source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
How do you call someone who gives classes but is not actually a teacher? How would you call someone who gives classes to students despite not having a degree in teaching nor it being their main occupation ? For example, a lot of "teachers" I had in college were actually professionals in the field they were teaching, who would only do this for 2 or 4 hours a week in addition to their main job. In France I have heard the term "Chargé d'enseignement", which litterally means "In charge of teaching". Is there a similar word or expression in English ? Or would you just call them teachers ? <Q> The term you are looking for is adjunct , and you could call this person an adjunct professor, or an adjunct faculty member. <S> NOAD defines the word like this: <S> adjunct ( adj. ) <S> (of an academic post) attached to the staff of a college in a temporary or assistant capacity : an adjunct professor of entomology . <S> [as n.] both adjuncts and tenured professors tend to inflate grades . <A> I tend to use the word "instructor" in this case. <S> The New Oxford American Dictionary has the definition "A person who teaches something:" which I think covers your use, too. <A> An effective adjunct professor is someone who is: A clear communicator Able to teach with ample real-world experience Able to show confidence teaching and presenting to a class <S> Technologically savvy: can utilize email, different online learningsystems and other ways to communicate with students Passionate about specific academic fields and education in general. <S> I am an adjunct nursing professor with over 20 years ecperience. <S> I have a ADN,BSN, MSN. <S> I feel that I deserve to be called a professor.
| As a general rule, they aren't called teachers at or above the university level, they are called instructors or professors .
|
What does the butcher's (meaning the butcher's shop) become in the plural? If the sentence in the singular is: The butcher's and the hairdresser's are closed on Sunday. What happens to the genitive if I want to make it plural? Butcher's and hairdresser's are closed on Sunday. Butchers' and hairdressers' are closed on Sunday. Butcher's shops and hairdresser's salons are closed on Sunday. In British English they call it the butcher's, because "shop" can stay implicit. My question is: if I want to say all the butcher's shops are closed, can I still leave the word "shop" implicit and therefore say: Butcher's are closed on Sunday? Meaning "butcher's shops"? Why would I loose the genitive in the plural if I had it in the singular? If I drop the apostrophe and I say the butchers (plural) does it not mean the butchers = the people who work in those shops? <Q> Tbh, either butchers' or butchers would apply to multiple butcher's shops, in the same way that butcher's or butcher would apply to an individual butcher's shop. <S> "I'm off to the butcher's" and "I'm off to the butcher" are equivalent in use, and both are in common usage. <S> (The item possessed by the butcher - the shop - is implicit, but real. <S> Which is why it is fine to say butcher's . <S> You are essentially abbreviating butcher's shop down to butcher's .) <S> However, because butcher's - in the sense of an individual butcher's shop - is a homonym of both butchers and butchers' - in the sense of many shops each belonging to an individual - it is usually necessary to get rid of the ambiguity in conversation. <S> The usual use of butcher's is to refer to one individual shop. <S> If you said "The butcher's are closed", it might easily be perceived by the listener that you mean your usual butcher's shop is closed. <S> You might want to say "All the butchers' are closed on Sunday" for clarity. <S> Because the butchers is a plural word ending in 's', the English possessive is butchers' . <S> For documentary support : <S> q.v. Wikipedia - English Possessive (link) and Purdue University Online Writing Lab : <S> The Apostrophe (link) <A> This type of errant apostrophe is not uncommon. <S> Fowler's Modern English Usage notes many such usage. <S> Though it rises some eyebrows but it still appears - potato's 10p <S> a lb. <S> video's for rent. <S> The use of these apostrophe is to make the noun plural, when the noun ends with a vowel. <S> Example - grotto's, opera's, toga's etc. <S> This use is often called the greengrocers' (or grocers' ) <S> apostrophe because of the frequency with which plural forms such as apple's, cauli's, orange's etc appear in their shops. <S> But your question is somewhat different to what I have written so far. <S> I wrote it to introduce such use of apostrophe. <S> Now coming back to your question. <S> Butcher is actually a person who sells meat or cuts meat for that purpose. <S> A fishmonger is a person who sells fish. <S> So the shop where he sells fish is called fishmonger's . <S> But that is actually a old use. <S> People now prefer to write a fish shop . <S> Bakery can only refer to a shop where bread is baked. <S> But it's rarely used for shop. <S> The baker's is the usual phrase. <S> Grocery doesn't refer to a shop in BrE, though it does in AmE. <S> As for butchery, confectionery, jewellery, stationery, haberdashery , they can never refer to a shop in either language. <S> A genitive has to be used to refer to a shop. <S> These genitives have two plurals when used with 'shop'. <S> Several butcher's shop or several butchers' shops . <S> The second phrase is preferable. <S> Some people consider it the only correct form. <S> But several butchers is used by far the most frequently. <S> REFERENCE - The New Fowler's Modern English Usage Oxford's Advanced Learner's Dictionary Aspects of Modern English Usage: for advanced students By Paul Lambotte, Harry Campbell, J. Potter <A> According to Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary the plural of butcher's is butchers . <S> In practice, they don't skip "shops" or "stores" while using plural. <A> I am not sure the question is right. <S> It may be a little flawed because I remember plural of butcher is butchers and the shop is called butcher's shop in UK English and butchers shop in <S> US English (for reference, please check the butcher shop section: here ). <S> I think you make words(more specifically Nouns) <S> plural and not sentences. <S> A sentence is a mere combination of words to make sense. <S> That brings us to the point where I think the statement should have been <S> The butcher's shop and the hairdresser's shop are closed on Sunday. <S> for which the plural form would be The butcher's shops and the hairdresser's shops are closed on Sunday. <S> Again, you need to be sure what version of English you would like to use. <S> cheers !
| A butcher's is generally used to mean a shop where meat is sold.
|
Any differences between my battery is dead and my battery runs out I was talking to Jane on my mobile phone. When she was going to tell me something important, our conversation suddenly cut off. My mobile phone was reaching the critical level. It was around 10% full. Some time later I phoned to Jane. I told her, "My battery was dead." She was laughing with "What!What! What... Your battery's dead..." Her reaction made me think if I should have told her, "my battery ran out." I am not sure whether there are any differences between my battery is dead and my battery runs out. <Q> As I've mentioned in other comments, this is partly contextual. <S> Batteries that have run out of energy are called dead batteries , at least informally, even when those batteries can be recharged. <S> For example, in a column about "dead" car batteries, a mechanic answers the question: Can a dead car battery be completely recharged by just jump starting the car and driving around? <S> However, it's interesting the way the mechanic's language shifts further into the column: He doesn't refer to a "dead" car battery, but he talks about a "discharged" battery: <S> Consider the scenario where the battery is completely discharged from leaving the headlights on. <S> And later, he uses scare quotes to show that dead might not be quite the technically correct term: <S> Also, it is not likely that your battery is ever "completely dead". <S> Even when the battery is discharged it can still have upwards of 9 volts. <S> The fact is though that 95% of batteries are never fully discharged when they need a jump start. <S> So, back you your conversation with Jane <S> : I suppose you could have said, "I'm sorry we got cut off, my battery was completely discharged," or, "my battery ran out of energy," but in my experience, most people don't say it that way. <S> Instead, they say it the way you did: <S> My battery went dead. <S> They might even say, "My cell phone died," even though the phone isn't really "dead" – it only needs to be recharged to become "resurrected." <S> A good dictionary will confirm that your usage of dead is recognized and acceptable; NOAD says: <S> dead <S> ( adj. ) <S> • (of a piece of equipment) no longer functioning, esp. <S> because of a fault : the phone had gone dead . <S> • (of an electric circuit or conductor) carrying or transmitting no current : <S> the batteries are dead . <S> So, when a news article reports: Gray reportedly claimed that he overslept after his cell phone died and the alarm didn't go off. <S> That could mean two things: The cell phone malfunctioned and needed to be repaired or replaced, or the cell phone's battery <S> went dead. <S> Although either interpretation is valid, I'd bet on the latter scenario; it's the far more common occurrence. <A> Yes, there is a difference between them. <S> My battery is dead = <S> The battery functions no more; that is, it worn out.(It becomes worthless to recharge).My battery has run out /run down = <S> The battery's charge is down (It can be used after charged). <A> You changed the words from the title to the actual question. <S> At that point I might cancel an unimportant phone call to have some power left in case I need it for something more important. <S> I'd tell you on the phone "Sorry, must hang up, battery is running out". <S> "My battery ran out" is the point in time when the phone stopped working. <S> "My battery is dead" often means the same, but it also means "my battery doesn't have enough charge, and charging it doesn't work anymore; I need a new battery". <S> At that point, I wouldn't be able to tell you on the phone anymore.
| "My battery runs out" means it is getting close to going dead, but not quite there yet.
|
Using "must" and "have to" together I am confused about this: Can I use Must and Have to together like: You must have to do it. <Q> Modal auxiliaries can have more than one sense. <S> The verb must for example can be used to talk about obligations - what people think it is a good idea or bad idea to do. <S> (Some people call this type of meaning deontic modality ) <S> Here's an example: You must be in class by 9 am. <S> Here someone is saying that you have an obligation to be in class by 9 am. <S> Probably that person has some authority, or they are using someone else's authority to tell you what you must do. <S> However, must can also be used to talk about whether we know that something is true or not. <S> (Some writers call this type of meaning epistemic modality ) <S> We often use modals like this to talk about deductions - things that we know because of evidence: <S> This must be a 4, because that number's a 6. <S> Bob should be there by now, he left home at 2 pm. <S> We use have to to talk about necessity. <S> In particular we can use it to express obligations: You have to be in class by 9 am. <S> If we are using must to talk bout obligations, then we can't use it with have to . <S> In other words, we cannot use <S> must to make have to more emphatic. <S> The following sentence cannot mean <S> you really, really have to be in class by 9am : <S> *You must have to be in class by 9 am. <S> (ungrammatical with this meaning) <S> However, if we are using must to talk about a deduction (if we are using it to express epistemic modality), then we can use it in a sentence with have to . <S> The next sentence is grammatical if it means something like <S> I logically deduce that it's necessary <S> be in class by 9 am . <S> You must have to be in class by 9 am. <S> Here is the type of context that you might hear that sentence in: A : The timetable doesn't say when I need to get there. <S> B : <S> No, but it says that the break is at 10. <S> The lessons are one hour long, so I'm guessing you must have to be in class by 9am. <A> Must or have to followed by an infinitive are used to express obligation. <S> Hence, it doesn't make sense to use them together . <S> See here for a detailed explanation. <S> From the site: We often use <S> must for more personal opinions about what it is necessary to do, and have to for what somebody in authority has said it is necessary to do. <S> I must remember to get a present for Daisy. <S> (my opinion) <S> You have to look after their hair regularly. <S> (dog experts say so) <S> Do you have to wear a tie for school? <S> (asking about school rules) <S> See here for usage of <S> must and have to separately. <S> One more reference site . <S> EDIT: <S> As stated in this thread , it's possible but amounts to semantic overkill . <A> I would point out that a common usage: you must have to do _ to achieve _ <S> For example: You must have to reboot the computer to get the internet connection to work. <S> Nothing else I tried seem to fix the problem. <S> You have no choice. <S> The have to <S> x is stating the action that you are obliged to take. <S> The sentence works without the must as: <S> You have to reboot the computer to get the internet connection to work <S> In the example the problem with the internet connection may have been a temporary problem at the internet service provider so rebooting may not have actually solved the problem. <S> So even someone very knowledgeable about computers would choose to soften the strength of their statement with a qualification as they are not sure whether rebooting actually fixed things. <S> The must qualification softens the statement to be less authoritative. <S> A longer way of saying the same thing would be: <S> In my judgement of the observed facts you have to reboot the the computer to get the internet connection to work. <S> Nothing else I tried seem to fix the problem.
| The must here means you are obliged to.
|
Its or Their to refer to a company? The company will issue (their, its) annual report next month. In this case, should I use "its" or "their"? <Q> Both its and their are pronouns. <S> A company is a collective noun. <S> In AmE, Company takes a singular verb form and singular pronoun. <S> While in BrE, Company takes a plural verb form and plural pronoun. <S> So, depending on that, both are correct. <S> In AmE: The company will issue its annual report next month. <S> In BrE: The company will issue their annual report next month. <A> Your question: should I use its or their in: <S> The company will issue their/its annual report next month ? <S> In this instance, I'd recommend using its : <S> The company will issue its annual report next month. <S> This, among other things, echoes Kelly's answer and Fantasier's answer to an old question : "If a collective noun is seen as a whole, sole, impersonal unit, then singular verbs are more common. <S> If it is seen as a collection of people doing personal things, then plural verbs are more common. <S> In American English the verb for the noun is usually singular in all cases except family (if you don't quantify it with members of, people in etc)." <S> Which also echoes an old answer by FumbleFingers : "(in "British English") [W]e quite naturally use singular or plural for things like company, family, group , according to context", and information relating to collective nouns which is relatively to find around the web, including on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange . <S> Back to your sentence, it's clear that it's safer to use <S> its in either British or American English. <S> Even though it may be possible to use their in British English (and also in American English), I'd personally use it in that specific instance; and though I can't say exactly why, <S> this Google Ngram chart appears to support my choice: <A> For what it's worth, Google Books Ngram Viewer would suggest that company is more often treated as singular. <S> But all you can really draw from this is that it's acceptable to treat company as either singular or plural. <S> I think it comes down to whether or not you want to emphasise the single legal entity or the group of people who make up the company. <S> In the case of an annual report, it is issued by the single legal entity <S> and so I would use the singular: <S> The company will issue its annual report next month. <A> In AmE, I think it is 'it'. <S> So, The company will issue its annual report next month (AmE) <S> In BrE, companies are often called with a plural pronoun The company will issue their annual report next month (BrE) . <S> My opinion <S> If you are peculiar about mentioning the owners or authorities, mention 'their'. <A> The company will issue (their, its) annual report next month. <S> A company in this grammar is classed as a single entity, so will release <S> its (as ownership) annual report. <S> A Board of Members would release their (joint ownership) annual report.
| If you are talking about the 'company' use 'it'. While its is a singular pronoun, their is a plural pronoun.
|
Talking about my soul. Use he, she or it? When I'm talking about my soul (in the "paranormal" way), the correct use of the pronoun is he she or it ? See the example: My soul is lost. He/She/It is lost forever. I'm asking it 'cause I always chosen the "he/she" for people and "it" for things, animals and objects. My soul is definitely not a person, but is not a thing or animal, right? What should I use? <Q> If you mention any other attribute of yourself, whether physical (such as a body part) or abstract (such as an ability that you have), you always refer to it as "it. <S> " This also applies to your mind, heart (in the physical and non-physical sense), soul, etc., even if it could be said to have a personality or gender. <S> It is not independent of you, therefore it is not a person (in and of itself), therefore it is considered an object for the purposes of grammar. <S> EDIT: see also this question. <S> If the soul is considered an independent person, such as when describing the soul of someone in the afterlife, then it can receive a gender. <S> In the linked question, the disembodied soul of a dead king is referred to as "he" (and the soul of a queen as "she"). <S> Going by the above, assigning a gender implies personhood in this instance. <A> I always chosen the "he/she" for people and "it" for things, animals and objects. <S> "Things" is a bit vague here, but I expect that you are getting confused because you can't touch your soul and take ahold of it, <S> like you can a great number of other "things". <S> Your soul is still however a "thing" and your pattern of using "it" for things works here too. <S> As a small aside, we sometimes use gender pronouns for animals too. <S> It tends to be for pets and other animals that we feel close to. <S> What a lovely dog. <S> What is his name? <S> I'd be unlikely to use gender pronouns for a worm for example. <S> That worm has moved from one side of the garden to the other already! <S> It's a fast one! <A> I think Thomas a Kempis is right about referring to the soul as 'she'. <S> The soul is God's breath, and so it is not a thing, whatever the actual usage may be. <S> I think Thomas, who was a great mystic, had a good reason for choosing 'she'. <S> In silence and quiet the devout soul goeth forward and learneth the hidden things of the Scriptures. <S> Therein findeth <S> she a fountain of tears, wherein to wash and cleanse herself each night, that she may grow the more dear to her Maker as <S> she dwelleth the further from all worldly distraction. <S> THE IMITATION OF CHRIST by Thomas a Kempis (1427)
| To explain the comment which for some reason is not an answer, your soul is "it" because it is an attribute of yourself.
|
he was a third member vs. he was the third member In one documentary devoted to the French Revolution the narrator says (just after Saint Just and Lazare Carnot have been mentioned): A third member [of the Committee of Public Safety] was the crippled lawyer Couthon*. Why was not "the" used before "third"? P. S. In one of my previous posts Article before ordinal numbers I already posed a question regarding the usage of the articles before the ordinal numbers. But I think that the answer which I received does not cover this one. The body of the Committe of Public Safety was composed of the precise amount of members. Or would using the definite article indicate that Couthon was the third most important member or something similar? Or is it so because the narrator did not name all the members of the COPS but just three? <Q> Until another member is added to the group, there is no third member; thus "the third member" would be premature. <S> Compare <S> : I'd like to add a third coat of varnish. <S> One could say "I'd like to add the third coat of varnish" if one had been planned from the get-go. <S> But an ad hoc third coat would be called "a" third coat. <S> Once that ad hoc coat of varnish has been applied, it can be referred to as "the third coat". <S> On that logic, if it had been stipulated somewhere that the group must be comprised of three members, then one could say "he was asked to become the third member." <S> SCENARIO <S> A <S> Hello, Mr. Jones. <S> I'd like to ask you some questions . <S> --OK, go right ahead. <S> Where were you on the night of the 25th at 10PM? <S> --I was here at home, thinking about "a" and "the". <S> Are you ready for a second question? <S> --Yes. <S> SCENARIO B Hello, Mr Jones. <S> I'd like to ask you two questions . <S> --OK, go right ahead. <S> Where were you on the night of the 25th at 10PM? <S> --I was here at home, thinking about "a" and "the". <S> Are you ready for <S> the second question? --Yes. <A> The Committee of Public Safety had 12 members when it started with Robespierre. <S> The documentary shows footage from a film, and films needs to be made to look and sound good. <S> The first two members, Saint-Just and Lazare Carnot are introduced first. <S> Saint-Just was the wild rebelious type, Carnot a practical-minded Mathematician. <S> Couthon was a cripple - strange for a member of the Committee, and is introduced with an 'a' because this highlights him as being 'interesting' - which is reasonable as the remaining 8 members of CoPS are not so interesting. <S> Using 'the' would imply Couthon was somehow the third member, either by rank or by time of joining, neither of which are true. <S> The clip also mentions a fourth member - Marie-Jean Herault de Sechelles, and this perhaps explains the choice of names, Robespierre, Saint-Just, Couthon and de Sechelles were all guillotined ( Napoleon Series ), and Carnot became a French hero ( Eiffel Tower ). <S> Everyone else survived ( Wikipedia ). <A> Note: <S> both this question and your other question about a second season refer to the same usage. <S> Short answer: A third member means simply: another member ( an additional member ) <S> and I am referring to him as <S> third because I have already mentioned two other members. <S> Example 2: <S> I have two gmail addresses. <S> I want to get ___ third gmail address . <S> Would I say <S> a or the ? <S> Hint: I want to get another gmail address. <S> Long Answer
| Only once the group contains three members can one refer to " the third member".
|
he became firm friend or friends? I was reading BBC culture page ( See Here ). In the middle of the text, we see : He became firm friends with the Shakespeare and Company owner in a relationship that lasted until his death 40 years later. Q1: Does the writer make mistake ? Q2: Why the writer have used plural form of "Friend" ? Thanks <Q> If somebody is your friend, you can say you are friends with him. <S> If you want to start a friendly relationship with a person or persons, you can say that you want to become friends or make friends with him or them accordingly. <S> So the use of friends in the sentence presented by the writer is correct grammatically. <A> The plural is being used because there are two people becoming friends with each other: "he" and the owner. <A> You're right. <S> "I" can't be friends, and "he" can't be friends. <S> The implication is that " we are friends. <S> " <S> Hence the plural for "friends. <S> " <S> This is just how the expression is built. <S> You can find it in the Merriam-Webster dictionary . <S> If you want to use the singular, you'd have to use "of": <S> I'm a friend of sb. <S> This is a more distant/less colloquial way of presenting yourself. <A> To be friends with, to become friends with are idiomatic phrases; you cannot say to be friend with or to become friend with. <S> If somebody is your friend, you can also say that you are friends with them, for example, "I am friends with Peter"/"She is friends with Sara". <S> Please see the Free Dictionary listing . <A> "to be friends with someone" seems to be an idiom of AmE. <S> The Free Dictionary quotes the AHD. <S> Oald does not have this idiom. <S> It may be that "to be friends with" derives from "to be in friendship with".
| To be friends with, to become friends with, or to make friends with are idiomatic phrases. The writer is correct here.
|
Should I say: She is 'no' student or She is 'not' a student? I'm always confused with that issue. Should I say She is no student or She is not a student Or are both of them equal? If they are, what is the difference between them? <Q> You can say either one, but they have different effects. <S> "She is not a student" is a simple statement of fact. <S> "She is no student" is usually an emphatic statement, which only really makes sense when you're denying somebody else's implication that she's a student. <S> For example, if one professor says, "A student asked me a question about [some crackpot theory] after yesterday's lecture," another professor might say, "She's no student! <S> She's just some woman who slips into lectures so she can ask her crazy questions." <S> You could also use it figuratively, to mean that she's such a bad student that she doesn't deserve the name: "Mary? <S> Ha! <S> She's no student. <S> I mean, she pays her fees and comes to lectures but have you ever seen her actually study anything? <S> I haven't!" <A> You can say "She is no student." <S> This "style" is usually used for emphasis. <S> She is no student! <S> She's an imposter, just a journalist trying to get her story!" <S> You cannot say "She is not student". <S> Here you need an article. <S> Your edit makes your example correct. <S> She is not a student. <A> The first sentence can mean that she is not a student despite seeming like one. <S> Or that she did a bad job at being a student. <S> This is a bit of a strong statement. <S> The second sentence is not grammatical. <S> It should be <S> She is not a student. <S> The meaning of this sentence is self-explanatory. <S> To sum up, the two sentences do not mean identical things. <A> "She is not a student" simply means what it says: "she is not a student, she is employed as a cleaner". <S> While "She is no student" probably means something like "She might be registered as a student, but she's making no effort to study" <A> I am an educated native speaker of American English. <S> In both British English and American English, I believe, "She is no student" is usually a flippant judgment, while "She is not a student" does not imply any moral judgment, unless the judgment is implied by tone of voice. <A> " <S> She is <S> no student" can mean different things, and is more empathic . <S> "She is <S> no student" can mean that she does not study at all, she does not participate in projects, or even she does not even go to the school. <S> It can generally mean "She does not act like a student" or <S> "She is not a student". <S> Examples: <S> She <S> neither studies nor <S> she does her homework. <S> She is no student! <S> or She hasn't ever written an essay, <S> so she is no student. <S> But you can't say: She hasn't ever written an essay, so she is not a student.
| "She is not a student" is just a statement, stating that she is not a student at all. The two statements have very different connotations.
|
Is grammatically correct to say: "Jewish is the nation that Jesus came from"? Is correct grammatically to say "Jewish is the nation that Jesus came from !" as a declarative sentence ? I ask my question because of that's strange to me to see the end of the sentence ends with preposition (as you can understand by yourself, I'm not English native speaker...) <Q> The sentence is grammatical, but it's not correct semantically because "Judaism" isn't a nation, it's a religion, and in general, one doesn't come from a religion. <S> You have a few options: <S> Simplify completely <S> Jesus was Jewish. <S> Keeping "Jewish" - This doesn't sound quite right to me <S> Jewish is the religious background that Jesus had. <S> Keeping "nation" [country] <S> 1 is the nation that Jesus came from. <S> Not ending with a preposition (Grammar Myth) <S> Jesus came from the nation of [country]. <S> or, more clumsily [country] is the nation from which Jesus came. <S> 1. <S> I don't know where Bethlehem is/was during the time of the Bible. <A> It's perfectly OK to end a sentence on a preposition; but if you want to embed this statement in a fairly formal piece of writing you may write ... from which Jesus came. <S> (Note that you cannot use that as the immediate object of the preposition from .) <S> Those can be employed as nominals when they name a language or a people, but you can't even do that with Jewish : the language is Hebrew and the people are the Jews . <S> What you can say here will depend on what you want to say—and what you want to avoid saying. <S> Nation does not mean the same thing in 1st century contexts that it does today. <S> You probably don't want a territorial designation ( Judaea, Palestine, Galilee ); ethnically or religiously you're probably safest saying <S> The Jews are the people from which/whom Jesus sprang ; anything else ( Israel , Judah , David , Abraham ) is going to get you tied up in historical and theological controversy. <A> The sentence is grammatically incorrect in a different way. <S> "Jewish" is an adjective, not a noun. <S> Furthermore, a "Jew" is a person, not a "tribe" or "nation". <S> "The Hebrews" were a group of Jewish tribes; they satisfied at least one definition of a "nation". <S> It would be grammatically correct to say <S> : Jesus was a Jew. <S> Nazareth was the town that Jesus came from. <S> Bethlehem is the town that Jesus was born in. <S> Sometimes it is natural to end a sentence with a proposition. <S> In this case, it is not natural. <S> You can shorten the last two sentences, and make them more natural: <S> Jesus came from Nazareth. <S> (Or at the beginning of a sentence, "Jesus of Nazareth".) <S> Jesus was born in Bethlehem. <A> As others have noted, it's perfectly okay to end a sentence with a preposition. <S> But, again as others have noted, "Jewish" is an adjective and not the name of a nation. <S> What nation you would say Jesus did come from depends on your definition of "nation", and a full discussion of that is getting more into history than grammar. <S> You could say "Israel is the nation that Jesus came from." <S> In his time Israel was no longer an independent political entity, but the people thought of themselves as Israelis because of their history and culture, and dreamed of being an independent nation again. <S> You could say "The Roman Empire is the nation" etc as that is the political entity that actually controlled the land where he was born at the time. <S> You could say "Jesus was Jewish" in either an ethnic or religious sense.
| Jewish is the nation , however, is not acceptable English, because Jewish is an adjective, like French or Chinese or English itself. It is acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition.
|
Is the word 'restrictionable' correct? How do you form -able words? Which root do you have to attach the suffix to in order to make the new word? For example, is the word 'restrictionable' correct? restriction + -able ⇒ 'that may or should be restricted'? <Q> We can freely make new adjectives from verbs using the suffix -able . <S> It does not matter at all whether these words have ever been used before. <S> It does not matter if these words are in the dictionary or not. <S> Anybody can understand these words as long as they understand the verb involved. <S> When we can use a suffix like this, we call it a productive suffix. <S> We can have productive prefixes too. <S> The suffix <S> -able <S> is a productive suffix. <S> We use it to turn verbs into adjectives. <S> However, there are a few restrictions: <S> We can't freely do this with intransitive verbs, unless they have some kind of preposition phrase following. <S> If there is already an adjective ending in the suffix -ible , then you can't usually spell it with -able . <S> There aren't many words like this. <S> One example is accessible . <S> If you write accessable <S> then your spell-checker or your teacher will mark it as wrong. <S> So think of any transitive verb you like, stick an -able on the end of it, and you'll almost definitely have a nice, perfectly formed adjective: askable, thinkable, swimmable, runnable, openable, finishable, restrictable, swallowable, spendable, meetable, <S> The Original <S> Poster's example <S> We can definitely use the word restrictable. <S> The problem with the word restrictionable is that the base word, restriction , is a noun, not a verb. <S> For this reason the adjective restrictionable will probably not work for the OP's needs. <S> However, if some company or other uses the word restriction like a verb as part of their jargon, then they could also freely use the word restrictionable as an adjective too! <A> -Able <S> / -ible goes on the ends of verbs, not nouns. <S> Many words in English work as both verbs and nouns. <S> However, if the -ion suffix on a word was used to turn a word into a noun, awkwardness can happen. <S> But really English with its grammar lets you use any word in many parts of speech even if they are not "supposed" to be used in such a way. <S> Some words not commonly used in this way will sound weird, but it'd be rare for it to sound so weird that someone couldn't figure out what you meant. <S> Restrict is a verb. <S> Restrict-ion is a noun-ified version of restrict meaning instance or event of being restricted or something that causes or maintains a state of being restricted . <S> So, can you use restriction as a verb? <S> It's not common, but possible. <S> The meaning won't substitute exactly for restrict . <S> Here's a contrived example that may not ever had been said at someone in reality, but I could image it happening: <S> A <S> : I think Jon over there is on restriction and can't do the task. <S> B: <S> Who restrictioned him? <S> A: <S> His boss, well, really his doctor. <S> B: <S> Ok, find me someone who's not on restriction and get it done. <S> Here, restrictioned <S> means placed on restriction - and if it sounds/feels like a made-up word, it is, but it does follow the rules. <S> Furthermore notice the above is a workplace/business setting where this type of thing might happen more often than not. <S> Anyway, on restriction here means he is marked in some system or list as being restricted from a task - but restrict means prevent from doing something . <S> So to answer your question, -able / -ible is put on the same form of a verb that you'd use for the infinitive. <A> In informal English, you can coin masses of new words where they won't have a formal definition, but your readers/listeners will know instinctively what you mean. <S> I know that by restrictionable - you mean "is able to be restricted". <S> Particularly with the suffix -able , we can append this to just about any word to mean "able to do ..", and you'll find native speakers often do! <S> We usually keep the hyphen in place for words that we know aren't "real" words. <S> We set up the tent on the most camp-able ground we could find, but it was still a bit uncomfortable. <S> My friend is so embarrass-able. <S> Just one mention of his school nickname turned him bright pink.
