source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
How does including the word 'just' change the meaning of a sentence? The answers were there in my head, but I just couldn’t articulate them. The answers were there in my head, but I couldn’t articulate them. I omitted just in the second sentence. What are the differences in meaning between these two sentences? Is just used for emphasis? How can I add emphasis to the sentence " I couldn't articulate them "? <Q> The train left five seconds ago. <S> You just missed it. <S> I stretched my arm through the bars to pet the gorilla, but it was just out of my reach. <S> Another inch closer <S> and I'd have done it. <S> Sometimes the word "just" suggests that no matter how much effort one has put or could put into something, it is not going to be possible. <S> Even a major difference would have no effect. <S> I stood on a ladder and jumped. <S> I just couldn't reach that ledge. <S> The prison wall was much too high. <S> There was no way I was going to escape over the wall. <S> In your example about articulating ideas, the meaning is the latter. <S> The words would not come at all. <S> It was not that they were on the tip of your tongue, or that you could not find the perfect way to state the ideas; rather you found yourself wholly incapable of expressing them. <S> The words simply would not come. <S> The usage there implies utter frustration and futility, a great distance between oneself and one's goal. <A> For me, native AmE speaker, the difference between "I couldn't" and "I just couldn't" is: "I couldn't" means "I was not able to" in the literal sense i.e. "I couldn't buy that car because I didn't have the money"; "I just couldn't" has the meaning (and emphasis) that one thought about/struggled with making a decision, i.e. "I just couldn't buy that car because it would be a waste of money." <S> So, in your example, "I couldn't articulate" would mean one was not able to due to a lack of vocabulary, whereas "I just couldn't" could mean "I really wanted to <S> but I was too tired" or "I could not think of it in the moment." <S> Hope this helps... <A> " I couldn’t articulate them . <S> " becomes " I simply was unable to articulate them " or " I was merely unable to articulate them " once you add the "just". <S> It is also used as a form of emphasis.
| Sometimes the word "just" suggests that only a small difference would have had a major effect on the situation.
|
What does “kilo-stones” mean? What does “kilo-stones” mean as in “Will stretch like kilo-stones or cypresses”? The phrase is in this book . It is used in "To Any Young Soldier", a sonnet by F.G. Butler : Lean your Bren against the white-washed wall While peasants, laughing, thrust a grass-bound flask Into your dusty hands. Smiling, bask In their dark eyes' praise. Brief hero of them all, Stretch your royal limbs, lean back and laugh: You, whom last year's masters thought a fool Have learnt from masters in another school The meaning of a college cenotaph. So light a fag, knock back a glass or two, Look calmly on shell-torn terraces, All last night's acre of especial hell; And wonder if the years ahead of you Will stretch like kilo-stones or cypresses From eighteen on to eighty, or, the next shell. <Q> The word is similar to milestone , but refers to kilometers instead of miles . <S> Here's a kilo-stone in Moldova ( from velosamara.ru ); note the km abbreviation for "kilometer": <S> Imagine yourself looking at a road that goes on far to the horizon. <S> On the side of the road, there could be kilo-stones, and they "stretch ahead of you". <S> Or, there could be trees, for example, cypresses. <S> So, this string of kilo-stones or cypresses "stretches" ahead of you. <S> You are a young soldier, just 18 years of age. <S> You shall travel along this road of life until you die. <S> In a war, you could die at any moment. <S> If you are spared, you could live to be 80 years of age. <S> If you are unlucky, you will be killed by the next shell. <S> Usage example for kilo-stone : <S> The Suffolk and Welch battalions were now holding the line of the road from the 79th kilo stone to Mazirko, with their left flank refused. <S> ( The History of the Suffolk Regiment, 1914-1927 ) <A> It is a metaphorical use of those words. <S> As CopperKettle says, 'milestones' are also known as 'kilo-stones'. <S> But then, I think the poet wants to say that the years ahead of someone are long, very long. <S> The word 'stretch' supports it. <S> Stretched milestones - going far and far, and Cypresses are known for their longevity <A> The imagery being used is that of a road stretching out ahead of the 'young soldier'. <S> The kilo-stones are the distance markers on the road, as others have commented. <S> The reference to cypresses gives it away; cypress trees being commonly used to line country rounds all over Europe.
| Kilo-stones are road stones marking distances in kilometers.
|
What do we call these 'squeezed' papers? In my mother tongue, there is a word for it, and it is a noun. The action is observed when you think the paper is waste. You squeeze it, and it loses its texture/avatar. Then, it is no more straight or flat. Here is the image. Check those papers. What have they become? Precisely... I wanted to put everything in words. I tried it on a paper. I did not like it. I __________ it and threw it in a dustbin. You find nothing in this dustbin except some __________ papers <Q> Crumple is a good option. <S> I wanted to put everything in words. <S> I tried it on a paper. <S> I did not like it. <S> I crumpled it and threw it in a dustbin. <S> You find nothing in this dustbin except some crumpled papers. <A> Another is "wadded up" <S> I wadded up the paper into a ball and threw it in the garbage. <S> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wadded verb (used with object), wadded, wadding. <S> to form (material) into a wad. <S> 8. <S> to roll tightly (often followed by up): <S> He wadded up his cap and stuck it into his pocket. <S> 9. to hold in place by a wad: <S> They rammed and wadded the shot into their muskets. <S> 10. to put a wad into; stuff with a wad. <A> "Balled up" is a good option. <S> It visually explains what is done to the paper. <S> I wanted to put everything in words. <S> I tried it on a paper. <S> I did not like it. <S> I balled it up and threw it in a dustbin. <S> You find nothing in this dustbin except some balled up papers. <A> I wanted to put everything in words. <S> I tried it on a paper. <S> I did not like it. <S> I scrunched it up and threw it in a dustbin. <S> You find nothing in this dustbin except some scrunched up papers <A> Screwed-up is an alternative to scrunched up. <S> I wanted to put everything in words. <S> I tried it on a paper. <S> I did not like it. <S> I screwed it up and threw it in a dustbin. <S> You'll find nothing in this dustbin except some screwed-up papers. <S> As found in the Collins English dictionary : <S> Verb <S> If you screw something such as a piece of paper into a ball, you squeeze it or twist it tightly so that it is in the shape of a ball. <S> BRIT. <S> "He screwed the paper into a ball and tossed it into the fire." <S> AM <S> use crush
| " Scrunched up papers " is exactly what you're looking for.
|
"I don't mind him" in the context I have learned the cast of the leading role in one movie. The actor is not personally my favourite and I can imagine the better choice but on the other hand there many other actors that I dislike much more. I want to express that with all my reservations I bear this actor and accept his cast. Is it possible to say "I don't mind him in this role" in that context? The statement should be a positive connotation. <Q> I would say "I don't mind" is more neutral than positive, it can have the meaning of indifference as in " <S> It doesn't matter <S> Brad Pitt is in the role". <S> "I don't mind Brad Pitt in that role" also has the connotation that you have an opinion of the role, as opposed to the actor, and that someone else might be better, but at least Brad Pitt doesn't detract from the role. <S> Just to add: <S> I don't mind <S> usually means the solution is adequate, where as I don't mind one bit is very positive. <A> "I don't mind him" literally means that you have an absence of negative feeling. <S> This is hardly a ringing endorsement. <A> 'I don't mind', although positive, could be seen as not very positive. <S> If you were to say 'I don't mind Brad Pitt in that role' you would be saying <S> that you didn't 'love' Brad Pitt in that role, but would not quite be saying <S> that you 'did not' like him in that role. <S> It would usually be used in a context like "I didn't mind Brad Pitt in that role, but I loved him in x'. <S> Short version = ' <S> (First time I've answered a question in this community, so be gentle!)
| I don't mind' would be seen as only a little positive, but not negative.
|
Am I overusing "the" in this sentence? For some reason I feel its overkilling on the use of article(the) here, To refine the results, please use the categories on the left Can someone help? <Q> In my opinion, the phrases: 'the results' - refers to the specific results that will be refined; 'the categories', - refers to the specific (provided) categories; and, ' <S> the left' - refers to the specific side (i.e., not the right side, not the top, etc.). <S> So, I don't think the word 'the' is overused. <A> As others have said, your sentence is fine, as-is. <S> However, you might change it to "To refine your results, please use the categories on the left." <S> This would mitigate your concerns with the repeated "the". <A> The is one of the most common words in the English language, so often in fact you might use the word 'the' over 5,000 times in one day. <A> @shin is correct, the sentence is fine. <S> To refine results, please use categories on the left. <S> is equivalent, but the difference is stylistic. <A> @shin is correct. <S> " <S> The" is used three times in the sentence. <S> Each time "the" is used, the word that follows "the" gets qualified, becomes specific. <S> The sentence is ok. <S> There is no overuse of "the".
| As a native speaker, I can definitely say 'the' is not overused in this sentence.
|
Differences between "during travelling through bus" and "while travelling on bus" During travelling through bus , I don't like to take food. While travelling on bus , I don't like to take food. Which one sounds good? And why another will be wrong? <Q> To my AmE ears: When travelling by bus, I don't like to take food seems to mean, you do not like to carry food with you on a bus. <S> While travelling by bus, I don't like to have food would mean, you do not like to eat when on a bus <S> I do realise that take food <S> can mean eat food , but is usually used by non-native AmE or BrE speakers as it's more of a literal translation from the original speaker's language <A> because Travelling through bus. <S> means something like "going from one end of the bus to the other". <S> The word while does not work right to me, because I presume that you wanted to say "I don't like to take food (cooked home or bought) with me when I take bus rides". <S> You cannot get food when you're already on the bus, which while implies. <A> I would suggest that the best sentence to convey your meaning is: I do not like to eat while traveling on a bus. <S> My reasoning <S> : The first sentence starts with "During traveling". <S> In English, two '-ing' words are rarely found together, and would normally be considered poor phrasing. <S> The verb 'take', particularly when associated with travel related words, normally means to carry or bring, rather than to consume. <S> As your other comments make clear that you mean to eat, I recommend using that word. <S> As for the word food, when a person eats, food is clearly implied, so you would only include a modifier if you were eating something other than food. <S> Lastly, the phrase 'on bus' involves a dropped article. <S> While this is increasingly common in British English, most American readers would find it odd; 'on the bus' or 'on a bus' would be the preferred choice in American English. <S> I don't believe that British readers would find the inclusion of the article odd.
| I would say When travelling by bus , I don't like to take food.
|
Sentence with commas or without commas? without commas: The building where we do most of our work is located downtown. with commas: The building, where we do most of our work, is located downtown. what is the difference between the two in meaning? ,or are they same? <Q> Commas are needed when you have a non-defining relative clause, which gives extra information about the noun. <S> The building, where we do most of our work, is located downtown. <S> The clause where we do most of our work is extra information, something we don't need to know. <S> We can remove it along with the commas: <S> The building is located downtown. <A> In most cases, this is what we can an aside , or a side comment . <S> Aside <S> NOUN a remark that is not directly related to the main topic of discussion <S> Now, when you take context into account, the word downtown is mentioned, which tends to be the busiest place on the map. <S> The implication is that one should expect the office to be loud, full of co-workers moving to and fro, and to bring money, because they will need to pay for parking . <A> If the phrase set off by the commas is "extra information" as another answer has said, then the sentence could be telling the listener about the location of the building as opposed to the location of something else. <S> "We have several properties; the wharf on the river is only used when our ship has come in, and the park in the county is used for relaxation. <S> The building, where we do most of our work, is downtown." <S> But the sentence could also be distinguishing among several buildings, and in that case the clause is essential and should not be set off with commas. <S> "We have an office close to the courthouse, and an old farmhouse that we use for some kinds of retreats. <S> The building where we do most of our work is downtown."
| The commas change the meaning of the sentence slightly.
|
What does this saying mean? "To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty." " To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty ." Lao Tzu Source I could not understand this quote since the words are not very clear. For example, does the word "Not" negate the whole "to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty"? Can someone explain it? <Q> " To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty. " <S> - Lao Tzu <S> The best thing is to know the answer, while thinking that you do not know. <S> Mistakenly being sure that you know the answer in cases where you actually do <S> not know the answer will lead to difficulty. <A> Breaking it up a little: "To know | yet to think that one does not know | is best; Not to know | yet to think that one knows | will lead to difficulty." <S> The two phrases are alike but reversed: <S> Knowing while not thinking that one knows is good. <A> The sentence can be changed like this: " <S> The fact that you know something <S> but you believe you don't know it is better than the fact that you don't know anything <S> but you tell everybody you know. <S> The second fact might cause trouble." <A> In the original post's quotation, the word "not" just negates "to know". <S> The negation turns "something you know" (a "known") into "something you do not know" (an "unknown"). <S> "not to know" is on the opposite side of the "yet" conjunction from "to think that one knows". <S> As Donald Rumsfeld explained : <S> There are known knowns. <S> These are things we know that we know. <S> There are known unknowns. <S> That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. <S> But there are also unknown unknowns. <S> There are things we don't know we don't know. <S> Lao Tzu was saying it is better to be underconfident (not trust that you know something) than to be overconfident (to think you know something, but be wrong). <A> Better to question, than to think you have the only answer.
| Not knowing while thinking that one knows is bad.
