammered. <S> It made him hammered. <S> We got him hammered. <S> When you use "hammer" as a transitive verb, it can mean attack , and usually doesn't mean drunk : <S> That will hammer him. <S> She hammered him. <S> They had hammered him. <S> Sometimes it can be ambiguous, without more context: He had been hammered. <S> He got hammered. <A> As for your comment, "that made him hammered" is, while grammatically correct, very unusual and likely to draw unfavorable attention. <S> Worse, I do not think it conveys what you wanted to say. <S> If you meant to use it in the sense of being forcefully attacked, then perhaps you could have said:"Can someone be hammered with a solid argument so hard that it screws him up?" <A> I think you need some more context in your sentence: "Nailed" can mean to hit the target precisely. <S> "Hammered" can mean either drunk, or attacked strongly. <S> "Screwed up" can mean to cause (someone) to be emotionally or mentally troubled. <S> To use all these in the way you may have meant: His opponent nailed the argument so well that it just hammered him into such submission that he was totally screwed up to the point of being incoherent.
| Generally speaking, I believe that "hammered" is used in the sense of "drunk".
|
How to interpret "time we have"? I trying to understand this sentence but this sentence does not interpret well. "Me time" is an expression which means time we have for ourselves . How should I interpret the part after "which means"? <Q> When someone says it's <S> me time <S> they mean they will be spending a certain amount of time on fun, relaxing, etc. <S> things instead of work, family and other obligations that can be considered time-consuming or not very enjoyable. <A> "me time" is not grammatical and substandard. <S> It is an uneducated way of speaking. <S> Urban dictionary has an entry for "me time". <S> Unfortunately those entries don't indicate what language level it is. <S> I can't exactly say who speaks this way, but I would say it is street jargon of youngsters. <S> Probably youngsters who dropped out of school. <S> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=me+time <S> Reading the mini-dialogue in Urban dictionary again and thinking about "Naw, I need some me time" the idea comes up that "me time" is simply "time for me". <S> In the Urban dialogue "me time" is used as a compound noun <S> and I think it should be spelled with a hyphen as me-time. <S> PS <S> Now I have found where the above definition is from. <S> It's from BBC Learning English: <S> Rob: <S> Yes, I do! <S> That would be brilliant! <S> Me time is an expression which means time we have for ourselves to do just what we want. <S> I really do need some me time. <S> http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish/english/features/the-english-we-speak/ep-150623 <S> This definition can be misunderstood. <S> "we" is meant in a general sense and in a sentence as I need me-time you have to change the definition to "time when I can do what I want. <A> This sentence contains three clauses. <S> The components of the main clause are: "Me time" -- quoted noun phrase, subject. <S> is -- verb, copular, present tense, indefinite aspect, indicative mode. <S> an expression which means time we have for ourselves -- noun phrase, subject complement. <S> The keyword "expression" in the subject complement is modified by a relative clause. <S> The components of this relative clause are: which -- relative pronoun, subject. <S> means -- verb, copular, present tense, indefinite aspect, indicative mode. <S> time we have for ourselves -- noun phrase, subject complement. <S> The keyword "time" in the subject complement is modified by another relative clause. <S> This innermost relative clause is a contact clause. <S> That simply means that the relative pronoun is omitted. <S> When the relative pronoun would be the direct object of its clause and the clause itself is not parenthetical, then the relative pronoun is optional. <S> Had it been written, the phrase would have been "time <S> that we have for ourselves". <S> The innermost clause has the following components: we -- personal pronoun, subject. <S> have -- verb, transitive, active voice, present tense, indefinite aspect, indicative mode. <S> [that] -- implied relative pronoun, direct object. <S> for ourselves -- prepositional phrase. <S> You can find brief descriptions of relative clauses (including contact clauses) here and here . <S> The same sentiment can be expressed using a completely different word order: Time [that] we have for ourselves is the meaning of the expression "me time".
| What this sentence is trying to say, is that this me time is the time we have for ourselves .
|
I failed exams OR I failed in exams? I failed math OR I failed in math? While going through Swan's PEU, I encountered this sentence in its example: My parents expected too much of me when I was at school. They were terribly upset when I failed my exams. Now this triggers a question in my mind. Which ones are acceptable? I passed exams I passed in exams I failed exams I failed in exams Okay, if 'in' is incorrect, how do we say passing or failing in a particular subject? I passed/failed in math (exams) OR I passed/failed math (exams) What if I remove the parenthesis? I failed math does not seem a valid sentence. Note: InE seems to be fine with passing/failing in exams as I hear almost everyone practicing it. <Q> I failed math. <S> Is certainly a valid sentence in AmE. <S> My tendency would be to go with <S> I failed my math exams. <S> I passed all my exams. <S> Having said that it feels like usually you actually talk about failing a class (which "I failed math" is really an example of) more often then failing a given exam. <S> But that is probbably due more to the fact that in the US where I taught the final grade is in general derived from many factors (multiple exams and homework) and as such "failing" a given exam doesn't make as much sense as in a system where you just have one oral exam at the end. <S> Edit <S> :Thinking about it more when you say "I failed in exams", to me that sounds most like you had a course in creating examinations and you failed that. <A> In AmE, the "in" is not used. <S> Not in any of your examples. <S> For instance, "I failed Math. <S> " is the normal, typical way to say it. <S> (Although "failed in math" would certainly be understood, and would not seem peculiar.) <S> But "Failed in the exam" would be seen/heard as incorrect. <S> Note: one could say I got a failing grade in math. <S> I got a failing score on that exam. <A> As we the people of the Indian Subcontinent tend to do a literal translation from Hindi/Urdu into English, we make the mistake of using the preposition "in" after the verbs pass and fail. <S> In fact, if you are talking about an examination, a test, or course, it's equally natural in both AE and BE not to use the "in" after pass and fail. <S> However, if you are talking of an academic subject, it's more common and natural in AE not to use the "in", though using the "in" here isn't incorrect. <S> As for BE, it's more common to use the "in" before an academic subject, though it's not incorrect if you don't use this preposition. <S> So in AE & BE, you say: He passed/failed the test/exam. <S> (AE/BE) <S> He passed/failed math. <S> (more common in AE) <S> He passed/failed in maths. <S> (more common in BE)
| In general I would say using "in" with the examples you note sounds strange.