| Most words, particularly verbs are suffix-able with -able.
|
How to answer a negative question in English? Q: "Don't you know?" If I really don't know, how should I respond to this question? Yes or No ? There's a similar question on EL&U, but the answer isn't clear how it works: A confusion about answer yes and no to some complicated question Also here on ELU too: how-to-answer-a-negative-question-without-ambiguity These answers are confusing. I want to know what one word answer I can use. In other words I want to know: What will native speakers understand if I reply No to this question? What will native speakers understand if I reply Yes to this question? <Q> I believe I understand your concern because similar confusion arose at some point in my English study, too, due to a linguistic difference between my native tongue and English. <S> Your language is perhaps like mine, Thai, where you answer to the truth condition of the statement of the question rather than the truth itself . <S> For example, if you ask, in Thai, "aren't you going to school today?" <S> and the answer is "yes," the answerer means they are not going to school. <S> "Yes" here is "yes, (it is true that I am not going to school)," not "yes, (I'm going to school.) <S> " <S> I think it helps if you think of English as somewhat simpler than that. <S> In English, whether you answer "yes" or "no" only depends on the reality and has nothing to do with how the question is worded. <S> Whether the question is "do you know?" or "don't you know?," "yes" and "no" still have the same meanings: in both cases, if you answer "yes," it means "you know," and if you answer "no," it means "you don't know." <S> Answering with plain "yes" or "no," however, may sound too flat and could sometimes be misunderstood, so it's safer to respond with a complete answer like "yes, I do." <S> (meaning, you know ) or "no, I don't" (meaning, you don't know ) <S> if you can't think of anything fancier like "no, I never knew," or <S> "no, this is the first time I've heard about it!" <S> As stated by other Answerers, one thing to consider is that sometimes "don't you know?" is a rhetorical question, meaning the speaker doesn't actually expect an answer, <S> so you don't have to answer them. <S> You usually can guess from context whether it is an actual question or not. <A> "Don't you know? <S> " people ask such kind of question is because they though you should know. <S> so your answer to this question is more likely to be negative. <S> you should answer with the reason why you don't know him. <S> such as "No, I never heard about that." <A> There are 2 common uses for this phrase - there is the 'slightly posh' "Don't you know" as an end-of-sentence, which is essentially just emphasis & not requiring an answer. <S> Not common these days in speech <S> but you'll see it in older books & films. <S> The main one is generally where you might have been expected to know something - so, often a rhetorical (or patronising) element to it, which is worth being alert to. <S> It is perhaps worth observing that in more formal use, this expands to "do you not know" (or "did you not know") & NOT "do not you know" as you might have expected! <S> The usual forms of answer would be " <S> No, I don't", or "Yes, I do" although there is quite likely to be some form of addition, <S> the sharper "No, actually, I don't" or "No, could you tell me please?". <S> If in doubt, keep it simple! <S> It is possible to use a simple "No <S> " but I think it would be unusual in speech - mainly because of the subtle implications rather than a hard grammatical rule - and therefore the inflections would be important; so a rising pitch, as a question, would probably draw an explanation. <A> Some of the confusion arises from the facts (a) that the premise behind the question is the opposite of the literal words of the question, and (b) that the question does not actually seek a literal answer. <S> "Don't you know?" is basically a rhetorical question. <S> The person asking that question actually assumes that you do in fact "know," and since it is assumed that you do in fact "know," no response is required. <S> However, when you actually do not "know" and wish to make that fact known, the correct one-word answer would be "No." <S> I think that the main reason for confusion arises from the fact that the question is asked in the negative and the concern is that a response of "No" is a second negative, which combined with the first negative would result in a positive. <S> However, double negatives do not arise in a two-party exchange. <S> The double negative that results in a positive statement occurs only when both negatives are articulated by the same party within a single statement. <S> (Note: Even though the correct one-word response would be “No,” most native speakers, whether they are the asker or the answerer, would prefer the more expanded response of “No, I don’t,” because for either party that short-cuts the need to mentally analyze the effect of the negative question and the negative response.) <A> As usual it depends somewhat on the context, but the phrase "Don't you know?" is very often not so much a question as an expression of surprise, as in: <S> Alice: I'm going to visit Bob in hospital this afternoon <S> Cathy: <S> My Goodness, what happened to Bob? <S> Alice: Don't you know? <S> He's had appendicitis <S> In which case an answer isn't really required. <S> If Alice is still unsure if Cathy really doesn't know, she may pause for an answer before elaborating, in which case it would go <S> Alice: I'm going to visit Bob in hospital this afternoon <S> Cathy: <S> My Goodness, what happened to Bob? <S> Alice: Don't you know? <S> Cathy: <S> No, I haven't heard anything Alice: <S> He's had appendicitis <S> I would not recommend a one word answer to this question, but whether you go for a simple yes/no or a longer sentence an affirmative "yes" says "I do know" and "no" says "I do not know".
| Given that the asker felt the need to ask, the answer will almost always be "no".
|
If 'God bless someone/something'; is it positive or negative? Same with 'All the best'? I have heard it both: On someone's birthday - God bless you And also, when someone/thing is ruining up completely, we use the same greetings. For instance, a newly appointed CEO is very badly known for his mismanagement. For a company called ABC, we then say, God bless ABC It clearly means that 'save ABC' from whatever is happening. The question is how do we take god bless something if someone just utters it without any further comment/explanation. Because the greetings in many cases come as a standalone sentence. The complexity doubles when you don't know the context. And, it can happen. For example, if I'm getting migrated to a new country and some friend of mine living in the same country or having experience in visiting it greets - "Are you going to XYZ? Ah, 'God bless you!'" My understanding: When we use 'god bless' to an inanimate thing, it is generally negative and taunting. But then this is not true in case of 'God Bless America!' The same thing is with 'All the best' . I've encountered many guys greeting 'all the best' in a sarcastic way. Say, a project in my company is completely ruined, and it is confirmed that the client has gone bananas due to several reasons. Now, if I'm replaced as the Project Manager has knows 'in and out' about the client and the project but has resigned from the company. He meets me for the final time and says, "Ah, you are on that project? All the best!' (chuckling!) <Q> What is a blessing? <S> In any way, something beneficial. <S> In case of a dire situation, a blessing alleviates or counteracts the negativity, expressing a wish that it might be either not as bad as it appears or get better soon. <S> So for your second example, it means company ABC is in a bad situation and needs all (divine) <S> help it can get. <S> Unless you have reason to presume the speaker meant the latter, simply take it as an expression of goodwill. <A> The phrases <S> "God bless <S> X" <S> and "All the best" are nominally positive, but can be used in a sarcastic manner. <S> You may as well ask whether "I really love Minions" is positive or negative. <S> If there is no context, then there is no reason to assume that a phrase is meant sarcastically, and hence it should be taken at face value. <S> For the examples this would mean that they are (almost certainly) being used positively. <A> Worth noting that I'm irreligious <S> and I still often use the term "God" without referring to a divine entity. <S> God bless you for writing this question! <S> (Positive, animate) <S> I've just arrived back home to find that the cat has knocked over and broken my favourite wall hanging. <S> God bless him, I'm gonna kill that cat when I find him! <S> (Negative, animate). <S> This god blessed keyboard is running out of batteries, so I'm off to find some new ones. <S> (Negative, inanimate) <S> (positive, inanimate) <S> Some of the constructions in my account are a little awkward; I might replace the negative ones particularly with "God help this cat" and replace the sarcastic "god blessed" with the more sincere "god forsaken". <S> Overall: <S> context <S> There is also: <S> Sneeze Bless you <S> Which I take to be entirely neutral, a response rather than a sincere blessing. <S> The same thing is with 'All the best'. <S> Same arguments, it depends on context and tone. <S> There are some sincere sentiments that Brits are unable to say without sounding sarcastic! <A> The default is for "[God] bless X" to be a positive expression. <S> There are particular ways to use it <S> that are very often meant negatively. <S> The most famous one is "Bless [his/her] heart", which sounds like it means " <S> That was such a thoughtful and kind thing <S> [he/she] just did," but at least nine times out of ten it really means "Holy cow, that was a dumbass move <S> [he/she] just pulled." <S> And there are other uses that are just rote phrases and don't mean anything at all, such as "Bless you" after someone sneezes. <A> I believe it's got a lot to do with the context in which you say it, not so much the nature of the subject being blessed. <S> Living person <S> Adam's going to that loan shark to explain why he's got no money. <S> God bless him. <S> Inanimate object <S> We've built a new church now. <S> God bless it. <A> Usually, as others have said, it's to be understood in a positive light. <S> However, it can be used in moments of frustration as a minced oath. <S> Instead of saying "God damn it", "God bless it" or "God bless America" can be used to catch oneself from using God's name in vain (for something trivial such as missing a golf shot or a throw of a piece of garbage into the trash). <A> "God bless him" can imply an innocence or naivity for which one requires the blessing or care of God in order to survive. <S> So <S> He's going to ride that bike of his all the way up to Bogus Basin, God bless him! <S> Meaning: He's childishly optimistic, a simple fool, and it may not end well unless God looks out for him. <S> There is also the suggestion that the endeavour is not one which you or I would undertake, being not so confident of receiving the grace or good will of God. <S> There is also the suggestion that in saying "God bless him" he belongs to a class of people of whom that is normally said, e.g. child, sick, infirm, foolish. <S> The word <S> silly had similar connotations in medieval times, meaning happy but referring to the carefree childlike happiness of the mentally impaired.
| So in case of a celebration, a blessing adds to the positive aspects, making it a clearly positive statement. Context is everything when it comes to sarcasm, and sarcasm can be used on any nominally positive (or nominally negative) phrase.
|
the differences between the adjective clause Please explain to me the differences between these two sentences: a) The sales girl whom we met at junction square is patient. b) The sales girl at junction square whom we met is patient. <Q> The first means: <S> There is a person, and she's a sales girl, and she's patient, and we met her at junction square. <S> But the second introduces the possibility that we met the girl somewhere else: <S> There is a person, and she's a sales girl at junction square, and she's patient, and we met her. <S> It's slightly implied we met her at junction square, but it's not guaranteed. <S> After all, we can make the sentence: <S> The manager at Macy's whom we met in Russia is patient. <S> There are no Macy's stores in Russia, AFAIK. <S> The difference is derived from where the prepositional phrase attaches to the sentence. <S> In the first it attaches to the verb phrase, and in the second it attaches directly to the noun phrase. <A> Sentence (a) is better. <S> Sentence (b) is not grammatically wrong, but it is awkward. <S> It's a good idea to put pronouns like "whom" immediately after the noun they refer to. <S> In this case, "whom" refers to the salesgirl, and sentence (a) reads better because whom is right after salesgirl. <S> Sentence (b) takes slightly longer for the reader/listener to understand the meaning. <S> Where things would get more confusing is in a sentence like "The girl with John whom we met is patient," where whom at first seems to refer to "John. <S> " You can see from that sentence why it is a good idea to put the pronoun like "whom" right after the noun it refers to. <S> By the way, a place name, like "Junction Square," would usually be capitalized, unless the place itself has chosen to name itself without caps. <A> You have three possibilities 1 <S> The girl whom we met was beautiful. <S> - "whom" is formal and rarely used. <S> 2 <S> The girl who we met was beautiful. <S> -Today <S> whom is replaced by who (object case). <S> 3 <S> The girl we met was beautiful. <S> - Drop of the relative pronoun (object case). <S> This is the normal and most frequent formulation.
| The sentences actually have somewhat different meanings.
|
Passive voice of split off I wonder if some verbs can not be passive voice.I was writing a sentence. The top case split off from the rest of the parts. I was thinking that the case doesn't do it itself, So I looked for the passive voice of split off from the internet,but I couldn't find any. So I wonder if some verbs can't be passive? Or it is doesn't matter passive or not. <Q> There is no particular reason why the prepositional verb "split off" could not be used in passive voice. <S> All you need to do is add "be" and use past participle of "split". <S> Since the original sentence has 'split' in past tense, so you use the same form of 'be' ("was"): <S> The top case was split off from the rest of the parts. <S> The sentence does not really explain who or what acted on the top case but it can be accepted as implied. <A> In your example here, split off is used intransitively. <S> [F]rom the rest of the parts" is an adverbial, not a direct object. <S> So, no, in your case, this sentence can't be passive. <S> There is no agent here, no actor doing or causing the the splitting off. <S> These are called unaccusative verbs. <S> " <S> The picture fell off the wall." <S> In this case (as in yours) nobody is doing or causing the falling. <S> It just happened. <S> The picture and the top case are semantically similar to the "victim" (object, patient) of the verb. <S> By the way, split off isn't always unaccusative or intransitive, but in this case, it is. <A> You can also use it with a present perfect tense: <S> The top case has been split off from the rest of the parts.
| Intransivie verbs or verb phrases cannot be passive. "
|
What's the name for face side view of face I'm looking for English word which describes the photo of head facing sideways relative to camera. For example in this mugshot: The right photo is portrait, what would you call the left one? In my native language it's called "profile". But if I say profile photo, people will think Facebook profile photo. <Q> The photo on the left is a "profile", "profile view", or a photo taken "in profile". <S> And yes, online "profiles" do confuse the issue. <S> OTOH, it's a nice look at language evolution if you think about how an online "profile" is a quick "outline" of the person. <S> The outline of a profile (the black-paper-on-white-background pieces you sometimes see) is called a silhouette. <A> Firstly, they are both portraits : <S> A painting, drawing, photograph, or engraving of a person, especially one depicting only the face or head and shoulders <S> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/portrait <S> The position of the head relative to the camera is irrelevant. <S> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/in-profile?q=in+profile <S> The one on the right <S> I would call: a front-on portrait <A> It is called "profile" as well. <S> See, for example <S> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profile . <S> It comes from the practice of creating outlines by projecting the shadow of the figure and tracing the outline on the paper, and in majority of cases the figure was positioned so that the nose, lips, forehead were visible. <S> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silhouette or search for "silhouette art profile". <S> You can also call it "side shot" or "side view". <A> The first one is called "profile shot" or "side-view shot" It's usually taken to get a clear look of your jawline/nose/etc. <S> You can learn more about different types of shots on Serif.com
| The one on the left is: a portrait in profile.
|
Meaning of "must hold managements accountable" The government must hold managements accountable for wasting the people’s money. I don't have a grasp of the meaning of this sentence. Accountable means responsible. I think a management responsible for wasting the people's money is the management already done badly. I don't understand how you can say the government "must hold" such management (which is already done badly) from now on. <Q> Good thought, but slightly off the mark: to hold (someone) accountable for means to consider someone responsible and therefore possibly punishable for something. <S> In your example, the governement us not supposed to hold onto bad management, but consider them liable - and act accordingly. <A> There are a couple of bits that you've got mixed up: First, as Stephie wrote, holding someone or something accountable means to consider them liable (usually for the actions that they had control over.) <S> From the Free Dictionary's definition of the idiom: <S> hold someone accountable (for something): to consider someone responsible for something; to blame something on someone. <S> Here we're talking about a corporate entity that has done something wrong, and we're considering who should take the blame for that behavior. <S> Secondly, management refers to the people in charge at an organization. <S> From Merriam-Webster: management(n) <S> 3 : the collective body of those who manage or direct an enterprise <S> Finally, the sentence must be read considering the context in which it was written. <S> The sentence seems to be referring either to corruption (a business misusing or stealing money from the government) or perhaps to the 2007-2008 financial crisis (many businesses were responsible for enormous damage to the world economy with little or no consequences to the individuals in charge.) <S> So, with all of that in mind: The government must hold managements accountable for wasting the people’s money. <S> means <A> The sentence appears to use "management" as a noun, as in "the management organization" or "those in management". <S> It is not a common usage, or, I think, a correct one.
| The government must consider those people who are in charge of companies that have wasted the people's money to be responsible for their companies' actions {and be punished accordingly.}
|
"Not only in" or "in not only"? Alan runs a business not only in China but also in Thailand Or is this better? Alan runs a business in not only China but also Thailand? <Q> The first statement Alan runs a business not only in China but also in Thailand is the correct declaration. <S> It justifies your sentence as there is a business not only in China but also a business in Thailand. <S> However the declaration Alan runs a business in not only China but also Thailand? <S> is an illegal declaration according to English sentence construction. <S> It does mean the same, However the construction has to be Not only in___ but also___ , you may take it as a general syntax of construction. <S> Also to note that your first statement Alan runs a business not only in China but also in Thailand can be modified by eliminating the second in i.e <S> the statement can be rewritten as Alan runs a business not only in China but also Thailand . <A> Plus, it's easier to say and to understand. <A> I find both sentences a bit lacking. <S> All businesses need some sort of legal license, and China can't license a business in Thailand. <S> The first sentence is the better of the two and sounds ok, but when you parse the sentence you could interpret it two ways. <S> So does Alan have (1) multiple sporting goods stores with some in China in Thailand or (2) <S> A sporting goods store in China and a drug store in Thailand? <S> I like these better: <S> Alan's business runs not only in China but also in Thailand. <S> Alan's businesses run not only in China but also in Thailand. <S> The sentences above make the point more clearly if Alan has one business or multiple businesses. <A> As Cambridge Dictionary shows the structure is always "not only A but also B where A and B can be a word or a word group. <S> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/grammatik/britisch-grammatik/not-only-but-also <S> You don't find "A not only but also B. I would consider this an unnatural word order.
| Alan runs a business not only in China but also in Thailand I believe the first option is the correct one.
|
Looking for a word - prince's clothes Please think of fairytales... What word would you use when you refer to a prince's clothes? Is it a dress ? <Q> If you want a term to describe all of a prince's clothing, I would use finery . <S> finery Expensive or ostentatious clothes or decoration: officers in their blue, gold, and scarlet finery <S> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/finery <S> tunic A loose garment, typically sleeveless and reaching to the knees, as worn in ancient Greece and Rome. <S> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tunic <A> Regalia the special clothes that are worn or objects that are carried at official ceremonies - oxforddictionaries.com <A> "Raiment" is often used in this context. <S> "Tunic" refers to a particular garment; "raiment" is more general. <S> "Garb" or "dress" (without an article) is a rather drab abstract noun for what a person is wearing. <S> One does not refer to "a garb". <S> "A dress" (or using "the" to refer to a particular "garment") means an item of clothing that is normally worn by women. <S> Thus, "a dress" is inappropriate for a (male) prince, unless he is pretending to be a woman. <A> If I was writing a story I would refer to the Prince's costume . <A> If you're looking for a catch-all for what the prince is wearing, consider attire . <S> The prince's attire was befitting a man of his station. <S> If you're trying to find what clothes the prince was wearing, that would be dependent on where the prince was and what his local region wore.
| But if you're looking for the 'dress' part of a fairytale prince's clothes, I think it would be tunic .
|
Meaning of 'Where do you go to school?' When someone asks me, where do you go to school, are they asking for the address of the school that I attend? <Q> There is a distinct difference between American and British dialects of English here. <S> In British English, "school" implicitly excludes university or college education . <S> As a user of British English, if I were asked where I went to school, I would respond with the name of my secondary school . <S> If I believed that the listener would not know of my secondary school, I might give general information (eg. <S> "I went to school in my home town") <S> If I were at university and was asked "Where do you go to school" I would explain that I don't go to school any more, instead I go to university. <S> As always, context is everything. <S> The questioner wants to know about my place of education. <S> What information I would give would depend on what I believed them to want. <S> Often that would be the school's name, but only rarely would I think that a full postal address was expected. <A> Where do you go to school? <S> It means "What is the name of the school you attend?" <S> Alternatively. <S> You can say: Which school do you go to? <S> or Which school do you attend? <S> However, the use of the verb attend is more formal. <A> No, when we ask this question, we are asking for the name of the school. <S> If some asked me, 'Where did you go to school?' <S> I would say, "I went to the University of Florida." <A> As I see it, the question "Where do you go to school?" is used when we ask a boy or a girl of school ages (from primary school to high school). <S> What we want to know is where he or she does her formal classes.
| The answer is expected to be: I go to school at (name of school).
|
What is the meaning of "what a mess!" I searched for "what a mess" but I didn't find any definition for this phrase. So, what does it mean, and where is it used? For example if you've heard horrible news about an earthquake, is it common to say "what a mess!"? <Q> "What a mess!" <S> intensifies <S> that this is a mess. <S> It's not a fixed saying, it's just one of <S> what 's many meanings - an intensifier . <S> From Collins dictionary 's 3rd definition of "what": (intensifier; used in exclamations) <S> ⇒ <S> "what a good book!" <S> "What a [something]!" is like saying "This is very much a [something]!". <S> " <S> What a..." can be used with almost anything: <S> (you walk into the kitchen and see a child has dropped a bowl of cake mix all over the floor) <S> What a mess! <S> (you walk into the kitchen and see a child has made a perfect cake, then cleaned and tidied everything up perfectly) <S> What a nice surprise! <S> (you walk into the kitchen and see that the whole of this side of the house has been destroyed in an earthquake) <S> What a disaster! <S> (you walk into the kitchen and hear on the radio that 200 people died in an earthquake) <S> What a tragedy! <S> The only times you'd expect something as serious as an earthquake to be described as a mess would be: <S> Dramatic understatement <S> If you were focussing on some detail that could be described as a mess - for example, maybe if a government responded to an earthquake in a disorganised way. <A> If you heard horrible news about an earthquake, you'd be more likely to say "What a tragedy!" <S> or "How terrible. <S> " <S> There are a couple of uses for "What a mess!" <S> One is literal. <S> If a child decides to take everything out of a cabinet and play with all of it, their parent might say "What a mess!" <S> when they see everything spread around in a mess, rather than in the cabinet where it belongs. <S> The other way is describing a situation as a mess. <S> If there has been an earthquake, and no one can get into the area to help because of the damage, a commentator might say "What a mess!" <S> The mess isn't the disaster itself, it's the insufficient or badly managed response to the disaster. <S> If after the earthquake, the disaster response was well managed and quick, the only mess would be the physical objects the earthquake knocked down. <A> What a mess! <S> This is an exclamative phrase. <S> You use this phrase to express your surprise or shock when you see something very dirty, untidy, or full of difficulties or problems. <S> For example, when you find a house very dirty or untidy, you can use the phrase: What a mess! <A> It would be rather after "looking at the mess from the horrible news" that you might want to say "What a mess!" <S> Example: <S> A: (Entering a room) <S> What a mess! <S> B <S> : You sound like my mother.
| It's an expression of exclamation that something is really in a mess!
|
Is this the right expression when I first meet someone? I am making a video which explains my business. In my video, I would like to say "hello" to someone who watches my video.Is it rude to say "hi, there"?If this is a rude or an unsuitable expression, what is the right expression in this situation? <Q> There is nothing rude about " <S> Hi, there," but you'll want to say it with the right tone and mood, or it may come across as very insincere. <S> If I wanted to use "Hi, there!" <S> as an introduction to my video, I'd say it as if the viewer had just come up to me from behind, and I turned around to see them approaching. <S> I don't think there's a single "right expression" for this situation. <S> It's probably most important for your greeting to sound warm, friendly, sincere and unrehearsed. <A> While "Hi, there!" is not considered rude or inappropriate, it may be perceived as a bit of an odd greeting for a video presenter. <S> The phrase is usually used as a greeting when someone is surprised, such as walking around a corner and nearly bumping into someone you didn't expect to see - in that case, "Oh! <S> Hi, there!" <S> would be a fitting greeting. <S> It can also be used as a greeting to catch the attention of someone who may not initially see or notice you. <S> For example, it might be appropriate to call out "Hi, there!" <S> as a greeting to a preoccupied store clerk from whom you would like to get some help. <S> In a slight variation of this, it might also be used by an adult to greet a shy child hiding behind their mother's skirt - one might say "Hi, there!" <S> with a warm smile to try to coax a response from the bashful youngster. <S> If, in your video, the presenter is surprised by the approach or presence of the camera, then <S> "Hi, there!" <S> would be an appropriate greeting. <S> But it would also probably come off as a bit cheesy. <S> A more appropriate introduction might be to have the presenter pose a thought-provoking question or do something to briefly introduce the subject of the video, and then simply introduce themselves and give a synopsis of what is to follow. <S> A greeting of "Hello, my name is..." or <S> "Hi, I'm ... <S> " would also be appropriate for a video introduction. <A> I believe originally " hi " (as well as " hello ") started as an exclamation to draw attention to oneself from another person or persons. <S> If you omit " there ", it will sound just a bit more "official" albeit still not formal (if that's what you shoot for). <S> There are other ways, of course, of starting a video presentation. <S> You could always say, " Welcome to my presentation !", or do it after a " Hello !". <S> Another way to start a presentation is, " Greetings !"
| Nowadays " hello " is mostly used as a greeting.
|
How do I say car is tilting/leaning in one direction in parking spot? Often parking spots have straight lines between which you have to park your car, parallel to the line. However, let's say, I see a car a parked diagonally between the two lines. How would I describe the car alignment wrt the parking spot? Should I used the word lean/tilt? And say I want to tell someone to correct the alignment, should I say Park your car straight? This is the literal translation of the expression I would have used in my native language, I would like to know if this is how native speakers would say it? <Q> "Lean" or "tilt" would give the impression that the car was in danger of tipping over. <S> The most common way to describe it where I am from (northeast US) is crooked . <S> Some examples: <S> That car is too crooked for another car to fit next to it. <S> or That car is parked crookedly. <S> To get someone to correct a parking attempt, you would tell them to <S> Straighten up your car! <A> In my experience, most native speakers would use the term <S> diagonal when referring to misalignment and line up or straighten when giving a direction to do the same. <S> Example <S> Your car is parked slightly diagonally . <S> Please straighten it. <A> As you ask for common phrases, without implying formality, here are some examples that are common in the UK: to be parked on the skew , to be parked skew-whiff (pronounced skewiff), to be parked at an angle , to be parked wonky (credit to @AndyT) <S> (caution: vulgar, but not uncommon) to be parked on the piss . <S> If in doubt, at an angle is probably more universally understood in the UK. <S> Skew-whiff is the most common in my experience region (Mid West). <S> The latter example is generally seen as more critical (It isn't something you would generally tell your grandma) and should be avoided if you do not which to cause offense - however, I have kept it in the list in case <S> you hear it in conversation: it is not to be taken literally. <S> This brings me to a cultural point. <S> In the UK, at least, it is more common to describe the parking with comparison to that of more considerate drivers. <S> Put simply, the most common description of the situation would be "the car is parked badly ". <A> A car that is not parked correctly relative to the lines is askew <A> I'm from the Southwest US and live in California now, and some of the other answers, like "crookedly", "askew" or "on the skew" sound weird to me. " <S> Diagonally", to me, implies that it's parked at a 45 degree angle to take up two spots on purpose. <S> I would say that "the car is angled", "parked on (or over) <S> the line", and "needs to be straightened". <A> The car is not straight. <S> ( "parked" is implied ) <S> See how the car isn't [parked] straight? <S> Then your literal translation to correct the straightness is pretty close. <S> Try to park more straightly next time. <S> Will you straighten out the car for me? <S> Try to straighten the car. <S> Please straighten out the car. <A> No-one seems to have mentioned the word " slant " yet. <S> You could describe the car as "parked on the slant" (this might be a Britishism, although the word "slant" is not) or "slanting". <A> To me, a native New Yorker living in California, the most easily understood phrase would be "That was a crooked job of parking. <S> " You can't say,"You parked crooked. <S> " Because you need to use an adverb, "You parked crookedly." <S> And I would say that was a questionable word to use, that is, not frequently heard. <A> A British expression, that I've never heard from elsewhere is simply to say the parking is Wonky . <S> Wonky can be applied to anything that isn't straight or isn't functioning correctly. <A> Another colloquialism, but "your parking is shit" should cover any form of positional errors. <S> Also "you park like a nanna" also implies a poor job of parking, but does not suggest the effort was substandard, just the end result.
| Though there are more precise words for it, I would actually use the phrase "not straight" That car is not parked straight.