|
Is there another word instead of 'dilute'? Is there another word instead of "dilute" for this context: XXX production was carried out by diluting XOXOXO fertilizer. <Q> XXX production was carried out by reducing the concentration of XOXOXO fertilizer. <S> or XXX production was carried out by reducing the strength of XOXOXO fertilizer. <A> "Thin" as a transitive verb can be used in the sense of making something thinner or less thick by adding water or another liquid to it. <A> Furthermore, you could add 'adulterating' if the context is for an unfavorable event. <S> Dilute the milk - Add water to the milk intentionally. <S> I was given adulterated milk <S> - Producer has added water to pure , with intentions to make a profit. <A> "watering down" would work, although only appropriate if a liquid is used, and ideally water. <S> "cutting" is used in the context of things like recreational drugs mixed with cheaper substances to increase the amount available for sale (with less potency, of course). <S> Usually explicit, eg "the heroin we found was cut with icing sugar..."
| You can use the verb "thin" or "thin down" instead of "dilute." When you're using a term to express reduction in strength by adding water (for favorable conditions), 'diluting' is your best bet.
|
Confused using the word 'Transgendered' If we go by the dictionaries like OALD and MacMillan , the word is adjective and used for a person who is in between male and female. But, I often read 'transgender man ' or ' woman '. Here, transgender is again an adjective. MM dictionary says transgender=transgendered. My question is: How this word takes men and women because the word means someone between two genders. Does it mean that ' transgender woman ' has more features of a woman? <Q> Interesting question! " <S> transgender man" or "transgender woman" has nothing to do with how similar your features are to male or female. <S> A transgender man is a person who was born a female, but identifies as a male. <S> A transgender woman is a person who was born a male, but identifies as a female. <S> This is actually entirely separate from what genitalia you currently have. <S> However, these things are often on a spectrum in reality, and so there are many other terms that are sometimes used. <S> This is a topic that is currently evolving, but the general definitions I gave will likely stay the same. <A> Edit: <S> I prefer the other answer for using "identifies" instead of changed. <S> Transgender means someone who has already changed from male to female or vice versa. <S> Someone between the two would be androgynous in appearance, but might say they are any of a number of things, such as agender, neuter, or likely some other things I haven't heard of. <S> (Unless the person speaking doesn't believe changing gender is possible, in which case they often refer to a person as the original gender. <S> But this viewpoint is considered insensitive and mean.) <S> Edit : I'll point out that the language used for this topic is very quickly changing as the transgender and LGBT community adapt their language usage to better fit reality. <S> Before, whatever words were used to describe these people were often chosen by people outside their community remarking on them. <S> Now, they have a chance to choose words to reflect how they see themselves. <S> The dictionaries will have difficulty keeping up for a few years. <A> If we go by the dictionaries like OALD and MacMillan, the word is adjective and used for a person who is in between male and female. <S> The preferred modern terminology for this is intersex for someone with physical characteristics that don't match that of typical males or females, and <S> a variety of terms including non-binary or genderqueer for someone who identifies or deliberately presents as something other than typical male or female. <A> I have never seen anyone write the term <S> "Transgender X" it's always been "TransX" (Transman/Transwoman). <S> A transman is someone who was AFB (assigned female at birth) and is now living as a man, and a transwoman is someone who was AMB (assigned male at birth) and is now living as a woman. <S> Note: <S> Living as. <S> The legal status of this doesn't align correctly with the definition. <S> For example, if we assume you are a transman; you live like a man, wear men's clothes, have changed your female name to something male (unless you had a unisex, you liked your female name, etc.) <S> , people refer to you he/his/him, BUT you haven't had GRS (gender realignment surgery) you, legally, are still a woman. <S> Meaning although you are a man in all but hormones and genitals, you would still be treated like a woman in any legal system; e.g. you would get sent to the woman's ward of a prison, should you be imprisoned before you have had/started GRS. <S> HOWEVER. <S> Transgender also extends to non-binary, though not through legal wording. <S> A non-binary person is someone who doesn't fit nicely into "male" or "female" categories. <S> Where a trans(wo)man fits into the male/female categories, the opposite of what they were assigned at birth, a non-binary person may feel in between male and female, or outside of it altogether. <S> Someone who identifies as androgyne will say that they are a little bit male, and a little bit female, in simple terms. <S> Someone who identifies as genderfluid will say that some days they are male, some days female, and some days they may be neither, in simple terms. <S> Someone who identifies as agender/neutrosis will say that they don't have a gender/don't identify as male/female, in simple terms. <S> And someone who identifies as genderqueer could be describe as any of the above, or one of the many other gender definitions that are out there.
| A transgender man is someone who has changed from female to male , and a transgender woman has changed from male to female .
|
"I want to understand what my options are" or "I want to understand what are my options"? Which way is correct: "I want to understand what my options are" or "I want to understand what are my options" and why ? Since my English still needs tons of work, this baffled me for a long time, and each time I did a quick search, but I could not find the answer. Thus, I decided to ask it here. <Q> "I want to understand what my options are" is fine and sounds more natural to me. <S> This version: "I want to understand what are my options" really stands as two, so could be separated by a full stop, or possibly a semicolon. <S> And definitely needs a question mark. <S> "I want to understand. <S> What are my options?" <S> or "I want to understand; what are my options?" <A> I used to make (and still occasionaly make) mistakes in sentences of this sort. <S> The correct sentence is <S> I want to understand what my options are. <S> There's a nicely-named linguistic term: <S> the penthouse principle . <S> Quoting Wikipedia, <S> The penthouse principle: The rules are different if you live in the penthouse. <S> (the "penthouse" here is a clause attached to the matrix clause) <S> The correct word order for a question <S> : What are my options? <S> (the positions of the auxiliary verb are and the subject options are inverted) <S> But when you put this clause in a "penthouse", atop a main clause, you do not invert the positions of the subject and the auxiliary verb: <S> I want to understand [what my options are]. <S> (the positions are not inverted: the subject options comes first, then the auxiliary are ) Note that AdamV, being a native English speaker, says that I want to understand what are my options. <S> (incorrect) feels like "two sentences clumped together". <S> That's because we have subject-auxiliary inversion in "what are my options", and this is proper only when this clause is a main clause, not when it is a subordinate clause, a "penthouse atop a skyscraper". <S> Naturally, a native speaker would feel that "what are my options" should be a standalone clause. <A> I want to understand what my options are . <S> Clauses like "what my options are" are often called embedded questions . <S> I have no idea why. <S> I find that label confusing and misleading. <S> Perhaps the concept of embedded questions makes sense in other languages, but I can't make any sense of it in English. <S> Clauses like this imply questions, but they don't resemble questions because they don't directly represent questions. <S> The things that they represent are answers . <S> In your example sentence, I assume that you already understand the question. <S> I don't imagine that you need the question explained to you. <S> What you want to understand is the answer. <S> The standard way to form a question is through subject-auxiliary (or subject-operator) inversion. <S> The first (and occasionally only) word of the verb is at the beginning of the clause and usually in front of the subject. <S> * <S> English uses this kind of inversion to mark the interrogative mode and sometimes the subjunctive mode. <S> Either way, the inversion takes the clause out of the indicative mode. <S> If you can regard it as a statement of the answer, that should make perfect sense. <S> The indicative mode is used for statements just as the interrogative mode is used for questions. <S> The example sentence is not a question and it does not contain a question. <S> It is a statement which references another statement. <S> A question is implied, but that question does not itself appear in the sentence. <S> We could, if we wish, literally embed a question, and this would result in a reasonable paraphrase of the original: <S> I want to understand the answer to the question "what are my options? <S> " <S> In this case, the question itself appears in the sentence and that question does use the ordinary interrogative word order. <S> _______________ <S> * <S> The notable exception is when the subject of the question is an interrogative pronoun. <S> For example, "who are you?" <S> doesn't use an "are who you?" <S> word order. <A> I want to understand my options . <S> Clear and easy. <S> " <S> What" and "are" aren't needed.
| A subordinate clause like "what my options are" uses the indicative mode.
|
Meaning of these two quotes Following are the two quotes which I received from Hike daily services. "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." - Theodore Roosevelt "Each time I free a child, I feel it is something closer to God." - Kailash Satyarthi What do they mean? <Q> Theodore Roosevelt was a President of the United States, and he believed that the most effective diplomacy was to be very polite and reserved, but also to have the most effective military to back you up. <S> I am not familiar with Kailash Satyarthi, but he seems to be a priest and child labor activist who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year. <A> Don't speak in a bellicose manner, but do have the capacity to use violence to achieve your ends, and you will succeed. <S> The implication is that there is no need to remind others with your words that you can harm them if you actually have the power to do so. <S> They will be reluctant to rile you or to do you harm when they see that you are brandishing a weapon. <S> Applied to a nation, it would be advice to maintain a strong military. <S> The second could mean something like " <S> Whenever I free a child (from the bondage of child labor) I feel as though I've drawn closer to God." <S> The referent of "it" is not perfectly clear. <A> These two English Quotes have deep meanings. <S> The first one means that if a person is to get good success in life, he must adopt duel approach towards it. <S> He should be both soft spoken and strict in action according to the situation. <S> This is also a good quality of a great diplomat like Theodore Roosevelt. <S> The second one suggests that Kailash Satyarthi feels himself closer to God when he does a good work like freeing a child from the bondage of Child Labour. <S> Kailash Satyarthi is a Social Activist who is working against Child Labour. <S> He has been fighting against this evil through a movement called Bachpan Bachao Andolan ( Save Childhood Movement) since 1980.
| These seem to be mostly about context, and also are likely explained if you just put the quote into Google. It could refer to the act of freeing a child, and be saying that the act is a good and charitable act, founded in love, and that it is therefore closer to the way God would have us act towards each other than other kinds of acts.
|
pouring down snow sounds wrong Is it correct to say "it is pouring down snow". Usually one says pouring down rain,conjuring an image of rain being poured out of buckets. However, this doesn't seem right to use the idiom when speaking of snow. <Q> <A> "there is thick snow falling" " <S> it's chucking down snow" (less often) <S> "there is heavy snow falling" <S> You are right, 'pouring' is only for fluids, most often liquids. <S> Although it is also possible to pour some gasses, and granulated solids e.g. "to pour sugar" or "to pour sand" Snow is solid water, so does not pour down. <S> Plus its feathery texture means that it generally drifts down slowly, no matter how much snow is falling at once. <A> Ski areas in the U.S. send out "dump alerts." <S> Maybe "The sky is dumping snow" would work...
| "It is snowing heavily" "The snowfall is heavy today" As you have very well pointed out, 'snowing' doesn't have many idioms attached to it, when compared to 'raining' .
|
What does "great" modify in "A great American consulting firm official"? A great American consulting firm official What does this "great" modify?Could it modify "consulting firm?" I think it can only modify "official".If it can modify "firm", then it should be A great American consulting firm's official <Q> It can be modifying consulting firm or it can be modifying official . <S> Consulting firm is a noun which is restricting the sort of official, another noun, that we are discussing. <S> American is describing one of the nouns. <S> Although the same word could be used as a noun in a different phrasing. <S> Great is describing one of the nouns. <S> If you wanted to be truly unambiguous... <S> The American [person] is [acting as] an official at a consulting firm. <S> He is an official at a great American consulting firm. <S> The consulting firm is both great and American, and he is an official there. <S> He is a great American official at that consulting firm. <S> That official is both great and [an] American [person], and he officiates at that consulting firm. <S> This sort of ambiguity is not uncommon: <S> For sale : Queen Anne table by nice lady. <S> With nice legs and big drawers. <A> I don't see any problem here. <S> A group of adjectives modifies the noun "firm" (a great American consulting firm). <S> The official belongs to the above-mentioned firm. <S> "A great American consulting firm" functions as an attribute to the noun "official". <A> Here are two more possibilities. <S> There are theme parks named "Great America". <S> It is possible that A Great American consulting firm official is an official who works for a consulting firm that does work for the Great America company. <S> Or the Great America company could own a consulting firm, and the official could work for that consulting firm.
| That great American is an official at a consulting firm.
|
How to understand and analyse the expression of " returned a hero"? Is there an ellipsis? I came across the expression of "<somebody> returned a hero" in the context below, With Chonghou in prison, Zeng Jize, son of a celebrated general, Zeng Guofan, was sent to Russia to renegotiate the treaty. Zeng’s chief qualifications seem to have been arrogance and an unwillingness to compromise. The Russians were reluctant to go to war, and ultimately gave the Chinese much of what they wanted. Zeng returned a hero , and the hardliners learned a lesson of dubious value: never give ground to foreigners. The short sentence as a whole is somewhat clear in its meaning. I reckon it means that Zeng returned to his homeland in glory like a hero. If my reckoning is right, then I can say for sure there is an ellipsis in this expression. Maybe an "as" or "like" has been omitted. If that's the case, is “as” or “like” dispensable in all such expressions？ For instance, what about these sentence， He works (as) a cashier. She is employed (as) a fashion model. They are treated (like) children. This candy tastes (like) peppermint. Are they still correct without "as" or "like"? <Q> Zeng returned to being a hero". <A> It's a fairly rare, rather obscure and somewhat archaic <S> (although still in use) form, where the verb return combines the action (of returning) and features of the word become . <S> It's rarely used in other contexts. <S> he returned a hero, he returned a coward, he returned a disgrace to his nation <S> These should be understood as he became [something], as he returned. <S> There is nothing missing, it's just a rare way of phrasing this kind of sentence, where the word "return" obtains an extra grammatical property of acting like "become". <S> There are some more words that can obtain this property; combining motion and "morphing" - but you'll see them even more rarely in this form: "appear", "arise", "emerge", "depart". <S> he departed a boy, and returned a man. <A> First, your four sentences are all wrong without <S> the like or <S> as . <S> He works as a cashier. <S> He is a cashier. <S> But not : <S> He works a cashier . <S> (That actually would mean he is trying to swindle or trick a cashier.) <S> They are treated like children. <S> They get child-like treatment. <S> But not : They are treated children . <S> (That sounds like I'm pointing at a group of children who are going through chemotherapy.) <S> So, why is "He returned a hero" <S> considered acceptable English? <S> Good question. <S> (Great question, actually; that's why I upvoted it.) <S> It's just the way we can use words like hero with verbs like <S> leave and return ; sometimes the "as" can be omitted. <S> I could also say: He left a hero, he returned in disgrace. <S> He left a pauper, he returned a rich man. <S> You could also use this construct with a verb like finish : <S> He played 12 years in the league as a premier forward. <S> He finished his career a hero, having finally brought a championship to the city. <S> As for why this doesn't readily carry over to sentences about employment status or the taste of candy, I don't know if I can explain that, or come up with any quick test that would let a learner know when the as can be omitted, and when it must be retained.