|
"How would I know" vs. "How can I know" For example, How would I know her age without asking? How can I know her age without asking? Are these sentences both correct grammatically ? If so, do they have same meaning? If so, which one is more common? <Q> Both are correct, but the meaning is quite different. <S> How would I know her age without asking? <S> which is saying you can't determine (in your mind) <S> her age; to know you would have to ask her. <S> It regards an intuitive ability. <S> How can <S> I know her age without asking? <S> which is like saying "How can I (find out) know her age without asking? <S> This is more of a technical question; what process can I follow. <S> It is a how-to question. <A> They are both correct grammatically, but "How would I know? <S> " on its own is by far the more common turn of phrase. <S> "How can I know..." isn't particularly awkward, nor does it break any idiomatic rules, though, as far as I'm aware. <S> However, "can" is usually used when you're asking if something is possible, but "would," when referring to other people, depends on the person and is asking what actions they will perform if they were to do something. <S> For instance "How can he do it?" <S> is a question of what possible ways a man has of doing something. <S> " <S> How would he do it?" <S> is a question of what way <S> that man in particular will choose if he is to do the task. <S> Sometimes, "would" is used interchangeably with "can" in colloquial conversation, especially when referring to one's self. <A> A similar and typical situational formula is <S> I really wouldn't know. <S> A reaction on a question meaning I really don't know. <S> In my view this is a use of would that is something special and not conform to normal uses of would such as conditional mode, past habit, or as in The door would not open, or in reported speech. <S> I must admit I have difficulty analysing the use of would in 1 <S> I really wouldn't know or in 2 <S> Why would he do that. <S> In 2 would expresses astonisment about sth and the idea that sth would not be normal. <S> In 1 the idea expressed is <S> I have no possiblity to know that./It's impossible for me to know that.
| In this situation, I think the meanings between the two sentences are virtually the same.
|
Can we use "although" and "but" together i.e. in one sentence? Is this a correct English sentence? Although, I'm not very clear about the reason, but that's where the problem lies. Can 'although' and 'but' be used together in one sentence? <Q> Although and But , both can be used to introduce a statement that make your main sentence surprising <S> It's an old car, but it's very reliable <S> Although it is an old car, it's very reliable. <S> But in your sentence, you used both of them together, as Although it is an old car, but it's very reliable. <S> This can be grammatical in some languages (like Persian) and it may provides more emphasis in those languages, but you actually don't need both of them in English. <A> Since 'although' as a subordinating conjunction implies or introduces a contrast idea and 'but'as <S> a coordinating conjunction contrasts an idea, ideally both may go against the understanding that they negate each idea. <S> Therefore, they both may be ineffective when used together. <S> In addition, as what was mentioned in the first comments,'although' which introduces a subordinate clause as in "Although, I am not very clear about the reason" will need an independent clause. ' <S> But', on the other hand, should join the independent clause " that's where the problem lies" with another independent clause; thus, making the latter not the independent clause of the former. <A> You should not. <S> One very common error with the usage of the conjunctions <S> although and but is illustrated below: Although/ <S> But WRONG - Although these products are expensive but retailers have no problem selling them. <S> CORRECT - Although these products are expensive, retailers have no problem selling them. <S> These products are expensive but retailers have no problem selling them. <S> Although these products are expensive, yet retailers have no problem selling them. <S> Source of above examples, is here: http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/wrg/conjunction.htm <A> Although I am not very clear about the reason, but that's where the problem lies. <S> When you use although as a subordinate conjunction to introduce a subordinate clause, there must be a main clause to complete the sentence. <S> Besides, the placement of the although in the sentence doesn't seem correct. <S> I would rephrase the sentence as follows: <S> I am not very clear about the reason, but that's where the problem lies. <S> Alternatively, you can use although instead of but <S> because although is also used in the sense of but. <S> I am not very clear about the reason, although that's where the problem lies. <A> As far as i know,'Although' simply has same meaning of 'but'. <S> It is quite odd to use together in one sentence. <S> For example, althoughshe is very beautiful but selfish. <S> Instead of this, it is better to leave out one of them to have a clear meaning. <S> 'she is very beautiful but selfish'. <S> Hope this helpful.!!!