|
How to answer "Do you need a 5p bag" I have troubles with this simple question: Cashiers do not understand my accent, so I want to find some answer that is easier to articulate. When I answer " I already have one " - they never understand. Is there any other option to say (apart of "No, thanks) that I have a bag (I brought it with me) that utilizes "better" vowels for non-native speaker? British EnglishUPD To those answering later: I want to improve my English pronunciation. The example in question is just one of the examples, not the whole issue, thus pantomimic clowneries could not be taken into account: NO, THANKS! <Q> Cashiers want customers to get through the line quickly. <S> They don't need justification. <S> It is a simple YES/ <S> NO question. <S> David Richerby made an excellent point in his answer below that you need to consider head nods too. <S> In English speaking countries a head nod up and down means <S> yes, while shaking side to side means no. <S> in a comment on David's answer nigel222 made another great point. <S> It is "No, thanks" but "Yes please". <S> That gives the person you're speaking to two chances to hear you: "something please" implies <S> Yes, "Something thanks" implies <S> No. <S> Useful in a busy / noisy environment, as well as polite. <S> I guess the other point here is that you need to be sure that you're speaking loudly enough. <S> Checkout lines are noisy. <S> So saying "No thanks" with a couple of side to side head shakes should get you through the line without a "Huh??" from the cashier. <A> A simple "No, thanks" should be understandable in almost any accent; "no" is less polite but isn't rude and should be even more understandable. <S> If you shake your head while saying "no", things should be very clear. <S> However, there are some cultures, mostly between the south-eastern Mediterranean and Iran, where a single nod of the head (moving it slightly up but not down) is used to mean "no". <S> In the UK, and most other countries, nodding up and down means "yes". <S> If you're from a culture that uses a small nod to mean "no", it's possible that you're saying "no" verbally while making a physical gesture that looks like yes. <S> That would be very confusing to a British person: you'd be saying "yes" and "no" at the same time. <A> The mistake you've made (and even if you were a native speaker this is still a minor mistake), is to answer a yes/no question with a sentence that the cashier needs to fully understand in order to work out whether to sell you a bag or not. <S> Simply change, "I already have one" to " <S> No thank you, <S> I already have one", make sure that you can enunciate "no" in a way that's clear to natives, and you should be good to go. <S> If the cashier hears "no something something something", and they ask you to repeat because they want to know what the "something"s are, then you might have to cut it down to just "no thank you". <S> But if you start out by answering the question then the pressure is much reduced for both of you, because the urgent and important part of the communication is done. <A> "No, thanks". <S> No other information needed, and in a busy shop it slows things down. <S> " <S> Yes please" if you do want one. <S> For readers not living in England <S> it is perhaps worth pointing out that the 5p bag charge was recently introduced, and <S> so there's no long-established protocol for this small negotiation. <S> I recently passed my own previously used carrier bag, bearing a different store's logo, to the sales assistant in a clothing shop <S> so she could fold my new clothes into it. <S> She was briefly nonplussed (a "what's that" expression on her face) before she caught on. <A> In my experience the most easily understood response is the most predictable response. <S> In Singapore, you say "no need" or "no thanks". <S> In Canada, I switched to " <S> I don't need a bag" or "I have a bag" <S> (notice the construction and syntax of the two sentences are really similar) <S> - it's what everyone else was saying, and I've yet to find a cashier to misunderstand. <S> I'm tempted to start saying "I already have one" to see if cashiers start misunderstanding. <S> My hunch is that in most abbreviated social situations, people are listening not just for the words, but also for tone, cadence, and general "sound". <S> We don't hear words, we hear sounds which then get parsed into meaning and subsequently action. <S> The actual literal meaning of words is just one form of encoding - often not the primary form, even. <S> There's no universal "most correct English" - it's all relative. <A> If you're struggling to be comprehended in spoken English, the best way to avoid the situation is to hold up a bag and jiggle it so that it makes a rustling noise (preferably while smiling and making eye contact). <S> The cashier will understand completely even if you don't accompany it with the customary "no thanks" or <S> "I've got one/some". <A> To make it even more clear, in addition to saying <S> No, thanks : visually show that you already have a bag. <S> When I clearly have my backpack already opened in front of me, cashiers often refrain completely from asking whether or not I need a bag. <S> This works even in a country where I don't speak the tiniest bit of the language. <S> On the other hand, it does not further the goal of improving oral communication skills. <A> No. <S> I don't need one. <S> Yes, I want one.
| So "No" or "No thank you" to be more polite. In the UK (and most but not all other countries), the standard gesture for "no" is to shake your head, i.e., to turn it slightly to each side a few times.
|
Using two past tense words in a sentence Somewhere I read that we should not use 2 past tense words in a sentence. Which among the following two statements are correct? The files did not get processed by the system. The files did not get process by the system. <Q> The first is correct. <S> To better understand the rules governing the use of past tense (or multiple words in past tense in the same sentence), see this link (taken from the accepted answer on this question ). <S> Also, note that in your example, the first sentence only contains one word in past tense: "did. <S> " Something can "get processed" in present tense - adding "-ed" to "process" makes it a verb, it doesn't assign a tense per se . <S> For example: "The files are not being processed by the system." <A> Processed means being processed <S> , it's a passive form not past tense <A> ‘past tense words’ is not a usual way to talk about English verbs. <S> ‘did’ and ‘processed’ <S> are different verb forms . <S> ‘did’ is always the past simple form of ‘do’, and <S> ‘processed’ is, in this sentence , the past participle form of ‘process’. <S> Also, in this sentence, ‘did’ and ‘processed’ are performing different functions . <S> ‘did’ is the auxiliary verb needed to form a past simple negative statement, and is always followed by a base form verb - here ‘get’. <S> ‘get processed’ is a kind of passive voice, which is usually formed with ‘be + past participle’ (‘the files are processed by the system’ ( not ‘are process’)), but can, more informally, be formed with ‘get + past participle’ (‘the files get processed by the system’ ( not ‘get process’)). <S> (The other way of checking that ‘processed’ is a past participle is to substitute an irregular verb: ‘the files are/get <S> written by the system’.) <S> ‘we should not use 2 past tense words in a sentence’. <S> It is perfectly allowable (in fact it is required) to use a past simple verb form and a past participle verb form in <S> past perfect and/or past passive tenses. <S> In fact it is possible to create a past perfect passive sentence like ‘the files had (past simple) been (be-past participle) <S> processed (main verb-past participle)’. <S> But , it is probably * true that we can’t (not just ‘should not’) use two past simple verb forms in the same function of a verb string: <S> *‘the system processed printed the files’. <S> (But we can join them with ‘and’: ‘the system processed and printed the files’.) <S> *I don’t want to flatly state that ‘we can’t <S> ’ in case there are any exceptions (for example, idioms or formulaic expressions). <S> If there are any exceptions, I can’t immediately think of them.
| The first one is correct.
|
Why is “seven” not pronounced as “seeven”? There is a so-called magic e in fourth place should force the e at 2 place to sound its name. But this rule does not apply to ‘seven’. Why? <Q> This "rule" has so many exceptions that it's really not a rule at all. <S> Many probably are based on what language the word originated from, but that is so varied, it's almost impossible to try to learn which words came from where and how to pronounce them based on that. <S> So, it comes down to the standard answer for just about every "why" question when it comes to English: " <S> Because it's English" <S> Some exceptions: River Riven Sever Lever <S> Seven <S> Eleven <S> Several <S> Clever <S> Never <S> Ever <S> Honey Money <A> The rule applies to words with the following pattern at the end of the word: {zero or more <S> letters}<vowel><consonant>e and to words trivially derived from such words. <S> For example: "derive" ends with "ive", so it follows the pattern, and "derived" = "derive" - "e" + "ed", and "deriver" = "derive" - <S> "e" + "er", so they obey the same rule Notice that this rule usually involves a "silent e". <S> There is no word "seve". <S> "Seven" is not derived from "seve". <S> And the second "e" in seven is pronounced. <S> Thus, the rule does not apply to "seven". <A> I assume you're referring to the rule that says if you have an e , then a consonant (optional), <S> then another e , the second e makes the first one "say its name" ( <S> i.e. the first e must be tense.) <S> Examples: <S> Peter , meet , seek . <S> But this doesn't work with seven or eleven , for example. <S> You could say it's an exception to the rule. <S> Or the rule is not absolute. <S> It's a loose rule. <S> This is English.
| The reason the rule doesn't apply is because the word seven is a rule-breaker.
|
Please explain - "They find their parents and guardians in their very environment from whom they can know whatever they require" "Young learners, no doubt, are very investigative by nature. Whenever they come across a new thing or they hear about it, a number of questions hit their curious and tender mind. They want to know appropriate answers to their questions. They find their parents and guardians in their very environment from whom they can know whatever they require . It is the due responsibility of parents and guardians to give them satisfactory answers…" Can anyone explain me the meaning and grammar of the bold part? I can't figure it out. My friend said that the sentence in bold is grammatically correct, but it's for informal use. <Q> The sentence is grammatical. <S> (But it's not informal. <S> It's markedly formal.) <S> I take it that your problem is about sentence structure rather than vocabulary. <S> I believe that the meaning will become clear to you if we rearrange the sentence a little and group some phrases to make them more obvious. <S> Here is the sentence, bracketed to make its parts more obvious. <S> They find [ [ their parents and guardians ] in their very environment ] from whom [ they can know [ whatever they require ] ]. <S> We can reduce the sentence to: They find X from whom they can know Y. <S> (X = their parents and guardians in their very environment ) <S> <S> (Y = whatever they require ) <S> We can convert this complex sentence into two simple sentences: <S> They find X. <S> They can know Y from X. <S> It should now be clear that the sentence simply means: <S> They find their parents and guardians in their very environment. <S> They can know whatever they require from their parents and guardians (who are in their very environment). <A> I think the meaning in plain words would be: <S> A curious child would go to his parents (or guardians, which I think is a reference to an elder individual more than a "guardian" per se) to clear any doubts. <S> As a kid, we generally run to our parents whenever we have an unanswered question because we know that they will have an answer to everything (or so did we believe). <S> I think the 'bold' part in your extract conveys the same meaning. <S> And I'm not sure with the whole "environment" thing. <S> I'm guessing the author just means that we often run to our parents back at 'Home', assuming that they'll be there. <A> The bold sentence can be paraphrased as <S> The "guardian" in question can be a grandparent, aunt, uncle, teacher or anyone else that the child trusts.
| They will ask a nearby parent or guardian about whatever it is that has aroused their curiosity.
|
Why do "thermometer" and "parameter" have different syllables in different dictionaries? For example: parameter See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary Syllabification: pa·ram·e·ter merriam-webster Dictionary thermometer noun ther·mom·e·ter thermometer See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 移行: therm|om¦eter parameter See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 移行: par|am¦eter Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English parameter noun pa‧ram‧e‧ter <Q> therm|om¦eter <S> The entries that look like this: <S> therm|om¦eter are not about pronunciation. <S> They don't give information about syllables. <S> They tell us what to do if the word doesn't fit completely into the end of a line of writing. <S> So, if you can't fit the word thermometer onto the line, you can break it into sections using a hyphen [ - ]. <S> Like this: blah blah blah blah <S> the therm- ometer or blah blah blah blah <S> the thermom- eter <S> Nobody thinks this is one syllable! <S> ther·mom·e·ter <S> The other entries that look like this: <S> ther·mom·e·ter are about syllables. <S> The entry above shows that thermometer has four syllables. <S> They tell us what the different syllables are. <S> But this is not what is happening in the Original Poster's examples! <A> Note that these entries are intended for breaking words at the ends of lines, and not for pronunciation. <S> As another answer says, hyphenations for line-breaking don't always reflect the way that words are broken into syllables for pronunciation, although in many cases these two different syllabifications are related. <S> In this case, the difference between dictionaries is simply the difference between American and British English. <S> Take a look at these two links ; the Oxford Dictionaries Online have different hyphenations for American and British English. <S> And in this case, the root cause of the difference is the different way that /r/ works after vowels in US and UK English. <A> A syllable is made up of an optional onset (initial consonant or consonant cluster), a vowel (diphthongs count as single vowels here), and an optional coda consonant (or cluster). <S> Dictionaries do not agree if the coda of one syllable is actually the onset of another syllable. <S> Thus you get different syllable divisions from different sources.
| Sometimes dictionaries might disagree about where one syllable starts and another one finishes. If you look at the end of the word, you will see that the last part of the word is -eter .
|
Does "red apples and bottles" mean "the apples are red and the bottles are red" or "only apples are red"? What does "Red apples and bottles" mean? The apples are red and the bottles are red too. The apples are red but the color of the bottles is unknown. Which one is right ? <Q> It is perfectly ambiguous. <S> I don't even know a way to make a distinction with the tone of voice here; if you care to get more specific, you really have to say more words. <S> EDIT: upon further reflection, I think with tone of voice/speed you can say red [slow] apples-and-bottles <S> [fast] to imply both are red, whereas you can say red apples and bottles to imply that just the apples are red. <S> Written, it's 100% ambiguous. <A> I would use a comma as in "Red apples, and bottles, were placed over.." for the case where bottles color is unknown, just to tell both cases apart, or either change the order of the subjects to avoid ambiguity <A> I would say that in most cases "red apples" is intended to be a multi-word unit, and therefore the color would only apply to the apples unless otherwise made clear by the context in previous or following statements that the color is intended to apply to both. <S> As stated in hunter's answer, it could also be made clear through tone and speed that it implies both - without that specific delivery, however, it would likely be assumed that "red" just applies to the apples. <S> The reason for this is because you, as a listener, hear "red apples" first and create the expected multi-word unit, it already exists logically as "red apples" in your mind and the "and" and anything that follows now has no relationship to the color by the time you hear it. <S> This is specifically true in situations where the color (or other descriptor) is a common addition to the first word - we often say "red apples" or "green apples" to specify what kind of apple we're talking about. <S> If you were to say "red cans and bottles" the intention would be more ambiguous absent other clues. <S> If the items are particularly similar, then it would be more likely to mean both - "red glasses and bottles" probably means both the glasses and the bottles are red, but you can't be sure.. <S> If you're trying to craft a more clear communication, if only the apples are red, it might be better to say "bottles and red apples", if they're all red then " <S> red bottles and apples" might work (because now the multi-word unit kind of encompasses the whole phrase), but it's probably clearer to say "red apples and red bottles". <A> If the bottes are of any colour, reverse the order to prevent ambiguity, i.e. "bottles and red apples". <S> If the bottles were also red, repeat red, i.e. "red apples and red bottles".
| If someone says "there are red apples and bottles in that box over there," one may have [red apples + bottles of any color] or [red apples + red bottles].
|
What is the meaning of "less than delighted"? This study evaluated the efficacy of a novel group intervention intended to increase the SWB of early adolescents who are less than delighted with their lives. Is it a typo in the text putting than before delighted or is a special combination? <Q> This looks an example of understatement used for emphasis, I suspect it's peculiarly British although it may be used elsewhere. <S> Delighted, as I'm sure you know, means very pleased. <S> In theory, a person who is "less than delighted" might be anything from very cross indeed up to quite pleased. <S> In practice it will generally mean something closer to the very cross <S> indeed end of this range. <A> Understatement is an arrow in the rhetor's quiver. <S> Some folks use it more than occasionally. <S> OK, now why did I say "more than occasionally" instead of "frequently"? <S> Because I like using the rhetorical figure of understatement. <S> A variation on understatement is litotes (lie' toe tease), such as "There was no small stir among the protesters," instead of "There was a huge stir among the protesters." <S> Why do folks use understatement? <S> I imagine simply to introduce variety into the way they speak and write. <A> less than delighted = not delighted <A> Please look up the phrase "less than" under less in The Free Dictionary. <S> Accordingly, it means "not at all". <S> He had less than favourable view of the matter. <S> Please also refer to Longman that says the phrase is used to mean " not at all". <S> He is less than enthusiastic about this idea. <S> However, according to the definition given by Cambridge, you can say that the phrase less than delighted means "not delighted". <S> So less than delighted means not at all delighted or not delighted.
| Less than delighted literally means simply not delighted.
|
"Products of unique structure" vs. "Products of _a_ unique structure" In 3D printing, successive layers of material are applied under computer control in order to create a particular shape. This technology allows us to make products of a unique internal and external structure. Should there be a here? I wrote the text without the article, but a native speaker corrected me. Would both variations be grammatical? <Q> There is not a single unique internal and external structure common to all 3-D printed products. <S> The point is that each product can have its own structure, distinct from that of any other product printed by the same technique or even on the same machine. <S> For example, a heart valve printed for you need not have the same structure as a heart valve printed for me. <S> I would say that Van Gogh's paintings have a unique style <S> -- that's one style, specific to Van Gogh but shared by his paintings. <S> Since a single style applies to several paintings (but only one artist) <S> the indefinite article is appropriate. <S> In the context of your report, the indefinite article is not appropriate. <S> With the indefinite article, it seems that all 3-D printed products share a common structure which is distinct from the structures produced by any other technology, in much the same way as Van Gogh's paintings share a common style which is distinct from the styles used by any other artist. <S> Both structures are grammatical, but only one carries the meaning that you intend. <A> " Unique " is essentially superlative. <S> The indefinite article is a stand-in for "one", but the actual meaning is "one out of at least several", and they all belong to some category. <S> In this case the category is "unique structure". <S> While a unique structure (or an object that is characterised by it) can have similar structures (or objects), thus allowing the use of 'a' when referring to one of them, there is an inherent conflict between admission of similarity and calling it "unique". <S> That is why I would omit the article altogether. <S> In 3D printing, successive layers of material are applied under computer control in order to create a particular shape. <S> This technology allows us to make products of unique internal and external structure. <A> Either way is correct grammatically, but they are subtly different. <S> In this case, the details of the "structure" don't seem well-defined or important to the sentence, and this is also presumably the first time mentioning the "structure". <S> Therefore, I think the use of "a" is appropriate here, but not necessary. <A> Both are grammatical. <S> The version without the indefinite article comes closer to your intent of one of a kind , but the form of ... [singular] may be more significant than the presence or absence of a . <S> The form " <S> x of y" carries the connotation that x belongs to y or that <S> x is a property, collection or part of y. E.g. tip of the tongue, set of cutlery, etc. <S> The focus is on y. <S> In your sentence, the phrase "products of [a] unique ... structure" talks more about the structure than the product. <S> Both forms allow the sense that every product is different, although the form with a also allows the literal sense that every product has the same structure. <S> While this is interesting from a linguistic and philosophical perspective, you seem to be aiming for a phrase that emphasises mass customisation over amazing artwork. <S> In that case, you would be better off with a phrase like "products with unique ... <S> structure s ". <S> In your wider context of bioprinting, perhaps even change unique to customised or personalised . <A> Well you would use the " a " there defiantly, however <S> , you could take it out if you were saying that sentence plural. <S> This technology allows us to make products of unique internal and external structure( s ). <S> You could not say that sentence with an "a" , because the " a " means literally just one. <S> A and one correspond with each other. <S> But you could say something like multiple or many. <S> This technology allows us to make products of multiple unique internal and external structure( s ). <S> This technology allows us to make products of many unique internal and external structure( s ). <S> But if you aren't using that sentence plural then defiantly use "a" .
| You want to use the word "structure" in its uncountable sense to show that the uniqueness applies to each product, and not merely to the technology which produces them. An indefinite article should be used if the referent is irrelevant, vague, or hypothetical; it is also used the first time mentioning something. If you call something "unique", you state that nothing in the world is like the entity to which you just referred.
|
Why is "crime story" more correct than "criminal story"? Criminal is an adjective and story is a noun. Why is "crime story" used instead of "criminal story"? While both crime and story are nouns. What's this latter combination? Is "criminal story" even correct? <Q> " Criminal " means "against the law", like " criminal behaviour ", " criminal organisation ", " criminal enterprise ", and so on. <S> The story is not against the law , the story is about a crime , so it's a crime story , not a criminal story. <S> Compare the difference in meaning between "a wooden shed" and "a wood shed". <S> The former is a shed made of wood, the latter is a shed where wood is kept. <A> A criminal story would be a story about a criminal. <S> Typically speaking, books written in this genre tend to be centered around the crime. <S> They will sometimes get into the criminal's life, but they equally get into the lives of other characters, especially the crime solver. <S> If one were to write a book and label it as a "criminal story," it would be a story about a criminal, or criminals in general. <S> It might cover life as a criminal, with all the trust challenges that come with that life. <S> It may include crimes, but the individual crimes would be less important than the life of the criminal. <S> I am unaware of any story that sells itself as a "criminal story," but if one existed, that is what I would expect to see, as a native English speaker trying to make sense of a pair of words. <A> Crime story is a compound noun made of two base nouns. <S> I think you were expecting an adjective-noun pair, but that's not how we express this idea in English. <S> Similar constructions from the linked source include "post office" and "fish tank". <S> "Criminal story" is not an immediately meaningful combination. <S> We just don't use it that way, but sometimes we use similarly constructed phrases. <S> A criminal trial is a trial about a crime , not a trial conducted in an illegal manner . <S> Why can we say "criminal trial" and not "criminal story" ? <S> Unclear, but it may be because of the word "story" . <S> When naming genres, we seem to prefer compound nouns: "adventure story" , "romance story" , etc. <A> While writing a comment, I figured I should probably write it as an answer. <S> As brian_o said in his answer, crime story is a compound noun. <S> Generally a compound noun is used to describe a more specific version of something. <S> A post office is an office for post, a wood shed is a shed for wood, a crime story is a story about crime. <S> The main issue is that the word criminal has an adjective usage and a noun usage. <S> So logically criminal story is just as correct as crime story . <S> In usage, crime story is considered "correct" as it is the common usage.
| A crime story is a story about a crime.
|
Which is the right preposition when referring to OS? "In" or "on"? I can see two expressions about Operating System: "on Linux" and "in Linux". E.g.: The application can run on Linux. The application can run in Linux. Which one is right? Or both are right? <Q> It is context dependent. <S> I would use on in some contexts, such as when referring to a computer "platform" (like an OS): <S> The application can run on Linux. <S> As generic word usage, you would say " on a platform", not " in a platform". <S> In another context, you could use in , when talking about programming (code that makes up applications) <S> That application was written in Linux. <A> Either one is possible, but "on" is more common . <S> It expresses a common metaphor of a computer functioning in layers of a sort, with the hardware on the bottom, the BIOS above that, the OS above that, and finally applications. <S> Saying that the program runs "in" Linux calls up the idea of using Linux* as a container or environment. <S> This is not wrong either, but it's less common, perhaps because it's less useful as a metaphor for understanding how computers work. <S> * <S> Probably actually GNU+ Linux, but that's a technicality. <A>
| Using "on" is more common if the application can be interacted with users.
|
When to use "is this how...?" and "is this why...?" When to use the former and when to use the latter? Example: Speaker A: I'm obsessed with philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Speaker B: Is this why/how you know so much about these topics? Or maybe they mean the same? <Q> This is why is to explains a reason. <S> This is how is to explains a process. <S> I had three rounds of tough intervews for this job <S> , that is how I got hired. <S> During one of the interview, I nailed a difficult problem, that is why i got hired. <S> for your example <S> , it should beSpeaker B <S> : Is this why you know so much about these topics? <A> Since Speaker B is asking for an explanation , you should use why : <S> Is this why <S> you know so much about these topics? <S> same as: <S> Why did you go to the beach today? <S> You would use how when describing actions: <S> How did you learn so much about these topics? <S> referring to what actions you took to learn so many things. <S> Same as: <S> How do you hunt for seashells at the seashore? <S> However, I think many people would use how in example 2, in informal settings. <A> You usually use 'how' for asking the way or manner someone behaves, something happens or you do. <S> However, you can also use the "how" to mean by what means, for what reason, why, etc. <S> How is it that he left early? <S> How can you speak such nonsense? <S> (The Free Dictionary) <S> I think it's possible to use the 'how' to mean why in the context of the sentence presented by the OP.
| The how has been used in these sentences in the sense of why.
|
Word to describe something that is not the "last" one Suppose you have a series of objects (first-second-third-fourth). Here the fourth object is the last object and the first object is the first object. But what is a word to call first, second and third objects? First objects? non-last objects?.... Please note that the number of objects can be arbitrary. Update As some asked where I needed this I should say I needed this word when I wanted to teach Persian to someone, I said In a conjunction of multiple sentences with passive verb tenses, you can use contracted form for .... verbs and the full form for the last verb. I meant for all the verbs but the last. <Q> Any given item in a list falls into one of the three categories... <S> 1 <S> first 2 <S> intermediate/intervening (all except the first and last) 3 last <S> We can also divide the list into just two categories - all except the first or last... <S> 1+2 preceding/antecedent/ <S> earlier <S> (relative to the last item) 2+3 following/subsequent/ <S> later (relative to the first item) ...but note that both these forms can be used to reference just one <S> earlier/later item (or several, but not necessarily all items except the first/last). <A> A list of names: <S> Ann Bob Chris Dave <S> Ed <S> Ed is the last name. <S> Dave is the second to last name. <S> Chris is the third to last name. <S> And so on. <A> Most people spell it out for small numbers of objects. <S> First, second, and third objects. <S> Or for stuff like 20 objects, so on, <S> and you select the ones that are not the last object, I would use this: Every object except the last or First 19 objects or something similar. <A> <A> You have a couple of options: <S> First, second, third, ... twenty-third..., next-to-last , last This format is common, but typically only used with short lists. <S> Note that I've thrown in "twenty-third" just to illustrate that you can refer to specific items in the middle of an un-numbered list. <S> However, you typically don't, because then your audience has to count through the list to find the 23rd item. <S> First, second, ... penultimate , ultimate <S> This is far less common, & I probably wouldn't use it in a crowd of average Joes. <S> In general, you're either dealing with an explicitly numbered list, in which case you can refer to things by item number as at an auction, or you're not. <S> If the latter, then typically you would pick out the ones at the ends, as you have noted, and refer to the rest as ... "the rest". <S> After all, to most people's minds the point of putting things in a list is to group them together. <S> That way you can say "don't forget the grocery list", rather than having to say "don't forget the milk, and the beans, and the bread, and the lettuce, and the..."
| Penultimate (next-to-last), antepenultimate (the one before the next-to-last).
|
What's the difference between "trip" and "excursion"? In the Longman Dictionary, "Excursion" is defined as: a short journey made for pleasure, usually by several people together This is similar to "to go on a trip". Is there any difference in meaning between "to go on an excursion" and "to go on a trip"? We can talk of a school trip to the Science Museum. Is "excursion" also an option in this case or does "excursion" always involve going as a group to another city rather than to a museum? <Q> Using dictionary.reference.com: <S> Excursion - a short trip or outing to some place, usually for a special purpose and with the intention of a prompt return Trip - 1. <S> a journey or voyage: to win a trip to Paris . <S> 2. <S> a journey, voyage, or run made by a boat, train, bus, or the like, between two points: <S> It's a short trip from Baltimore to Philadelphia. <S> Hence where "excursion" is used for an outing, "trip" is also an acceptable word. <S> For "trip" definition 1, "excursion" could also be used, provided the trip is short enough. <S> Although it's not explicitly stated in the definitions, I'd suggest that if it is up to a day long then it can be either a trip or an excursion , but if it is longer then it would be a trip . <S> For example, a 3 day visit to Paris might be a trip, but a day's outing to see the Palace of Versailles could be described as either a trip or an excursion. <S> For "trip" definition 2, "excursion" would not be a valid alternative word. <S> i.e. where you are only talking about the journey in terms of transport, and not in terms of actually "doing anything" at the destination, then "excursion" is not valid. <S> As noted by @Mrstupid in comments, "trip" is more commonly used than "excursion" in India; in my experience this is true in the UK too; and in JR's experience it is true in the US. <A> From Wiki : <S> An excursion is a trip by a group of people, usually made for leisure, education, or physical purposes. <S> It is often an adjunct to a longer journey or visit to a place, sometimes for other (typically work-related) purposes. <S> Public transportation companies issue reduced price excursion tickets to attract business of this type. <S> Often these tickets are restricted to off-peak days or times for the destination concerned. <S> Short excursions for education or for observations of natural phenomena are called field trips. <S> One-day educational field studies are often made by classes as extracurricular exercises, e.g. to visit a natural or geographical feature. <S> The term is also used for short military movements into foreign territory, without a formal announcement of war <S> Tour means travelling from one place to another with the purpose of visiting various places and in the end coming back to where you started. <S> Expedition is a journey undertaken by a group of people (organized company) with a definite objective (accomplishing a specific purpose). <S> Outing is a short pleasure trip usually lasting no more than a day. <S> Trip is a journey for some purpose, usually including the return. <S> Journey may indicate a long distance or a short one travelled regularly (daily journey to work, for example). <S> One has to understand what a trip means. <S> While mostly will not agree to this, but all of the above terms comes in the definition of trip. <A> In the context of a school visit to a science museum, both words are possible. <S> Neither would violate any grammar rules, but excursion may sound a little unnatural and forced. <S> Consider: <S> Bobby's class is taking a trip to the science museum on Friday. <S> Bobby's class is taking an excursion to the science museum on Friday. <S> In my mind, the first sentence sounds more natural – possibly because, in schools, such events are often called field trips . <S> Plus, excusion simply seems like too fancy a word to use for an ordinary field trip. <S> However, let's say I volunteer to be a chaperone on the trip, and I'm talking to a coworker about it the following Monday. <S> I might say: I chaperoned Bobby's field trip to the museum last Friday. <S> It was a nice little trip . <S> I chaperoned Bobby's field trip to the museum last Friday. <S> It was a nice little excursion . <S> In this case, I like the second one better. <S> For one, it avoids reusing the word "trip" ( <S> by the way, such repetition isn't always bad, although it can play a factor in word selection). <S> More importantly, though, excursion seems to fit better in the context of "nice little" – particularly if I'm trying to emphasize that part of my enjoyment stemmed from the fact that I got out of my workplace for a day . <S> In short, when choosing between two synonyms, context often plays a major part in choosing which word to use. <S> Oftentimes, the simpler, more common word is the better one to use, because the fancier word sounds pretentious or unnatural. <S> However, at other times, the synonym might carry some small nuance that makes it a better choice. <S> Going back to the comment you made, excursion might also be a better word if the class is taking a four-day trip to the national capital. <S> In that case trip seems like too ordinary a word for such an elaborate undertaking – one that involves hotel stays and multiple destinations. <S> Avoid using less common words like excursion just for the sake of sounding erudite. <S> As often than not, such efforts will backfire. <S> Only time and experience can help you decide if a fancy synonym would improve your sentence, or seem like an unnatual force-fit.