| It only can mean "returned back to the place, this time as a hero" If he was a hero, and then stopped being a hero, and then become a hero once more, the phrase would be "
|
Cleft Sentence: "No one saw the thief" -- "It was anyone who did not see the thief"? No one saw the thief. If I rewrite the sentence as "It was anyone who did not see the thief", is it the same in meaning with the original one? <Q> When we refer to the existence of something, we usually say there is (or there was ), not "it was". <S> Also, anyone means any person . <S> "It was" also suggests a particular person (for example, "It was Mr. Smith who saw the thief") but to say that there existed any person who did not see the thief doesn't make sense. <S> You could say <S> There was no one who saw the thief or <S> There was not anyone who saw the thief though. <A> You can't. <S> It's ungrammatical. <S> No one saw the thief. <S> * <S> It was no one that saw the thief . <S> ← <S> ungrammatical <S> Why? <S> Because an <S> it -cleft is a type of ‘specificational’ sentence. <S> That is to say, you're specifying who saw the thief. <S> And you can't do that unless someone actually saw the thief . <S> This is all laid out formally in Renaat Declerck's 1988 Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts in the opening section on specificational sentences. <S> On page 10 he explains that it -clefts are specificational; on page 14 he writes: <S> The variable part of a specificational sentence is the 'presupposition', not only in the sense that it represents old information, but also in the sense that it refers to something that is logically presupposed. <S> The sentence <S> It was John who committed the murder <S> logically presupposes that someone committed the murder. <S> Even if the specificational sentence does not contain a formulation of the variable (as in (Who committed the murder?) <S> – It was John ) <S> the presupposition remains present. <S> And of course, as can be expected of logical presuppositions, it remains intact when the specificational sentence is put in the negative ( It was not John who committed the murder ). <S> In your sentence, the presupposition would be "Someone saw the thief". <S> That would mean there's some variable X in the mind of the speaker and hearer that fits into "the X who saw the thief". <S> On page 17, Declerck explains that this variable must exist: The fact that the presupposition of existence attached to the variable of a specificational sentence cannot be eliminated by making the sentence negative follows automatically from the nature of the presupposition. <S> We have defined the presupposition in question as meaning that a specificational sentence requires the variable to be explicitly or implicitly present in the preceding discourse or in the sentence itself. <S> Clearly, if there is no variable, no act of specification can take place. <S> In consequence it is logically impossible that a (negative) specificational sentence could serve to cancel the presupposition that the variable exists. <S> A specificational sentence by its very nature requires that the variable must exist. <S> (emphasis added) <S> But in your case, the variable does not exist, so you can't turn the sentence into an it -cleft. <A> No one saw the thief One is a pronoun here, and is being used as a synonym for person , or individual . <S> So no one can be reworded as: Not a single individual... <S> Saw is a verb and is past tense for to see . <S> A synonym is notice . <S> Plugging this in, and continuing with past tense, our sentence becomes: Not a single individual noticed the thief To your question then, is this the same as, "it was anyone who did not see the thief? <S> " It was a good effort, but no, it was not anyone who did not see but <S> instead no one who saw : <S> There was no one who saw the thief <A> No, because "anyone" refers to someone or "some-one" meaning an individual. <S> Q: <S> Did any-one see the thief? <S> A: <S> No, no-one saw the thief.
| No, because "It was anyone who did not see the thief" does not make sense the same way as "No one saw the thief."
|
What is the difference between "Of Mice and Men" and "On Mice and Men"? I mean, apart from the fact that the former is the title of a famous novel. Can you define the difference? What are the different shades of meaning here? <Q> If you're talking about "Of" and <S> "On" when they both mean "about", here's the difference: <S> "Of" means that the story belongs to the "mice and men". <S> It means that it is primarily their story. <S> "On" means that the story simply happens to be about those people. <S> Titles of "On ____" are usually reserved for close studies rather than stories. <S> However, that's not where the actual title of the book comes from. <S> Its origin is an old poem by Robert Burns, from a line "The best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley". <S> It roughly means "Plans made by mice and men both end up terribly for their creators very often." <A> I'm not sure if this the answer you're looking for. <S> The second could mean lots of things. <S> It could mean that something is physically attached or in connection with Mice and Men. <S> It could also mean that someone is responsible for or talks about them. <S> You should know that the meaning can change depending on the sentence. <S> Those are not complete sentences. <A> Apart from its use as a famous title, and apart from its use in the adage.... <S> There is a difference between "of {something}" and "on {something}". <S> On suggests a treatise discussing the named subject in an organized, pedagogical manner, whereas of is more freeform, and could be an essay or a story or a contemplative philosophical meditation involving the named subject.
| The first implies the Mice and Men's possession of something.
|
What does "For next to nothing" mean? I will start with the example I know to make it clear. In a TV show this conversation happened: Guy1: This car is crap. I'll buy it for next to nothing? Guy2: How next to? I guess the fans of this show will figure out what it is :). Anyway, what does "for next to something" mean? And how is it possible to ask "How next to?". I think answering the first will lead to the second. <Q> Imagine a scale of possible prices, from zero to infinity. <S> What sits immediately next to nothing (zero) on that scale? <S> " <S> Almost nothing." <S> "How next to?" is a jocose question whose purpose is to determine the degree of "almostness": how close to zero, exactly, is the price? <S> Does "almost nothing" mean a dime, a quarter, or ten dollars? <S> Closely related is the idiomatic phrase "next door to": STELLA: <S> A rhinestone tiara she wore to a costume ball. <S> STANLEY: <S> What's rhinestone? <S> STELLA: <S> Next door to glass. <S> In this excerpt from A Streetcar Named Desire , a play by Tennessee Williams, Stella explains to Stanley (who thought that he was looking at something valuable) that the tiara is really, really cheap. " <S> Next door to glass" means "Those are not real diamonds. <S> They're fake. <S> They're made of rhinestone. <S> How expensive is rhinestone? <S> Barely more expensive than glass." <A> "Next to nothing" means "nearly no money"; the man is saying he won't pay much for it. <S> "How next to?" is not standard. <S> It's a play on "next to nothing"; just like someone would ask "How broken is it?" <S> or "How cold are you? <S> ", the man is asking "How 'next to' nothing does the price have to be for you to buy it?" <A> Next to = almost, very nearly. <S> You use the phrase "next to" for people or things that are very near or beside each other; in other words, it means almost or very nearly. <S> The amount that is next to nothing means the amount that is almost/nearly nothing; it's too small to be expected or wished for. <S> In light of this definition, the first sentence is clear. <S> As for the second phrase "How next to?", B wants to know how small the amount is that A will pay. <S> A. 50 dollars (for example). <A> And generally, when someone says "Next to nothing", they mean exactly "nothing", give or take a fractional amount. <S> The second sentence implies that the second guy acknowledges the fact that the car is worthless and he would take any amount the first guy has to offer. <S> In plain words, "How next to ?" <S> implies <S> "What can you pay me for this crappy car?" <A> You plugged the words out of the sentence in a very unfortunate way. <S> "for next to" is total nonsense. <S> The original sentence should be read as: <S> I'll buy it for (a very low price). <S> And "a very low price" was replaced with "next to nothing" - <S> the number that he is willing to pay isn't nothing, but very close to nothing. <S> The nearest thing to nothing he could think off. <S> The 2nd guy uses a bit of humour to ask "how close to nothing would your best offer be" - shortened to "How next to". <S> Which isn't proper English, but the kind of English that I might use in humour to play with words.
| "Next to" means "almost" in this case. "Next to nothing" implies that he would not pay anything (or a very negligible amount) for the car.
|
"Last night at 9 PM, I ate dinner" -- Does this sentence mean that it began at 9 or finished at 9? This sentence "Last night at 9 PM, I ate dinner" means that the action began at 9 or finished at 9? Does it mean that I started eating at 9? <Q> The use of the preposition at specifies a certain point in time. <S> I cannot stress the following enough: It would be rare to non-existent for a native speaker to utter your sentence and refer to 9 PM as the stopping point. <S> We often say sentences like yours (using at a specific time) to refer to the starting time of a meal or other event. <S> This is probably so that other people know what time to arrive at the meal or event. <S> This includes both the past and non-past. <S> Examples with at in addition to your sentence include Past 1 Lunch was at 3 yesterday. <S> 2 <S> We had breakfast at 6. <S> 3 <S> They would always eat at noon. <S> All the above refer to the start time. <S> Non-past 4 Dinner is at 7 tonight. <S> 5 <S> I always eat lunch at 1 pm. <S> 6 <S> At midnight I like to have snack. <S> Again, the above refer to a point in time , and that point in time is the start time. <S> To indicate the stopping point with at , you would usually need to make it clear: 7 <S> Last night I finished my dinner at 9pm. <S> 8 Lunch is over at 12:30. <S> Then you return to class. <S> Note <S> : This answers the question you have actually asked. <S> Note that the speaker of the sentence could have "rounded off" a close time (say 9:05pm) to 9pm, but this does not affect anything about the meaning of the actual sentence the speaker says, using at . <S> It only means the speaker was not precise in giving the time. <S> Changing the prepositional phrase to around 9pm changes the meaning of the sentence to 9pm plus or minus about 15 minutes . <S> But you did not ask about around 9pm . <S> As a side issue, it is not necessary to say PM when you specify last night since PM includes the hour of nine at night. <A> As a native speaker, I'd argue that the statement is generic enough to say that the answer is "all of the above". <S> What this is realistically saying is " <S> Last night, around 9 PM, I ate dinner." <S> - meaning that they could have: started eating at 8:45 and finished at 9... <S> started at 9 and finished at 9:15... <S> started at 8:45 and finished at 9:15... <S> started eating at 9:15 and ended at 9:30. <S> There's no real way to know which is "correct" and if the person phrased it this way, it probably doesn't really matter. <S> All they're saying is that, some time during the hour from 9-10 pm, they ate dinner. <S> If someone wanted to be explicit they would say something more specific like: <S> I worked so late last night that I didn't sit down to dinner until 9 pm. <S> There was so much food at the feast that I didn't finish eating dinner until 9 pm! <S> In these examples, you can clearly see that the action is beginning or ending at 9 pm, respectively. <A> Last night at 9PM, I ate dinner. <S> Start. <S> Last night at 9PM, I finished eating dinner. <S> End. <S> Last night at 9PM, I had eaten dinner. <S> End or later. <S> Last night at 9PM, I was eating dinner. <S> Some time during the dinner. <S> Last night at 9PM, I had been eating dinner. <S> Some time during the dinner when an interruption occurs. <A> I think it's safe to say that telicity is involved here. <S> [On the other hand I don't think the use of light verbs ( e.g. , have for eat <S> ) matters in this case.] <S> Compare the following sentences: <S> *I conquered Elbonia for three days. <S> I conquered Elbonia in three days. <S> Eating or to eat is not a necessarily complete act. <S> Eating a meal or to eat a meal is necessarily a complete act. <S> Otherwise you would only be eating part of the meal . <S> Notice that we would have to switch to a continuous or progressive description (or change the tense entirely) in order to be able to indicate anything other than the time at which the meal occurred. <S> I was eating around nine o'clock. <S> However we are considering the entire, complete act. <S> In some sense it isn't relevant when it begins and ends--precisely because it is complete and self-contained. <S> Thus it is unnecessary to force the beginning alone to be aligned with the time mentioned. <S> I ate at nine. <S> I did eat at nine. <S> These statements include all the information we need to understand the time of occurrence because they force us to consider the meal as an event <S> taking place at a specific time. <A> I think this sentence has an uncertainty which shows the person might have started his dinner somewhere around 9 PM, so he is not sure <S> but he somehow manages to remember time while he was having dinner or after finishing his dinner. <A> Interesting sentence. <S> It's the answer that I would give if I was asked "what did you do yesterday at precisely 9 PM?". <S> In that case the answer would mean "At precisely 9 PM, I was eating. <S> So most likely I started before 9 PM and finished after 9 PM, unless I took my very first or very last bite at exactly 9 PM". <S> On the other hand, if I said "at 8 PM, I came home from work. <S> At 8:30 I had a shower, and at 9 PM I had dinner" - then it would mean that the shower started at 8:30, and the dinner started at 9 PM. <S> It all depends on the context.
| Since a meal cannot be eaten in/over/during a point of time , the most common way to interpret your sentence Last night at 9 PM, I ate dinner is that you are telling at what point in time that dinner started .