| So if you use although as a subordinate conjunction in one clause and but as a coordinate conjunction in the other clause, the sentence will be incorrect grammatically.
|
Do I need "from" in the following sentence? The cat disappeared into a bush. There was no way it could have come out (from) the other side, since there was a wall right behind the bush. Do I need that from ? Why or why not? <Q> Drop It <S> You don't need it. <S> It's actually better and more natural without it. <S> Don't Worry Too Much <S> However, it's not wrong to include it. " <S> Come out from" is used at times. <S> Come out from there. <S> General Guideline <S> If you are describing an object coming out of a container, in this situation a cat coming out of a bush, then whether you need to include another preposition after 'out' is determined by whether you mention a specific exit or not. <S> You would come 'out the door', but would come 'out of the house'. <S> You would jump 'out the window', but would jump 'out of the house'. <S> So, the cat would come "out the side", but would come "out of the bush". <A> In your sentence "come out" is used as a phrasal verb, for example <S> when the rain stopped the sun came out the sky,similarly in your sentence "The cat disappeared into a bush. <S> There was no way it could have come out the other side, since there was a wall right behind the bush. <S> "- is the grammatically agreeable construction. <S> Further you could learn more about phrasal verbs by going through online materials. <A> From the writer's point of view, the bush is in front of him, and the wall is beyond the bush. <S> The sentence says that the cat could not come out the other side. <S> From the standpoint of the writer, the cat went to the bush, and into it . <S> To then say it could not come out from the bush means that it could not come back toward the writer. <S> But this is not the case. <S> The wall prevented the cat from going through the bush, coming out on the other side .
| So using from is not only superfluous, it is vaguely contradictory, given the physical scenario. When speaking about a bush, the exit is the side of the bush.
|
What do you call this kind of shoes This is the picture What is the name in English please? (This is that we wear at home.) Do you also know the name of the closed version of this? I mean that one that doesn't show the toes. <Q> Where I live, older people sometimes still call them "thongs", which was an older name for them that fell out of use when thong underwear became popular. <S> Be aware that you might hear them referred to this way, but it is best to use "flip-flops" yourself. <A> Flip-flops, or sandals. <S> (Sorry for the short length of this answer, but there's not much more to explain) <A> While I've never thought of them as a closed version of flip-flops, shoes with an open back and a covered toe are called mules . <A> The answer is flip-flops , have a look at this Google image search as a source. <S> See this Google image search and this definition from Merriam-Webster : a light low-cut shoe that is easily slipped on the foot
| They are flip-flops. The general name for these kind of slip-in shoes, that you slip your foot in and out, is slipper .
|
Nice to meet and nice to know you Sometimes I talk with people I didn't know before on Skype (writing and voice ) and when we want to say bye I am confused about what to say: "nice to meet you" or "nice to know you" <Q> When you meet someone say "Nice to meet you" . <S> When you stop talking with them on Skype, either say <S> "It was nice meeting you." <S> or, better in my opinion, <S> "It was nice talking with you." <A> Avoid saying "nice to know you;" that phrase is usually associated with that person either leaving your life forever or dying. <S> For example, "It was nice knowing you; I'm sure we're all going to miss you." <S> "knowing" is more frequently said instead of "to know" <S> but they're both grammatically correct. <A> It would be more common to say "It was nice to meet you". <S> However, I wouldn't feel like that was a farewell by itself, but <S> more of a polite thing to say when saying farewell: <S> "Goodbye, it was nice to meet you." <S> "Nice to know you" means something quite different. <S> You say "to meet you" after you are done meeting them. <S> You say "to know you" after you are done knowing them. <S> In other words, this is what you say when you are saying farewell forever: <S> "Too bad you're moving to Texas. <S> It was nice to know you." <S> Both of these phrase are often said with '-ing' rather than 'to': <S> "It was nice meeting you." <S> "It was nice knowing you."
| "Nice to meet you" is a fine thing to say in this situation.
|
what does "virtual" mean here and why? or what is its concept here? I am wondering what is the concept of the bold part here? although I know what it means. Meanwhile, would you please show me what is the difference in meaning between the italic part and A-- my revised? A. old and new friends Social networking is an important part of many people's lives now where massive numbers of people congregate on sites like Facebook and interact with friends old and new , real and virtual . ........... Thanks. I cannot yet get what is the difference between the following conceptually, or how do they differ from each other here? old/ new/ real / virtual enter link description here Thanks <Q> A virtual friend in this situation might be a Facebook friend who you have never met. <S> Although they are a real person, for all intents and purposes they might as well be virtual. <A> Virtual there means "simulated, not flesh-and-blood", such as role-playing personae. <S> After reading further, I see that they're using the word <S> virtual as a synonym for "online", which is an invalid use in my opinion. <S> A pen-pal is not a virtual friend, so why should an online acquaintance be considered virtual? <A> Real refers to things in the physical world, whereas virtual refers to things that exist on the internet. <S> Another way of expressing this is with the prefix cyber -, for example some people have lots of cyber -friends, but few real friends. <S> Finally, you can simply use online as an adjective: I have more online dictionaries than I do real dictionaries.