| Excursion is a day trip made for pleasure, usually by a group of people.
|
Should we say "rather", "or rather" in this sentence I'm facing to a little grammatical problem. While I was practicing my English with the make/do usage, I answered myself: What should I choose in this sentence, a. make rather than do b. make or rather do. As you see the problem is about the usage of "rather" and his other form "or rather". In my native language this two forms are completely different, because rather is used when we are decided about something : In this case I would rather choose the blue car. Whereas, the "or rather" form is opposed to the first one. We use it to share our indecision. I have a preference for the blue car, or rather the red one. <Q> What should I choose in this sentence, make rather than do? <S> What should I choose in this sentence, make or rather do? <S> Neither expression is the right choice in this situation. <S> If you have not decided yet, and are contemplating the decision, then simple 'or' should suffice: <S> What should I choose in this sentence, make or do? <S> Additional words you can use are " perhaps ", " maybe " and similar. <S> What should I choose in this sentence, make or perhaps do? <S> If you lean towards one choice already, then your "rather... than" could work, and then it's not a question anymore <S> , it's a statement: <S> What should I choose in this sentence? <S> Rather make than do. <S> The second sentence here is incomplete, the predicate is missing, but colloquially, and in ruminations (talking to yourself), they are fine. <A> What should I choose in this sentence, a) make rather than do. <S> b) make or rather do. <S> My brain went numb trying to understand the above sentence. <S> In this case I would rather choose the blue car. <S> "In this case" assumes that some "cases" are under consideration. <S> It is really impossible to determine from the context what the "cases" are about. <S> However only one of the cars can be blue. <S> We don't know how many other cars there are or what the color mix is. <S> So of the choices that have been given, the speaker selects the blue car. <S> I have a preference for the blue car, or rather the red one. <S> So there are at least two car color options maybe more. <S> There is only one red car and only one blue car. <S> (But there may be 5 black cars too.) <S> So the speaker first selects the blue car <S> , then she changes her mind and selects the red car. <A> You can use rather in three ways: as an adverb or degree to correct or clarify something to express a preference. <S> I will take you home when you are ready... <S> or rather my husband will. <S> I prefer tea rather than coffee <S> When you are asking for advice about a sentence, you are asking what is the preferred version, and so the rather than format is the most appropriate, although some listeners might feel that you favour the first of the two options: <S> What should I choose in this sentence, make rather than do? <S> If you want to ask the question strictly neutrally, you would simply ask: What should I choose in this sentence, make or do?
| The rather than construction is used to indicate a preference: The or rather construction is mainly used to correct or clarify something:
|
common == Not uncommon? I just read an article and found below sentence. I'm little bit confused about this sentence . "It is not uncommon to have slides like that," she said. Instead of using not uncommon author can use common ? <Q> No, "not uncommon" cannot be used in place of "common". <S> "Common" and "uncommon" refer, in this context, to frequency of occurrence, and frequency is not a binary condition. <S> Instead, frequency is measured along a scale, so there are frequencies between "uncommon" and "common." <S> In particular, when it is "not uncommon" for an event to occur, the event happens at a greater frequency than it would if it were "uncommon", but that doesn't necessarily mean that event occurs so frequently that it is "common." <S> For example, the frequency of the event could be such that it is classified "neither common nor uncommon." <S> In a similar way (though not exactly similar), the opposite of a negative number is a positive number, but when we say a number is "not negative," it is not necessarily "positive," as the number could be positive but it could also be zero. <A> You have not provided enough context provided to know whether common could be used in place of *not uncommon, but you have come across a not uncommon literary device known as litotes , which the Silva Rhetoricae website at BYU defines as Deliberate understatement, especially when expressing a thought by denying its opposite. <S> The Ad Herennium author suggests litotes as a means of expressing modesty (downplaying one's accomplishments) in order to gain the audience's favor (establishing ethos). <S> But without additional context, it is impossible to sayfor certain whether not uncommon <S> in your example means the actual value is more or less or exactly equal to what you or the average person would consider to be common . <S> Understatement can be used to soften a statement, but it can also be used to emphasize it through irony. <S> You'll find litotes frequently in speech , where intonation and body language help communicate the real meaning, but in writing it can be much more vague. <S> Parent: Is he a good student? <S> Teacher: Well, he's not a bad student. <S> (He is not a good student, but the teacher wants to euphemize the situation for the parent). <S> Customer: My concern with the product is that they use the old API Salesman: <S> I wouldn't call it a big problem. <S> Customer: I certainly wouldn't call it a small problem. <S> (The problem is, in fact, a significant one to the customer). <S> But Person 1: <S> Did you all like the movie? <S> Person 2 <S> : We didn't hate it. <S> (Person 2 liked the movie just a little bit, just barely past the threshold of hating it. <S> Or, Person 2 like the movie an average amount, and simply has no enthusiasm for it. <S> Or Person 2 enjoyed the movie enormously, but does not want to be too outwardly enthusiastic. <S> You simply can't tell without knowing about the delivery and about the people involved). <A> To me, something that is common is more likely that something that is not uncommon. <S> Something is uncommon if it has a <1/5 chance of occurring. <S> That means that a not uncommon thing has a greater than 1/5 chance. <S> So something that happens 30% of the time is not common, but neither is it uncommon.
| People would vary on this, but I might say that something is common if it has a >1/2 chance of occurring.
|
Does "I will" express a current desire, or a prediction of the future? I'm struggling a bit with translating the English "She will do X" or "She will be Y" into my mother tongue (German). Lets say we have the sentence "She will be loved". A native English speaker would probably understand that like "She has a strong desire to be loved" or "She wants to be loved". Same goes for the sentence "I'll take the steak". If you want to order a steak in the restaurant -- it is not quite future ... However, we've learned in school that an English sentence like "She will X" expresses the future, similar to "She is going to be loved." Is there any kind of rule (maybe it depends on the verb after the "will"?) whether "She will" means that she strongly wants something, or that she is going to do something? <Q> You are wrong to think that a native English speaker would probably understand She will be loved as <S> She has a strong desire to be loved or <S> She wants to be loved . <S> The German equivalent of the English <S> She will be loved is Sie wird geliebt werden , not Sie will geliebt werden . <S> In most cases the German verb wollen ( ich will, er will, wir wollen , etc) would be translated into English as want ( I want, he wants, we want) . <S> However, it is possible to interpret <S> will in certain questions as shading more towards want or desire than towards a future action. <S> For example: Will you stay for dinner? <S> The will in negative constructions such as She won't tell me would normally be interpreted as a refusal rather than as a predicted (non-)action. <S> Furthermore, will can also refer to the present (habitual) in constructions such as: <S> She will keep phoning me in the middle of the night. <S> And will can be used to express probability or certainty in constructions such as: <S> That'll be the postman! <S> (on hearing a knock on the door) A good pedagogical grammar book such as Swan's Practical English Usage will help you understand the various uses of the English modal will . <A> "She will be loved". <S> It means that the loving will happen in the future. <S> Sam says "I'll have the steak." <S> This is a bit queer. <S> Sam is ordering the steak in the present, but he won't actually get physical possession of the steak until the future. <A> If one says "I will fly to Paris tomorrow. <S> " It is not clear from the language that someone wants to do this or has a desire to do that. <S> They are simply making a statement of certainty. <S> A native speaker would not view the sentence <S> "She will be loved" as her desire for love. <S> It simply means that in the future someone will love her. <S> In the sentence "I'll have the steak. <S> " The speaker is asking a server for steak. <S> This language is common in restaurants and bars. <S> Certainly, without desire, the person won't order the steak, but the language does not say that. <S> "I want a steak." says that.
| Will is typically used for promises and predictions or statements of certainty about the future.
|
How to pronounce "friends"? So I can pronounce friend just fine. But when you add an s to it how do you transition from the d sound to the s sound? Do you just ignore the d altogether? <Q> <A> Not much of a transition needed. <S> Compare with the word cards , it does not become cars . <S> If your native language does not have that 'ds' sound/transition, I can understand that it might be hard for you to pronounce it. <S> In that case you can get away with frɛnz just make sure you get that z-sound. <S> You could maybe get away with frɛntz <S> if you say it fast but that might sound a bit Germanish. <A> The ds at the end becomes a z sounds, like zoo <A> It is pronounced with the affricate [d͡z]. <S> A good way of thinking of it is as the "j" sound /d͡ʒ/ <S> but with your tongue at the location of /d/, either touching the back of your teeth or closely behind them. <S> Also, make sure to only touch the roof of your mouth with the tip of your tongue. <A> This is very accent specific and there's no real "wrong" way within the following <S> z - the D is softened to the point that the ds becomes a Z sound <S> Dz - the D is slightly softened, but the D is still pronounced. <S> The S becomes a Z sound Dss/tss - the S becomes almost a hiss, with the D remaining fairly sharp and the D almost resembling a T ss - as above, the s becomes a hiss but the D is softened or almost entirely dropped My own accent (one of the many North-Western English accents) mostly uses the latter two
| You may pronounce it with a stopped /d/ or without it—/frɛndz/ or frɛnz/—in practice, nobody will notice.
|
Is this "really" working as a tone-softener? She never really accepts my idea. Is this a weaker version of "she never accepts my idea?" <Q> Yes, this would be the same as saying 'she never fully accepts my idea', implying that maybe she understands the main point of your idea but never accepts it in its entirety. <A> I would take out the word "never" because it can be a harsh word. <S> You can also start with the phrase, "I feel that..." <S> This is the best way to soften tone, especially with family or work situations. <S> For example, I would say... <S> "I feel that she doesn't except my ideas." <S> So, your sentence is the first level of softening tone. <S> Taking out "never" would be the next level, and the sentence I suggested would be the softest. <S> Using "I feel that" also helps the other person be more open to what you are saying. <A> Example one: You e-mail Laura your ideas for a paper she is writing. <S> She responds to your e-mails by saying "That's totally wrong. <S> " <S> She doesn't change her paper at all. <S> This happens over and over. <S> You would say "She never accepts my ideas." <S> Example two: You e-mail Laura your ideas. <S> She responds to your e-mails by saying "That's a good idea; let me think about it." <S> Then she doesn't change the paper. <S> Now it's appropriate to say "She never really accepts my ideas." <S> (In other words, she pretends she is accepting your ideas, but never actually does.) <S> In conclusion, I don't really think it's weaker or softer. <S> It implies that she is finding some indirect or sneaky way to reject your ideas, rather than rejecting them outright.
| Yes, this is a softer tone.
|
"It offers evidence, (?) of the nonexistence of free will, which you didn't believe existed" Are either of these two variants of this sentence grammatically correct? It offers evidence of the nonexistence of free will, which you didn't believe existed vs It offers evidence, of the nonexistence of free will, which you didn't believe existed Meaning it was evidence of the nonexistence of free will that was not believed to exist, not free will. <Q> Both are correct, but the additional comma in the second sentence changes the meaning. <S> It is a very subtle shift in context: <S> In the first sentence, "you" does not believe in the nonexistence of free will , regardless of the evidence. <S> In the second sentence, "you" did not believe there was evidence supporting the nonexistence of free will. <A> The comma introduces a pause intended to disconnect the following dependent clause from the noun phrase immediately preceding the dependent clause. <S> According to that rule, in the sentence It 1 offers evidence 2 of the nonexistence 3 of free will 4 , which <S> you didn't believe existed. <S> the 'which' relative pronoun stands not for "free will", but for one of the other [pro]nouns in the main clause. <S> Which one? <S> 1, 2 or 3? <S> Because no other intervening construct exists, it ought to be the next one to the left, " nonexistence ". <S> And that makes the sentence sound a bit awkward. <S> Evidence of nonexistence which you didn't believe existed? <S> Can nonexistence actually exist ? <S> To combat that awkwardness the additional intervening construct, a comma whose role is to unify words into the phrase to be ignored, is added: <S> It 1 offers evidence 2 , {of the nonexistence of free will} 3 , which <S> you didn't believe existed. <S> Here, the 'which' pronoun now stands not for the entire explanatory phrase (the curly-brace enclosed construct), but for the next noun to the left of it, " evidence ". <S> The explanatory phrase ("of the nonexistence of free will") can be easily removed from the sentence without changing the meaning. <S> It offers evidence which you didn't believe existed. <A> Both sentences are confusing. <S> However, the second is also ungrammatical, since it detaches a restrictive clause from what it modifies by using a comma. <S> So instead of using either option, rephrase something like this <S> : It offers unexpected evidence of the nonexistence of free will. <S> Or, more explicitly: <S> It offers evidence <S> you didn't expect of the nonexistence of free will. <S> In both cases, the clause that explains how this evidence would be surprising to the person being addressed is kept close to "evidence" itself. <S> It's fine to push "Of the nonexistence …" further away instead, since it's very clear what that can and cannot modify, and "expect" doesn't qualify, either grammatically or in basic meaning. <S> You could even shuffle it around still more to get this version, which preserves the nearness of both clauses: You didn't believe any existed, but this offers evidence of the nonexistence of free will. <S> Here, "any" refers to the "evidence" which will show up later in the sentence. <S> This version has a bit of rhetorical flourish, but it sacrifices a small amount of clarity. <S> For a fluent speaker, that's not a problem, but in other contexts that might not be a good idea.
| Both are OK, but have different meanings.
|
Correct use of Past Tense Scenario is I purchased one watch online and I received the delivery today.I want to tell to my friend that the watch is not the same which I ordered online. Should I use Past perfect tense? This is not the watch which I had ordered online. Or Should I Simply use simple past tense? This is not the watch which I ordered online. I think we can use past perfect tense here because it indicate past of past or long past. When I tell this to my friend for me its past of past i.e. Past of Past is I had ordered it one week back. Second past is I received the order I checked the order and found that watch is not the same as I ordered. "I ordered one watch online but it is not the same which I had ordered" Correct me if I am wrong. <Q> As V.V said, "Past Simple is enough to express your idea." <S> Past Perfect is used when we are stating that one event happened before another. <S> Only use it in that case or when the listener/reader knows that you are referring to the past event before something else happened in the past. <S> Example: <S> I wish we had taken more food before we left. <S> Use <S> Simple Past to state an action started and finished at a specific time in the past Example: <S> I washed my car. <S> This is not the watch that I ordered online. <S> From EnglishTenses : <S> People (especially native speakers) do not use the Past Perfect very often. <S> For example, they will say: After I washed my car, I went to fill up. <S> Rather than: After I had washed my car, I went to fill up. <S> This is because "after" and "before" tell the listener which action happened first. <S> Still, keep in mind that it is better to use the Past Perfect, especially in written English or when writing exams. <A> A good rule of thumb is to only use perfect past when: there is some verb already in the past tense the aforementioned verb took place more recently <S> Thus <S> This is not the watch which I had ordered online. <S> is awkward, because there is second verb in the past tense. <S> It should be <S> This is not the watch which I ordered online. <S> The other sentence <S> I ordered one watch online <S> but it is not the same which I had ordered <S> is problematic for a few reasons. <S> Firstly, the "which I had ordered" part is redundant. <S> I ordered one watch online <S> but it is not the same model <S> Secondly "it" is referring to two different objects (the ordered watch and the watch that arrived). <S> Your sentence would be understood, but there should be something there to show that "it" changed somewhere along the way. <S> I ordered one watch online, but when it arrived, it was not the same model. <S> As a side note, I think you should either drop "which" or replace it with "that" This is not the watch (that) <S> I ordered online. <S> "a" is always preferred over "one" unless you wish to really emphasize number for some reason <S> ("I want one shirt for Xmas" sounds like you don't want two.) <S> "correct" sounds better than "same" because the watch they sent you wasn't the one you wanted. <S> I ordered a watch online, but when it arrived, it was not the correct model. <A> Whereas using past perfect tense describes an event happened elasped a period of time in the past. <S> For example. <S> My parcel arrived yesterday after 10 days. <S> I had ordered it online. <A> I would just say, "The watch I received today is not the watch I ordered online. <S> " When you use which, it sounds a bit formal since its obvious the sentence refers to only one watch.
| You should use past tense as it describe an event happened in a specific time point in the past.
|
Is there a need for "and" here? In the sentence below we have added three items together, "sunken, blue eyes", "dry blond hair" and "bruises on her skin". I wonder if I need to add "and" just before "the bruises on her skin". As there is one other "and" joining the two sentences, it is really confusing for me which the right way is. "I look at those sunken, blue eyes, her dry blond hair, the bruises on her skin and I try to imagine her without all those horrible features, finally recognizing Lily Din." <Q> In the first phrase you have a list of items: <S> sunken, blue eyes, her dry blond hair, the bruises on her skin and in the second phrase: <S> I try to imagine her without all those horrible features <S> The list needs a concluding and . <S> Then you need another conjunction between the first and second phrases. <S> I look at those sunken blue eyes, her dry blond hair, and the bruises on her skin, and <S> I try to imagine her without all those horrible features, finally recognizing Lily Din. <A> An "and" within a list isn't necessarily necessary, though omitting it isn't very common outside of literature. <S> That being said, the sentence you proposed does sound literary and omitting the "and" in the list could be appropriate. <S> With the <S> and, it would look as follows, and using an "and" there is definitely not wrong because the second "and" is just joining the two clauses. <S> (The italics is the list in question.) <S> I look at those sunken, blue eyes, her dry blond hair, and the bruises on her skin , and I try to imagine her without all those horrible features, finally recognizing Lily Din. <A> It would make sense to insert the "and" into the list if the list were not followed by another "and". <S> The following "and" is important: <S> It joins the two clauses. <S> It establishes that the sentence is informal. <S> It shows the time relationship between the two clauses. <S> (The second clause occurs very slightly after the first clause.) <S> It implies a "therefore": <S> The author's imagining happened because of what the author noticed. <S> The following "and" is more important than whether or not the preceding list included an "and" before the last item. <S> Including both the "and" in the list and the "and" after the list would be confusing. <S> It would also be considered poor style in written work. <S> (This is one reason people avoid starting written sentences with "And".)
| The author of the quote was correct to omit the "and" from the list.
|
Plural or singular for 'hair'? Check the sentence below My hair is rather short but I usually plait it/or them? I'm confused about whether I should use the singular or plural pronoun. <Q> Example: <S> George has brown hair. <S> But if it refers to more than one hair, a few hairs, then it takes the plural form and needs a plural verb. <S> Example: <S> George has brown hair, but I found a hair on the sofa and suspect he's getting some gray hairs . <S> When you are talking about specific strands of hair, use the plural form. <S> Simply put: Hair can be singular (one hair) <S> Example: <S> I found a strand of hair on your sofa. <S> or I found a hair on your sofa Non-countable singular (when it refers to all the hairs on one's head) <S> Example: Shawn has black hair. <S> Or plural (three hairs, some hairs) <S> Example: <S> I Found not one, but three hairs on your sofa. <S> As Maulik. <S> V said,"To make 'hair' singular, you need to quantify it. <S> So, 'I found a strand of hair on the sofa.'" <S> A strand of hair = <S> One single hair Strands of hair = <S> two or more, it does not specify Note that we do not say "Strands of Hair s. " <S> Thanks Maulik. <S> V and Snailboat . <A> You would use "it". <S> "Hair" when used to mean hair as a material rather than to refer to an individual hair is uncountable and takes singular conjugations as well as pronouns. <S> It is not like words like "family" where, though it is singular and takes singular conjugations, we might use plural pronouns in the same sentence because these are not uncountable, but rather collective nouns. <S> For example, we might say: I love my family , but I wish they would give me more privacy. <S> My hair is really long; I think I need to have it cut soon. <S> Note that collective nouns can use singular pronouns, too, though, when thought of as a single entity. <S> I love my family , but it 's getting too big to keep track of. <A> When we talk about hair on the scalp, we use 'singular'. <S> And, that's why you have written 'My hair is ...' <S> Thus, we'd surely continue the singular further. <S> My hair is rather short, but I usually plait it <S> Check this entry on OALD that gives us some idea about it. <S> Her hair was tied back in a long thick plait.
| Hair is both countable and uncountable Noun, but it is usually singular when it refers to all the hairs on one's head.
|
Is this called functional key? My colleague, JJ was promoted as the shop's temporary supervisor when the boss was touring a foreign country. He was given a bunch of keys of the shop's iron gate, doors, and most importantly, the safety deposit box (which kept the shop's cash transaction). For the bunch of keys that I have mentioned in my question, I am wondering if there is a professional or specific name for it? Is this bunch of keys called functional key or important key or something? Thank you <Q> Without referring to them individually, I would expect all are important otherwise locks would not be needed. <A> Keys are keys unless you are talking about the material they are made up of (say golden keys!)! <S> At the most, 'important keys' can be used or else, it's just fine. <S> I'm not sure whether to use 'functional' for them. <S> Because 'functional' means something which is functioning. <S> So, unless you have another bunch of keys that are <S> not working/functioning, calling them with that term won't make better sense. <S> Here are the keys, important keys works fine without any ambiguity. <A> Keys are keys, be it a shop's iron gate, doors, etc.. <S> I don't think there is such thing as "functional keys. <S> You can call it a key set. <S> The key which the bank uses for safe deposit box is called a " guard key. "
| As a group of keys, I would call them office keys or shop keys . " There is something called function key , but function key is a very different thing, unrelated to locks and doors.
|
"It can contain" or "It can contains"? What is the correct form? 1) It can contain 2) It can contain s <Q> As a native speaker I would say 1) it can contain To use contains, the word "can" must be dropped, e.g. 2b) <S> it contains Only the modal verb (in this case, can) has to be in third person singular, the second part of the verb must be in bare infinitive form (because it is used after a modal). <A> The modal verbs in English have a very strict grammar. <S> The main members of this category are: Can, could, shall, should, will, would, may , might, must These are the most important things to know about modal verbs: <S> They have no other forms apart from the forms you see above. <S> The following words, for example, are impossible in English: cans , canning , canned , <S> to can Modal verbs <S> never occur with other modal verbs in the same clause. <S> The following sentence is ungrammatical because it uses two modals together: <S> *When I finish my studies, I will can speak English perfectly <S> Modal verbs are always the first verb in the clause. <S> The following is ungrammatical: <S> *She have been could studying English. <S> Point number (4) is the most important one for the Original Poster's question: <S> Modal verbs are always followed by a verb in the plain form. <S> This is the form you see in a dictionary. <S> The following sentences are ungrammatical. <S> They are impossible in English: <S> *She can dances. <S> *She can dancing. <S> *She can to dance. <S> *She can danced. <S> For this reason the Original Poster's example must be like this: She can dance. <S> For the nine central members of this class these rules are always true. <S> There are never any exceptions. <S> Ever. <S> If we break any of these rules, our sentence is guaranteed to be ungrammatical. <S> It's good to have some rules in English that don't have exceptions! <A> After modal verbs follows a bare infinitive. <A> First one is the correct form. <S> http://www.englishpage.com/modals/can.html <S> http://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/modal-verbs.html <S> If you want to use contains, drop can... <A> Ron Jensen is correct, but fails to point out that the two phrases have different meanings: 1) <S> it can contains -- makes no sense / is incorrect 2) <S> it contains -- means there is some thing inside "it" 3) <S> it can contain -- means that "it" is capable of holding some thing Example: If you are speaking of a 100ml drinking glass: If the glass is half full, you might say: "It contains 50ml of water." or <S> If you are speaking of its ability to hold some amount, you might say: "It can contain 75ml." <S> If you want to tell the absolute maximum you need some modifier, you might say: "It can contain up to 100ml." <A> 1) It can contain is the correct form. <S> I also agree with Ron Jensen's for "It contains", but here the phrase suggests it is definite as opposed to the original phrase "It can contain". <A> After a model verb, the verb must be in bare-infinitive form. <S> "It can contains" must be modified to "It can contain", or "It contains".
| So, "It can contain" is correct.
|
"OF" at the beginning of the sentence What does of mean when it comes at the beginning of the sentence, for example: Of pride of remembrance of the encounter with the bear on that hillside in the early spring. <Q> That's not a sentence, it's a sentence fragment. <S> Here is the passage <S> "And every time I saw that paw, like the hand of a man, but with those long claws, dried and nailed through the palm to the door of the church, I received a pleasure." <S> [Person A] "Of pride?" <S> [Person B] "Of pride of remembrance of the encounter with the bear on that hillside in the early spring. <S> But of the killing of a man, who is a man as we are, there is nothing good that remains." <S> [Person A] <S> When Person B says "Of pride? <S> ", they are completing person A's statement " <S> I received a pleasure (of pride). <S> This is a method of asking <S> "Did you receive the pleasure of pride?" <S> Next, Person A completes his own statement in order to answer the question <S> "I received the pleasure of pride of remembrance of the encounter with the bear on that hillside in the early spring. <A> This is not a “complete sentence”—it is merely a preposition phrase. <S> It occurs in the middle of a dialogue, a context in which speakers very frequently shorten their utterances on the assumption that hearers will supply what is missing from what has gone before. <S> Take a look at your passage in its original context: <S> “On the door of the church of my village was nailed the paw of a bear that I killed in the spring, finding him on a hillside in the snow, overturning a log with this same paw.” <S> “When was this?” <S> “Six years ago. <S> And every time I saw that paw, like the hand of a man, but with those long claws, dried and nailed through the palm to the door of the church, I received a pleasure.” <S> “Of pride?” <S> “Of pride of remembrance of the encounter with the bear on that hillside in the early spring.” <S> —Hemingway, For Whom the Bell Tolls <S> And here’s the final sequence with the “missing” parts restored: “. <S> . . <S> I received a pleasure.” <S> “ Did you receive a pleasure of pride?” <S> “ I received a pleasure of pride of remembrance of the encounter . <S> . .” Linguists call this shortening conversational deletion ; John Lawler has discussed it on ELU . <A> Of means the same thing at the beginning of a sentence as it does elsewhere in a sentence. <S> If I say: Of the ways and words of men I refuse to speak. <S> It means the same as <S> I refuse to speak of the ways and words of men. <S> Of can also end a sentence: <S> The ways and words of men I refuse to speak of. <S> However, the last sentence is typically going to be understood as a sentence fragment unless read in context. <S> The other answers here cover the extract from Hemingway. <S> Or, one could say Of the extract from Hemingway, the other answers cover. <S> But that is not normal word order.
| Briefly, it’s a ‘rule’ of conversational English which says that a speaker can chop off anything at the beginning of an utterance which may be inferred from the context.