|
What does "She was sick of old men leering at her." mean? What does the following sentence mean? She was sick of old men leering at her. <Q> If you say somebody is sick of something, you mean that they're tired or fed up with whatever that thing is. <S> For example, a student who has a lot of homework to do might say "I'm sick of doing homework." <S> leer (verb): to look with a sideways or oblique glance, especially suggestive of lascivious interest or sly and malicious intention <S> dictionary.com <S> We're particularly interested in the "lascivious interest" part, <S> so: lascivious (adjective): indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness <S> dictionary.com <S> So she is tired of old men looking at her in a way that expresses sexual interest. <A> She was sick of old men leering at her. <S> She was tired of old men always looking at her with sexual desire. <A> The old men were leering at her , i.e. they were giving her lecherous looks. <S> She was fed up of that happening . <S> This implies that either it had been going on for a long time (those old men had stamina for their leering), or that it had been happening a lot (those old men were just the latest old men in a long series of leerers).
| To be sick of something is a metaphor - she hated it so much that it was making her nauseous, figuratively speaking.
|
What is the opposite of the word 'optimum' for this context? The use of the optimum formula of x compounds is relatively small. What is the opposite of the word optimum ? Is it non-optimum ? Could inefficient be a choice? <Q> It depends on what you mean by opposite : <S> Do you mean exact opposite, as the hottest one -- the coldest one ? <S> Or do you mean just negation, like <S> the hottest one -- not the hottest one ? <S> For exact opposite <S> I can't find antonym for the adjective optimum / optimal here. <S> Although antonym for the noun optimum is the noun pessimum , the word pessimum <S> neither can be used as adjective, nor has correspondent adjective in English (and you certainly need an adjective here). <S> For negation <S> The synonym for non-optimal is suboptimal . <S> The use of the optimum formula of x compounds is relatively small. <S> Post scriptum <S> I recommend you changing the word <S> optimum to optimal here, as you certainly need an adjective <S> (although the word optimum can be used as adjective too, most people prefer to interpret it as noun). <S> And together with some other changes: The use of the optimal formula for x compounds is relatively rare . <S> On the contrary, suboptimal formulas/formulae for x compounds are widely used. <S> (If I understood your original sentence correctly.) <A> There's something wrong with your sample sentence. <S> I know because I have no idea what it means. <S> Apart from that, I prefer "optimal," which is a natural adjective, to "optimum," which is not. <S> That said, there is no exact antonym for "optimal." <S> But, since it means "the best possible under the circumstances," you might as well make do with "worst possible," "least efficient," or simply "horrid." <A> From the Latin, pessimum, but that word didn't actually make it into English. <S> Instead there's optimism and pessimism, but those are entirely different. <S> Because the word didn't cross languages with its native opposite, though, it doesn't have a clear one in English. <S> Ricky has some decent ones. <A> 'optimum' is not a native English word. ' <S> optimal' would be one. <S> As such, its antonym will be 'non-optimal'(used frequently in mathematics). <S> 'optimum' is an example of mixed English, which is usually spoken by non-native speakers. <S> I, being an Indian, have seen examples of this among locals.
| On the contrary, suboptimal formulas/ suboptimal formulae are widely used.
|
Why is this not a pronoun error? "To those of us who had heard the principal [..] the news of the staff cuts was not surprising." From the SAT: To those of us who had heard the principal of the high school talk about the budget, the news of the staff cuts was not surprising. Why is it had and not have ? Because isn't those plural? <Q> Had heard is cast in the Past Perfect tense, to make it "deeper in the past" compared with the Simple Past construction " was not surprising ". <S> Compare: <S> "To those of us who have heard the principal <S> the news seems grim", said John. <S> From the standpoint of John, the time when he spoke was present. <S> This is why John used the Present Perfect construction have heard , and since those is plural, he used have . <S> John said that to those of them who had heard the principal the news seemed grim. <S> Now we are reporting what John said. <S> We backshift seem to seemed (Simple Past), and backshift have heard even deeper in the past, making it had heard (Past Perfect). <A> You seem to be confused about the applicability of the past tense verb form "had" (and, by extension, the past perfect "had heard") to plural subjects. <S> While the present tense form "have" does have a separate form "has" for third-person singular subjects, no such separate form exists for "had": Present <S> perfect: <S> I have heard. <S> You have heard. <S> He/ <S> she has heard. <S> (← distinct third person singular form) <S> We have heard. <S> You have heard. <S> They have heard. <S> Past perfect: <S> I had heard. <S> You had heard. <S> He/ <S> she had heard. <S> We had heard. <S> You had heard. <S> They had heard. <S> This is actually a general feature of English verb morphology, not just something peculiar to the verb "have". <S> Compare <S> e.g. <S> "I walk", "he/she walk s ", "they walk" in the present tense, but "I walked", "he/she walked", "they walked" in the past tense. <S> Ps. <S> In your question, you've also emphasized the singular third-person verb "was", whose subject in the sentence is "the news". <S> The reason for that apparent concordance failure is that, despite looking like a plural (and, historically, originally being one), the word " news " in modern English is uncountable * (just like "water" or "information" or "happiness") and thus takes singular verb forms. <S> So <S> : OK: <S> The news is good. <S> Wrong: <S> The news are good. <S> ("News" is not plural.) <S> And also: <S> OK: <S> I've heard news from home. <S> OK: I've heard some news from home. <S> Wrong: <S> I've heard a news from home. <S> ("News" takes no indefinite article.) <S> *) <S> The Wiktionary page I linked to above does list the rare plural form " newses " for "news". <S> While it's not really surprising that such a plural should exist (as pretty much all "uncountable" English nouns can be pluralized in special situations, e.g. when referring to multiple distinct collections of the uncountable substance), in my personal experience I must say that it is very rare, and not something you should normally use. <S> Even when speaking of multiple distinct items or sets of news (as in "today's and yesterday's news"), the word "news" still normally remains uncountable, and still takes singular verb forms. <A> We may reasonably infer that the context here establishes a'Reference Time' —the time that is being talked about—as the time when the cuts were announced. <S> At that time, the cuts were surprising to most people, but not to those people who had heard the principal speak about the budget at some earlier time . <S> Had heard is a past perfect: the event it names is one which occurred before Reference Time and gives rise to a state at Reference Time: in this case, a state of 'non-surprise'. <S> Have does not inflect for number in its past-tense form; had is used with all numbers and persons.
| There is no plural-singular distinction for the had verb in Past Perfect.
|
Comma in sentences with 'since' What do you know about the comma used in the sentence with a 'since'?If the structure of a sentence is "Since (Noun + Verb) (Noun + Verb)"How's right? Since (Noun + Verb) , (Noun + Verb) Since (Noun + Verb) (Noun + Verb) <Q> I've found it useful to use a comma because the since clause is a separate qualifying thought/idea: <S> Since the beginning of time, day will follow night Since he started running, he's lost weight <S> It is also a natural place to <S> take a breath when speaking/reading which usually signifies a good place for a comma. <A> According to grammar, when a subordinating clause with "since" comes before a main clause, you put a comma after the subordinating clause. <S> So the first structure i.e. "since + noun + verb, noun + verb" is correct, whereas the other structure without comma isn't correct. <S> Look at the following sentences in the first pattern: Since Adam is going, Peter is going, too. <S> Since you've finished your homework, you may go out and play. <A> 'Since' at the beginning of a clause indicates a subordinating clause. <S> However, the order of the clauses does matter. <S> Subordinating clause, + Independent clause = use comma <S> Independent clause + Subordinating clause = <S> no comma Example Since it is Christmas, I will buy my Mum a present. <S> I will buy my Mum a present since it is Christmas.
| The word "since" is a conjunction introducing a coordinating clause in the structures presented by the OP; " since + subject + verb " forms a subordinating clause.
|
Progressive use of stative verbs I was wondering if it would be possible to say: "I have been wanting to go to iceland now for more than 10 years!". given the fact that 'want' is a stative verb it is not common to use a progressive tense, but in this context I figured it might be plausible to put emphasis on the duration. Is this correct? thanks! <Q> I have been wanting to do something for such a long time <S> It is informal and used in conversation, usually to signify the realisation of a dream: I have been wanting to go to Antarctica for ages to see the penguins. <A> Sure, there's nothing wrong with it. <S> I'd phrase it like so: "I've been wanting to go to Iceland for over ten years now!" <S> Wanting could be replaced by longing, or wanting to by dreaming of. <S> Go could be replaced by travel or maybe visit. <S> I bring this up because it feels too literal as is, there isn't enough emotion to it. <A> I have been wanting to go to Iceland now for more than 10 years. <S> The OP is right that want is a stative verb, but you can use it in the continuous to emphasize an ongoing or repeated process. <S> You can also use the want in the continuous for indirectness or politeness. <S> So there's nothing wrong with the sentence presented above, in which the want has been used in the continuous for emphasis. <S> Please look up "want in the continuous" in the following link:
| As a native speaker, there is nothing wrong or awkward sounding in your sentence: "I've been dreaming of visiting Iceland for over ten years now..." feels more wistful and effective, and so seems more natural.
|
What is the difference between booking and renting something? When should I use "book"? When should I use "rent"? For example, which one is correct? A: How can I help you?B: I want to book a limo. A: How can I help you?B: I want to rent a limo. For me, "renting" a car or limo is correct but in our lesson book, we used "booking limo". <Q> Dictionary definition of to book: reserve (accommodation, a place, etc.) <S> ; buy (a ticket) in advance Dictionary definition of to rent <S> pay someone for the use of (something, typically property, land, or a car <S> The difference is that book is in advance, rent is paying someone at the time. <S> Booking a vehicle is reserving the use of it, and renting is paying for the use of it at the time <A> Generally, "booking" means scheduling an appointment , while "renting" is the act of actually doing something . <S> So, it is possible to book a limousine <S> and then later cancel your reservation if your plans change, <S> but if you are now ready to hire and pay for the limousine service, then "I want to rent a limo" would be correct. <A> book is often used when you want to check in some place or make a reservation. <S> It's used as a phrasal verb. <S> book in (make a reservation in advance) — <S> I'll <S> book us in at the restaurant. <S> book in (check in a hotel) — <S> Once we arrived, we went to the hotel and booked in . <S> book up (reserve) — <S> The tickets have been booked up . <S> We can't fly. <S> — <S> I needed to arrive faster, <S> so I rented out a fast car.
| rent is used when someone grants you a service or allows something to be used for a fee.
|
Which one is correct: "Do you wake at seven?" or "Do you wake up at seven?" Someone said to me that the first one is the correct answer, because you use "wake up" to ask someone to stop sleeping. But I think the first one does not sound natural. <Q> But this isn't always the case. <S> I don't always like to use NGrams <S> but here's a helpful image <S> that shows the recent trend: <S> Of course, this misses some various other phrases that are similar, like the command "wake me at 7 am"... which is fine but can also be phrased "wake me up at 7 am".' <S> So, to answer your question, in modern English, "wake up at" is more appropriate and common but "wake at" is not technically incorrect... <S> it's simply not much in modern use and you may find pockets where it is still quite acceptable. <A> I believe it's the second sentence that's correct and that your friend's misinformed. <S> One could say Are you awake at seven? <S> but omitting up sounds like wake <S> is something one does when one watches over someone . <S> According to the wisdom of the net , there are other meanings to the very to wake and those use different prepositions. <S> However, the act of entering a conscious state interrupting ones sleep is usually accompanied with up . <A> Usually, 'wake' is followed by 'up' when you talk about getting up from a sleep or a nap. <S> And I don't think ' <S> Do you wake at seven?' <S> is the correct way to ask that. <S> Technically, it is not wrong, but ideally, the latter is a better option. <S> Generally, you 'wake' and you 'get up' , which is exactly what 'wake up' means.
| In modern (American) English, "wake" in your example is generally followed by "up".
|
Why doesn't "aversion" correspond to "aver"? I thought that the noun " aversion " was derived from the verb " aver ". However, it seems they have different meanings. My question is, how can an English learner know such nouns?I don't think there is a general rule. Should I consider such cases as the things that must be memorized? <Q> As others have indicated, you cannot rely on a word's form to deduce it's meaning. <S> Often there is a correspondence. <S> Words are often formed by combining parts in a predictable way. <S> But there are many paths that words can take to arrive in English. <S> From etymonline : <S> aver (v.) <S> late 14c., from Old French averer "verify," from Vulgar Latin *adverare "make true, prove to be true," from Latin ad- "to" (see ad-) + verus "true" (see very). <S> Related: <S> Averred; averring. <S> avert <S> (v.) c. 1400, from Old French avertir (12c.), <S> "turn, direct; avert; make aware," from Vulgar Latin *advertire, from Latin avertere "to turn away, to drive away," from ab- "from, away" (see ab-) + vertere "to turn" (see versus). <S> Related: <S> Averted; averting. <S> averse (adj.) <S> mid-15c. <S> , "turned away in mind or feeling," from Old French avers and directly from Latin aversus "turned away, turned back," past participle of avertere (see avert). <S> Originally and usually in English in the mental sense, while avert is used in a physical sense. <S> aversion (n.)"a turning away from," 1590s <S> ; figurative sense of "mental attitude of repugnance" is from 1650s, from Middle French aversion and directly from Latin aversionem (nominative aversio), noun of action from past participle stem of aversus "turned away, backwards, behind, hostile," itself past participle of avertere (see avert) <S> As you can see, there is a reason for the formation of the words, but it isn't necessarily obvious from the English spelling. <S> Notably, aver doesn't belong in the same group as aversion , averse , avert . <A> Yes, there are words in English that sound similar, but are in fact not related at all, and the similarity is just a coincidence. <S> Other times, of course, similarity is because one word is derived from the other or they have a common root. <S> I don't know what your native language is. <S> But are there not words that sound similar but have no relation to each other? <S> I have difficulty imagining how you could tell just from looking at two words whether similarity is significant or coincidental. <S> Perhaps linguists have researched types of similarities and patterns and have developed rules, but I'd be hard pressed to think of any way you could look at "aver" and "aversion" and discern that the similarity was coincidental without looking up their definitions and etymologies. <S> So short answer <S> : There's no easy answer. <A> This is a matter of vocabulary. <S> Some nouns are formed by adding — ion / — ation . <S> Sometimes the spelling changes. <S> oppress <S> → oppress ion organise <S> → organis ation collide <S> → collis ion <S> The same happens with the adjectives, we can add — ness to make nouns: <S> sad → sad ness <S> tired → tired ness <S> One mostly learns this vocab with a lot of reading or by hearing other people.