| It's one of the words used to differentiate what you "have," or simply have access to, in your online universe as opposed to the things in your actual world.
|
What does `almost any how` mean? Here is the quote from Friedrich Nietzsche: He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how. I don't quite understand it, especially this phrase almost any how . Can somebody please shed light onto the meaning? <Q> It's a very colloquial way of saying He who has a REASON to live can bear almost any MANNER of life. <S> If you have a reason or purpose in life, you can endure almost any misery. <S> ADDED, to address orthographic issues raised in the Comments: <S> I have been unable to find the original edition or a critical edition online; but scholarly references appear to use this: <S> Hat man sein w <S> a r <S> u <S> m ? <S> des Lebens, so verträgt man sich fast mit jedem <S> w <S> i <S> e ? <S> – Der Mensch strebt nicht nach Glück <S> ; nur der Engländer thut das. <S> There are no quotation marks, but warum? <S> (why?) <S> and wie? <S> (how?) are letterspaced. <S> This is a common emphatic device in German orthography; Bernard Shaw was fond of it, too. <S> Some contemporary writers follow another of Shaw's favorite uses with embedded quotations and capitalise these terms (Warum? <S> Wie?) <S> instead; but in German this marks them as nouns. <S> A translation which preserves Nietzsche's aggressive colloquialism might be: <S> If you have your <S> Why? <S> of life <S> , you can put up with just about any <S> How? <S> —Man doesn't strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that. <S> (The last bit of snark is probably not a nationalist sneer but a joke mocking English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and his ‘felicific calculus’.) <A> He who has a 'why' to live can bear almost any 'how'. <S> Loosely interpreted: He who has a reason to live can bear almost any problem. <S> Some images of this quote indicate this as well: <A> In the example sentence, why and how are set up in a parallelism, to be understood as: <S> He who has a why to live can bear almost any how to live. <S> Like the original example, this is not actually, formally, grammatically correct. <S> It is a poetic expression. <S> It might be better understood written as: <S> He who has a why-to-live can bear almost any how-to-live. <S> What is "a why-to-live"? <S> Idiomatically, "a why" is a reason , so this means a reason to live. <S> Thus by parallelism <S> (and this is not idiomatic) "a how" is a means , and "any how-to-live" is "any means to live". <S> Thus it poetically and concisely expresses the idea: <S> He who has a reason to live can bear almost any means of living. <A> Nietzsche means that a person with nothing to live for subconsciously prefers death, but someone who has something to live for (the reason WHY he continues to live) can endure almost anything (HOW to survive almost anything). <A> Victor Frankel's, "Mans Search for Meaning" Will explain this quote absolutely. <S> While living through Auschwitz, Frankel discovered that those victims who had meaning in their lives were far more likely to survive than those who did not. <S> When EVERYTHING is taken from you, leaving no possibility of any kind of normal "happiness", if you still had a sense of "why", a sense of meaning, will get you through the day.
| He who has a WHY to live can bear almost any HOW (to live)
|
What is the difference between "faith" and "hope" One day I was thinking about these two words hope and faith . If a man is drowning in the water then he should have faith/hope that somebody will come and save him. Faith and hope have different meaning in dictionary but in a statement I do not find any difference between hope and faith. Are they synonyms? Are there some difference in usage of these words? <Q> If a man is drowning in the water then he should have faith / <S> hope that somebody will come and save him. <S> If this man has a strong hope that somebody will save him, he still allows for the possibility that nobody will do. <S> He is very hopeful, but he's still only hoping. <S> If he suddenly feels some doubts about his hope, he may dwell on these doubts, because hope does not forbid it. <S> If this man has a strong faith that somebody will save him, he refuses to admit even the possibility that nobody will do. <S> He may feel some doubts deep inside but he will suppress such doubts with all his willpower, because he has faith. <S> Entertaining doubts would be a betrayal of his faith. <S> Hope is often based on mundane inferences: "I read in newspapers about drowning people being saved. <S> I know that there are boats often crossing this part of the river (lake, ocean)." <S> Faith is often based on the supernatural: "I have a guardian angel, he will make some fishermen notice me and hurry to the rescue." <S> P.S. <S> This is really a philosophical question. <S> You might try asking it at (on?) <S> Philosophy Stack Exchange . <A> In my interpretation of these words, hope is a passive wish that something will come through eventually, but with the possibility that it won't. <S> For instance, if your drowning man hopes someone will come along, he's accepted and is prepared for the alternative scenario, but wishes that something, anything will happen to reverse it. <S> On the other hand, if he has faith that someone will come along, he is not ready to give up, he is certain that he'll make it <S> and he bases this certainty on any number of factors, beliefs, knowledge, etc. <S> It is more of an active expectation. <A> There is indeed a difference. " <S> Hope" implies desire on the part of the speaker, but without immediate expectation that the desire will be fulfilled. <S> "Faith" implies expectation, but of a peculiar sort. <S> For an abandoned, pregnant girl to say of an ex-boyfriend, "I hope he dies!" <S> does not in any way suggest that his life expectancy is limited. <S> For the girl to say "I have faith that he will be punished" suggests that a) she believes it will happen, but b) there is no immediate "ordinary" reason for her to believe it. <S> If she has brought a paternity suit against him and the DNA evidence is conclusive, or if she has poisoned his coffee in revenge, she would say something like "I expect he will (be punished/die). <S> " Faith generally implies belief in a process which is beyond one's control. <S> This may mean the supernatural, as in religious faith, or it may mean a process over which you have no detailed control, such as having faith in the legal system. <A> In your example, the man hopes that someone will come and save him, and has faith by staying afloat and shouting for help.