|
Does 'will' *really* mark future reference? I just heard that will doesn't mark future reference, even though in teaching English it's highly comfortable to think of it as so. I will find a way to neutralize the bomb. I' m going to speak to my instructor before doing anything else. He will have gotten a hang of himself already. In sentence #1, "will" semantically does mark future reference. However, sentence #2 demonstrates that future can be without "will" and sentence #3 proves that "will" can appear where it's not considered to be referring to the future (i.e. like a modal verb). So, does 'will' mark future reference? It definitely is taught as such in schools, but I'm becoming skeptical to how helpful a possible oversimplification can be. Editing since all I'm getting is irrelevant or wrong answers : My real question is about whether "will" should be considered part of the tense system or modal system . I'm not talking about the noun, and I'm looking for technical answers. Please refrain from answering unless you're certain you're asking what's being queried here. <Q> Does will mark future reference? <S> Sometimes. <S> Probably more often than not. <S> But not always. <S> My real question is about whether will should be considered part of the tense system or modal system. <S> Yes. <S> One or the other, and sometimes both. <S> I'm becoming skeptical to how helpful a possible oversimplification can be. <S> Skepsis is healthy. <S> But oversimplification is not merely helpful, it is essential to learning, right up to the point where it isn't . <S> Students and teachers have to start somewhere, and that somewhere has to be at the front end, where the student is in a state of more or less complete simplicity; teachers cannot begin by assuming subtleties the students have not yet achieved. <S> So teachers start with the simple and intuitive division of temporal reference into "past"–"present"–"future". <S> They provide simple and easily grasped handles on the language like <S> were – are – will be , which they call "tenses", because they have to call them something. <S> And they carefully avoid defining their terms too narrowly, and carefully shield students from gnarly real-life situations where were marks present tense and will marks modality and <S> are has to be replaced with <S> be — until they're ready to teach those uses . <S> It's pretty harmless, as long as the teachers are at that point willing to acknowledge that most of what they've taught is "baby rules" ( <S> aliter a pack of lies) which have very little to do with English-as-she-is-actually-spoken, and as long as they have something better and subtler to teach when they reach that point. <S> Granted, few are willing and few do have something better; but it doesn't matter all that much, because when the students reach that point they figure it out for themselves, just as you have done. <S> Moreover, the students are now beginning to learn EASIAS the way native speakers do: not from grammar books, and certainly not from teachers (who in at least in US high schools know much less about English grammar than, say, your average third-year EFL student), but from speaking and listening and reading and writing. <S> With that, they can build their own grammars from inside the language. <A> "will + infinitive" expresses future (normally). <S> But there are several possibilities to expressthe future in English, eg to be going to do. <S> And the modal verb will that originally is connected with volition also has other uses beside the future. <S> All this is explained in the grammar chapter modal verbs in the section will. <S> Will, Cambridge Dictionary <S> Will, modal verb, Oald <A> Where there's a will , there's a way! <S> And leaving an inheritance in a will are perfect examples of the word "will" having a totally different meaning as a noun. <A> I don't think "will" innately refers to the future like Spanish's future tense does, or at least it didn't originally. <S> I think it's a modal construction that logically happens to point the future very frequently. <S> However I agree that there are some sentences where "will" doesn't necessarily mark the future <S> The door will not open <S> However because of repeated use where the action does take place in the future, I think speakers have come to devalue the modal properties of the word, and instead think of it as simply being a marker for the future tense in some contexts . <S> For example, It will rain tomorrow <S> There's no volition here. <S> The answer to your question is totally up to the speaker/listener's interpretation. <S> Perhaps 100 years from now, "gonna" will be considered a future tense marker. <A> One way to talk about future time is to use the modal will . <S> I will be there. <S> talks about future time. <S> (It could also be talking about some hypothetical time). <S> But the hypothetical is removed if we say I will be there tomorrow. <S> Now, it so happens that one can teach that will (used with a personal subject) to refer to the future stresses one's current resolve to carry out a stated action , but this is gravy. <S> There are probably about a dozen other ways to refer to future time (for example: am going to ; <S> simple present: I am there tomorrow , etc). <S> For other ways, see this ELU blog post . <S> For a technical view that is contrary to your quoted source see this ELU answer written by a linguist .
| However, when "will" is used as a verb I think it always will imply future tense since it is used many future tense conjugations.
|
Is "I heard you had ..." a valid expression? The full sentence I used was "I heard you had Diwali next week, will you celebrate?". The auto-complete functionality of a Google search for "I heard you had" provides a lot of results, like "I heard you had a ruff day.". So my assumption is that in general, the construct "I heard you had ..." should be fine. Is that the case? In addition, is my first example sentence about Diwali grammatically correct? <Q> I heard you had... <S> is a grammatical and natural construction or expression. <S> I heard you had Diwali next week, will you celebrate? <S> is okay, but in formal contexts, combining two sentences with a comma and no conjunction is considered an error (a comma splice). <S> Therefore I would avoid the error by using different punctuation: <S> I heard you had Diwali next week; will you celebrate? <S> or I heard you had Diwali next week--will you celebrate? <S> or I heard you had Diwali next week. <S> Will you celebrate? <A> "I heard you..." is a valid expression (Also, "I hear you..." , but only in certain circumstances. <S> The expression refers to something <S> almost literal i.e. the speaker has been told about something that he/she was not previously aware e.e. <S> "I heard you have a new job", "I hear you're learning French" etc. <S> Also, in English, we don't refer to holidays and religious occasions as something someone "has", so you would say "I heard it's Diwali next week", although you might say "I hear you have a big religious event next week" or "I hear you have a wedding next weekend", although this last example would imply that the person being spoken to is simply going to a wedding; if they were getting married they would say "I hear you;re getting married next weekend". <S> It is used when the information (that you have heard) has come from some source other than the person you are spoken to, and is used where there is an element of doubt as to whether or not the information is correct, so <S> a sentence beginning "I hear/heard" ..." can almost be regarded as a question. <A> You use "I heard" to refer to hearsay <S> information- <S> you are not completely sure whether it is correct, or you didn't hear it from the source. <S> I heard you had an accident last week <S> I heard you had got married Or about something in the future that may not go ahead or has already been cancelled <S> I heard you had a date next week with that cute guy from accounts... <S> I heard you had a job interview next week <S> but it fell through <S> If you are talking about something in the future that will definitely go ahead, you should really use <S> I heard you have a job interview next week <S> I heard you have Diwali next week, will you celebrate? <S> Other answers suggest that it's not normal to refer to holidays using the words <S> have or had . <S> If you google have a good Christmas , you will get lots of hits, incliding this from the British Council learn English site: <S> Avoid these things and you’ll have a good chance of having a truly Merry Christmas <S> Imagine a situation where a guy takes his children to Lappland for Christmas. <S> Back at work after the holiday, a colleague says to him "I heard you had an exciting Christmas!" <S> In a monoculture society, it's hard to imagine somebody saying "I heard you have Christmas next week". <S> This sounds wrong not for grammatical or idiomatic reasons, but because Christmas is the same day every year and everybody knows when it is. <S> Furthermore, everybody is involved, like it or not. Diwali, however, is like Easter- <S> it's on a different date each year. <S> It's therefore easy to imagine in a multicultural society like England a Christian (who has a vague idea about Hindu traditions) saying to a Hindu <S> "I heard that you have Diwali next week".
| You can use "I heard you had..." about something that happened in the past:
|
"{which/which language} I can't understand" He sometimes speaks Spanish, which I can't understand. He sometimes speaks Spanish, which language I can't understand. Which sentence is correct? Or are all of them possible? How about the following: He sometimes speaks in Spanish , which I can't understand. He sometimes speaks in Spanish , which language I can't understand. <Q> The form A is the preferred one: <S> He sometimes speaks Spanish, which I can't understand. <S> The part of the sentence that follows the comma is a relative clause, connected to the noun "Spanish". <S> In that clause " I " is the subject " can't understand " is the predicate. <S> The object of that clause is actually " Spanish " represented by the relative pronoun " which ". <S> The pronoun migrates to the beginning of the clause and retains the status of the object. <S> If we split the sentence into two, we get <S> He sometimes speaks Spanish. <S> I can't understand Spanish. <S> Now, why does "which language" sound awkward? <S> Simply put, because it would be redundant . <S> The word "Spanish" in the main clause already has the meaning " language ". <S> It's does not mean "architecture" or "history", so <S> there is no need to repeat it. <A> As others have said, the first form is the correct one: <S> He sometimes speaks Spanish, which I can't understand. <S> You could make the second one acceptable by changing the word <S> which to the indefinite article a <S> : <S> He sometimes speaks Spanish, <S> which language I can't understand . <S> He sometimes speaks Spanish, a language I can't understand. <S> I concur with Victor that the in is optional in both cases, with little difference in the overall meaning: He sometimes speaks in Spanish, a language I can't understand. <S> However, this is true for the verb speaks . <S> If we swap out the verb speak for another verb, then the in might become mandatory: <S> He sometimes says words in Spanish, which I can't understand. <S> He sometimes says words Spanish, which I can't understand . <S> He sometimes orates in Spanish, a language I can't understand. <S> He sometimes orates Spanish, a language I can't understand . <S> Moreover, sometimes the preposition could be included or omitted, depending on what you are trying to say; for example: He sometimes narrates Spanish, a language I don't understand. <S> He sometimes narrates in Spanish, a language I don't understand. <S> I'd be more inclined to use the first one if he is narrating from a Spanish text, but more inclined to use the second one if he is translating English on the fly and thus narrating in Spanish. <A> In your sentence, the first option sounds more natural and is more common. <S> However there are times when specifying a noun after which can add clarification and thus be natural. <S> Let's take the following example, using a language other than Spanish. <S> He sometimes speaks in an assortment of grimaces and grunts and whistles, accompanied by stares, winks and gestures, which language I don't understand. <S> Or consider this example: <S> He sometimes speaks Spanish, not the Spanish of Mexico City or the Spanish of Madrird, not even the Spanish of Barcelona, but the Spanish of the aboriginal peoples of Brazil, <S> which language I don't understand. <S> In fact, it would also be common to use Spanish once again instead of language : <S> He sometimes speaks Spanish, not the Spanish of Mexico City or the Spanish of Madrird, not even the Spanish of Barcelona, but the Spanish of the aboriginal peoples of Brazil, which Spanish I don't understand.
| As far as "speaks in Spanish" versus "speaks Spanish", there is no difference.
|
Is "these couple sentences" acceptable English? Source: my own example Example: Hey, George, could you please review these couple sentences for accuracy for me? Do you think everything is okay with the grammar? <Q> There are a couple of interesting points about the Original Poster's sentence. <S> A couple is sometimes used a bit like a number or numeral when it occurs with the word more : <S> Can I have a couple more potatoes, please? <S> Can I have two more potatoes, please? <S> In the Original Poster's sentence we need the word of . <S> Grammatically, "a couple" is not a numeral: <S> four people three lemons two problems a group people (ungrammatical) a pair lemons <S> (ungrammatical) a couple problems (ungrammatical) a group of people a pair of lemons a couple of problems ... <S> it is not used like a number. <S> The second interesting point with the Original Poster's sentence is that it uses these . <S> Although couple involves the idea of two things, like the word group <S> it can be considered a countable noun. <S> We can have one couple, two couples, three couples. <S> If we are using the singular noun couple <S> we often use it with a singular determiner: <S> this couple was ... <S> However, when we use it in "couple of X" constructions, it often occurs with the plural determiner these : these past couple of weeks these couple of idiots <S> In my English, the Original Poster's sentence is a bit awkward but many native speakers would happily say: Hey, George, could you review these last couple of sentences here for me? <A> Hey, George . . . <S> Beginning a sentence with <S> Hey, is pretty conclusively diagnostic of an amicable colloquial register largely unconstrained by the niceties of formal expository prose. <S> In that context the sentence is unimpeachably "grammatical", at least in American speech. <S> Couple without of is acceptable AmE. <S> Hey, George, we're headin over to the VFW for a couple beers. <S> Wanta come? <S> Consequently, these couple is just as acceptable as those two or that dozen . <S> I'm runnin over to Lowe's for those couple two-by-eights Jack ast for. <S> You need any more 'n 'at? <S> It may look strange written out; but that's how even Very Highly Educated folks actually talk on my side of the pond. <A> The grammar is perfectly fine , though it is something I never prefer to use. <S> The "these" is the plural form of "this", used because the "couple sentences" is plural in number. <S> "These" is a determiner to refer to a specific object the speaker is "pointing" at in their speech. <S> (In this case, the sentences to be reviewed.) <S> However, semantically , the sentence is awkward. <S> I would prefer using "a couple" and specify which objects in a different sentence.
| However, in standard British English at least, when it is not used to modify another word like less or more , the phrase a couple works like a regular noun phrase like a pair or a number or a group .
|
Why "You and I" not "I and You" 1) You and I will play in the evening. 2) I and You will play in the evening. I think both sentences are right, but why do we always prefer to use the first sentence? <Q> For example, we prefer: <S> Mary will ask you and me later. <S> Over: Mary will ask me and you later. <S> It is not grammatically wrong to say I and You , but it is more polite to say You and I as stated here . <A> I don't think it has anything to do with politeness either, but with the "syntactical expectation" that a verb will follow the word "I". <S> " <S> Peter and I" does not disrupt the expectation. <A> It's tempting to assume that weird rules in English relate to politeness, but in this case I don't think that's the reason. <S> My gut feeling is that it is almost the opposite of politeness, in that the natural emphasis in speaking normally falls on the first-person ('I' or 'us') part of the construction. <S> There is a very slight natural pause between the subject clause and the verb which subtly stresses the last one. <S> The effect may be a little clearer in a phrase like 'Peter and I played tennis yesterday'. <S> The effect is almost to parenthesise the other person "(You and) I will ..", "(Peter and) <S> I played ..". <S> It depends on context: you could definitely choose to stress the 'You' instead (e.g. to highlight that it is 'you' not e.g. 'your sister'). <S> My hunch is that naturally, from the point of the speaker, their own involvement is stronger, so tends to take the more emphasised position. <S> From there it has probably just evolved as idiom to the point where it now sounds very strange the 'wrong' way round. <S> In Michay's 2nd example it is more difficult: both actually sound odd without some specific context, as it would almost always be 'us'. <S> If there was a real reason for splitting out into 'you and me', we would probably use a different construction to highlight it more strongly: e.g. 'Mary will ask both of us later'. <S> A more common one might be something like " <S> We're not so different, you and I.", but again here the emphasis is on "I" - and the effect is particularly strong due to the end of the sentence.
| Traditionally, it has been considered courteous to place the reference to yourself last.
|
How to say what has happened to leaves in autumn time Imagine a situation: It's autumn time, my little son asks me: "Daddy, why is that tree without leaves?" What is a correct way to answer him in this situation? Please, choose one or few variants which are fine and explain why. a) The leaves are fallen on the ground. b) The leaves was fallen on the ground. c) The leaves have fallen on the ground. d) The leaves had fallen on the ground. Edited: The purpose is not to find the best way to answer the question. The purpose is to understand which variant is fine in that context. <Q> I would actually choose something other than the four variants you have presented. <S> In reality, the best option would be something like this: <S> The leaves have fallen to the ground. <S> The difference is slight, and to a non-native speaker, likely invisible. <S> In fact, native speakers will understand you just as well. <S> The difference here is the connotative differences between "fallen on the ground" and "fallen to the ground. <S> " I actually have a hard time putting the difference to words, but I'll try. <S> "Fallen on the ground" means something more unnatural to me. <S> In other words, something has slipped out of my hands and fallen on the ground - it wasn't supposed to fall. <S> It isn't an object that is supposed to fall. <S> "Fallen to the ground," however, is something I would use with things that do that naturally. <S> I can't think of any other contexts right now, but they're meant to fall to the ground - the leaves naturally fall to the ground. <S> It isn't an accident. <S> It's meant to happen. <S> The distinction is subtle, but it is certainly there. <A> a) and b) are never correct, because "are fallen" and "was fallen" are grammatically incorrect. <S> The tenses [verb to be] + [past participle of intransitive verb] is not a tense in Modern English. <S> * c) is correct, because the verb is in the present perfect tense , which tells us about an action occurred at some nonspecific point in time before the present moment . <S> d) is not correct, because the verb is in the past perfect tense , which tells us an action occurred at a nonspecific point in time before some other event in the past . <S> Therefore it is not okay to use, because there is no other event you are comparing to. <S> If your son asked you about the tree later that day, <S> Why <S> didn't that tree have leaves? <S> You could respond <S> Because you are comparing to a verb in the past tense. <S> Basically the past perfect is a "super" past tense. <S> * <S> As user chumakoff points out, phrases like "He is gone" is really common in modern English. <S> And yet, "He is come" sounds strange to me. <S> Both of these fit the pattern [verb to be] + [past participle of intransitive verb]. <S> The only difference is one uses the verb "to go", the other the verb "to come". <S> So why don't people say "He is come" to mean "He is here"? <S> I suspect that the construction [verb to be] + [past participle of intransitive verb] used to be valid syntax, but is no longer valid for the majority of verbs. <S> " <S> He is gone" is an idiom, and only sounds like current day English because of frequent daily use. <S> In fact, "gone" in this context doesn't have the full powers of a verb. <S> For example, although, I go to Spain is valid syntax, people don't usually say He is gone to Spain <S> They would instead say He has gone to Spain <A> c is the grammatically correct answer. <S> But I would suggest: The tree has gone to sleep for the winter.
| The tree was without leaves because the leaves had fallen on the ground.
|
What is this called in English? paper / sheets/ blank page (picture is attached) What is this called in English? 1) page 2) sheet 3) blank page I'm a little confused about the acceptable name. Context: "Do you want one ( here is one of this three options ) to write down the exercise?" <Q> There isn't a single word for this unless you exclude "paper" from the count. <S> But both "lined paper" and "notebook paper" should be understood to mean this type of paper. <S> Without the lines, it is is typically called "blank paper" or "copy paper" (used to be "typewriter paper", but I doubt it is called that by many nowdays). <A> In American English, one would most likely say Do you want a (blank) piece of paper. <S> or Do you want a (blank) sheet of paper. <S> Notice <S> I said <S> a and not one . <S> When we are offering people just one of a particular thing, we usually say/use the indirect article if we name the thing, as in this case. <S> If we don't name the thing, we say Do you want one? <S> Note that the object shown in the photo is also called a (blank) page , but one would not ordinarily ask for a page in your context. <S> The object is also one piece/sheet/page of loose leaf paper if all the pieces/sheets/pages are separate and not attached to each other, as they are in a bound notebook . <A> Are you talking about a single piece of paper, that's not attached to a book? <S> If so, don't use either "page" or "blank page", because a page is a sheet of paper bound inside a book. <S> Technically, a page of paper is only one side of a sheet. <S> If you wanted to talk about the sides of a single loose piece of paper, you'd just say the "side of the paper". <S> Thus "page" is not used in the context of single pieces of paper. <S> You could use: (blank) sheet of paper (blank) piece of paper <S> And because "sheet" is so specific of a word, sometimes people drop "of paper" in "sheet of paper" (blank) sheet <S> I guess you could technically do the same with "piece of paper", but "piece" is too vague, so people don't usually drop "of paper". <S> P.S.Wikipedia tells me the technical term is a "leaf of paper", but nobody says that in daily use. <A> If you look at a package of such paper, it will say (for example) <S> 1000 sheets . <S> page generally refers to an already printed piece of paper, such as in a book or magazine. <S> If a page in such book or magazine were blank (no printing), that would be a blank page . <A> This is called "loose leaf paper". <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_leaf <S> Typically loose leaf paper has straight blue lines with pink margin lines. <S> This type of paper is normally sold in packs of 100 or 200 sheets and are not necessarily sold loose which means they can be torn out of notebooks with perforations. <S> Loose leaf generally has three holes so that the piece of paper can fit into a three-ringed binder. <S> Weird name? <S> Yes, but that is what it is. <S> At least, in English. <S> (I have also heard it casually called "notebook paper" but that is more vague, and could mean anything. <S> Loose leaf paper would imply the holes and the lines you are speaking about more specifically.) <A> It's called 'a lined sheet of paper' in UK English. <S> Or 'lined paper'.
| Any piece of paper used for writing would be called a sheet .
|
Phrase meaning "Got more than I deserved" I'm missing out on a word that I recently read in an essay. It meant more than what the receiver deserved. Used in context : The doting professor gave me the {{Insert Word}} title of The Next Stephen Hawkings. Of course I was flattered but I did not believe it to be true. PS: I've been told "generous" might be the word. But I think it was different and caught the essence of the matter well. <Q> "Honorary title" is the phrase you're looking for. <S> This means that while the title is not strictly earned or completely accurate it is being used as a token of affection and respect. <S> For example, Frank Sinatra was called "The Chairman of the Board" even though he was a singer and not a business tycoon. <S> However, I don't think you should be using "title" in this context since that implies a degree of formality that isn't warranted. <S> And it's this implied formality that's causing the problem. <S> A better phrasing would be " <S> My professor gave me the nickname of The Next Stephen Hawking" or, better yet, "My professor nicknamed me The Next Stephen Hawking". <S> Using "nickname" instead of "title" conveys that a professor is doting on a promising young student and is only using the name "The Next Stephen Hawking" in a semi-serious (if complimentary) manner. <A> How about flattering which means censorious insincerely praising as in <S> Many religious organizations of our time have various flattering titles and addresses which are given to their leaders such as Your Eminence, Most Reverent, Worshipful Master . <S> However, I'd rephrase my sentence and use too flattering a title, [the title] as in <S> Some have given him the appellation of the Moliere of Italy, but this perhaps is too flattering a title. <S> I don't intend to be rude <S> but if you badly feel that you don't deserve this title, you can use undeserved . <S> According to Macmillan Dictionary, if something is undeserved, you get it although you should not, because you have not done anything to deserve or to cause it as in <S> He has an undeserved reputation for being difficult to work with. <S> an undeserved victory. <A> Though, I would like to correct a few errors in your passage: <S> The doting professor gave me the exorbitant title of "The Next Stephen Hawking". <S> Of course I was flattered, but I did not believe it to be true.
| Perhaps the word that you are looking for is exorbitant or excessive .
|
Make exception for (X) in (Y) I've tried to parse this statement, but it was really hard, and neither I can understand it: An office culture that makes exceptions for remote people results in second-class citizenship, putting a muzzle on your potential. Please Explain It in a plain English. <Q> Remote workers are not as "visible" as on-site workers and may be less able to work office politics. <S> That could include making fortuitous contacts in/outside group at the coffee machine or in the lunchroom. <S> A remote worker also may have to battle the idea that he or she is not working as hard as everyone else. <S> The "muzzle on your potential" is directly related to the visibility issue. <S> If a manager has an opportunity to promote, is she more likely to promote someone she sees every day or the remote worker? <S> And so on. <A> {An office culture} subject {that makes exceptions for remote people <S> } rel.clause <S> results predicate in {second-class citizenship} object , {putting a muzzle on your potential} participle clause . <S> First, split this sentence in two by making the participle clause a separate sentence: An office culture that makes exceptions for remote people results in second-class citizenship. <S> It puts a muzzle on your potential. <S> The "it" in the second sentence refers to the "culture" from the first. <S> Now, if you still have trouble with the first sentence, An office culture that makes exceptions for remote people results in second-class citizenship. <S> try simplifying it. <S> The relative clause can be replaced with a conditional clause: <S> If an office culture makes exceptions for remote people, it results in second-class citizenship. <S> Is this easier? <S> Now combine the two new sentences: <S> If an office culture makes exceptions for remote people, it results in second-class citizenship. <S> It [also] puts a muzzle on your potential. <A> Make exception for (X) in (Y) <S> An office culture that makes exceptions for remote people results in second-class citizenship, putting a muzzle on your potential. <S> Because of the way the title of this question is phrased <S> (see above),I think the reason that the Original Poster is confused is that the noun phrase after for is remote people , not remote people results . <S> The word results is a verb in this sentence. <S> When we use it in the [verb + preposition] phrase result in , it means something similar to leads to or causes . <S> We can rephrase the sentence like this: If an office culture makes exceptions for people who work remotely, this leads to second class citizenship damaging their true potential. <S> We can parse the original sentence like this: <S> [An office culture that makes exceptions for remote people] results in [second-class citizenship, putting a muzzle on your potential].
| The idea is that if a company allows some workers to work remotely (from home or another office), they are often not treated as well as workers who are on-site.
|
A verb for expelling mucus from nose with force The winter is 'on', and we all are getting cold. Being a doctor, I know that if you don't expel the mucus accumulated in your nose, you are likely to get an infection. Anyway, facts aside, how do I instruct my daughter to expel the mucus from her nose with force? Note that in this process, we close our mouth tightly and exhale air from the nose with force so it expels all the mucus from there. (Yuk! But I need a verb!) I don't think sneeze is a good word. Because it's involuntary and it involves both the mouth and nose. But here, it involves only the nose. 'Clean your nose' also comes to my mind but then it is not necessarily blowing out air. Not strictly a verb , I'm open to getting anything though - a noun, idiom etc. <Q> Most people say "I need to blow my nose", or "please blow your nose", which means to expel mucus by voluntarily exhaling forcefully through the nose. <A> To blow one' s nose or to clear the nose <A> Colloquially (when nothing is used to catch the mucus), this is known as a snot rocket . <S> Which YouTube describes as, "A jet of mucus deliberately expelled from one's nostril. <S> " Seldom is the act of blowing one's nose done without a handkerchief or a tissue, but if you are you're doing snot rockets . <S> Sorry, it's too late to go back and get some tissue. <S> Just do a snot rocket and wipe what's left on your sleeve; I won't tell anyone.
| I think the idiom you're looking for is "to blow one's nose".
|
Looking forward to see you vs Looking forward to seeing you? When learning grammar in school, I was taught that any verb after the word "to" should be in present tense and no participles. i.e. To play instead of to playing, or to sleep instead of to sleeping etc. So, which sentence is correct? Looking forward to see you. or Looking forward to seeing you. <Q> There's two different things going on here, both of which use the word to , which is probably what's confusing you. <S> The rule your teacher taught you applies to infinitives, in the context of sentences where there are two verbs, like <S> I like to run. <S> In this case, to is known as a "particle," which is basically a word that doesn't fit into nice grammatical categories, but has some meaning. <S> I like to running. <S> Is not correct. <S> However, what's happening here is that to is a preposition connected to the adverb forward , which is modifying looking . <S> You look forward to nouns. <S> These sentences are all acceptable: <S> I look forward to my wedding. <S> I'm looking forward to the weekend. <S> I was looking forward to this weekend, but I got sick. <S> So in this case, you have to use a gerund, the noun form of a verb following forward to . <S> In English, the gerund is identical to the present progressive, so you get sentences like <S> I look forward to seeing you. <S> I look forward to meeting you. <S> I'm looking forward to dogsledding this winter. <S> Each of these sentences are acceptable, and use a gerund (verbal noun). <S> You can't use other forms of the verb after the preposition to , you can't say: I'm looking forward to see you. <S> I'm looking forward to saw you. <A> "to" belongs to two different word classes. <S> It can be a preposition + noun/pronoun as in "to someone/to something". <S> And it can be the infinitive particle as in "to be, to have, to do". <S> So it is no good learning "to look forward to" because the learner does not know what follows, a noun or an infinitive. <S> The proper way is to learn "to look forward to sth (something). <S> Then it is clear that a noun or gerund must follow and not an infinitive. <A> Here "to" is not the infinitive. <S> Here "to" is a preposition and after a preposition either a noun comes or a pronoun, and a gerund is also a form of noun. <S> That's why the structure of this sentence will be " <S> I look forward to seeing you. <S> " Here "seeing" is a gerund. <S> Let's take another example: I am looking forward to work. <S> Is this correct? <S> Yes, it is absolutely correct. <S> Now I'll tell you why this non-"ing" is correct. <S> As I said that "to" is a preposition and after a preposition only a noun, pronoun or gerund comes, so "work" is a noun as well as verb.
| The verb following to is in the present tense, as is expected.
|
Perfect Modals [The Usage of Must, Might and Should] I still don't know what the difference between those perfect modals, especially between "might", "should" and "must". It was wrong of Glen to be so rude. He ______ (not behave) that way. Something ______ (happen) to Steve. He always calls when he's late. Especially for sentence 1, why don't we use must? In my opinion, I think everyone who became rude is actually wrong. It's like "should" = something that you have to do/something right, but if you ignore, it doesn't matter. While "must" = Something that you have to do, and if you ignore it, you will face the consequences. Why do I use "must"? Because, I think on this problem "It was wrong of Glen to be so rude.", we can see the consequences. Think about it, when someone being rude, no one want to see him nor talk to him. There is a consequences. <Q> First, it is necessary to distinguish epistemic from deontic uses of the modals. <S> Epistemic uses are when the speaker is referring to their own assumptions or hopes about a situation not known for sure: "He must be there by now". <S> "They couldn't have missed us, could they?" <S> "I should be able to see him (when I go to town next wek)". <S> In this kind of use, the differences are mostly just of strength: "must" > "should" > "could" > "might/may". <S> Deontic uses are about the possibilities, potentialities and obligations in reality. <S> " <S> He must get there somehow", <S> "They couldn't miss us: we were standing there waving". <S> "I should be able to see him (now), but there's something in the way". <S> In this kind of use, the modals differ in quality as well as strength. <S> " <S> "Can" and "could" (which mostly functions as a past of "can") are about ability and potentiality; and informally, about permission. " <S> May" and "might" are about possibility, or uncertain intention; and "may" also about permission. <A> must is often used when it comes to an obligation made by the speaker. <S> In the first sentence, you can use must <S> but it's not an obligation. <S> You use <S> should in that case. <S> Note that we want to show a disapproval of a past action <S> , so we use should have , hence: <S> It was wrong of Glen to be so rude. <S> He shouldn't have <S> behaved that way. <S> In your second sentence, when you have the certainty about an action in the past, you use must have , Something <S> must have happened to Steve. <S> He always calls when he's late. <A> First, all can be used in different contexts: as order/advice, or as suspicion. <S> must is stronger than should <S> and should is stronger than might . <S> In the order/advice context: Might is the weakest advisory: 'You might want to take an umbrella, the sky is clear, but the weather was tricky recently.' <S> Should is stronger: <S> 'These clouds look really nasty. <S> You should take an umbrella, it's going to rain soon.' <S> Must is 100% strength. <S> 'It's raining cats and dogs, you must take an umbrella." <S> But they also appear as 'guessing.' <S> These fluffy clouds might be foreposts of a storm front. <S> With cloud cover this heavy, it should rain later today. <S> See that wall of falling water, whirring over downtown? <S> It must be a tornado down there! <S> Caveats: 'must' is very frequently used as hyperbole, often you'll encounter people using 'must' in contexts where 'might' would be the correct thing to say, just to express extra worry. 'should' implies desire or expectation, not a fear. <S> When you say "something might have happened to Steve" or "something must have happened to Steve" you're expressing a worried suspicion. <S> You'll say "something should have happened to Steve" only if you hate Steve.