| You have to know the words or look them up.
|
What do you call it when someone searches through your stuff? This is one of the things that I don't really know the proper name for, because I've never heard anyone say it, but I know how to explain it. Let's say a toddler is searching through your backpack, then you tell him: Stop -blank- my things! Can you guys provide more than one expression? <Q> This question seems to be asking about two actions. <S> One is someone 'going through' a backpack. <S> The other one is 'going through the things found in a backpack'. <S> Stop going through my things <S> fits the second case. <S> As does the expression you provided: <S> Stop searching through my stuff <S> User3169 has provided a highly idiomatic expression: Stop digging through my things <S> CopperKettle has provided the useful verb rummage (which is also a noun): <S> Stop rummaging (through) my backpack <S> Also, stop messing with my things <S> /stuff is similar, but it is broader in meaning. <S> You can also say Get your hands out of my backpack <S> Leave my stuff alone <S> Find your own toys to play with For variety and vocabulary expansion, you might want to be aware of <S> rifle as a verb means to go through something quickly in order to steal something , and we wouldn't generally use that for a toddler. <S> Note <S> : I have not used a period after any of the italicized examples, because I want to leave open the fact that you can add , toddler's name or something else the end of each one. <S> Stop messing with my stuff, lovey dovey. <A> Stop digging through my things! <S> For a person (older than a toddler anyway), also: <S> Stop snooping in my things! <A> rifling - the act or process of ransacking (or robbing). <S> Definition #2 at dictionary.com. <A> You can say: Stop rooting around my personal belongings! <S> root around is a phrasal verb that is defined by Cambridge as: to search for something, especially by looking through other things <S> And gives the following example as to its usage: <S> She was rooting around in her drawer for a pencil. <S> But I have heard it used in the context that you mention (and a quick Google search for "stop rooting around my" would point to many examples in that same vein).
| Stop rifling through my things but
|
When can "and" be replaced with "&"? I usually find "&" in the trade name, say, "John & Company". I do not find "&" being used in sentences. What is the correct rule of usage of "&"? When can "and" be replaced with "&"? <Q> It's more of a choice rather than a norm. <S> 23andMe <S> is an example of 'and' instead of '&' in a company name. <S> ' <S> &', however, is more common and is more prevalent than 'and'. <S> For a formal usage '&' is widely used: Business names: <S> e.g. AT&T Addressing couples: <S> e.g. Mr. & Mrs. Smith Academic papers (when there are multiple authors): <S> e.g. Green, Black & White <S> Informally, it depends on the user. <A> Anywhere, but it doesn't exactly help readability. <S> It's great for personal notes, which is what & was made for, but when you want things to be publicly readable, it tends to break the flow. <S> So & is normally used in company names and personal notes, and that's about it. <A> This is largely a matter of style, rather than of the language itself. <S> Suffice to say, emoji are right out. <S> Common guidance is that the ampersand should only be used in names, terms, or titles which are conventionally written with one (e.g. Marks & Spencer, P&G), but not as a generic replacement for and in body text. <S> The Economist style guide is typical: <S> Ampersands should be used 1. <S> when they are part of the name of a company (eg, AT&T, Pratt & Whitney); 2. <S> for such things as constituencies where two names are linked to form one unit (eg, The rest of Brighouse & Spenborough joins with the Batley part of Batley & Morley to form Batley & Spen. <S> Or The area thus became the Pakistani province of Kashmir and the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir); <S> 3. <S> in R&D and S&L. APA style says the last two names of authors in a citation may be joined with an ampersand, whereas MLA and CMOS say to write out and . <S> The AP Stylebook even tweeted that ampersands should only be used in a company name or composition title - House & Garden - or in accepted abbreviations: B&B, R&B.
| Most style guides traditionally frown upon the use of symbols to replace letters and words in formal communication ; this goes not only for the ampersand (&), but for the percent sign (%), hash mark (#), and for that matter numerals, at least for smaller numbers.
|
Should I say "I've never heard someone say it" or "I've never heard someone saying it" or both are acceptable? I asked a question in which I said "I've never heard someone saying it", and one of our fellow ELL users corrected it to "I've never heard someone say it". Can I say "I've never heard someone saying it" or not? if not why? The context is This is one of the things that I don't really know the proper name for, because I've never heard someone say it, but I know how to explain it. Any explanation is appreciated! <Q> I would prefer "I've never heard anyone say (that/it like that/it that way)". <S> The ending depends on the specific circumstances. <A> It's not common usage, but I don't think it's ungrammatical. <S> I think the hang up is that you don't hear someone saying things, you hear someone say things. <S> This means that you take in the completed speech in total, not the speech in process. <A> They are both correct but used differently. <S> I've never heard someone <S> say it. <S> This one means pretty much what it sounds like <S> , you've never heard someone <S> say it. <S> I've never heard someone saying it. <S> this one instead of just meaning "you've never heard someone <S> say it. <S> " It means that you haven't ever heard someone. <S> while <S> they were saying "it" this is very subtle difference that I have no clue where you would use instead of the first one <S> but I do know there is a difference. <A> I would say that "I've never heard it said" or even better " <S> I've never heard it named" since it's specifically then naming <S> you've never heard said. <S> "Someone" is unnecessary. <S> No need to introduce a character who fails to say anything into the narrative. <S> Finally, consider setting off the last clause some other way: you have a result and a cause, and that's enough for one main sentence. <S> The "but I can explain it" is kind of an afterthought. <S> Set off with an ellipsis (...) or dash (—). <A> (edit) <S> I had a comment about requiring context, e.g., <S> I never heard anyone saying it while being chased by a bear but within minutes I realized that even here I would use "say", not "saying". <S> The only exception would be if you're negating the sentence <S> I never heard someone saying it while being chased by a bear before that day <S> but even here 'say' feels better.
| You can and I don't believe it's ungrammatical, but both sound a little wrong (as a native American English speaker).
|
Does "make little sense" have the same meaning as "not reasonable"? In the following description: It makes little sense to estimate separate mean and variance for each pixel. (used in data pre-processing) In my knowledge, "little" is a negative word. So, can I substitute "make little sense" with "is not reasonable" while retaining the meaning of the expression? <Q> It means the same thing (in certain contexts). <S> "Make little sense" means "is not practical" or <S> "there is no point in doing so" . <S> It simply implies that there is no use in doing whatever the context is about. <S> You could substitute it with "is not reasonable" <S> it the meaning of the sentence does not change doesn't change. <S> Additionally, you could use "impractical" too. <A> In any sort of computational processing, if you were to say that something is "not reasonable," the conclusion drawn is that what is being proposed is a very inefficient method. <S> It likely is technically a correct method, but it is not reasonable for the use case. <S> For example, here is one approach for checking if a number is prime: x = 2 <S> Divide number by <S> x <S> If the remainder is 1, return false Increment x by 1 and go back to step 2 <S> If x gets to input - 1 and we haven't returned false yet, return true <S> This is technically a correct approach, however it is grossly inefficient and impractical if you are working with bigger numbers. <S> A more efficient approach would be the implementing the Sieve of Eratosthenes , which I won't explain on here as this is a site about English :). <S> The method I outlined above DOES make sense , but it is not reasonable for working with bigger numbers. <S> So if you were trying to brute force some sort of encryption that uses big prime numbers, you'd be waiting for thousands of years for your calculations to finish. <S> On the other hand, if I outlined this method for finding out if a number is prime or not: Flip a coin. <S> If it is sunny out and the coin lands on its side, your number is prime! <S> Otherwise, it is false. <S> Then you would be able to say that this method does not make sense . <S> Even in general, when not referring to computer science applications, these two phrases are not mutually inclusive. <A> It makes little sense to estimate separate mean and variance for each pixel. <S> The word little in the sentence has a negative meaning. <S> It means not much, not enough, not sufficient, or not significant. <S> It has been used to mean not as much sense as is required or expected to estimate..........
| The word phrase "not reasonable" in the sense of "not fairly good" can be used instead of little, but I think the use of "not enough or not much" is better. Especially in the field that you're asking about, these do not mean the same thing .
|
Order of placing clauses in a two-clause sentence Which of the following is correct: If you so desire, you may download the content. You may download the content, if you so desire. Apparently, they appear to be all same but, on critically examining the sentences, I find an issue with the first sentence. The issue is: the first clause in the sentence refers to a desire by using the words If you so desire , though the desire has not been expressed by then; the desire has been expressed in the subsequent clause; so, going logically, it is the second clause - that is, you may download the content - which should come first and, it is only after the desire expressed in second clause has been mentioned, the first clause - that is, If you so desire - should come. The second sentence follows this order, so it is only the second sentence which appears correct to me. Am I correct? <Q> Yes, this "so" is an anaphor and it demands an antecedent. <S> Normally, an antecedent precedes the anaphor -- which is the reason we call it an antecedent. <S> However, there is a case when the so-called antecedent follows the anaphor in sentence structure. <S> Your first example is a good example of that case. <S> The "so" appears in a subordinate clause. <S> It's antecedent appears in the main clause. <S> The subordinate nature of "if you so desire" sets up the expectation that a main clause -- a clause that comes before it in importance if not in word order -- will contain the antecedent. <S> In the main clause of your examples, "[to] download the content" is the nature of the desire. <S> That is the antecedent of "so". <S> We could paraphrase the example by including the antecedent in the subordinate clause and leaving the anaphor in the main clause, if the subordinate clause occurs first in the word order: If you desire to download the content, you may [do so]. <S> The anaphor must come second. <S> It can be second in word order or second in clause importance, <S> but it must be at least one of those. <S> The anaphor fails if it comes first in both those considerations: You may [do so] if you desire to download the content. <S> In this sentence, the "[to] do so" (or even just the bare "may") does not refer to "to download the content". <S> It has to refer to something else, most likely to something from the prior sentence. <S> The first one is correct because the clause containing the anaphor is second in importance, and we know that a more important clause must follow and must contain the antecedent. <S> The second one is correct because the clause containing the anaphor is second in word order, and we know the antecedent of "so" before we reach the anaphor. <S> The second example is easier to understand and easier to explain, but it is not more correct than the first. <S> Both examples are correct, both examples can be understood, and both examples can be explained. <A> Both work. " <S> So" doesn't imply that which just happened or was stated, it just refers to a proximate thing, in past or future, before or after. <S> It's entirely equivalent in meaning to "if you would like", which also doesn't mind whether the paired phrase comes before or after. <A> Both sentences are equivalent and correct. <S> Maybe the nuance can be shown by an example which has more than one choice: <S> "If you so desire, you may download, or print out, or email the content." <S> To me, a native speaker, when used this way, it indicates there is an anticipation of the different actions by the person spoken to (as you point out the desires are enumerated later). <S> It is softer and more polite. <S> The phrase itself carries a feeling of deference . <S> For example, speaking to a friend, the equivalent might be: <S> "You could download, or print out, or email the content." <S> Putting if you so desire at the end, seems to say well, if that's what you want to do , more of a hedge by the speaker than anticipating and trying to fill a need of the person spoken to.
| Both of your original examples are correct.
|
They are going to rate/ or evaluate our working performance. Is there a difference? Is there a difference between the words evaluate and rate ? For example, does a boss evaluate or rate one's work? <Q> To rate a performance is to estimate the value of something on some quality scale. <S> e.g. Rate this from 1 to 10. <S> We were rated the third-best of the presenters. <S> He rates as one of the best journalists in town. <S> That website rated the movie with a very low score. <S> You will be evaluated on your skills on the exam. <S> The teacher evaluated the students' work and surprisingly, he failed three students on the assignment. <S> We are waiting for Luke to evaluate their performance to see how they're doing. <S> They are evaluating our paper to find out just how ground-breaking our discovery was. <S> The output of the evaluation doesn't have to be a rating or score ; it could be comments on how to improve something as well! <A> In this situation, they are pretty much interchangeable. <S> Here are the nuances: to rate <S> This verb has neutral formality, I could see this being used in casual contexts and formal papers alike. <S> The underlying "quality" exists on a scale of ratings. <S> Ratings are orderable: For any two different ratings X and Y, either X is greater than Y, or X is less than Y. <S> In the United States, films are rated G, PG, PG13, R, in terms of audience maturity <S> In finance, bonds are given AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB etc. <S> ratings for how likely the borrower will pay the money back. <S> to evaluate This verb is more formal. <S> For example, you can casually say My fashion magazine rates this season's outfits as "hot or not" <S> but it would be out of place to use "evaluates" here. <S> Also, the underlying "quality" is not necessarily on a scale. <S> Evaluations can be non orderable. <S> For example, you could say In our evaluation of employee A's performance, we found him to be uncooperative and slow to respond to emails <S> In our evaluation of employee B's performance, we found him to be very productive but unethical <S> It isn't clear which evaluation is "better". <A> He/ <S> She can do both. <S> Evaluate is used for things. <S> Rate is used for things or people. <S> 1.— <S> 2.— <S> The boss rated your performance.
| To evaluate is to undergo a process of reviewing something, testing things and judgement to see a thing's worth, quality, or significance. The boss evaluated the results .