| Hope defines the wish, i.e. what you want to happen, and faith is the action you take to make it happen.
|
I don't ever go / I never go How correct it is saying: "I don't ever go to work by bus" instead of "I never go to work by bus" Does the meaning of these two questions change? <Q> If I had to choose, I think the second one is more idiomatic, and probably what I would say. <S> The first one is ok, but a little open-ended in my opinion. <S> You could potentially follow it up with an exception: I don't ever go to work by bus, but I may try it this week. <S> The sentence with never is more final to me. <A> Either sentence is acceptable. <S> However, be aware that the different forms "don't ever" and "never" usually have slightly different connotations. <S> When spoken without emphasis, "never" is a simple statement of fact. <S> and the distance is short, for instance. <S> To say "I don't ever take the bus", since you have chosen a more cumbersome phrase, suggests that you specifically avoid taking the bus, and that there is some strong motivation on your part for doing so. <S> Similarly, when using the phrases as part of a prohibition, "Don't (you) ever say that," is a stronger command than "Never say that," and the first suggests that if you do "say that" then the speaker will be personally upset with you. <S> At least, that's the AmE way I've always heard it used. <A> You can use ....not ever instead of never, without any difference in meaning, but the use of never is more common, especially in written English. <S> Hence, both the sentence are correct.
| Both these sentences essentially mean the same thing. To say "I never take the bus," says nothing about why you don't - it might well be that you just like to walk
|
Meaning of the word " to galvanize" I could not understand exactly if the word to galvanize suggests some violant action?Is it neutral or does it have a meaning more encourage or more incite especially in as the following context? Or can we say it has meaning " raising awareness " How social media galvanized the community in Ferguson. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-social-media-galvanized-the-community-in-ferguson/ <Q> While "galvanize" nowadays is mostly used to describe the plating of zinc on steel, in this particular case, it means (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/galvanize ) 3. <S> to startle into sudden activity; stimulate. <S> It derives from the same root as the zinc usage, and refers to the application of an electric current, originally from a galvanic battery. <S> The Wikipedia article on Galvanization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanization states, <S> Originally, galvanization was the administration of electric shocks, in the 19th century also termed Faradism. <S> This sense is the origin of the meaning of the metaphorical use of the verb galvanize, as in galvanize into action, or to stimulate a complacent person or group to take action. <S> So, although it does mean "to raise awareness", it means more than that, and implies that awareness was raised to the level of taking action. <A> The Free Dictionary says that it also means to arouse to awareness or action. <A> I've heard it used to indicate that a person has suddenly and vigorously started from rest, as in "apply an electric shock to them and see them move quickly". <A> Dr. Luigi Galvani, Italian Doctor in the 1700s used electricity to cause a dead frog legs to twitch. <S> Galvanize is the term used to describe that later expanded to most anything stimulated by electricity or shock.
| I think the OP is right that the verb galvanize in this context means to raise public awareness of the accident.
|
Why is the adjective for "mutate" not "mutatable"? The adjective for "mutate" is "mutable", and not "mutatable". I wonder why the last two letters (-te) have been removed before adding "-able" to the end of it. Is there any rule? Any similar adjectives? <Q> Good question. <S> The reason has to do with the fact that the verb mutate was a back-formation from the noun mutation . <S> That is, the English noun mutation existed first, and the verb mutate was invented later to match it. <S> Both came ultimately from the Latin <S> mutare (to change form) and mutatio (a change). <S> I'm not sure, but the "correct" way to do this might have been to create the verb mute . <S> Unfortunately, mute (myoot) already existed in English, meaning "silent"(adj) / "to silence" (v). <S> It has a separate derivation: Latin — mutis Old French — mu <S> French — muet English — <S> mute http://i.word.com/idictionary/mute <S> And moot also already existed in English, with quite a distinct meaning (related to "meet") from Germanic origins. <S> http://i.word.com/idictionary/moot <S> So it seems the solution taken was to adopt the Latin-sounding mutate as the verb form, to avoid confusion with moot or mute . <S> But mutable came fairly directly from Latin mutabilis . <S> (This did not collide with existing English, <S> because apparently mutable , in the sense of silenceable , did not exist in English (or if it ever did, that meaning disappeared long ago; it is not listed in, for instance, <S> Merriam-Webster—not even as archaic.)) <S> http://i.word.com/idictionary/mutable <A> And yes, one of them is that silent ' e 's are dropped , which would support your expectation of mutate -> mutatable . <S> However, there is another rule that deals with verbs ending with -ate : <S> Traditionally, verbs ending in -ate drop this suffix before adding -able; <S> hence, communicable (“able to be communicated”), eradicable (“possible to eradicate”), implacable (“unable to be placated”), inimitable (“unable to imitated”), and so on, but relatable, because relate is re- + -late, <S> not rel- <S> + <S> -ate. <S> Logically one should therefore say rotable to mean "able to be rotated", but rotatable has become accepted. <S> (Source: Wiktionary ) <S> Your mutable falls squarely in this category. <A> The adjective existed already in Latin mutabilis/mutabile, from the verb mutare. <S> So English mutable is not derived from English to mutate, but has the original Latin form. <S> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=mutable&searchmode=none <A> As a matter of fact, there is no general rule for forming adjectives. <S> However, when you use the suffix able to form adjectives from the verbs that end with "tate", you usually omit the last three letters "ate" and use the suffix "able". <S> Some examples are as follows: <S> Agtitate - agitable Irritate - irritable Imitate - imitable <S> mutate - mutable
| There are a bunch of rules how adjectives ending with -able are formed.