| Must" and "should" are about obligation, or necessity, with "must" stronger than "should".
|
Who needs a life? or who need a life? I am debating this with a friend, but we couldn't come to an agreement,so I came here for you to help me on deciding which sentence is correct. <Q> "Who needs a life" is the correct usage in this case. <S> Think of " who needs a life " as a short version of " who is that person [singular] that needs a life ", and it should make more sense. <A> If you are using the word "who" as a noun corresponding to a group of people, or when you are just using it to ask a question about a group of people. <S> "Who" is plural, specifically when you're asking questions such as "who are they" or "who are they going to help," or if you are going to use "who" to specify a group of <S> people--> " <S> Those who have no water should be given some. <S> " If you'd like to talk directly to a group of people though, "who" is always a singular noun. <S> "Who will be coming to the party," or, "who here wants a drink." <A> Singular Subject --> verb stem plus 'S' Plural Subject --> verb stem without 'S' <S> Singular subjects: <S> He, she, it, who, Joe, the doctor <S> Plural subjects: We, they, the doctors <S> The exceptions: I & you use the plural verb form Who needs a life? <S> He needs a life. <S> She needs a life. <S> The doctor needs a life. <S> Also, I need a life. <S> You need a life. <S> We need a life. <S> They need a life. <S> And the doctors need a life.
| "Who" in a question is always considered a singular subject, unless the object is explicitly plural, as in "who are they".
|
Difference between "I went to the toilet" and "I had gone to the toilet" toI was in class room and wanted to go for toilet. So without taking permission of my teacher I went to toilet. When I returned, my teacher asked me Where did you go? . And I answered. I went to toilet. But after that one of my friend come to me said I should have used I had gone to toilet. So I explained him that had should be use when we talking about past of past, but here is only one past.For this he said there are two past. i.e.1) You went to toilet and 2) You returned to class. So my question is which version of answer is correct here? Why? <Q> Your version of the answer is correct, because when you were answering the teacher's question, you both were in the present. <S> So only I went to the toilet. <S> .. <S> is okay. <S> If you were relating this whole story later to somebody, then you might use the Past Perfect: <S> When I returned, the teacher asked me where I had been . <S> I replied that I had gone to the toilet. <S> The Past Perfect is possible because you are retelling this story now. <S> The moment when the teacher asked you is in the past, and the moment then you visited the toilet is in a deeper past. <S> Grammar terminology: my second example uses "backshifting" of tenses. <S> More specifically, this is called "a backshift in reported speech " (here's another helpful explanation ). <A> "I had gone to the toilet", means I was wanting to go to the toilet some time ago, or a while ago, after you were planning to and then did. <S> "I had been to the toilet" is very similar. <S> The first one is like I had been on a journey and succeeded, the second means I had a task and had completed it. <S> Very hard to explain exactly. <S> I was born and grew up in Australia <S> , I am a writer and know my English inside out. <S> "I went to the toilet" is perfect. <S> "I had been to the toilet" would be perfect if you were telling a story later, and then said, "After this," or, "after that, then this.." <S> x and y happened. <S> I can't explain why this would be perfect. <A> If you say "I had gone to the toilet", this means you were still in the toilet and had not yet returned to class. <S> For example: I missed the teacher's explanation because I had gone to the toilet. <S> If you went to the toilet and came back you had been to the toilet: the teacher asked me where I had been. <S> I replied I had been to the toilet.
| "I went to he toilet" means I went to the toilet just a short time ago, or just a short while ago, or just then.
|
What is the person who takes minutes in a meeting called? What do we call a person who takes the minutes in a meeting? Is it a minute taker, reporter? <Q> For the sake of providing an answer, the appropriate answer is "minutes taker", which you provided in your question. <S> Minute taker <S> A minutes taker is the attendee at meeting whose role it is to record the minutes of the meeting. <S> The note taker may be a formal, professional note taker, whose only job is to take notes, or they may be an active participant in the meeting who has taken on the role for that specific meeting. <S> Take note: A Company Secretary is a person who is supposed to keep the records of a company (for reference, retrieval, etc.). <S> Of course there are other definitions (responsibilities & functions); just want to point out that it is not necessary that a company secretary is always a minutes taker. <S> (This is based on what I notice every time I attend a board meeting) <A> "Note taker" and "secretary" are common terms in the United States. <S> These terms are used for casual meetings. <S> On formal committees with formal titles such as "President", "Vice President", and "Treasurer", the "Secretary" is responsible for the taking of the minutes, and for reading a summary of the minutes at the following meeting. <S> (If the committee has a hired staff, a staff member often takes the minutes. <S> The "Secretary" is responsible for whether the task was done correctly, and for reading the summary at the next meeting.) <A> That person who records all the information in a meeting is called a Company Secretary. <S> (Abbreviated as CS .) <S> Definition of a Company Secretary from businessdictionary : <S> Officer appointed by the directors of a firm as responsible for ensuring that firm's legal obligations under the corporate legislation are complied with. <S> His or her formal duties include (1) calling meetings, (2) recording minutes of the meetings, (3) keeping statutory record books, (4) proper payment of dividend and interest payments, and (5) proper drafting and execution of agreements, contracts, and resolutions. <S> Reporter, on the other hand, is a person who writes news stories for a newspaper, magazine, etc., or who tells people the news on radio or television. <S> - Merriam-Webster <S> EDIT : <S> I am not saying that only a CS can take minutes in a meeting. <S> It can be a person appointed by a chairman also. <S> But, It is is generally a CS or a secretary(of a committee or company) in India who records the meeting. <S> A minute-taker can also be a CS or secretary or any other person who records the meeting. <S> But I have rarely heard the term "minute-taker." <A> From a page of Meeting Tips : The scribe's job is to record what happened, especially the decisions reached and committments made. <S> See also this answer on English. <S> SE. <A> In my organisation they are called RAPPORTEUR. <S> who is a person appointed by the organization to report o the proceedings of the meeting. <A> In the Episcopal Church, the Registrar is the position on the Vestry specifically tasked with taking minutes at Vestry meetings. <S> He/ <S> she is elected from within the Vestry and also responsible for reviewing previous minutes at the beginning of each meeting.
| The person who takes meeting notes is the scribe .
|
When should I use plural form of the noun after the numeral? Which is correct: "one hundred and one apple" or "one hundred and one apples"? The first version seems more likely, but there are "101 Dalmatian s ". <Q> Consider a sentence where the apples are the subject. <S> One hundred and one apple rolls down the street. <S> That sounds pretty strange. <S> A disagreement with the verb would be even worse. <S> It's more than one apple, so it should be plural. <A> Plural form -> greater than one. <S> Hence, 'one hundred and one APPLE S ' is CORRECT. <S> (101 > 1) <A> That said, if you must spell out the number for some reason, the noun should agree with the entire value, not just the last digit: one hundred and one apples . <S> You may find some style guides that recommend omitting the <S> and : one hundred one apples .
| A good way to handle this is to simply use numerals, particularly for three-digit numbers: 101 apples .
|
What's the difference between "take out", "take from" and "take out from"? Can I always use any of these phrases, or is there a difference ? For example: I took it out of the box. I took it from the box. I took it out from the box. <Q> puts the emphasis on the source / place <S> take out from <S> does both. <S> Depending in which aspect you want to emphasize, choose accordingly. <S> Personally, I'd hesitate to use the last one, it sounds a bit cumbersome, but is not wrong. <S> For objects in a box, you can use whichever you like, this won't work for something on a shelf for obvious reasons. <A> FOR THIS CONTEXT: in and out -> location to and from -> direction/movement <S> Compare: <S> The monster shredded his chest and took his heart out. <S> (specifies the change in location of his heart) <S> The monster shredded his chest and took his heart from it (from the chest). <S> (specifies the direction/movement how his heart's location changed) <S> The monster shredded his chest and took out his heart from it (from the chest). <S> (both location change and indicated direction) -> <S> NOTE <S> : if this is to be constructed the way you did with your 3rd sentence, then it'd be, 'took his heart out from it (his chest)' <S> Additional Note: If something is taken away from you, then the direction of the change in location of that object is from you to the person who took it. <S> If something was 'taken out ' from you, you probably have undergone surgery (something's inside you, and <S> 'twas taken outside(i.e., removed). <S> e.g., appendectomy) <A> The first sentence conveys that you did something so that the object is no longer in the box. <S> That could be reaching inside and taking it out. <S> It could also be lifting the box upside down and having it fall out. <S> You may have it, or it may be on the ground next to you. <S> Either way, the object is out of the box. <S> The second sentence conveys that you took it out the box <S> and you have possession of it (unless you then say you put it elsewhere). <S> In other words, the box had it, and now you have it, because you took it from it. <S> The third sentence basically conveys the same as the first, only a little more wordier. <S> You are saying you took the object out. <S> And where did you take it out of? <S> From the box. <S> It's an awkward p
| take out refers to the object being previously inside of something take from
|
have or having after preposition with two objects I'm doubtful whether to use the gerund form or the base form of have in the following sentence: He's afraid of being debunked in public and have/having his reputation ruined. I would choose having as the correct option if I had to, because it acts as the object of the preposition of -- He's afraid of being debunked in public and (consequently, he's afraid of) having his reputation ruined. However, have sounds more natural to me. Which would be grammatically correct in the context of the example above: having or have ? Is it common to use have in these types of sentences in informal speech? <Q> He's afraid of being debunked in public and have/ having his reputation ruined. <S> The coordinating conjunction and connects two gerund-participial clauses : "being debunked in public" and "having his reputation ruined". <S> Both are objects of the preposition of . <S> If we use have instead of having , we will violate the parallelism of this construction. <S> So <S> yes, having seems the correct choice. <S> Your second question, Is it common to use have in these types of sentences in informal speech? <S> ..is very interesting. <S> Maybe being and having clash in some way, and one feels the urge to use have ? <S> Maybe "being" and "having" make the construction feel non-parallel, and one instinctively tries to remodel the sentence to: <S> He's afraid of being debunked in public, and also afraid to have <S> his reputation ruined. <S> ..and this remodeling goes only part of the way in speech, leaving us with <S> He's afraid of being debunked in public and have his reputation ruined. <S> Could it be so? <S> I'm not a native speaker, so <S> I'm not sure. <S> (0: <S> What if we left only being in the sentence? <S> He's afraid of being debunked in public and being left with his reputation in ruins. <S> I feel the urge to get rid of the second being here: <S> He's afraid of being debunked in public and left with his reputation in ruins. <S> Now the parallel structures are "debunked in public" and "left with his reputation in ruins", and they hinge not on of but on being . <S> Maybe because of this ability of being to take on parallel structures one can feel that being and having clash with each other? <S> Just a conjecture. <A> "He is afraid of A and B. <S> " <S> Alternatively, "He is afraid he will be debunked in public and have his reputation ruined." <A> "Having" is the grammatically proper phrase. <S> Gerunds make the phrase a noun phrase, while the bare verb makes it a verbal phrase, and "afraid of" usually takes a noun phrase. <S> The "and" makes "afraid of" apply to both phrases. <S> He's afrad of [noun phrase] and [noun phrase] <S> He's afraid of being debunked in public and having his reputation ruined <S> Compare this to "afraid to" which takes a verbal phrase <S> : He's afraid to get debunked in public and have his reputation ruined. <S> I'm not exactly sure why I see the "and" makes it necessary to parallelize the phrases. <S> Also I'd like to note that in this particular case, both seem decently natural, even if not 100% idiomatic. <S> Nobody is going to notice anything odd if they hear these sentences, because they won't notice that you've essentially made the ungrammatical phrase "afraid of have ...". <S> However, for shorter sentences, it's way worse. <S> For example, one colloquial phrase I've heard a few times is "going and getting". <S> Have you thought about going and getting your wisdom teeth removed. <S> In this case, because the phrase is so short, it's very obvious that "about" is applied to "getting you wisdom teeth removed", so replacing "getting" with "get" would sound very unnatural.
| The verbs used in the phrases A and B need to match form, therefore "being" and "have" would be incorrect together, while "being" and "having" would be correct.
|
When talking to people on the phone for the first time, is it correct to use "This is" and "I am" together A scretary told me to leave a voice message to her boss, because he was busy at the moment when I dialed his office number. So, I left him a message like: Good morning, Mr.XYZ. This is Kitty Lastname. Kitty Lastname is my real name. I am not a machine. I am from the ABC cake shop, which is located a few miles away from your company. I tried to keep in touch with you but your secretary told me that you were very busy. Sir, you had left your XXX under the chair you were sitting... My teachers used to tell us never use "I am" on any phone call conversations, so I am very not sure whether I was wrong to say "this is" and then "I am" together in the above voice message. Please help me. <Q> Your teacher probably meant that native speakers do not usually answer the questions: <S> Who's this? <S> or With whom am I speaking? <S> / <S> Who am I speaking with? <S> on the phone <S> by saying I am (name) . <S> Instead, a native speaker would usually say This is (name) when first identifying oneself. <S> And this is what Kitty does, in your example. <S> So your example is correct on this usage also. <A> This is Kitty. <S> I am the manager of XYZ cake shop. <S> and This is Kitty, the manager of XYZ cake shop. <S> are equivalent, and perfectly acceptable English usage over the phone (and in person, in written correspondence, etc.). <S> While a 40 year veteran diplomat might be more formal, 99.9% of the English speaking world consider this a perfectly acceptable way to get to the point politely. <A> This question, and the answer (by User1) which is currently the highest rated, seems very weird to me. <S> I've never before heard this rule to avoid "I am" when on the phone. <S> When people ask for me by name, I might say "This is", but probably say "I am" more frequently (because it is slightly faster). <S> "I am" sounds a bit more personal; perhaps the older generation preferred more formality when communicating in a less personal fashion, like over the phone? <S> But today, salespeople are certainly encouraged to connect emotionally with people, in order to bond. <S> Nobody has ever expressed any discomfort with me using "I am".
| And, after first saying This is Kitty , it is absolutely correct to provide additional information about oneself by using I am...
|
Meaning of "Chucking an ice cube into the path of a forest fire"? "Please don't get angry," I throw out as a preemptive sally, even though it feels a bit like chucking an ice cube into the path of a forest fire. What does it mean here? <Q> ... feels a bit like chucking an ice cube into the path of a forest fire. <S> feels a bit like frequently means a figure of speech follows. <S> chucking means throwing , but suggests lack of precision. <S> So it would mean throwing something in a general direction with no specific target. <S> an ice cube into the path of a forest fire. <S> Presumably one would do this to extinguish a fire, but a forest fire has so much energy that it will melt the ice cube and boil away the water with barely any delay. <S> The effort of extinguishing a forest fire with an ice cube will have no effectiveness. <S> It might feel that the thrower has contributed something, but it is so minor as to be only symbolic. <A> This quotation is using a metaphor. <S> (Specifically, it uses a simile. <S> A simile is a metaphor that uses "like" or "as" to compare things. ) <S> A forest fire "rages". <S> It is huge, and dangerous. <S> It can be "contained" by major interventions (such as back-burning, or dumping huge loads of water or foam). <S> A tiny fire (like a candle wick) can be put out by dropping an ice cube on it. <S> Dropping an ice cube on a grease fire is likely to make it worse. <S> Chucking (throwing) <S> an ice cube at a forest fire is likely to make a tiny sizzle, but otherwise have no effect. <S> The author is saying that once the other person gets angry, their rage is very difficult to control. <S> Saying "Please don't get angry" is very unlikely to prevent them from raging out of control. <A> The equivalent from Iceland is "Pissing on a lava flow." <S> Which is to say, to try to slow down a natural disaster with utterly inadequate means. <A> A forest fire contains a vast quantity of hot flame. <S> If you were to chuck (throw) an ice cube into a forest fire, it would have no effect on the forest fire. <S> The ice cube would be completely destroyed in moments.
| chucking an ice cube into the path of a forest fire means "doing something that will make absolutely no difference to the situation" A more common way of phrasing it is "throwing a snowball into the fires of hell" An ice cube contains a very small amount of cold water.
|
Does "those entering adulthood" mean "the people who enter adulthood"? Source : Those entering adulthood now will form the backbone of Chinese society at a pivotal moment, as the ranks of the elderly grow rapidly and as the economy faces new strains, including a shortage of workers. Does "those entering adulthood" mean "the people who enter adulthood"? Is it a acceptable word-formation? I do want to have a grammatical explanation on that. <Q> The word those is a demonstrative pronoun or determiner , and the sentence implies (but actually omits) <S> the noun it refers to. <S> For example, a more explicit sentence might start with: <S> Those people entering adulthood... <S> Those <S> who are entering adulthood... <S> Those people who are entering adulthood... <S> However, the phrase as quoted is a correct idiom, and sounds appropriate in the context of an oratorical or political speech. <A> Those who enter childhood...... <S> Who enter childhood is a relative clause or adjective clause that modifies the subject "those". <S> According to grammar, this clause can be reduced by replacing "who enter" with the present participle "entering" as follows: Those entering childhood........ <A> It's worth pointing out that time is a factor in these phrases. <S> "The people who enter adulthood" implies that it refers to any person who enters adulthood at any point. <S> However, the context of the sentence is that it is referring specifically to those in the transitional phase at this point in time. <S> " <S> Those entering adulthood now will form the backbone of Chinese society at a pivotal moment", implying that those who entered adulthood before were too early, and will be too far through their lives at the pivotal moment, and those who have yet to enter adulthood will be too late to play such a pivotal role.
| In the sentence you quote, the phrase in question certainly sounds fine to me as a native speaker.
|
Words to describe the situation in which my diary book has a few fresh pages left I bought a few diary books some time ago. Each diary book has 60 pages. I like writing diary, but my diary book only has a few fresh pages left, which means I have to write my diary in a new one very soon. Given that situation, I am trying to describe it using the words I have learned from school. Here it is: (1). My diary book is about to use up. But I think (1) can not fully describe my situation, because it can not tell people that my diary book only has a few pages left to write on. Can you help me please? <Q> Instead of "fresh pages" you should use "blank pages". <S> Then you could write: <S> My diary (book) only has a few blank pages left. <S> I will need to start a new one soon. <S> or My diary (book) is almost full. <S> I will need to start a new one soon. <S> Also you don't really need "book" in these sentences, because a diary is generally understood to be a book. <A> Correcting what you were trying to say in your question, I would say: My diary is almost used up. <S> But these sound slightly clearer: <S> My diary is almost full. <S> My diary is almost finished <A> My diary has very few blank pages left; I shall be starting a new one soon. <S> There are only a few blank pages left, I shall have to start a new book soon. <S> I wonder if I write very fast I will finish this diary before it runs out. <A> You could also refer to the blank pages as "space [to write]". <S> For example: I'm running out of pages in my diary. <S> I'm running out of space in my diary. <S> My diary is running out of space. <S> My diary is running out of pages. <A> My diary's blank pages are about to run out. <S> So it's time to get a new one. <S> or My diary's pages are almost filled up. <S> So it's time to get a new one. <S> I think you can convey, what is in your mind with this sentences.
| I would say either "I'm running out of fresh pages in my diary" or "My diary is running out of fresh pages", except that instead of "fresh pages" I would say "blank pages" or "pages to write on", or simply "pages", since it's implied that diary pages are for writing (unless it's someone else's diary).
|
Difference between a "block" and a "building" in this situation Here is a brief description about my residence: There are around fifty apartment buildings in ABC Garden. Each building has thirty stories, and there are 10 flats in each story. One day, a stranger spoke to me telling that he was my new neighbour. He told me something like this,"...we live in the same block. " I am wondering if he was trying to tell me that we live in the same building but on different floors? Or A block is equivalent to a building in English language? <Q> A block isn't typically equivalent to a building in American English. <S> It means something a bit different. <S> In American English, a block signifies a square (or possibly rectangular) area surrounded on all sides by roads. <S> You'll typically find these in downtown areas of cities, not in the suburban areas. <S> Here's a concrete example to make this clearer. <S> Here is a random subsection of Brooklyn (in New York City) <S> taken from Google Maps : <S> Each of those rectangular sections is called a block. <S> Typically, one would say that they live on the same block. <S> He was trying to tell you that he lives a couple of buildings away, but on the same block. <A> We live in the same block. <S> The noun block is used in varied senses. <S> Among them, it also means a large building divided into separate units, such as flats/apartments, offices, or shops. <S> Here, it has been used in this sense. <S> But as we are referring to our neighbor, it is most probably that the sentence means that we live on the same floor of the building. <A> Block here refers to the area or surrounding where your building is located. <S> Alex has provided a detailed answer too. <S> I would like to add another perspective. <S> Let us not take the literal meaning of a block, on a contextual note he would have referred to "living close by" or "living in the same neighborhood".
| The same block means the same building; It may mean that we live on the same floor or different floors of the same building.
|
Should a verb after "any" be singular or plural? While I'm aware of Should nouns after "any" be singular or plural? it does not quite answer my question. I have a simple sentence: If any of the devices was not switched off, do something. Is there supposed to be was or were ? I was thinking about was since it could be rephrased as: If any one of the devices was not switched off, do something. But maybe that does not make any sense at all. Also, this is for a technical documentation where more formal language is preferred, not sure if that makes any difference. <Q> "I will marry any girl who answers my email. <S> " There are many possible girls out there, but I am presumably only going to marry one of them. <S> "Any employees who work overtime will receive a bonus. <S> " Many employees might qualify. <S> In your example, the word "of" makes it so that it is not clear whether it is possible for many devices to be left on. <S> That is, if you had said, "If any device ...", "device" is singular, so clearly a singular verb is called for. <S> The question then is, in context, is it only possible for one device to be left on, or could many devices be left on? <S> I'd guess many, in which case the verb should be plural. <A> If any of the devices was not switched off, do something. <S> The use of the singular form of the verb "was" after "any of the devices" in the sentence presented is correct grammatically, but it's more formal. <S> In informal English, you usually use the plural form of the verb "were" as follows: <S> If any of the devices were not switched off, do something. <S> For detail: Please see the following link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/any <A> In your statement, 'If any one of the devices was not switched off, do something.' <S> , "ONE" is the subject and not ANY, your sentence was correct and the answer for your question was correct because "any" is subjunctive. <S> Other is the response to 'Any DEVICE..' <S> Device is the subject, not any but <S> the explanation itself is correct, "any" is subjunctive. <S> Sentences: <S> Any ONE is green. <S> One is green. <S> Any is green. <S> Any are green. <S> Thanks. <A> Your question about the sentence you gave as an example does not involve singular or plural. <S> "If" makes the sentence conditional and therefore the subjunctive is used. <S> There is no "was" in the subjunctive. <S> If I were, if he were, if they were, if any were. <S> All of these take the BE present tense subjunctive which is "were."
| "Any" can be either singular or plural depending on the context. If you had said, "If any devices ...", then a plural verb would be called for.
|
Is there any phrase or idiom meaning "I wish you were there too" or "it was good if you were there also"? In Persian we have an idiom literally meaning "I wish you were there too" or "it was good if you were there also". For example, if you had been in party and a friend had not been there you may say to him/her "I wish you were there too". Is there any idiom or expression in English with the same meaning? The gloss of the expression is: Your place was empty. <Q> That's a really nice idiom, I wish we had something similar. <S> I guess we could all agree to start using it, maybe it would catch on! <S> As far as I know there is no direct equivalent in English. <S> The two closest I can think of are: A person who is on holiday somewhere nice might say to a friend 'I wish you were here' <S> although it's a bit of a cliché, often thought of as a nothing phrase to write on a post card On seeing a friend after an event you might say something like "we missed you at the party last night" <S> But neither really captures the sentiment of your Persian idiom I think. <A> I would say: I wish you could have been at the party. <S> The translation does not seem to work, because the "place" (where the party was) was not really empty, just one less person there. <S> So the focus needs to be on "you" (the friend), and not the location. <A> We do sometimes use a phrase very similar to what you mention: "Fred's seat was empty." <S> But this usually means that he has died or could not be present because of some great tragedy, and not just that he missed a party because he was busy somewhere else. <A> The closest thing I can think of is the expression: <S> It wasn't the same without you. <S> But this is generally used in the context of events that the person is usually at, as in <S> I guess we'll gonna keep having our weekly poker night after you move to New York for your new job, but it just won't be the same without you.
| We usually say, "I wish you had been there" or "You should have been there" or "You would have liked the party" (or whatever event).
|
Why does "if it weren't for XXX" mean "if XXX didn't exist"? How has "if it weren't for" got the meaning of use this when you would do something different if a particular situation did not exist now (the definition of "if it weren't for" in LDOCE) ? EDIT 18 NOV If we take "it" as "the situation" and "for" as "because of" as suggested by athlonusm, "if it weren't for XXX" will mean "if the reason for it isn't XXX even though I know it is in reality". Then for example If it weren't for music, world would be a dull place. will mean If the reason for it isn't music even though I know it is in reality, world would be a dull place. It sounds illogical, doesn't it? Since the answers posted so far are explaining mainly what the subjunctive mood is, I have to emphasize that I know the basic meaning and usage of subjunctive "were". I wanted to show using the above example about music that its current meaning is beyond its literal meaning. I suppose that there is a historic reason for it to have the current meaning. I want to know that. <Q> This is simply a subjunctive construction consisting of "if", "it," "were not", and "for". <S> One of the uses of the subjunctive is to deal with an irrealis situation - the things referred to are not happening as the speaker is talking. <S> If I were you, I would have noticed that. <S> It is recommended that he take two pills a day. <S> The public supports the motion that they be freed. <S> If it weren't for that mistake we might have finished the project on time. <S> John recommended that he try out for the team. <S> http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/subjunctive.html <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive <A> The preposition for can mean because of . <S> In other words, the second thing didn't happen (or isn't happening) because of the first thing. <S> If it wasn't for the life jacket, I would have drowned. <S> This sentence means that he didn't drown because of the life jacket. <S> If it weren't for him, I would probably be living on the streets. <S> This sentence means that if the man hadn't helped, the author would be living on the streets. <S> The author isn't living on the streets because of the man, because of the man's help. <S> I'd keep a garden if it weren't for having too much to do. <S> This sentence means that if there weren't too much work to do to keep the garden, the author would keep the garden. <S> The author isn't keeping the garden because of all the work <S> he <S> /she would have to do. <S> Cambridge Dictionaries: <S> for . <S> The Free Dictionary: <S> if it weren't for . <A> Consider: If my name were Aki, and we were both in the same room, and someone called out "Aki!", we would both turn around. <S> But my name is not Aki. <S> The statement above refers to a hypothetical . <S> It is in that sense that we say "were" refers to that which does not actually exist.
| If it weren't for just means that without intervention of the first thing mentioned in the if-clause, the second thing would have happened (or would happen).
|
What is the meaning of "everyone can help himself"? I read the last part of this answer and can't get what this sentence exactly expresses in the given context. https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/57812/26185 (Put them on your desk openly and write a mail that everyone can help himself .) I would read and understand it as "mail to them that you aren't willing to help them as they can help them selves". But this would a) contradict to the answer's purpose and b) wouldn't even have any pertinence related to the treats. I also can interpret that it probablly trys to state something like "Hey, if you want some treats, just move your self and get over here to grab it" but I anyway can't get it how the given sentence could express that (or something in that way, as I still feel like not getting it right). <Q> The phrase "help yourself" is something of an idiom meaning that there will not be waiters to bring you food, but you should get the food yourself. <S> Or similarly in non-eating situations, that no one will deliver things to you or provide assistance in finding or selecting things, but that you should take care of yourself. <S> I suppose "please help yourself" sounds a lot more polite than "hey, I'm not going to serve you, if you want something, get it yourself". <S> By extension, it also means that a person is welcome to take what is available. <S> Like, "Are these donuts just for the people attending the conference?" <S> "Oh no, they're for anyone. <S> Help yourself." <A> He is referring you to write something to the others to go ahead and take some of the gummy bears to eat, without the need to ask you if they can eat some of the gummies. <A> You may be familiar with a helping : an amount of food that is served to one person at a meal: <S> He asked for a second helping. <S> 1 <S> A <S> helping is what you get when you are <S> helped to something- <S> usually food. <S> So we have the verb to help meaning: to serve food or drink to: <S> Help her to salad. <S> 2 <S> Now if someone doesn't serve you and you take the food yourself, you have helped yourself . <S> The invitation to help yourself is quite common in more informal settings such as bringing food to share to work. <S> The invitation is made more polite by adding please : I brought cookies. <S> They're on my desk. <S> Please help yourselves! :-) <S> 1 Macmillan Dictionary, © Macmillan Publishers Limited 2009–2015 2 <S> Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 <S> K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, <S> Inc. All rights reserved.