|
Is 'swim in the soup ' a common expression for English native-speakers? When I was reading a book, I found this sentence: The Internet is the soup that our student have been swimming in all their lives Is this kind of an expression I have never heard ofcommonly used?If so,what does it mean? <Q> I did a Google search for "I am in the soup," and didn't find all that many hits. <S> Moreover, even ones that looked promising didn't mean necessarily mean "in trouble"; for example: the pilot again stated that he was "in the soup" <S> I thought that might mean that the pilot was in trouble, but, looking more closely at that webpage : <S> When interviewed later, the controller stated that he did not realize that "in the soup" meant "in the clouds." <S> Second, even though a dictionary can verify that in the soup can mean in trouble , I don't think that's what the author is conveying here. <S> I believe the soup here is simply a metaphorical broth, and: <S> The Internet is the soup that our students have been swimming in <S> is about the same as: <S> The Internet is the world that our students have been living in as evidenced by the author's prior statement: Children are not going to miss out on the glories of Facebook and YouTube because teachers failed to incorporate social media in their classrooms. <S> The Internet is the soup that our students have been swimming in all their lives. <S> In other words, the Internet is all around them . <A> To be in the soup is an expression dating back to the early 1800's: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/soup <S> It means being in trouble or being in deep shit. <A> When I think of soup in a metaphor, I think of it in comparison to other liquids; that is, it is cloudy and generally filled with random stuff. <S> The Merriam Webster definitions of the adjective 'soupy' include 'densely foggy or cloudy', seemingly in reference to weather. <S> Thus, for something to be 'soup' in a metaphorical sense, it must be somehow foggy or cloudy. <S> In you example, the students are swimming in soup, or, based on this definition, they are surrounded by a foggy or cloudy substance. <S> From this, I infer that the Internet is being described as a distraction, something that prevents students from seeing or properly interacting with the world around them, and they have been living in this way for their entire lives. <S> I think the use of 'swimming' is just part of an extended metaphor. <S> The emphasis is on the Internet as a soupy fog, but the only way to be immersed in literal soup is to be swimming in it. <A> "in the soup" is an idiom which means: in trouble 1 <S> What the author means is that the students nowadays are depending too much on Internet (google and social medias). <S> The author sees Internet as a hindrance to students' development as it is evident from the next paragraph 2 : 1. <S> Thefreedictionary 2. <S> GoogleBooks <A> It's common among English-speaking flies, perhaps. <S> One dimension of this offhand comment is to reference an ancient series of "fly in the soup" jokes. <S> For example: "Waiter, what's this fly doing in my soup?" <S> Waiter (examining closely) " <S> The breast stroke, sir" <S> It's a given that the fly is swimming, but what style of swimming? <S> Or in poorer taste, especially during a famine, or in a reputedly poor country <S> "Waiter, there's a fly in my soup!" <S> "Sssh, keep quiet or everyone will want one" <S> And others in similar vein, some sympathising with the plight of the fly rather than the customer. <S> I won't claim to know, but this might be the origin of "in the soup" for being in a sticky situation with poor chance of escape, such as a VFR-rated pilot,without instrument training, in cloud. <S> Chilling though it is, it seems to be an actual training video. <S> "In the soup" (0:44) is British understatement from the pilot, possibly not understood by people who hadn't heard the jokes. <S> So, the implicit question in the book is, how do our students learn to escape from the Internet or even see beyond it?
| First of all, I wouldn't call it a commonly-used idiom, although it would be hard to show that, because the phrase in the soup can be used in a lot of different ways (cooking being the most obvious).
|
Do we say "accuse somebody for" or "of"? In one of my essays, I wrote: She accused him for lack of morality and it was marked as a syntactic error. Do we use for or of with the verb accuse? <Q> As far as I know, accuse is always used with the preposition of . <S> To say accuse someone for something <S> is just grammatically wrong. <S> Example #1: <S> He was accused of embezzling millions of dollars through offshore accounts, but the court couldn't come up with solid proof of his crime that was enough to put him behind bars. <S> So, they just had to let him go. <S> Example <S> #2: <S> How dare you accuse me of stealing money from my own friends! <S> So, your example if properly rewritten would read like this: <S> She accused him of lacking moral principles. <A> You accuse someone "of" doing something. <S> You can however accuse someone "for" a given reason or "for" a third party(ie, on behalf of). <S> So both instances can occur in grammatically correct English but the more common use is the direct one, where you accuse someone OF a crime. <S> Also, you would either accuse someone of "A" lack of morality or accuse someone of "lacking" morality. <A> You should use "of" here. <S> He was accused of having destroyed the evidence. <S> The 'of' specifies the reason why he was accused, even though both of them are propositions. <A> Accuse to charge someone with a criminal act or allege that they have committed wrongdoing. <S> He was accused of stealing company funds. <S> "Accused of" is correct. <A> The answer really depends on what you're trying to say, but in an essay , you wouldn't want to phrase it like that, no matter what you were trying to say. <S> You might want to rephrase that, in an essay, to something like one of these, depending on the context and what you mean (although your teacher may prefer some over others): <S> She spoke against his moral character. <S> She accused him of immorality. <S> She accused him of being immoral. <S> She accused him on account of his lack of morality. <S> She accused him because of his lack of morality. <S> She accused him of having a lack of morality. <S> She accused him by reason of his lack of morality. <S> It should be noted that lack of morality and immorality are not necessarily synonymous in today's society. <S> Immorality more often refers to sexual misconduct, while lack of morality can mean that, but it might mean anything bad about the person's moral character. <S> 'She accused him[,] for lack of morality' can be shorthand for 'She accused him for the sake of his lack of morality.' <S> While your words could be correct (depending on what you mean), they'd be too informal for an essay, since they leave out a bunch of implied words. <S> Plus, it would be unconventional to phrase it this way in our day and age. <S> You wouldn't want to say the following in an essay, either, though (since it's also potentiality implying extra words, and it's really not how people talk, either): 'She accused him of lack of morality.' <S> Do the longer version of the same thing in an essay (or in conversation) instead, or rephrase it: <S> 'She accused him of having a lack of morality.' <S> You wouldn't say, 'She accused him of lack.' <S> but rather 'of having a lack.' ' <S> Lack of morality' isn't a single word that ends in 'ality' (like immorality is). <S> I would recommend rephrasing it and removing the words 'lack of', if possible, though. <S> Now to get to your question, 'of' is the preposition you would normally use with 'accuse'. <S> The cases where other prepositions seem to be used are things you could do with pretty much any sentence (e.g. I went fishing on account of the traffic jam). <S> There's nothing special about an 'accuse/on' combination that makes 'on' belong to the word 'accuse'. <S> Same with 'for the sake of'.
| If you accuse someone of doing something wrong or illegal, you tell them that you believe or suspect that they did it.
|
Are there any professional words given to the place where you were born but not raised I know a girl who was born in Melbourne in 199x but she was raised in Japan. Then she moved to China and has been living there for a few years. Before she went back to Melbourne, one of her school mates asked the question, "Why must you leave". The girl told him, "I miss the place where I was born". I have searched the Google web, which returned: hometown , place of birth . Place of birth is alright, but it is long and somewhat mouthful, I don't know why. According to online dictionary, the meaning of hometown can be either the town or city in which a person lives or was born, or from which a person comes, so, hometown , can not fully describe the situation in my question. Thank you. <Q> Birthplace is the single word that comes to mind. <S> Hometown has the connotation that one lived there for a while, but it sounds like your friend left shortly after birth. <S> Born then subsequently raised elsewhere, as in your example, Melbourne would not be her hometown since it sounds like she left when she was very small. <A> Motherland : <S> One’s native country. <S> Birthplace also came to my mind, but if I hear someone saying, "I miss my birthplace," this can give an impression that the speaker might be referring to a city in the same country she was born in or another country. <S> I would say it's vague. <S> For example: I could be born in New Delhi but currently living in Mumbai(both city are in the same country, India.). <S> So if I say, "I miss my birthplace," it can mean that I miss New Delhi. <S> If born in another country (your context), simply say: I miss my country. <S> She dearly misses her country. <A> According to the Oxford dictionaries : Natal Relating to the place or time of one <S> ’s birth: <S> he was living in the south, many miles from his natal city .
| I would use the adjective natal to describe the place of one's birth, for instance one's natal city.
|
Have a nice travel? I am looking for some kind way of replying to an email when the other person is saying that he will be traveling and asks for more time to complete something. It appears that "Have a nice day" could have some negative connotations ( https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/57692/what-s-wrong-with-saying-have-a-nice-day ), so I am wondering whether saying "Have a nice travel" is a good idea? <Q> How about, "have a nice trip"? <S> It sounds more natural, as a native English speaker. <A> 'Have a safe journey (or trip)' is one common phrase Have a safe trip or Have a safe journey <S> Be careful and assure that your journey is safe. <S> (Said as someone is about to leave for a trip.) <S> Bill: Well, we're off for London. <S> Sally <S> : Have a safe trip! <S> Bill: <S> You're driving all the way to San Francisco? <S> Bob <S> : Yes, indeed. <S> Bill: Well, have a safe trip. <S> www.thefreedictionary.com <A> You can use "Have a safe journey" or "Have a nice trip" "Bon voyage" is also a great phrase to use. <S> It originated from French. <A> interj. <S> Used to express farewell and good wishes to a departing traveler. <S> AHD <A> I prefer to say "Have a nice trip". <A> If it is a business trip, which sounds likely in the case given, I prefer "Have a safe trip" or "Safe travels". <S> If its is a holiday/vacation, I go with "Enjoy your trip" or "Enjoy your holiday". <S> If it is a business trip <S> and I know the person <S> really <S> well then I might also use "Enjoy your holiday" in a jocular sense.
| "Have a nice trip" is something formal... "safe trip" give something impression that he is going in some risky place where you are giving him wish to be safe. I will go with Bon voyage!
|
Does 'can' express definite possibility? Consider a sentence Scotland can be very warm in September. Here, does it mean that Scotland will surely be very warm in September or does it mean that Scotland may or may not be very warm in September? <Q> Uncertainty is a poor term to describe what can expresses. <S> It's true that can implies a kind of "uncertainty" about any future eventuality; it takes for granted that the future is inherently unknowable and cannot be predicted. <S> In many cases can implies that the eventuality has occurred in the past: <S> John can bench-press 400 pounds. <S> (I've seen him do it). <S> Scotland can be quite warm in September. <S> (When I was there in '05 it occasionally hit 80 degrees). <S> In other cases can expresses contingent possibility: If you study diligently you can pass this test. <S> Can stops short of predicting that a future eventuality will occur, but it emphatically denies the validity of any assertion that the eventuality cannot occur. <A> In your context applies the definition #2 a. from the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language : can 2 a. Used to indicate a possibility or probability: <S> I wonder if my long lost neighbor can still be alive. <S> Such things can and do happen. <S> This said, it means that Scotland may or may not be very warm in September, so the potential exists but we don't know for sure what is going to happen. <A> I don't know what you mean by "definite possibility <S> " so I'll address the questions you ask about your sentence. <S> Consider a sentence <S> Scotland can be very warm in September. <S> Here, does it mean that Scotland will surely be very warm in September <S> No, it does not mean this. <S> For this you can use <S> is <S> Scotland is very warm in September. <S> There is no "possibility" expressed in this sentence, only a fact. <S> You could also use Scotland will be very warm in September. <S> Like any statement about the future, this is a prediction. <S> But this prediction is so strong that it is stated as a fact. <S> That is, the person saying this sentence is predicting with 100% assurance that in September Scotland is very warm. <S> or does it mean that Scotland may or may not be very warm in September? <S> It is not saying it will be . <S> But it is a counter statement to the assertion that It is not possible for Scotland to be very warm in September . <S> That is, your sentence rejects this idea. <S> Perhaps this is what you mean by "definite possibility", for one can rewrite my above sentence as <S> It is definitely possible for Scotland to be very warm in September. <S> (And whoever says that this is impossible is wrong.) <S> Whether Scotland will be very warm in any given September is not predicted, just the assertion that it is possible to be. <S> Thus, by implication, it does mean Scotland may or may not be very warm in September so bring some warm weather clothes to wear just in case <S> Scotland is very warm if/ <S> when you go there in September. <A> Based on LDOCE , sense 9, can can be used to say what sometimes happens or how someone sometimes behaves as in <S> It can be quite cold here at night. <S> Peter can be really annoying. <S> It's true, based on LDOCE sense 4, that can also can be used to say that something is possible as in <S> There can be no doubt that he is guilty. <S> The boxes can be stored flat. <S> Can he still be alive after all this time?
| What it means is this: It is possible for Scotland to be very warm in September. It asserts quite confidently that a hypothetical eventuality is not impossible . But can doesn't address certainty: it is concerned with possibility .