|
"As if you have your teacher with you" I was running across this advertisement for an English language school on the subway this morning: English fit for travel, as if you have your teacher with you. This sounds somehow wrong to me. Shouldn't the subjunctive use the past form of have in this case, as in 'As if you had your teacher with you'? <Q> This is a perfect example of something that is grammatically correct, yet highly unidiomatic. <S> In other words, a native would never word it like this. <S> Here are some options that I would personally prefer as a native: <S> English for travel: <S> It's like traveling with your teacher. <S> English for tourists: <S> It's like having your teacher as a tour guide. <S> English for travel: <S> It's like taking your teacher on the road. <S> ( I don't really like any of these either - the whole premise seems corny to me, but they're a lot more palatable than the original to my ear at least ). <A> It is grammatically incorrect , according to standard English. <S> If I were in charge of that school (but I am not, so I wrote 'were' just then) <S> I would fire the folks who came up with that setence. <S> Whether one calls it the subjunctive or irrealis is another thing. <S> English does not have a lot of things that Latin has, or had. <A> This is a great question. <S> I had to think about it for a while! <S> AmE native, btw. <S> If you're erring on the side of caution, certainly go with the "had" version. <S> If we venture off the grammatically correct path and wander a bit into the forest of sounds-okay-when-spoken-but-maybe-don't-say-it-to-a-pedantic-grammarian-or-put-it-in-a-term-paper, the "have" version might be acceptable as well. <S> It somewhat accents the present-tense aspect of the phrase. <S> It might connote the feeling <S> "this course is so good it'll feel like your teacher is with you all the time, very much in the present". <S> Note that this feeling is by no means a hard and fast rule and different English speakers, especially the purists among us, might beg strongly to differ. <S> However, in spoken American English, many good speakers might not bat an eye at the "have" version. <S> Whether the English language company that wrote the ad put this much thought behind it or not is another question entirely.
| "As if you had your teacher with you" is definitely grammatically correct and sounds natural when spoken.
|
Someone who looks for problems and is not interested in solving an issue pragmatically Is there a word or an expression for "Someone who looks for problems and is not interested in solving an issue pragmatically"? In particular in my case I described a solution that was OK within the context given. Someone else presented a hypothetical situation: "If ... then it is not OK." Based on this hypothetical, they insisted that the solution I provided was not good. The hypothetical was an assumption, and it was completely unknown whether it would ever occur. My feeling is that this person merely wants to discredit my solution. What do you call such a person? I think this person wants to promote his/her own answer and is thus trying to find irrelevant "issues" with the answers of others. But I would also be interested in the expression for someone who does it without bad motives. <Q> Such a person could be described as a naysayer , one who consistently criticizes and objects to anything proposed. <A> I might say that the person is being contrary : (usually of children) behaving badly; choosing to do or say the opposite of what is expected Contrary usually means "in opposition to" or "opposite of": <S> The president's new tax plan is hard on poor families, which is contrary to what he promised when he was elected. <S> But when contrary applies to a person, it means the person disagrees with any suggestion. <A> A person who tries to poke holes in the logic/reasoning/solutions of others is sometimes playing the role of Devil's Advocate. <S> (One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.) <S> This might be annoying but is not usually done with overt bad intention. <S> I can't think of a good term for someone who is doing this type of thing with bad intention. <A> This type of behavior is considered bad faith . <S> Thus the person you described, would be acting in bad faith <S> Always remember, this is very much an accusation. <S> As in your example, it would indicate they were never actually interested in a solution. <A> You may be looking for carper or caviler . <S> Both mean one who raises irritating and trivial objections, or finds faults unnecessarily <A> If such a person acted in bad faith I'd describe them as an unfair or dishonest person but if their position were neutral they might be called critic, skeptic or negativist or if you like an expression: doubtful Thomas . <A> Such a person may be thought a sophist. <S> Originally I think sophists were considered clever and could argue either side of an issue (from Ancient Greek teachings), but the name today connotes one of specious reasoning. <A> If the person is simply resisting change for no reason then "stick in the mud" would fit. <A> Bear with me for a while when suggesting detail-oriented to describe this person. <S> When reading your context I recognised/remembered some similar situations I've been in myself, where I tend to present very detailed issues or problems with a presented solution. <S> Usually this is not to be mean, but merely a representation of how I perceive and respond to solution due to my personality type. <S> This is based on theory from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator , and regarding this specific topic see Are You a Big Picture Thinker or Detail-Oriented? . <S> And the very brief summary of this is that this particular person is detail-oriented and as such the natural response is to respond to details. <S> Due note that often this response indirectly is an approval of the idea, but to them there exists some minor issues they would like to address. <S> If you are a big picture thinker, these suggestions is often conceived as critic or condemnation of the idea, which often is not the case.