| "to help themselves to something" means to go ahead and serve yourself with or take some of the something without asking.
|
What does "it" refers to and what does the metaphor mean? " For all the EU’s flaws, she does not treat it as a punchbag , but rather as a pillar of peace and prosperity." This sentence is extracted from the economist , and the link is attached below. I cannot understand whether "it" refers to "all" or "flaws". If it refers to "flaws", why not use “them”. I remember that my teacher told me when there is an "all", whether using a single verb or a plural verb depends on the following word of "all" which, in this case, is "flaws". If it refers to "all", could you please tell my the reason? Another question is what the meaning of the metaphor of "punchbag" here? Why flaws can be treated as a punchbag? Does it mean Merkel didn't treat the metaphor as a difficulty? This is the whole paragraph: Her personal qualities count for much, too. She has defended Germany’s interests without losing sight of Europe’s; she has risked German money to save the euro, while keeping sceptical Germans onside; and she has earned the respect of her fellow leaders even after bruising fights with them. Most impressively (and alone among centre-right leaders in Europe), she has done this without pandering to anti-EU and anti-immigrant populists. For all the EU’s flaws, she does not treat it as a punchbag, but rather as a pillar of peace and prosperity. The link of the artical is http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21677643-angela-merkel-faces-her-most-serious-political-challenge-yet-europe-needs-her-more <Q> "It" is a " pronoun " which is defined as: grammar : a word (such as I, he, she, you, it , we, or they ) that is used instead of a noun or noun phrase <S> [Merriam-Webster] <S> In "for all the EU’s flaws": All is a determiner and adjective and "it" can't refer to an adjective. <S> flaws are in plural and "it" can't refer to a plural noun. <S> Only they can refer to it. <S> (Sometimes they could refer to a singular noun, but it is not the case here.) <S> The only word "it" can refer to is "EU" and a " punchbag " <S> could only refer to a person or (sometimes) an organization. <S> A person on whom another person vents their anger: all I would be was a punchbag for his escaping fury. <S> [Oxford Online Dictionary] <A> "I cannot understand whether "it" refers to "all" or "flaws"." <S> It refers to the EU . <S> Once you know that the other questions are not an issue. <A> The Oxford online dictionary defines "punchbag" in the sense it is used in your example as 'A person on whom another person vents their anger', <S> but I think you can safely extend that to "... a person or thing ..."
| "It" refers to "EU".
|
Can I use the ‘Present Perfect Continuous’ if the day is not over yet? Yesterday, my English teacher told me that if you use present perfect continuous, you need to have a connection with the present. So, my question is, if it's 10pm, is it wrong If I say to my wife: What have you been doing all morning? <Q> Yes, you need to have a connection to the present. <S> We use Present Perfect Continuous to show that something started in the past and has continued up until now. <S> Example: You have been reading this book for two hours? <S> This means that the person is still engaged in reading the book. <S> if you are asking her this at 10AM, you are actually asking her what she has been doing, let's say, from 7AM till the point of your asking. <S> If you are asking her this at 10 PM , this tense would be wrong. <S> The correct tense would be Past Continuous which we use to talk about some action going on at a certain time in the past. <S> What were you doing all morning? <A> Indeed, the present perfect simple is also used to connect the past event with the present, but its main difference is that it's a completed action. <S> Present perfect continuous <S> We use the present perfect continuous for actions that have been happening recently and repeatedly. <S> We've been playing a new computer game recently . <S> I've been working hard this term. <S> with dynamic verbs to say how long an action has been in progress. <S> (We use for, since or how long. ) <S> Jake has been watching TV for three hours. <S> To explain a current situation in terms of recent events. <S> I'm tired because I've been playing tennis. <S> Note that the continuous form emphasises the action, compare: <S> I've been reading The Hobbit = <S> I'm half away through. <S> I've read The Hobbit = <S> It was great. <A> Language is much more robust and flexible than patterns learned in a textbook. <S> Your sentence is fine if you want to imply that 10pm is still part of your wife's morning. <S> Even if she gets up at 7am but does nothing all day one could ask at 10pm <S> What have you been doing all morning? <S> This might be rather harsh and possibly insulting since you are basically saying that at 10pm it is still the "morning" for your wife. <S> At any rate that is the connection to the present that allows the use of the present perfect continuous. <S> Also, In addition to usernew's statement that "We use the Present Perfect Continuous to show that something started in the past and has continued up until now ", we also use the present perfect continuous to refer to a recently completed action: <S> A: <S> Where have you been? <S> B: <S> I've been running for an hour. <S> B will say this after he has (recently or just) finished running and is now back at home or wherever. <A> here is what is found in oxford Advanced learner's dictionaryThe present perfect is used: to talk about something that happened during a period of time that is not yet finished example:The train has been late three times this week. <S> He still hasn’t visited her. <S> So I think completed action is not the difference
| When using the continuous form, it's an action that began in the past and is still in progress in the present, hence, not yet completed.
|
Is it appropriate to use tailored in this sentence? I have tailored the configuration files so that they can run on two nodes rather than four nodes. Basically, I am trying to say that I have cut short the configuration file so that it can run on just two nodes rather than four nodes. Is tailored a correct word to use here? <Q> Yes, tailor can be used to describe the customization of a computing system. <S> I started by looking up the word on OneLook , a helpful website that provides links to several online dictionaries. <S> One of those links – the one to Wordnik , shows this meaning: <S> To make or adapt (something) for a specific need. <S> I can see why tailor would be a tricky word for a learner, because most of the definitions deal with tailoring suits and clothing. <S> It would be easy to look up that word in a dictionary and wonder if applying it more figuratively to a computer system would be too much of a stretch. <S> Yet Google can provide other examples where the word is used in such contexts, including this sentence from a U.S. Patent (emphasis added): <S> Each user may tailor the configuration file to his or her own needs rather than having to utilize a mass produced configuration file that that may not be suitable for each individual user's needs. <A> I think there's nothing wrong with the sentence grammatically. <S> You can also shorten the sentence by saying: I have tailored the configuration files to run on two nodes rather than four nodes. <A> You customised the files to suit a particular individual situation. <S> Just like a tailor might adjust the size of a suit to fit a customer's individual size and shape.
| Yes, it is appropriate.
|
What to call a certain shape of lips What to call lips which are fleshy (full) and stick out a little bit? I am not sure if 'stick out' is appropriate or not. I mean, the lips making someone with them look sulky (but actually he or she is not). I searched the Internet and it says that such lips are called 'fish lips' or 'prominent lips'. <Q> Fish-lips is derogatory. <S> (Slightly) protruding lips is objective. <S> Pouty <S> lips is descriptive. <S> See this ngram for contexts. <A> In women's fashion/cosmetology that look is called bee stung lips . <S> Sometimes hyphenated bee-stung . <S> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bee-stung http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bee-stung+lips <S> http://www.wikihow.com/Create-Bee-Stung-Lips <A> You can describe them as luscious, or voluptuous, or succulent if you are trying to get that sense of sexiness across. <S> However, if your intention was to simply describe them, then maybe "full" is enough -- but then again lips can be full without being pouty... <A> Yes, 'fish lips' seems to be the word. <S> But I'm not sure whether it's polite to say that. <S> If you are talking about lips those are a bit large and seems to be out of their original space , you may call them 'protruded'. <S> She has protruding lips <S> However, it's my personal opinion. <S> Being a healthcare provider, I have used 'protruding eyes' to refer to eyes coming a bit out of their frame. <S> The same way, we can use this for other body organs. <S> Say 'protruding ribs/knees' etc. <A> For a facial expression, I think what you might want here is Duck Face . <S> The image on the Wikipedia page is not the best, so also check out the Google Image Search . <S> True, this is basically just a person making pouty lips, but "Duck Face" is the in-word right now brought on by all the selfies of girls making this face while trying to "look hot". <S> At this point some people do it as a joke. <S> If you're just talking about someone having larger-than-normal lips, "full lips" works, and "voluptuous <S> " is a common adjective for full lips.
| So, 'protruding lips' may work.
|
What does "join the dots" mean? To get even this far, readers have to make great efforts to join the dots. I encountered this sentence in The Economist . I have looked up the dictionary but still cannot understand the meaning of "join the dots". Could you please help me with that? The whole paragraph is The author seems to be suggesting that tacit mass collusion in history’s greatest crime turned Germans, through fear of their own looming retaliatory victimisation, into fanatics. But this grand hypothesis emerges only in fragmented form from these individual accounts. To get even this far, readers have to make great efforts to join the dots . Many will be left yearning for more help from the author. Source: Fate and furies: How Germans perceived the second world war, The Economist . <Q> Once you connect the dots in sequential sequence in a dot-to-dot puzzle, the picture will be revealed. <S> (Picture by Whitney Waller, CC BY-SA 2.0 )Solution: <A> This essay is a review of the book The German War: A Nation Under Arms, 1939–1945 . <S> The connect the dots <S> puzzle is certainly what this sentence references. <S> From the Wikipedia article: In adult discourse the phrase "connect the dots" can be used as a metaphor to illustrate an ability (or inability) to associate one idea with another, to find the "big picture", or salient feature, in a mass of data. <S> But, as the Economist writer is saying that the author does a poor job of making those leaps between points easy to follow. <S> Mr Stargardt has come close to writing a ground-breaking book. <S> And yet he falls just short. <S> His method of using letters and diaries of ordinary Germans yields unexpected insights, both into the Germans’ humanity and their turn to barbarism. <S> In this excerpt, it shows us that the metaphorical "dots" are likely the letters and diaries quoted in the book. <A> The meaning is "draw conclusions"/"draw the [obvious] inferences". <S> Origin: <S> ~1870s <S> For graphs of which term is prevalent in which English dialect, plot them with Google NGram Viewer . <A> Have you watched or seen the children's show 'Blue's Clues'? <S> Blue is a dog that leaves clues (3 clues per episode, 1 topic/ idea/ answer). <S> After Steve (Blue's owner) collected the 3 clues he will sit on his thinking chair to analyse the meaning behind Blue's clues. <S> That process, I think, is joining/connecting the dots .
| "join the dots" is the British English term, but "connect the dots" is equally used there "connect the dots" is the US English term To be more specific what the article is saying is that it's necessary for a reader of the book he's reviewing to have to follow a series of logical leaps to get from the initial statement to the final result.
|
may not vs. must not Source: Eloquent JavaScript: A Modern Introduction to Programming, 2nd Edition by Marijn Haverbeke Example: Variable names can be any word that isn't reserved as a keyword (such as var ). They may not include spaces . Digits can also be part of variable names— catch22 is a valid name, for example—but the name must not start with a digit. A variable name cannot include punctuation, except for the characters $ and _. may not sounds almost like you may do it if you want to, but if you don't feel like doing it, you may not do it. At least, that's what it sounds like to me. But in programming, there is no place for the may-or-may-not type of attitude. It is always "you must" or your program will be syntactically incorrect and thus won't run. I think that's a very relaxed way to say that you categorically must not do something because it simply will not work if you do. Why not use the modal verb must instead? may not is a very weak type of negation compared to must . Do you think it is totally legal to use may not in the context of exact sciences like math and programming? <Q> You need the permission of the compiler for things to be accepted, and the compiler is denying you that permission. <S> " <S> May I do this?" <S> "You may not." <S> May is just as strong as must. <S> It's only weak in the positive sense, where once you're granted permission, you're not obligated to do it. <A> It's not politeness. <S> In computer languages, there are rules. <S> It's illegal in terms of the rule. <S> Illegal doesn't mean you go to jail. <S> Illegal means it breaks a rule - "contrary to or forbidden by law". <S> Javascript has rules. <S> :) <A> It's not the fact that may needs to be always a formal way to ask or say things, it also stands for possibility. <S> They may not include spaces. <S> It's a possibility for a thing not to happen. <S> They must not include spaces. <S> It stands for without permission , so there's no way for that to happen. <A> They may not include spaces. <S> There's nothing wrong with the sentence if the OP thinks that it's necessary that the spaces are not used. <S> I think "may not" is almost <S> = must not as you use "may not" for saying that something is not possible.!
| May not means it's not allowed.
|
''You're tall as your father" is this sentence absurd? You're as tall as your father. I don't have as much money as you have. If I omit the first 'as' is the sentence absurd or grammatically incorrect? You're tall as your father. I don't have much money as you have. I'm a non-native speaker. The first 'as' isn't needed in my language.So I wonder if I omit the first 'as', is it possible or grammatically incorrect? I know this question is somewhat silly, sorry about that, I'm studying English. <Q> Usually, the first "as" is needed. <S> In both examples, omitting it makes things ambiguous; it's not clear whether you mean "You're tall , as your father [is]" (where the comma is important), or "You're [as] tall as your father", and so forth. <S> It's not strictly ungrammatical, but there's no good reason to leave that word out. <A> You're tall, like your father. <S> Both of you are tall (your height is above-average). <S> You're as tall as your father. <S> You and he are the same height (and you could be of average height, or shorter than average, or taller than average — <S> the sentence does not indicate which). <A> To make this comparison, you need the first "as". <S> I think <S> You're tall as your father would mean "You are tall, like your father is" which is slightly different from the sentence you want to translate. <A> Both two and one "as" are correct but mean very different things. <S> Say I have a million dollars and you have two. <S> We both have a lot of money, but I have less. <S> I can say "I don't have as much money as you have". <S> This compares the amounts of money that we have. <S> One million is a lot, but it is less than two million. <S> Now say I have nothing <S> and you have a million dollars. <S> I don't have much money, but you have. <S> So I can say "I don't have much money as you have". <S> This doesn't compare the amounts of money, it states that one of us has a lot of money, and the other doesn't. <S> It means "I don't have much money, but you have much money". <A> As others have noted, there are other constructs using commas, etc. <S> , that allow you to remove the first "as." <S> It's also true that certain vernacular or colloquial affectations omit it... <S> but the question being asked isn't "is this phrase understandable," it's "is this grammatically correct." <A> I imagine the difference between English, which needs the as in "as much", and the asker's native language, which doesn't, is that "as" can be used in multiple ways in English: <S> In comparisons - and it's the "as" in "as much" that tells me this is setting up a comparison: <S> I don't have as much money as <S> you have. <S> As an explanation, similar to "while", "because" or "so": <S> I don't have much money as <S> you have not paid me for three months . <S> The latter is something people often say in colloquial speech, but it's sometimes frowned upon in formal writing and style guides . <S> As a native English speaker, "as much" primes me that this is a comparison. <S> Without it, on hearing "I don't have much...", I think you're saying you don't have much in absolute terms , not compared to anything. <S> If I heard "I don't have much money as you have" , I'd interpret the "as" as being an explanation for the fact you don't have much money - something like <S> "I don't have much money as [a result of the fact that] you have..." . <S> I'd be wondering what I have that causes you to not have much money. <S> So for the sentence in the title, if I heard: You're tall as your father ... <S> nothing would make me think this is a comparison, and I'd expect the sentence to continue with an explanation of what it is about my father that causes me to be tall. <S> For example: You're tall as your father keeps sprinkling growth hormones onto your corn flakes each morning.
| In grammatically correct English the "as" is required in both cases.
|
To walk while holding/steering a bicycle I couldn't figure out how to express this in English. In Swedish it is called "Att leda en cykel", but directly translating it to English ("to lead a bicycle") seems to mean something different. Google Translate gave me "passing a bike", which also seems to be incorrect according to a Google Image Search (just literally passing). Edit: There seems to be some discussion about which expressions are used in is US and British English. I would love to see a comment about that (US, British or Both) in the answers as well. <Q> Just to check, I did a Google search for "walking his bike along" , and got several hits from news articles and published books, like this one, from a book written by David Baldacci: <S> He breathed the fresh air and flicked a wave to a kid walking his bike along the side of the road. <S> ( Hour Game , 2004) <A> English doesn't have a single common expression for walking next to a bicycle, holding its handlebars and pushing it along next to you. <S> It is a common action that is merely expressed in many different ways. <S> Technically all of these mean the same thing. <S> It is all about where you are directing the reader's attention. <S> " pushing a bicycle" may imply more effort. <S> For example: "pushing the bike uphill" -- Sloane's New Bicycle Maintenance Manual " wheeling a bicycle" feels like less effort -- focusing on the bike's wheels makes it feel faster <S> "I walked Sebastian home, all the while wheeling the bicycle" -- The White Woman on the Green Bicycle or "he walked briskly, wheeling his bicycle by his side" -- 90 CRIME NOVELS <S> " walking a bicycle" puts the focus on the person walking " <S> Bailey tipped his hat and walked his bicycle around the side of the cabin." <S> -- <S> The Bicycle Man <S> "Lou walked his bicycle over to the top of a gentle slope" -- <S> Clueless <S> " Walk your Bike " is common on roadsigns (as mentioned by TRomano in another answer). <S> This is a directive, emphasizing walk instead of ride, meaning that you are not allowed to ride on the sidewalk and must therefore walk your bike. <A> A term would be pushing a bicycle . <A> I've heard wheeling the bike along used before, though Googling the phrase mostly gives pictures/videos of people doing wheelies instead! <S> I did find a few uses, such as this . <S> It's possible that this usage is specific to the UK.
| You can call this walking a bicycle . The different ways to say it have slightly different connotations.
|
Use of "take on some water" The screenshot is taken from Riddick 2013 : I don't think this take on matches the following senses in macmillan: I would just say "We could use some water". Does the phrasal verb convey any subtle nuances? <Q> I don't know this film at all, so I'm just guessing. <S> But I see a spaceship in the background, and the dialogue speaks of "a long haul" = a long journey, so I suspect that "take on" here reflects naval use: when a vessel makes landfall after a long voyage it "takes on" whatever stores are needed to replenish what has been used on the voyage. <S> All foreign vessels bound coastwise must report and enter, upon arrival at any port, within the time required by law; and that if they take on stores, the masters must file sworn manifests of the same and clear before departure, in the manner specified by section 4367 , Revised Statutes, or by section 4197, Revised Statutes. <S> — <S> U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, Synopsis of the Treasury Decision Under Customs and Other Laws , 1896 <S> We stayed on that job for 26 days and then were told to go to Anchorage and take on stores and fuel etc. <S> We spent two days taking on fuel, fresh water and stores and were told to head for San Francisco. <S> —Bob Covey, Memories of a Boatman , 2010. <A> "Take on" is an idiomatic usage with several meanings. <S> When referring to goods, as in the phrase take on board , it's often (but not exclusively) naval or aeronautical and means "to bring something aboard ship." <S> In your example sentence, the word "board" is elided but is strongly implied. <S> This is perfectly acceptable in colloquial dialogue, as the intended placement of the water (e.g. aboard the ship) is clear from the context. <S> In other contexts, you might: <S> Pack luggage to take on board an airplane. <S> Take on (or pick up ) supplies during a long trip. <S> Hear a new idea that you take on board when you internalize it. <S> Watch a jet plane take on fuel. <S> Drive a bus that takes on passengers at each stop. <S> Ride a train that stops to take on freight. <S> In many cases, you can think of "take on board" as having a similar meaning to "load" (e.g. loading supplies, loading passengers, loading freight) but the flavor of the phrase is different. <S> As is often the case with any idiomatic phrase, it can be hard to generalize when the phrase sounds correct to the native ear, and when it sounds like an awkward or ungrammatical construction. <S> In the context of movie dialogue, especially when characters like Riddick or the military tend to speak in clipped but colorful phrases, the text you quoted would make sense and sound appropriate to the characters. <S> On the other hand, it wouldn't be appropriate in the context of how to load your car before or during a long trip. <S> As with all idioms, your mileage may vary. <A> Regarding the leak meaning. <S> It's really literally the same. <S> A leaking boat will take on water (water that was outside the boat is now inside or on board). <S> A boat that takes on water in order to replenish it's stores will also involve taking water that was not on the boat and that water is now inside or on board the boat. <S> For instance, if a leaky boat were in port to also take on water stores, one situation would likely retain the "take on water" phrasing (likely the restoring of supplies) and the other situation would likely be referred to under the rubric of a "leak." <S> Now suppose at the same time, there was a question about confidential information getting out to competitors while in port! <S> Oh my.
| There could really be no confusion over the meaning as context would entirely determine it.
|
What do I do now? Punt! -- what exactly is meant by "punt" here? This a dialogue from the movie The Secret of My Success (1987) Short background story: a young guy from Kansas moves to New York City in high hopes that he will build a more interesting and financially better life. He's already got a job there and the following is what happens to him on his first day of work as he shows up at the office. — Hi, I'm Brantley Foster from Kansas. You hired me. I start work here today. — You're fired, kid. Sorry. We all saw it coming, but we looked for some kind of miracle. Miracle never happened. — What did happen? — Hostile takeover. Ninety percent of the people in this building are out on the street. You are one of those ninety percent. Tough break. — Mr. Forbush, I was counting on this job. What do I do now? — Punt! (and he leaves) I don't seem to be able to figure out what exactly Mr. Forbush, the boss of the company that just went out of business, means by that. <Q> It's an American football reference. <S> It's a common metaphor to describe a change in tactics, typically moving forward into the unknown or less certain future, when you have been unsuccessful in the short term. <S> "A punt will occur is a team has reached fourth down and has decided that instead of attempting to go for a first down, they will give the ball back to the other team by using a punt. <S> This enables the team to push the ball farther down the field, farther away from the end-zone on which their opposition is attempting to score." <S> -- SportingCharts.com In American football each team has four "downs" -- four chances to move the ball forward at least 10 yards toward their opponents end of the field. <S> After three attempts to advance 10 yards, if they don't think they will be successful, they will typically kick the ball as far as they can, setting the other team back, and giving them the chance to re-capture the ball and try again later. <A> I can't claim to speak from an area of great experience here -I'm <S> not much of a sports guy, but here's how I've usually interpreted the expression. <S> To punt is to close your eyes, kick the ball as hard as you can and hope for the best. <S> It's basically the equivalent of giving up on formulating a viable strategy and just blindly swinging as hard as you can. <S> In American football a team that does not think it can score a touchdown may instead chose to give up on scoring and instead punt the ball further downfield to simply put the other team at a disadvantage. <S> So "punting" literally means to kick strongly but usually implies either a lack of strategy, giving up, delaying or gambling. <S> It may have slightly different meanings depending on context. <S> Perhaps the most frequent common usage is to "punt on" an issue or question by leaving it unaddressed. <S> It appears the British (and possibly others) use the phrase to represent a large gamble, but I'm less familiar with this usage and the sports analogy may differ for rugby. <S> Since it is a slang term it may be difficult to say exactly what was intended here, there are a few different interpretations. <S> I suspect in this movie, the boss is telling him that he is screwed, and has no viable strategy remaining. <S> So the boss is probably telling him either to "give up" or "pray". <A> " Punt " also has informal meanings like "goof off", " go for a boat ride ", or "procrastinate instead of working on a difficult problem". <A> It's an old idiom that addresses indecision. <S> My dad used to use a form of it all the time: <S> "If you don't know what to do, punt." <S> Or, "Hey, if you can't make up your mind, punt." <S> It's not a metaphor for kicking the ball down the road, or screwing off, or any of that. <S> It means, "Make up your damned mind and pick something." <S> Punting isn't really being advocated—it's the absurd alternative to making up your mind.
| In politics "punting" is linked to the expression "kicking the can down the road", or dodging responsibility by leaving a mess for someone in the future to clean up.
|
Is it right to use "should have to"? I have encountered this sentence: Universities should have to record sexual violence claims, says expert. Like the OP of this question noted, I believe we could choose either should or have to . So what's the need of using the phrase, instead of the above two options? EDIT : After some googling, I've found that should have to could mean should be expected to or must have to . Are there any other possible meanings? <Q> I think in some contexts it makes perfect sense, for example if evaluating a requirement put upon by a third party. <S> But it is a nuanced way of speaking. <S> If I say "you should have to clean your room before being taken out for ice cream", I'm saying that there should be a requirement that you do the cleaning to get the reward, where perhaps that requirement is not in effect. <S> but maybe I'll put it into effect and am just thinking out loud. <S> Maybe my kids will take the hint and clean their rooms without it needing to be a direct order. <S> Perhaps I'm saying that in earshot of my spouse to see if they agree that it should be a requirement. <S> Or maybe I'm opening it up for discussion and my kids will offer to complete another chore instead and I will find that agreeable. <S> If I tell my kids "you should clean your rooms before going out for ice cream", I am stating it as a request that might be interpreted as a firm requirement, or maybe if you don't I'll be annoyed and only buy you one scoop. <S> Or clearly I want the rooms clean, but if you promise to do so immediately after the ice cream I'm OK with that too. <S> So there is some ambiguity on whether it is a firm directive, but clearly it is something I want to happen. <S> If I tell my kids "you have to clean your room before being taken out for ice cream", it is a simple directive. <S> No clean room, no ice cream. <A> Should has more than one meaning here: in the first case it is from WILL meaning 'intend to,' 'bring my whole will and intention to bear.' <S> You should clean your shoes. // <S> You have to clean your shoes. <S> When it is combined with have to in this sense it means "there ought to be a general rule that..." <S> Everybody should have to read Boethius, Magna Carta, the Gettysburg Address. <S> In your example, which is similar, should should be taken as an ethical assertion, "it is right that they record;" and have to as the legal requirement "they must be compelled to record. <S> " <S> This is a tautology only if all laws are morally uncompromised , and all moral obligations are enshrined in law. <S> (Link to Financial Times) <S> If I should catch you taking sweets, I should have to tell your mum. <A> Have to in this context means be required to . <S> Should in this context is using Merriam-Webster's second definition: 2—used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety , or expediency <S> Your example sentence could therefore be written thus: It would be proper for Universities to be required to record sexual violence claims, says expert. <S> This particular construction pretty much always has this meaning. <S> It can also be used to draw attention to something that is not being done, but the writer believes ought to be done: <S> Police should have to report all violent interactions with the public, but they are not. <A> Actually, it might be it. <S> I’ve recently come across this thread on some twitter account about ‘Stress’ and look what I’ve found. <S> So, in this case I’d consider this particular example as ‘there ought to be a general rule that...’ <A> For me,should + root verb = Suggestion, urge, sharing opinion ... <S> similarly, have to + root verb = <S> Suggestion, urge, sharing opinion... <S> so if should have to + root verb means same as the meaning of 'should + root verb' or 'have to + root verb' then <S> , using 'should have to' is not necessary.
| There is also a possibility that 'should' may used to suggest a remote possibility, a hypothetical situation, 'should' is modal .
|
give information to/on a decision? The purpose of data collection is to give valuable information to/on a future pivot or persevere decision. Is it to or on ? Are both OK? Is there a difference in meaning? <Q> If you give information on (which, as Cookie Monster says, is similar in meaning to "about") <S> a decision, you are giving it to someone (or something) whose job it is to make the decision. <S> What you use is a matter of style. <S> About would be fine. <S> On is a bit less formal. <S> To is a bit unusual, and might be the sort of business jargon used by people who use "spend" and "ask" as nouns, and talk about pivot or persevere decisions. <A> An alternative construct is "The purpose of data collection is to give valuable information for a future pivot or persevere decision." <S> This is slightly vaguer than either "to" or "on", allowing it to provide for meaning either, or both. <A> "to" implies that you're giving information and "decision" is receiving it which is irrational. <S> In your sentence I would say "on" or "regarding".
| There is a slight difference in meaning. If you give the information to the decision, the decision itself is receiving the information. As BobRodes answer says, there is a difference in meaning for each.
|
Usage of 'had' and 'have' I am currently writing an essay about our national hero but I am not sure whether to use 'had' or 'have' in this sentence: He may have died early, but he sure have/had contributed a lot for our country. <Q> If you use has (note that have is used for I, you, we, they ), implies there's a result in the present. <S> If you use had, implies that an event passed before another event in the past. <S> After he died, the contribution he made happened before. <S> Now may have died is for possibility in the past , perhaps dead or not, he made the contribution before. <A> He may have died early, but he sure ? contributed a lot for our country. <S> A verb must always match the number (singular/plural) of the subject. <S> That already rules out "have". <S> A verb must also match the desired tense (present/past/future/...). <S> Your first part of the sentence concerns a person who has already died (present state due to past event; present perfect). <S> The contributions of that person can only be made prior to that past event of death, so they are past contributions. <S> The question is whether you want to convey that those contributions have resulted in a present state ("has contributed") or that they had resulted in a past state ("had contributed"). <A> Neither is really suitable. " <S> Have" is not singular, and "had" sets the contributions too far back in the past, behind some other past event. <S> But the most natural construction here is to simply leave out that word altogether, using the simple past tense. <S> " <S> He sure contributed a lot for our country. <S> " <S> This puts the contributions into the more immediate past (going as far back as needed, but no further). <S> If you want to shift the emphasis a little more, perhaps to allow for better stress in a speech, you could adjust it to use a different auxiliary verb: " <S> He sure did contribute a lot for our country." <S> Again, this is simple past tense. <S> ("Contribute", like all verbs, becomes a bare infinitive after any form of "do".)