|
What is the significance of "twelve" in "worth twelve of"? “You’re worth twelve of Malfoy,” Harry said. This is a sentence from Harry Potter I , where Harry said this to Neville. My question is what is actually meant by saying this. Is there any significance of twelve ? <Q> The number 12 (a dozen) is a very old and established unit of measurement in English, and presumably in other languages too. <S> A jury comprises 12 people too. <S> Even ten has probably slightly less resonance, but I expect the author could have used it equally. <A> I haven't read the book <S> so I can't say if there's greater significance in the specific context. <S> But in general, it's fairly common to say, "Al is twice the man that Bob is" or "Sally does five times as much work as Jane", with no intention that the number refers to any real measurement. <S> The actual number chosen, whether 2 or 10 or 12 or 1000, doesn't real mean anything, except to give a general idea of the magnitude that you're talking about. <S> If you said "Al is worth 100 times Bob", you are saying there is a huge difference, probably more than if you said "Al is worth twice as much as Bob". <S> But it would be very unlikely for someone to say "47 times" or "fourteen point <S> seven three times". <S> Such precision would only be meaningful if there was some real quantity being measured, like if we were comparing Al to Bob by the number of widgets that each could build in an hour <S> or some such. <S> Unless the number 12 has specific meaning in this book, it could probably have just as well said "you're worth ten of Mallory" or "you're worth fifteen of Mallory" and there would be no difference in meaning. <A> It would be a lot stranger if he said "eleven" or "twenty six. <S> " <S> Twelve (a dozen) is a very common number: <S> the year consists of twelve months; there were twelve Apostles; there are twelve hours in a day according to some clocks; twelve school grades; twelve players per soccer team if you count the goalie; twelve bars to a blues progression. <S> The book is the best ever written. <S> All other world literature pales by comparison. <S> The author should be canonized. <S> A petition to that end is already being composed at the highest level and will be sent to the Pope at the first available opportunity. <A> This might simply imply that Neville is 12 times the man that Malfoy ever was.
| Harry could have said "a dozen ..." with the same effect as 12, since they both have a familiar resonance with the culture that eight, eleven, 14, 17, etc do not have.
|
"Vietnamese girls like white skin" or "Vietnamese girls like white skins"? Ok, see Vietnamese girls like white skin and Vietnamese girls like white skins . Which one is accurate? Searching for " they like white skin " returns 14000 results while " they like white skins " returns only 1 result. It seems that below is correct. Vietnamese girls like white skin But can we say Vietnamese girls like white skins ? <Q> @Stangdon's comment is, I think, the core of the right answer. <S> "Skin" in English can be either a countable or a non-countable noun. <S> As a countable noun, "one skin", "two skins", etc, it refers to the hide of an animal, after the animal has been killed and the hide removed from the body. <S> Like, "He kept two bear skins hanging on the wall as hunting trophies." <S> (You could talk about the skin of a human being, of course, if you killed someone and made a rug out of his skin. <S> But that's getting kind of creepy.) <S> As a non-countable noun, "skin" refers to the thing in general, of a creature living or dead. <S> You can say, "Bob has white skin. <S> " You wouldn't say, "Bob has A white skin", just "has white skin". <S> It's not countable. <S> "Vietnamese girls like white skin" is ambiguous without context. <S> It could mean that they like their own skin to be white, or that they like men with white skin. <S> I'm guessing you mean the second. <S> If so, you could also say, "Vietnamese girls like men with white skin". <S> Note that "men" here is plural, because "man" is a countable noun. <S> ("Man" can also be uncountable, if you are talking about the human race, like "Man has written history going back several thousand years. <S> " <S> But here we're talking about individual male people.) <S> So "men" is plural, but "skin" is uncountable, neither singular nor plural. <A> However, skins in this case would refer to something else, like a covering, skins that are white . <S> For example the covering on smartphones are referred to as skins . <S> Vietnamese girls like leopard skins <S> Vietnamese girls like skins <S> that are white, i.e. rabbit, <S> polar bear <S> (In the examples, furs can be used in place of skins ) <S> Skins would not refer to the girls' own skin colour. <A> What sounds natural is ... <S> You like white skin <S> Here, you are talking about 'white skin' in general, as a common matter. <S> A plural word 'skins' is also possible when you don't refer to one group in general . <S> You probably want to include various types. <S> Say, cosmetics for sensitive skins . <A> Other answers have addressed the skin vs skins issue. <S> I'm going to mention the potential confusion of using "white". <S> In English talking about white skin in regards to people usually means referring to Caucasian people (people of European descent). <S> So it isn't clear whether you mean people with light-colored skin, or people of European descent, who are generally called white regardless of actual skin color. <S> In this sentence, I'd guess you mean light skin color regardless of race. <S> Using "pale skin" or "light-colored skin" would make that clear. <S> More context would also make it clear.
| It is possible to say: Vietnamese girls like white skins
|
"He is 80 years young" I've seen statements like "He is 80 years young" in many places. Also, I know that it means the same as He is 80 years old. Now, why do people use 'young' instead of 'old' if it means the same? Or am I entirely misinformed and the statement is actually invalid? <Q> It's a pun humorous way to tell that you are still young! <S> I myself have used it a couple of times. <S> This simply means that the person is still energetic at that age and feels or appears 'young' . <S> Imagine a conversation: <S> "He is 45 years old." <S> "Old? <S> Look at his energy; he's 45 years young!" <S> Note that here, old does not mean having wrinkles or being on the verge of contracting diseases associated with senility ! <S> The word old here means of a particular age , so don't connect old with aged person (बुज़ुर्ग) when it is accompanied by a number . <A> Years young 1 : <S> describing how old one is in a humorous manner <S> Example: I will be fifty years young next year. <S> Avoid using it if you are serious. <S> We're all getting older, so it would seem to make more sense to use "years old." <S> Exception: Benjamin Button 2 <S> ^ <S> He would always say "years younger" 1. <S> dictionary.reference.com 2. <S> Wikipedia <A> This is an illustration of markedness : a cognitive / linguistic phenomenon that is common to many languages, not just English. <S> Some adjective pairs are naturally asymmetrical: <S> Young / old Short / tall Dumb / smart <S> You would normally ask how tall a person is. <S> On the other hand, if you ask "How short are you?", then it feels unusual, and it's no longer a neutral question: it's implying that you think the person is unusually short. <S> Similarly, if you ask "How young are you?", then it implies that you think someone is unexpectedly young. <A> It is a form of flattery. <S> Instead of saying that the guy is old and infirm, the flatterer endeavors to imply that the flatteree is super-young for his age, sprite, full of energy, active, etc. <A> The word "old" essentially has two meanings. <S> One is simply a measure of age: How old are you? <S> I am 5 years old. <S> In relative terms, a 5-year-old is considered young whereas an 80-year-old person is much nearer the end of his life and we would speak of him as being "old" in the sense of being elderly. <S> The word has a lot of negative connotations and even teenagers refer to their 40-something parents as "old" in a dismissive, disrespectful way. <S> Using the expression "80 years young" is a way of flipping that around and suggesting that he is still very much vibrant and alive, the opposite of all the dreaded attachments of being "old". <A> The speaker is trying to make light of age, which can sometimes be a difficult subject to approach. <S> It is used to make an older person feel more at ease with his/her age. <A> My 74 year dad used to call himself as "74 years young". <S> He was full of curiosity and energy at 74. <S> So, it is okay to bend the rules of grammar and logic a bit, so long as the meaning comes through. <S> On the other hand, I would hesitate to say he is 80 years young for a stranger, in case the stranger feels I am not acknowledging or respecting his seniority.
| Used in a humorous sense. If you say that "He is 80 years young", there is meta-information that the speaker thinks that the subject looks or acts younger than 80 years.
|
I haven't come. I didn't come What's the difference between these two sentences, according to their meaning and structure: I haven't come. I didn't come. Do they have the same meaning? <Q> 'I haven't come' is in Present perfect tense, whereas 'I didn't come' is in past tense, more specifically, simple past. <S> That's the obvious difference. <A> I'm going to change the verb in the sentence: <S> I didn't eat. <S> I haven't eaten. <S> Both mean the person did not consume a meal during some timeframe. <S> As others have said, the tenses are different. <S> Did you eat yesterday? <S> No, I didn't eat yesterday. <S> (In this case, the simple past maps to yesterday) <S> When was the last time you ate? <S> I haven't eaten since last Friday. <S> (In this case, the present perfect refers to a time period starting last Friday and continues up to now.) <S> Similarly: <S> Did you go to the see the new movie last Friday? <S> No, I didn't go on Friday, I went on Saturday. <S> Have you gone to see the new movie yet? <S> No, I haven't gone yet. <S> I'm planning to go this weekend. <S> When using the first person, I think we usually use go instead of come in conversations like these. <S> However, we might say: <S> Did he come to the family reunion last week? <S> No, he didn't come. <S> He had to work that day. <S> Has he come to any of the family reunions lately? <S> No, he hasn't come to a reunion since 2007. <A> The meaning is basically the same. <S> Both tenses talk about completed actions. <S> But you use <S> present perfect (as many other uses) to connect the past event with the present. <S> Consider the following sentences where you cannot use the present perfect : <S> When I was a child, I didn't come to school on time. <S> When I was a child, I haven't come to school on time. <S> (My school days are finished and no connection with the present is made.)
| There is a difference of tenses.
|
'Effect in' or 'Effect'? I have a sentence that roughly says trends in technology have resulted in an agile infrastructure . Sentence is as below: Network infrastructure is the backbone of any enterprise and the evolving trends in automation and virtualization are proving to effect an agile approach to the overall Infrastructure sector. I'm unsure as to whether the preposition in should accompany effect . As in, Network infrastructure is the backbone of any enterprise and the evolving trends in automation and virtualization are proving to effect in an agile approach to the overall Infrastructure sector. <Q> Okay, from your comment, it seems that you want to use 'effect' as a verb. <S> Fine, considering that, I'd say that you don't require the preposition. <S> Check dictionaries that use the verb 'effect'. <S> Check those examples further. <S> They don't use the preposition to mean 'result in'. <S> The negotiators hoped to effect a smooth transition to an interim administration. <S> - OALD <S> As a political party they are trying to effect a change in the way that we think about our environment. <S> - Cambridge If correctly administered, such drugs can effect radical cures . <S> - MM <A> Which would also be correct, and make the sentence sound even more tedious. <A> Effect does function as a verb when it bears the sense to bring about. <S> For instance, it is the correct word in phrases such as effect change and effect solutions where these phrases mean to bring about change and to bring about solutions. <S> It’s possible to imagine where the phrase affect change might make sense, but <S> it would mean to have an effect on change rather than to bring about change. <S> this one is right: <S> Network infrastructure is the backbone of any enterprise and the evolving trends in automation and virtualization are proving to effect an agile approach to the overall Infrastructure sector. <S> are proving to effect ... <S> are proving to effect (what?) <S> an agile approach. <S> effect in implies it is functioning as a noun but a verb is always followed by "prove to". <S> this is a infinitive phrase: to effect an agile approach to the overall Infrastructure sector.
| No, actually, the original sentence is correct (moronically worded as it may be). What you have in mind is "result in".
|
Does the word "uncovery" exist? Does the noun uncovery (noun of to uncover) exist? I have seen this quite often in publications of nuclear reactor safety analyses. For example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0143817484900349 Assessment of the uncertainties associated with the core uncovery time in TMI-type accidents I cannot find the word in http://www.merriam-webster.com Or do you have to use the gerund uncovering ? Matthias <Q> It is indeed a technical term, referring to exposed (and therefore uncooled) tubes: Two separate accident scenarios are addressed. <S> In the first scenario, it is assumed that the non-safety grade startup feedwater system is not available to provide feedwater to the steam generators. <S> In this event, the water level in the steam generators drops, resulting in tube uncovery and there is flashing of a portion of the primary coolant assumed to be leaking into the secondary side of the steam generators. <S> Also, the period of steaming is terminated at 1.5 hours when the capacity of the passive residual heat removal system exceeds the decay heat generation rate. <S> http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/ap1000/dcd/Tier%202/Chapter%2015/15-3_r15.pdf <A> <A> Indeed, it is a good question. <S> I checked several dictionaries for the word ' uncovery' but could not find it. <S> TheFreeDictionary has an entry for this <S> but it does not clearly state anything on the page. <S> I think it is not widely used (COCA returns <S> one result to the search 'uncovery'); MS word shows 'error' in the spelling and as I said, dictionaries including MM, OALD, Cambridge, WordWeb don't have such entry. <S> This seems to be a technical term or jargon in some context , not necessarily available on dictionaries. <S> However, I had come across somewhere something like: "...leaving out an uncovery space on a glass.' <S> In addition, to make the verb 'to uncover' a noun, it would be 'uncovering' i.e. a gerund word. <S> Uncovering is found in dictionaries.
| The verb is uncover , and uncovery is used as an adjective in your example. It is quite possible that the word has been transformed into a more specific jargon usage specific to reactor core exposure.
|
Which one of the following is correct? Which one of the following is correct? (1) I am cooking lunch. (2) I have been cooking lunch. Besides, if aforementioned are correct, I want to know the difference between I am cooking and I have been cooking . My key concern is about cooking lunch . <Q> I am cooking lunch. <S> Only means you are now or will be doing this <S> 1) What are you doing now? <S> I am cooking lunch. <S> 2) <S> Who's cooking lunch today? <S> I am cooking lunch. <S> #2 is an acceptable and informal way of expressing you will be making lunch. <S> Who's cooking lunch today? <S> I will be cooking lunch <S> may be better. <S> I have been cooking lunch <S> implies you have already started cooking lunch and may or may not continue to be cooking lunch now. <S> What have you been doing? <S> I have been cooking lunch for an hour. <S> Your question has made me hungry... <A> Both the sentences are correct grammatically, but there's a difference in meaning between them. <S> I am cooking lunch. <S> You usually use the present continuous for something that is happening at this moment/at the time of speaking. <S> Hey, Dan. <S> What are you doing? <S> I am cooking lunch. <S> You can also use it for an action happening nowadays. <S> What are you doing in the restaurant (nowadays). <S> I am cooking lunch. <S> In addition, you can use the present continuous for a future action, for example: <S> Who is cooking lunch tomorrow? <S> I am doing/cooking it. <S> As for the present perfect continuous, you usually use it to refer to an action happening over a period of time leading up to the present. <S> What have you been doing for 2 hours? <S> I have been cooking lunch. <S> You can also it for an action which ends just before the present. <S> The present perfect can also be used to talk about an action repeated up to the present. <S> I have been cooking lunch in this restaurant since I joined it.. <A> These are two common first-person tenses in English. <S> I am cooking lunch <S> is present continuous. <S> However, it can have different meanings based on the sentence predicate. <S> Consider: <S> I am cooking lunch right now. <S> vs. <S> I am cooking lunch later today. <S> Your second sentence is present-perfect tense. <S> It's meaning is singular: <S> I have been cooking lunch for hours. <S> or some such frame of time. <A> Present continuous is used for an action happening right now. <S> (Not in the past .) <S> » <S> I' m cooking lunch. <S> Present <S> perfect continuous is used for an event that began in the past and is still in progress in the present. <S> » <S> I have been cooking lunch. <S> The action is not yet completed in both tenses, but the main difference here is that the former gives you information about something happening right now (event in the present) and the latter tells you about something that started in the past and is still in progress. <S> In addition, the present continuous can be also used for future arrangements : <S> » <S> I'm cooking lunch at two o'clock tomorrow afternoon. <S> Note also that present continuous can also be used for something that is happening temporarily , not necessarily at the moment of speaking: » <S> I'm cooking lunch in the afternoons.