| The noun contrarian means "someone who behaves in a contrary way, especially with respect to popular opinion".
|
Put Down A Line I have some question about the technical usage of the verb phrase " put down " here : Gel pens are technically a rollerball variant, but use a much thicker, more viscous ink. So gel pens don’t bleed as much as most rollerballs, and you still get very smooth, fine and vivid lines. But they still generally have smudging and drying problems, and the ink runs thick; a 0.5 mm gel pen will put down a wider line than 0.5 mm in other types. I cannot find a dictionary definition that fits this usage of " put down ". Could this be some technical jargon? <Q> The verb relates to the deposition of a viscous substance on a surface along a certain path, not to recording or writing text. <A> From the OED: put down , v. <S> a. <S> To set down in writing, write down; to enter or record in a written document; to enter (one's or another's name) as a member, subscriber, etc., or as having opted or been selected for something. <S> The verb put , specifically when with down , is used to refer to the act of writing or recording something. <S> The usage of "put down" here is still as it is normally. <S> Something is still being placed down, and that thing is the "wider line" (OP) or "a written document" (OED). <A> In this context, the phrase is akin to 'put down on paper' this means to 'write something down on paper' or 'record something on paper'. <S> Another way of saying this sentence is: <S> 'Draw' and 'paint' are not synonymous to 'put down' but may help illustrate the meaning of this sentence. <S> Basically, when you write with the gel pen on paper, the line the pen produces by leaving ink on the paper, is wider than the width advertised (0.5mm) because the ink is thick. <S> See definition 1 here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/put+down <A> There's nothing abstract about put down , it's very literal. <S> A pen puts down ink <S> A mother puts down her child. <S> You can also put someone down, but down in the sense of depression. <A> In this passage put down could be interpreted a number of ways. <S> First, it could be seen as the ink itself actually being placed down upon the paper, as in the following definition from the OED: <S> put down , v. <S> trans . <S> a. <S> In this usage, the phrase " put down a wider line " would be referring to the pen's act of literally putting down a line of ink on the paper, much like how one would put down a ball onto the ground; it is being "place[d]" or "move[d] <S> to ... a lower position ... <S> so as to rest upon a surface. <S> " <S> This could also have the meaning of the act of writing, as in the following definition (also from the OED): <S> put down , v. <S> trans . <S> a. <S> To set down in writing, write down; to enter or record in a written document; to enter (one's or another's name) as a member, subscriber, etc., or as having opted or been selected for something. <S> In this case, the phrase " put down a wider line " would mean that the pen is causing something to be written and that the line that is put down is "set down in writing ... to enter or record in a written document."
| Specifically, the pen puts down ink on the paper (it puts down words in writing). But they still generally have smudging and drying problems, and the ink runs thick; a 0.5 mm gel pen will draw/paint/write a wider line than 0.5 mm in other types. Just as a caulking gun 'lays down a bead' of caulk, a rollerball pen can be said to 'put down a line' of ink. A soldier puts down his weapon To move to or bring into a lower position; to lower; to place on the ground, or so as to rest upon a surface.
|
a bridge over the river vs a bridge across the river In a video on youtube, it says "we prefer ' over ' to talk about a movement to the other side of sth high . We prefer ' across ' to talk about a movement to the other side of a flat area ". I think "a bridge across the river" means the bridge is a flat bridge that is nearly above the river, while "a bridge over the river" means the bridge is an arch bridge. Am I right? <Q> When talking about the physical structure of the bridge itself, in general you would be correct. <S> "Over" doesn't necessarily mean only an arch bridge — any bridge that is substantially above, such as a suspension bridge, could be implied. <S> However, one could also emphasize not the physical bridge but the passage or motion. <S> In this case, you could say "across" whenever the emphasis was on the crossing (getting from one side to the other) and "over" whenever the emphasis was on the state of being above/distant from the river. <S> "He needed a bridge to get across the river" means that he is focussed on being on the other side of the river, and it doesn't matter what kind of bridge he ends up using. <S> "Like a bridge over troubled waters" emphasizes that the bridge is removing you from the dangerous situation. <A> Google Ngram shows that "a bridge across/over the river" are variants of almost the same frequency. <S> As already said, the two prepositions don't say anything about the kind of bridge. <A> A bridge over/across the river <S> I think you can use either over or across. <S> Please look at the following sentence from Cambridge Dictionary: <S> We drove over/across the bridge. <S> The video on YouTube says that we prefer to use over in this case, but it doesn't mean that the use of across is wrong. <S> So when you are talking about a movement from one side to the other side of something high, you can use of the prepositions, though "over" is preferable. <S> It doesn't matter whether the bridge is a flat bridge or arch bridge. <A> Across doesn't mean above, it may mean bridge has touch with the water but over shows bridge has no contact with water. <A> The purpose of building a bridge is to cross the river; so "across" is used in the context of traveling or moving. <S> E.g., Robison drove on the bridge across the river . <S> If movement is not to be emphasized, then "bridge over the river" is correct: e.g., A bridge has been built over the river .