| "Has" is possible, if you wish to emphasize that, up to the present day, the contributions have continued to be significant (and imply that they have in fact continued to be made).
|
Placing of "be" vis-a-vis a "...ly" adverb in a sentence I have seen many English writers in India preferring to place "...ly" adverb before "be" in a sentence . They abhor placing "...ly" adverb immediately after "be". For example, they prefer to write: ... this could slowly be done. rather than writing: ... this could be slowly done. Is there a grammatical basis to support such preference? Is the other one wrong? <Q> However, the basic rule comes to this: 1.- place the adverb after the correct form of be. <S> 2.- place the adverb before the verb when there's no be . <S> 3.- place the adverb before the verb when there's no <S> be and after a modal verb . <S> ( can, may, would, could, etc ) <S> 1.- <S> This could be slowly done. <S> 2.- <S> You could slowly do this. <S> 3.- <S> We slowly do this. <A> This could slowly be done. <S> This could be slowly done. <S> Slowly is an adverb of manner. <S> You usually use it in end position such as this could be done slowly. <S> However. <S> It can be used in mid position. <S> Both the sentences presented above are correct. <S> Athough most of the grammar books state to use the adverb after the first auxiliary as in the first sentence, some people use it after the second auxiliary as in the second sentence. <A> The other constructs are not wrong, but they are jarring. <S> In the same way that Yoda's speech is not grammatically wrong - it's just weird and nigh-on unique.
| You can mostly place adverbs wherever you like. The preferred placement in standard English is "This could be done slowly."
|
Is it standard to add "please" after a question? I was in a conversation with a client who asked me, "How are you?" I responded with "I am fine, thank you." I then followed up with, "How are you? Please." My manager asks why I append "please" and says it is not standard. Is she correct or is it OK to use please after my question? <Q> For example: Can you pass me that wrench, please? <S> Could you let me know when he arrives, please? <S> But it is not used when asking simple factual questions <S> , matters of opinion, or idiomatic phrases: Has he arrived yet, please? <S> Do you like those new tools, please? <S> How are you, please? <S> To put it briefly, "please" is used when one asks a question which solicits a favor. <S> In the questions that have been struck out, one solicits a piece of information (and not a favor). <A> Please is for requests <S> Please could you pass me that pencil? <S> Or Could you get the door for me, please? <S> Although note that both of these would be valid, if potentially impolite, without the "please". <S> Not for questions <S> How are you? <S> Or Did your children enjoy your trip on the steam train? <A> Please goes with a request—not with a question—but there are some gray areas. <S> One common case where "please" often follows a question is when an employee begins to ask a customer a series of personal questions. <S> In this case, I think there is an implied request for the customer to provide personal information in this new phase of the interaction: <S> Employee: How can we help you today? <S> Customer: I'd like to open an account. <S> Employee: <S> Wonderful! <S> I'd be happy to open an account for you. <S> What is your name, please? <S> Customer: John Doe <S> Employee: <S> And your home address? <A> In most of the US it is not standard to add 'please' at the end of a question. <S> There are some portions of the Midwest, particularly parts of Ohio, where this is standard practice. <A> It is not required to say "please" after a question unless it is an imperative sentence. <S> However, I think "please" is polite
| As a native speaker of Northeastern US English, I would normally only add please after a question if I was asking for a specific favor or for an object from the person I am questioning.
|
What is the meaning of "would go back"? I am reading a newspaper, and I've encountered the sentence that I can't understand. That is "would go back". I think " I would go back" means "If I return to the past". But the sentence in below is hard to understand. Just in case, I attach whole context. “Name any country in Africa, and I could have found a world-class firm there a decade ago,” says John Page of the Brookings Institution, a think tank, the co-author of a forthcoming book on African manufacturing. “The problem is, two years later, I’d go back and still find just the one firm. In Cambodia or Vietnam, I would go back and find 50 new ones.” How could I understand the meaning of " would go back "? Is there anything word instead of " would go back" ? <Q> This is the past-tense form of will used as a 'future-in-past': that is, something which lay in the future of some past time. <S> In this case the past time is a decade ago, so think of 'backshifting' a present-tense utterance ten years: <S> Right now I could find a world class firm there—but I will go back two years from now <S> and ... <S> ⇓ <S> A decade ago I could have found a world-class firm there—but I would go back two years later and ... <A> In the above sentence, would shows a possibility and action that has not yet occurred. <S> You could rephrase it to: <S> If I had found a (just one) world-class firm in any country in Africa a decade ago, I would find the same company <S> two years later (from a decade ago, 8 years ago). <S> If I had found a (just one) world-class firm in Cambodia or Vietnam a decade ago, I would find 50 new ones <S> two years later (8 years ago). <S> The writer compares Africa (with a low economic growth rate) with Cambodia and Vietnam (with a very high rate). <S> The reason the writer didn't use would have found is he is confident that he could find them (one company in Africa, 50 in the two countries) and actually finding them is not hypothetical. <S> If the writer were not confident, he would use would have found . <A> "would" is the past tense form of will. <S> Because it is a past tense it is used to talk about hypotheses – things that are imagined rather than true. <S> Which is the situation here. <S> Another equivalent phrasing : "If I were to go back to Cambodia or Vietnam now, I would find 50 new firms".
| Would here is used for a subjunctive mood which is used to express various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, obligation, or action that has not yet occurred.
|
When do you use this expression 'I am not a fan of ' I understand the meaning when it is said like 'I am not a fan of Indian food or horror movies' Here, you are a fan of things like movies, food etc. but I do not understand why it is correct to say 'I am not a fan of negativity'. 'negativity' is not a tangible thing. Can we use 'fan' this way? <Q> Colloquially, you can be a fan (or not a fan) of anything, abstract or concrete, tangible or intangible. <S> When it's used colloquially, be a fan of implies "like". <S> I'm a fan of Tom Cruise. <S> ~ The speaker is a fan of the actor. <S> They surely like the actor. <S> I'm not a fan of spicy food. <S> ~ The speaker doesn't like spicy food much. <S> Here is a good example showing that the expression "a fan of" can be used with virtually anything. <S> It's from the movie Edge of Tomorrow <S> (the quote is from www.moviequotesandmore.com <S> ): <S> [as they drive along the main road in France] <S> Cage: You don’t talk much. <S> Rita: Not a fan. <S> Cage: Of talking? <S> Rita: Not a fan of talking, no. <S> It just means that Rita doesn't want to talk (with Cage) in that scene. <S> So, your I am not a fan of negativity <S> simply means: I don't like negativity. <A> Aw! <S> You can be a fan of someone or something as well! <S> So, it's fine to say that you are a fan or not a fan of something . <S> Check the definition: <S> A person who has a strong interest in or admiration for a particular person or thing . <S> The thing could be tangible or intangible. <S> So, when you are not a big fan of negativity , you don't admire/like negativity. <S> However, in my personal opinion, I'd avoid using the word 'fan' there. <S> I'd say - 'I don't favor negativity (of any kind).' <S> However, negativity should be explained for better clarity. <A> I don't think this expression is used in a formal context. <S> You can use it with anything you don't like I guess. <S> Not being a fan of negativity simply means that you don't like being negative. <S> It means you are a positive and optimistic person. <A> You don't always use "I am not a (big) fan of X" for things like food or movies. <S> You broadly use it for ideas/ideologies you hate or dislike. <S> I am not a (big) fan of negativity . <S> I am not a (big) fan of those people . <S> You don't want to explicitly state that you hate those people. <S> Depending on context, it could show your racism, homophobia or xenophobia, etc.
| It means you are against negativity, you don't like people who are negative , or you are not a negative person depending on context.
|
Sentence Transformation: ... enough ... to ..... so ... that Tu Pee was hungry enough to eat a horse. Tu Pee was so hungry that he could eat a horse. I'd like to know whether the two sentences are exactly the same. Thanks a lot. <Q> Because this is a common idiom, I don't think anybody would have trouble recognizing them as the same thing. <S> They both mean " <S> Tu Pee was very hungry". <S> I may be wrong, but I can't see any difference in the literal interpretations either. <S> In either case, we're saying Tu Pee's great hunger enables him to "eat a horse". <S> However, I could imagine scenarios where they are different. <S> Tu Pee was hungry enough that he ate a horse. <S> Tu Pee was so hungry that he ate a horse. <S> "Hungry enough" says he could eat a horse, as in your first example. <S> But I don't think my first example sounds very natural. <S> My second example sounds much better to me. <S> I can't think of an example where this would make sense, but there is a way to interpret your second example differently. <S> Tu Pee was happy enough to eat a horse. <S> Tu Pee was so happy that he could eat a horse. <S> The new metaphor makes little sense, but the literal meaning of the first example means his great happiness enables him to eat a horse. <S> The second example could easily mean the same thing. <S> But it could also mean Tu Pee is capable of eating a horse, and that capacity makes him happy. <S> Tu Pee was so happy because he knew he could eat a horse. <S> So applying the same grammar to your second example, we could interpret it as being hungry because of his capacity to eat a horse. <S> Thinking about his ability to eat a horse caused Tu Pee's stomach to rumble with hunger. <A> The only subtle diffetence in meaning is that the phrase 'enough hungry' indicates that Tu Pee was as hungry as is necessary to eat a horse. <S> On the other hand, the phrase 'so hungry' means that Tu Pee was very hungry or hungry to such a great extent that it could eat a horse. <S> In other words, Tu Pee's hunger shown in the latter sentence is more intense than that in the former. <A> I see no appreciable difference in their ultimate meaning. <S> With could {verb} capacity-to-do is explicit . <S> With to {verb} , capacity-to-do is implicit in the pattern. <S> hungry enough to eat... <S> so hungry (that) he could eat... <S> The word "that" is in parentheses to show it's optional. <S> The complement to the "{modifier} enough" pattern is usually a to -infinitive phrase ( to eat ) but some speakers will supply a that -clause there ( that he could eat ). <S> The complement to the "so {modifier}" pattern is a that -clause or a reduced clause (but not a to -infinitive phrase). <S> Whether it is a to -infinitive phrase or a that -clause, the pattern indicates a sufficient degree of the property expressed by {modifier} to do the thing expressed by the verb-phrase in the complement. <S> He was so tall that he could dunk the basketball without leaping. <S> He was tall enough to dunk the basketball without leaping.
| Both the sentences are indicative that Tu Pee, because of its hunger, was able to eat a horse. I don't think there's any significant difference in meaning between these sentences.
|
How to understand "bomb the expletive out of something"? Is that an idiomatic expression? I came across this sentence with a strange use of the word "expletive", Trump has variously expressed enthusiasm for outsourcing the fight against the Islamic State to Vladimir Putin and for bombing the expletive out of its oil fields. The word "expletive" doesn't seem to have anything to do with "oil fields" in terms of its meaning. How to understand "bomb the expletive out of something."? Is that an idiomatic expression? <Q> Yes this is an idiomatic expression. <S> In general the form is " verb <S> the expletive out of noun ". <S> The meaning is just an intensifier of the verb action on the noun. <S> So in your example you could reformulate as "bombing the oil fields of Islamic State extremely thoroughly" though that doesn't pack the same punch as the original. <S> The expletive in question is most commonly shit or crap though other expletives can occasionally be used. <S> It should be also pointed out that not every verb noun works. <S> You want the noun to be the object of the verb and the action denoted by the verb must be "intensifiable". <S> So you can say for example "I played the s <S> *** out of Halo" <S> meaning you played it a lot and even "I opened the s <S> *** out of that door" (usually in response to a question, and possibly meaning you broke it in some way) <S> but you would be hard pressed to "enter the s <S> *** out of that door" <S> for example. <S> Most commonly though the idiom is used in terms of fighting as in "I beat the s <S> *** out of sbd" which might actually be the original from which the other phrases are derived by analogy. <S> Edit: looking at the CoCA corpus by far the most common collocates of "the s <S> *** <S> out of" are fighting words (beat, slap, kick, pound, knock) though scare gets right up in there, being the second most likely verb collocate after beat. <A> It is a common knowledge that animals pee or poop (excrete) when they are frightened to death. <S> People do, too. <S> Also, animals do it right before their death. <S> That's where the expression came from. <S> If you scare the s <S> *** out of someone, it figuratively means you scare someone to the extent that they would urinate or defecate. <S> Note <S> : Some do use scare the pee/urine out of someone . <S> It has the same meaning, but less idiomatic and popular. <S> Sentences such as "I extremely scared her" or "I scared her very much " would not work very well because there is a more common and idiomatic expression. <S> The expression evolved to become an intensifier for a verb. <S> "Let's bomb its oil field" doesn't sound intense enough, however, "Let's bomb the s <S> *** out of its oil field" sounds very intense. <S> You just metaphorically compare "its oil field" to an animal or human. <S> As explained in the other answer, the list of expressions goes on and on . <S> The most important thing to remember is: <S> Whatever expletive is put in X in Verb X out of Y constructions, it is a strong intensifier. <S> It gets the message across in a strong/intense sense . <S> I will stop writing on this now before some members "criticize the s <S> *** out of me". <S> Note: <S> You can use it for a verb like criticize , which means you can be creative in using it. <S> Edit : <S> As commented below, the above expression can be toned down a little by saying, "Bomb the hell out of its oil field". <S> It's slightly more acceptable than "bomb the s <S> *** out of its oil field". <A> I came across this sentence with a strange use of the word "expletive", <S> It's commonly used for "swear words" (pretty much any word that is considered impolite to use in and of themselves) which are indeed often words that add emphasis but were the meaning would be the same if they were removed. <S> From that sense expletive has come to mean any profanity even if it isn't fully redundant in the way that expletive originally meant. <S> Now, there are such phrases as "bomb the shit out of them", "beat the crap out of them", "shoot the fuck out of them" and so on. <S> The author wants to reference that phrasing, but doesn't want to actually use one of those expletives. <S> Therefore much like how on television or radio we might "bleep" out an expletive, or how they might also use such mechanism as <S> "bomb the **** out of its oil fields", the author has used the word expletive to stand for the elided expletive. <S> This particular style of referencing but not using expletives became particularly popular after the Watergate Tapes were published. <S> While Nixon allowed the tapes to be published (not that he had much choice, as they'd been subpoenaed) <S> he had all profanity replaced with the phrase "[expletive deleted]". <S> Ironically this made him seem to be more foul-mouthed than he actually was <S> (what had been <S> Christ or hell in the original changed to imply he may perhaps have said something stronger). <S> Following this "expletive deleted" became a particularly popular choice among some journalists and other writers when reporting upon the use of a profanity, and later reduced to just "expletive". <S> So in this sense it's largely synonymous with the use of " <S> ****" or a bleeping sound. <A> Your profile places you in Shanghai which is geographically closer to Australia than to the U.S.A. <S> The U.S. is a country founded by Puritans, so you'll rarely find actual expletives in communication: they "bleep" over them in broadcasts and use asterisks like "f <S> ***" or "s <S> ***" instead of "fuck" or "shit". <S> One popular way of not spelling out such an expletive is actually writing "expletive" as a substitute for an expletive. <S> This is what happened here. <S> This substitution, however, is only done in writing. <S> Oral communication typically retains the original (with the whole room erupting in "language!" <S> as a shorthand for "watch your language!") or substitutes words phonetically similar to the conveyed expletive but "defused" (sorry, I'd need a refresher on them myself, only remembering "heck" and "dickens" out of the bunch).
| An expletive is strictly any word or phrase that doesn't actually add any meaning to a sentence, for example to add emphasis or to help fit the meter of a poem or song. It is a very common expression.
|
If it is "it wasn't me" then is it "it wasn't us"? I've many times heard this phrase: It wasn't me Here the case of me is accusative. In that case should we say It wasn't us if the agent is plural? <Q> In short, yes. <S> The following exchange would be correct. <S> Teacher walks into a classroom full of students and there are drawings on the board <S> Teacher : Did you guys do this? <S> Students : It wasn't us (who did that)! <S> The "who did that" part there is in parenthesis because in regular speech, nobody would say that. <S> It is correct, but in regular speech, that part is simply implied. <A> The subject of the sentence is "it", and so the main verb has to be "wasn't" not "weren't". <S> Yes, <S> it wasn't us <S> is correct. <A> Strictly speaking, English follows Latin in using the nominative case rather than the accusative case after verbs of being. <S> This is logical, since the accusative case - in this instance me or us - indicates the person/object which the verb affects. <S> Eg I hit him . <S> With verbs of being, however, there is no object acted upon, so it takes a complement in the nominative case - I, we, he etc ( not dative as stated in the questiom), since they are the same thing. <S> So: "Is that you?" <S> "Yes, it is I ." <S> "Can I speak to Sue?" <S> "This is she." <S> In practice, these forms sound strange in English, although entirely logical and normal in Latin, so we tend to say "Yes, it's me!", which sounds right but is grammatically incorrect, as me <S> cannot be the object of is . <A> It wasn't us is not grammatically correct. <S> It wasn't we, just as It wasn't I. <S> Our common usage aside, 'we' is correct.
| The 'us' should be 'we', since wasn't is a linking verb, making the 'us' a predicate nominative, so it should be 'we'.
|
Differences between "while" and "when" Every single day while I sit to write, I am to think what I will write. Every single day when I sit to write, I am to think what I will write. From while and when , which will you prefer and why? If it is possible, please say another word that can used instead of while and when in this case. <Q> I would use your option 2: <S> Every single day when I sit to write, I should start with thinking about what exactly I will write. <S> The second option focuses too much on the process of sitting : <S> Every single day while I sit to write, I am to think what I will write. <S> It's hard for me to construe a situation where this sentence would be felicitous. <S> Maybe you have two chairs. <S> On the first chair, you "sit to write": the chair is used solely for sitting and thinking about what exactly to write. <S> The second chair is used when you've finally decided what it is that you should write. <A> In the temporal sense, "While" deals with a duration , While I was sleeping, he stole my phone. <S> "when" deals with some specific point in time. <S> When I went to bed, he stole my phone. <S> In your case, I prefer Every single day when I sit to write, I am to think what I will write. <A> There are subtle differences between the meaning of the two sentences. <S> " While I sit to write" refers to the entire period of time spent sitting.
| " When I sit to write" refers to the action of sitting down; i.e. one specific moment.
|
Is 'roam' a transitive verb? At the time of sleeping or praying, thousand of words roam my mind. Do you think that a preposition should be placed between roam and my mind ? I think a preposition is compulsory, since roam is not a transitive verb. By the way, will you consider it right if I replace roam with knock around ? knock around is a synonym of roam , and if I use knock around instead of roam , I think, we don't need any preposition between knock around and my mind . Please say what you think. <Q> First, I don't know where you got the notion that roam is always intrasitive. <S> As you can see by looking at this dictionary entry , the verb can be used both transitively and intransitively. <S> That said, I can't understand what the close votes are all about. <S> Had you simply asked, "Is roam a transitive verb? <S> " I'd agree – that's answerable with a good dictionary. <S> However, I think your question is a fair one and a tough one – even if it does have a slightly misleading title. <S> One transitive definition of roam is: To wander over or through: roamed the streets . <S> While an intransitive meaning is: To turn the attention from one subject to another with little clarity or coherence of thought: I could hear the speaker, but my thoughts were roaming . <S> So, perhaps your question is asking something like, "Is it okay to use the transitive definition when dealing with something abstract, such as your thoughts?" <S> I have no problem with this sentence: <S> At the time of sleeping or praying, thousands of words wander through my mind . <S> So, by virtue of the dictionary's definition, your original use roam should be acceptable – yet, for some reason, it does sound a little awkward to me. <S> I think it sounds better with the preposition through : <S> At the time of sleeping or praying, thousand of words roam through my mind . <S> That said, I'll add two more recommendations: (1) I'd change the beginning of the sentence from "at the time of" to "while"; and (2) <S> "thousand of words" should either be " thousands of words, or " a thousand words (with no of )". <S> The first recommendation is just a suggestion (my way sounds more idiomatic, I think), but my second recommendation absolutely needs to be fixed: <S> While I'm sleeping or praying, thousands of words roam through my mind . <A> At the time of sleeping or praying, thousands of words roam my mind. <S> The verb "roam" can be used as an intransitive or transitive verb. <S> As it takes the direct object "my mind" in the sentence presented, it's a transitive verb here. <S> You will call the verb an intransitive verb if you use it without an object, for example, he roamed about the world. <A> Knock About would also suffice. <S> Overall, the sentence has such a poetic, vocal ring to it - it is great for learning long English vowel sounds. <S> Pity the long U is not included. <S> In the context of your sentence, it is entirely intransitive. <S> We are not talking about my mind as if it were a thing (third state of a noun). <S> We are talking about the ideas within the mind (fourth state of a noun). <S> It is hard to get more intransitive than aimlessly traversing ideas.
| As mentioned, Roam is both transitive and intransitive, depending on context.
|
Using "in" and "during" in a sentence: "I expect to pass the exam in/during 5 months" I want to write a sentence that says I may pass the exam after 3 ,4 or 5 months, but no more than 5 months, which one of those sentences is appropriate for that? I expect to pass the exam during 5 months I expect to pass the exam in 5 months. <Q> It is better to use in than during in a sense that your passing the exam will take place around at the end of the 5-month period. <S> In : expressing the length of time before a future event is expected to happen Within : occurring inside (a particular period of time) <S> Using within might suggest more that you would be able to pass the exam before five months pass than using in . <S> The below Ngram Viewer for pass it in, passed it in, pass it during, passed it during, pass it within, passed it within shows usage of in is far more popular than that of during and within . <A> You may certainly use "in 5 months". <S> It connotes that the pass is 5 months in the future. <S> "...within 5 months" means that it is going to happen at some point in time between now and 5 months times. <S> Perhaps in 6 weeks, Perhaps in 4 months. <S> "during 5 months" is not a valid construct. <A> "I expect to pass the exam during five months" means: <S> You have to take the same exam again and again. <S> During five months you expect to pass it each time. <S> An unusual exam that you have to pass again and again. <S> For example, you might have suffered from an illness, and you need to stay in hospital for five months, passing an exam that the illness hasn't returned every week during these five months. <S> "I expect to pass the exam in five months" means: <S> There is a date set for the exam, five months from now. <S> You expect to go to the exam in exactly five months time and pass it. <S> "I expect to pass the exam within five months" means: You can take an exam at any time when you feel ready. <S> You expect that it won't take you longer than five months to learn everything needed for the exam. <S> You might do it in four or three months. <A> Neither. <S> Instead you can use within . <S> See below: <S> I expect to pass(or clear ) <S> the exam within 5 months. <A> It's December 2015 and an exam candidate makes the following statement: <S> This means that the candidate is confident about passing his/her exams sometime in May next year. <S> Note the possessive apostrophe after months <S> it is the same apostrophe that we see in the phrase: <S> "She gave two weeks' notice" <S> I expect to pass my exams by May 15th <S> Here the speaker predicts she or he will succeed in passing all their exams any time before May 15th. <S> I expect to pass my exams in the next three to five months. <S> I expect to pass my exams in the following five months <S> I expect to pass my exams in the upcoming five months <S> OR <S> I expect to pass my exams sometime during the spring. <S> The candidate is not certain when he or she will pass the exams, it seams the exams will be taken on different dates, but she or he will have sat (and passed) <S> the exams between now and May next year. <S> Sentences 3-5 carry the same meaning. <S> Sentence 6 implies the candidate will take their exams throughout the spring period, i.e. from March to June. <S> References CDO, The Guardian, Speakspeak.com, Oxford Dictionaries in + time period + <S> time <S> We use an apostrophe -s construction (in a year’s time, in two months’ time) to say when something will happen. <S> We don’t use it to say how long someone takes to do something: <S> I won’t say goodbye because we’ll be seeing each other again in three days’ time. <S> This book represents a year's thought, squeezed into a month's actual work. <S> Apostrophes are used in phrases such as two days' time and 12 years' jail , where the time period (two days) modifies a noun (time), but not in three weeks old or nine months pregnant, where the time period (three weeks) modifies an adjective (old) <S> *. <S> by <S> We use by to say that something will happen or be achieved before a particular time. <S> He should return by the end of March. <S> following [ATTRIBUTIVE] <S> Next in time: Her second marathon in Paris the following year was more successful. <S> in the upcoming Google Books fetches 9,600 hits for "in the upcoming months" <S> My calendar of special days was now circled in the upcoming months of December, June, and July .
| I expect to pass my exams in five months' time There is no big difference between in and within .
|
The usage of "on time" vs "in time" Which one is correct ─ "on time" or "in time"? Are both correct? If so, when is one or the other used? This has been very confusing to me. I have tried to thrash out a simple rule when one or the other could be used: "in time" could be used when you are able to take a one-off action (say "x") within due time; but, when "x" is not a one-off action ─ that is to say, is a continuous-kind of action ─ you use "on time" (or, in certain cases, even "before time") to say that "x" has been done within due time. The rule could be further explained by taking example of a train. When you refer to the running of a train, you say that the train is running "on time"; but when refer to the reaching of the train a particular station, you say the train reached the station "in time". I do not know if I am correct. Can anyone tell me if I am correct? <Q> Both are correct. <S> For instance, "The firemen got to the burning house just in time," versus " <S> I arrived at my job interview on time." <S> "On time" is often clock time, while "in time" is less specific. <S> You might say, "With his Alzheimer's progressing rapidly, my grandfather was lost in time. <S> " <S> While, "In time, they will learn not to criticize their elders." <A> ! <S> " <S> On time" - there is an expected time. <S> We are meeting friends for dinner at 7. <S> I hope we will be on time <S> and we don't make them wait for us. <S> "In time" - there is a deadline. <S> If we are past this deadline, we will miss the chance to do something. <S> The show starts at 8 p.m. and no one is admitted after the show starts. <S> I hope we will make it to the theater in time <A> There's a subtle difference. <S> Suppose the train's departure time is 1800 hr from Station A. <S> If you ask whether the train is running late, you may get an answer like: <S> No, the train is on time. <S> This means the train's departure time is 1800 hr (spot on). <S> It is not late. <S> It is not reaching on DOT 1800 hr. <S> Say, if you reach the station by 1745 hr, you may say... <S> Yeah, I reached station in time. <S> 'in' talks about a scope of reaching the station. <S> You don't miss the train. <S> But if you sit in the train, and in a next moment, it starts leaving the platform, you reached (spot) on time. <S> If you miss the train, you may say - I missed the train. <S> I could not reach on time. <S> We often hear that I am reaching in 5 minutes which defines the scope of reaching within 5 minutes.
| On the other hand, 'in time' means reaching the destination within the time .
|
Which would be better, "I" or "me" in the following sentence? I see generally people use I for addressing themselves, but some people also use me in the same sense. Which is better to use, I or me? Let I recommend you for this... or Let me recommend you for this... <Q> The question is not how to refer to oneself, but which grammatical role I or me has. <S> If you are the subject of the sentence ("the who? "), use I : I will take this. <S> If you are the object (the "(to) whom? "), use me : <S> Let <S> me do it. <S> Give me the key. <A> Whether you use I or me depends largely on whether you use it as a subject or an object in your sentence. <S> (It's the same for other pronouns.) <S> (NOTE: <S> Colloquially, people say Me and my sister went nuts , though My sister and I would be the norm in more formal writing: <S> My sister and I attended the same parochial school . <S> That's why I said largely above.) <S> In your sentence, you need an object of the verb let , so you need me : <S> Let me recommend you for this ... <S> Also keep in mind that in this pattern, Let someone do something, you use the plain form of the verb; you used recommend (not recommends ) correctly, so maybe you don't have this problem. <S> (Congrats!) <S> -- (Another point that may be worth mentioning is the for this ... <S> part, which is a bit of a concern, but since you didn't give us a complete sentence, I can't tell whether you use it correctly or not.) <S> You can read more about personal pronouns in Wikipedia: English personal pronouns . <A> I and me , both are used to refer to oneself. <S> So, what's the difference? <S> I is a subject pronoun. <S> This means that if you are talking about yourself and you are the subject(the one performing the action referred to) in your sentence, you use I .Example: <S> I am eating breakfast. <S> (The action is eating breakfast and when you're stating I am eating breakfast , you are the performer of the action. ) <S> Me is an object pronoun. <S> It refers to the person that the action of a verb is being done to, or to whom a preposition refers. <S> Example: <S> He told me to fetch a glass of water. <S> (The pronoun is to <S> and it's directed towards me <S> which is the object in the sentence.) <S> The confusion occurs in cases like these- <S> John and I went to the market. <S> If you're confused about the right word, split the sentence into two. <S> John went to the market. <S> I went to the market. <S> Combining the two, we get John <S> and I went to the market and NOT John and me went to the market. . <S> The same applies for sentences like <S> This is for you and me. <S> In the case that you've provided, it's best to use me . <S> Let me recommend this... <S> The reason is simple. <S> The implication in this sentence is the same as <S> You let me recommend this... <S> Since someone is letting you do <S> something(the action of letting is directed to the object i.e you ), you must use the pronoun me . <S> Hope that helps!
| If a person talks about himself, he uses I or me depending on the structure of the sentence that he is forming.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.