| Both the prepositions convey the same meaning i.e. from one side to the other side of the river.
|
How to Grammatically Discern "after all", Phrase? “People were excited by violence. What, after all , was the sexual act but a voluntarily endured assault, a momentary death?” ― P.D. James, Innocent Blood How may you discern this phrase? It seemed like maybe a prepositional phrase. Or maybe it may seem like a parenthetical phrase, or discourse marker? I think I thought prepositional phrases place information on location like Near the ocean . Near the ocean , we ran. I think near the ocean seems like a prepositional phrase that may modify where they ran placing information on location. In after all , what may this modify? After all of that running , we went home. Something like this I may get, a prepositional phrase maybe on when, after maybe placing information on location in time. <Q> After all plays several roles. <S> (approximately) everything . <S> Within the sentence it acts syntactically as a supplemental clausal modifier— <S> that is, an adverbial modifying the entire clause to which it is subordinated—and it is external to the clause, not integrated into its structure. <S> Within the discourse of which this sentence is a part, it acts as a discourse marker , signalling a change of direction: the speaker acknowledges that she is bringing something unexpected into the discourse, but insists that it is nonetheless relevant. <A> According to the OED, After all means: in spite of any indications or expectations to the contrary; when all is said and done, nevertheless. <S> As @Michael said in the comments, it's often used as little more than an embellishment to add emphasis or authority to a statement as it infers that the speaker understands and has thought about all aspects of the subject. <S> You could almost think of it as a shorthand for something like "After considering all aspects and possibilities relating to the issue, I think..." <A> "What" and the adverbial phrase "after all" belong together meaning something like "What ultimately". <S> The author wants to express the idea that one can say a lot about the act of love-making, but ultimately or basically it is a tolerated assault. <S> Whether one follows the author in this view is a different matter.
| Semantically it means approximately, "taking everything into consideration" or "in the final analysis". In its internal form, without regard to its context, it is a prepositional phrase; all is a "fused-head determiner" ( CGEL ), a determiner which 'stands for' the omitted noun which it modifies and thus acts itself as a noun =
|
How to Grammatically Discern This Phrase, Conjunction, or Adverbial? “Music, once admitted to the soul , becomes a sort of spirit, and never dies.” ― Edward Bulwer-Lytton I may not get what to read once admitted to the soul like. May once here seem a conjunction and if it may seem like that I guess I may read it like maybe a conditional phrase something like if? Or may once here seem like an adverb and maybe an adverbial phrase placing information on when? <Q> Once this has happened, then that will happen. <S> A quick line on meaning. ' <S> Once' in this context is used to identify either a pre-requisite for something: "Once you pay me, I'll send you the goods" or, as in this case, to link a more abstract cause and effect: "Once you've joined the ELL community, you'll never be lost for words again." <A> We are considering the italicized phrase, and the bold word in particular: <S> “Music, once admitted to the soul , becomes a sort of spirit, and never dies.” <S> ― <S> Edward Bulwer-Lytton <S> At first, this looked to me like a prepositional phrase, with 'once' acting as the preposition. <S> After asking a question on English SE and doing a little research, it's clear that this is actually a subordinate clause , with 'once' acting as a subordinating conjunction . <S> The Wikipedia article organizes subordinate clauses into three groups: noun clauses, adverbial clauses, and adjectival clauses. <S> Adverbial clauses start with a subordinating conjunction, and the whole clause acts as an adverb. <S> I view the clause as modifying "music", indicating which music "becomes a sort of spirit" <S> (music that has been admitted to the soul). <S> Alternatively, one could view the phrase as modifying "becomes", indicating when the music "becomes a sort of spirit" (after being admitted to the soul). <A> "once admitted to the soul" derives from "when it is once admitted to the soul". <A> It is easier to see how these phrases are functioning if the sentence is structured in a more standard way, without ellipsis (shown in parens). <S> Music, once admitted to the soul, becomes a sort of spirit, and never dies. <S> The main clause is: Music becomes a sort of spirit. <S> To more directly answer the original post, the 'phrase' in question is neither a phrase, nor a conjunction. <S> It is a subordinate elliptic adverbial clause. <S> This clause is functioning adverbially to establish time relations to the other verbs. <S> Viewed in the standard sentence order (above) it modifies the second clause's verb 'to die' as a time sequence, and the first clause's verb 'become' to say when the action happens. <S> The word 'once' and the clause itself are not modifying the subject of the main clause (as suggested in another answer), at least not in my opinion. <S> Adverbials modify the meaning of verbs, not nouns. <S> Music is the subject of the first and last clauses, and spirit is the subject of the second clause. <S> At the clause and sentence level (S+V+C) there are grammatical relations between the subject, verb and complements phrases that do produce meaning but it is not an adverbial modification. <S> The words and and <S> once are subordinating conjunctions as DCShannon has already indicated . <S> Mostly because of the ellipsis, the other two clauses are fragments or dependent clauses.
| This example is an adverbial clause. Once has many meanings but in this case it's a conjunction - it links to a subordinate clause. Music becomes a sort of spirit, and (it- spirit ) never dies, once (it- music - is) admitted to the soul.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.