| Both are correct, with slightly different meanings:
|
{You were to blame} vs. {You were to be blamed} You were to blame . You were to be blamed . What is the difference between these two sentences in terms of meaning? <Q> It's an important question that's confusing to many non-native speakers. <S> I am a non-native speaker, too. <S> As I have learnt, the word "blame" is a transitive verb as well as a noun. <S> You were to blame. <S> You were to be blamed. <S> Both the sentences are different in meaning. <S> In the first sentence "to blame" is an idiom, in which the word blame is a noun, though many people say that it's to-infinitive. <S> On the other hand, the other sentence is in the passive. <S> It doesn't mean that you were held responsible for something. <S> Instead, it means you were to be held responsible for something bad you had done. <A> You were to blame. <S> Whatever problem resulted, it was "your" fault. <S> (Whoever "you" is referring to.) <S> You were to be blamed. <S> Whatever problem resulted was considered "your" fault. <S> (Whoever "you" is referring to.) <S> Here one or more persons have decided that the problem was your fault and that you were to bear responsibility. <S> It is ambiguous if you are a scapegoat or if you really caused the problem. <S> It might be also that you are a boss and inadequately supervised the person who actually made the mistake. <A> You were to blame. <S> Means that the speaker blamed you for something, or is now blaming you for something that occurred in the past. <S> It may also signify someone telling you that one or more others blamed you. <S> It's possible that the blame may have ended (I thought you were to blame, but now I know it was not your fault.) <S> It's also possible that the blame remains. <S> You were to be blamed. <S> Can have two likely meanings. <S> A. <S> You are (or at some past point, were) thought blameworthy. <S> B. <S> At some time in the past, a decision or plan was made to blame you. <S> C. <S> It can be used as a way to say that something would happen after a point in the past. <S> First, they thought the house burned down because of an accident, but you were to be blamed (for it later, when they found matches in your pocket and a note saying: "Reminder to self: Burn down house." <S> In all of A, B, and C, the blame may also either endure to the present, or may have ended before the present.
| When you say you were to blame, it means it was your fault or you were responsible for something bad you had done.
|
the rider dismounted the bus When a passenger gets off a bus, would I say: The rider dismounted the bus The rider left the bus. The rider got off the bus. The rider exit the bus.? <Q> The rider dismounted the bus. <S> (S)he usually gets on / jumps on / <S> hops on / catches a bus. <S> The rider left the bus. <S> The rider got off the bus. <S> The rider exited the bus. <S> Are all appropriate to describe a rider who is no longer on the bus. <S> It's not usually said that a rider entered the bus. <S> EDIT: It can also be said: I was on the bus and got out at Charing Cross Station. <A> You may find this verb useful: <S> alight <S> verb <S> [formal] descend from a train, bus , or other form of transport. <S> "Visitors should alight at the Fort Road stop." <S> Similarly, "The passenger alighted the bus." <S> Moreover, I think it isn't precise to use dismount and rider , because: dismount <S> verb <S> 1.get off a horse, bicycle, or anything that one is riding . <S> and, rider noun <S> 1. <S> a person who is riding or who can ride a horse, bicycle, motorcycle , etc. <S> I'm not saying that those two words are entirely wrong or inappropriate <S> , I am providing more 'precise' words, re: definition [passenger and alight]. <A> disembark to leave an aircraft or other vehicle http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disembark?s=t debus to get out of a bus; alight from a bus http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debus?s=t <S> The rider disembarked. <S> The rider debussed.
| Is not correct, a bus rider does not mount a bus.
|
Present Tense in Habitual Reported Speech I've known that when we write in Reported Speech and if the reporting verb is past tense, we must change the tense. But is it true for universal truth and habitual action? For example She said, "When do the banks close?" He said to me, "What does this word mean?" In those cases, should we change the present tense to past? I mean, in our country, the banks close at 3:00 pm. Isn't it a habitual action? <Q> According to the British Council : It isn’t always necessary to change the tense. <S> If something is still true now ... we can use the present simple in the reported sentence. <S> Note the word necessary . <S> She said, "When do the banks close?" <S> 1) <S> She asked me when the banks closed. <S> 2) <S> She asked me when the banks close. <S> The first version (with a backshift) is definitely the best choice if we are talking about a conversation that took place many years ago, as bank closing times may have changed since then. <S> The second version is better if you are talking about a conversation that took place last week, but you could also use the first version. <S> He said to me, "What does this word mean?" <S> 1) <S> He asked me what this word meant 2) <S> He asked me what this word means <S> It is very unlikely that the word has changed its meaning since the conversation took place, so either version is acceptable. <S> I think that I would go for the first version (with a backshift), though I cannot explain my preference in any way. <S> Note that, unless you want to specify when you learnt about something "I have known about it for some time", you generally use know in the present tense: "I know that..." <A> I've known that when we write in Reported Speech and if the reporting verb is > past tense, we must change the tense. <S> It's possible that I'm not understanding you correctly, but as stated, that's not correct. <S> When you're reporting what someone said, i.e. quoting someone, you leave the tense intact. <S> You only need to change it if it is <S> you talking about what the other person said. <S> And even then you only need to change it if the meaning can be misunderstood. <S> From another question: 'my girlfriend told me she doesn't want me'. <S> "Told" is past, but "doesnt want" stays in the present because presumably nothing has changed since then. <A> For the reported questions , the reported verb is ask. <S> (Of course, there are more reported structures.) <S> (For regular actions, routines or true facts.) <S> The question word is included when reporting. <S> — <S> When do the banks close? <S> She asked her friend. <S> — <S> She asked her friend when the banks close. <S> In your second example, the tense of the reported question can be changed: — <S> What does this word mean? <S> She asked her friend. <S> — <S> She asked her friend what that word meant.
| In many contexts, it is still permissible to backshift the tense, even if something is still true now. The tense is not normally changed when using present simple .
|
How to choose the spelling of a foreign name Are there any rules for spelling names in English that come from other languages? My name is Maysam, and I spell it like that. But some people say it is Maeisam and such as that... Is there a correct spelling? Do I have some choice in the matter? I would be grateful if you could tell me some appropriate English spelling conventions that would enable an English-language learner like myself to determine how to spell my name in English. <Q> Well, in the end, it's YOUR name. <S> In fact, if you want to have a different name entirely, you can introduce yourself as a different name and people will call you that. <S> There are often different spellings of names. <S> My name is Alex, but I've met an Alyx and an Alix. <S> Just spell it the way you want to. <S> Completely up to you. <S> I don't think anybody would go out of their way to spell your name in a different way to disagree with your spelling. <S> Names are names. <A> It's completely fine, especially so with foreign names because there isn't necessarily a correct way to translate them a lot of the time. <S> Sometimes people may get annoyed with non-standard spellings of common English names, for example spelling "John" as "Jahn", it's still very common and more or less accepted. <S> The only problem would be if your name is legally recorded with a different spelling, as it may lead to confusion. <S> If that is the case, I'd recommend getting your name changed to your preferred spelling. <A> I believe in most of the native English-based world, you may legally spell your name however you like. <S> For example, the Chinese surname Zhang and Chang . <S> If it is a transliteration from a non-Latin alphabet language, there are probably guidelines for how the transliteration should be done, and these may change over time. <S> For example: The capital of China used to be called Peking , but now it is spelled Beijing although the Chinese have always pronounced it the same way for many centuries. <S> In an interesting case, one may recall that the artist formerly know as Prince , changed his name to a glyph : Rules of pronunciation for the Latin transliteration would still apply.
| It's completely up to you how you want to spell it.
|
How to refer to a US-born American of European descent How do you refer to a US-born American of European descent? The context is that someone is describing a woman who's since become a Japanese citizen, so it's relevant to mention it so people don't think the woman is of Japanese descent. The person describing the woman used the term "European American". I don't hear the term very often compared to "African-American", so I was unsure if it's the most normal term to use. Doing a Google search for "European American" gave me a hit for Wikipedia, which probably isn't suitable as it tends to use an academic tone. Urban Dictionary was another hit, but it had a variety of opinions, which probably was the result of the contributors' political leanings rather than an unbiased description. There was also a hit for a white supremacist site, and a couple of sites unrelated to the term, referring to relations between the USA and Europe. I have a suspicion that some people not only regard people of European descent as the most common group, but the "default" group, such that you only need to mention a person's ethnicity if they're not of European descent. If so, it would explain why I haven't heard the term "European American" much. What term, if any, should be used in American English in the context of an ordinary non-academic diary entry? <Q> European American is, as the OP suggests, the default, but in the case of an American becoming a Japanese citizen, most people would probably assume it was a Japanese-American. <S> I'm also assuming the speaker didn't know if the woman was (say) Polish-American or whatever, so that was not an option although it probably would have been best. <S> She could have said "a white American" or "a Caucasian American," but Americans can be very touchy about race so in this situation I think "a European American" was actually a good solution even though it is not commonly used. <A> Since America is a melting pot of nationalities, among people whose origins are outside the US (and basically we all are), those who are of: <S> German descent <S> Japanese descent <S> Chinese descent <S> Irish descent will refer to themselves as : <S> German American Japanese American Chinese American Irish American <S> Only tourists in America might say they are European , if they do not name the specific country they are from. <S> So the woman in question could be referred to as a: <S> Please note the usual ordering of the descriptors, from most distant to most recent. <S> The naming of origins has become increasingly difficult as people travel, settle, and intermarry more extensively. <S> People who have greater than two ancestries would typically list their origins – part Irish, part Scottish, and part <S> Polish – and at times may state the percentages involved. <S> First generation immigrants (the people that first immigrated to America) might continue to be referred to as <S> Germans <S> (as well as German Americans ), whereas the second generation would simply be called German American . <S> In AmE, Indians might still be used for the current, more favourable Native Americans , the people who were in America before the Europeans arrived. <S> This should not be confused with Indians from the subcontinent. <S> In BrE, Indians from the subcontinent are referred to as Asians , whereas in AmE Asians refer to people from China , Japan , Vietnam , etc., the countries which traditionally were referred to as Oriental but no longer for political correctness. <S> [NB: <S> It is incredibly difficult to obtain Japanese citizenship if one is not born in Japan.] <A> I would say "American expat, now a Japanese citizen. <S> " It's really hard to specify European descent, as you've seen.
| German American Japanese since she is of American origin with German ancestry and is now a Japanese citizen.
|
adverb phrase or adjective phrase You can take a short ferry ride from the city of Surabaya to Madura for a heart-stopping bull race, filled with excitement . In the sentence, is the phrase "filled with excitement" adverb phrase or adjective phrase? Thanks in advance. <Q> It's a non-restrictive adjective phrase, headed by the participial adjective filled . <S> The adjective itself is modified by the prepositional phrase with excitement , which serves as its complement. <S> This adjective phrase most likely modifies a heart-stopping bull race . <S> It theoretically can modify a short ferry ride , but it's too far from it. <S> An adverbial phrase modifies a verb, an adjective, or an adverb. <S> Had it been an adverbial phrase <S> , it would've modified take a ride , but this would've looked strange: <S> You can take a ride, filled with excitement . <S> (seems to modify either you or ride ) <S> You can take a ride excitedly . <S> (now it surely modifies [take a ride]) <S> We can use filled with excitement predicatively: <S> This ride is/seems/feels filled with excitement . <A> <A> excitement is a noun and filled a verb in past simple form, but this is not the case. <S> filled works as an adjective, like <S> full or complete <S> so filled with excitement (noun) works as an adjective phrase.
| "Filled with excitement" is an adjective phrase, in which "filled" is an adjective and "with excitement" is its complement.
|
Can we say "Yes, I would" if someone asks "Would you mind buying me a drink?" Here is in the textbook. If someone says Would you mind buying me a drink? to you, then you should answer: — Not at all (Yes, I can buy you a drink) — I’m sorry I can’t (No, I can't buy you a drink) Can I say Yes, I would which means Yes, I would mind buying you a drink ? <Q> I think there is a scene with Humphrey Bogart where this exchange takes place: <S> Blonde: Would you mind buying me a drink? <S> Bogart: <S> Why, yes <S> I would ( he says as he turns towards her and stares into her eyes ) <S> Answering with <S> yes I would will usually result in some further conversation since there is some ambiguity in the answer. <S> Those additional conversations are sometimes best avoided. <S> The best way to refuse, is simply to say: <S> Sorry <S> , I can't ( and look the other way ) <S> which implies you won't buy the other person a drink, but does not directly refuse them. <S> ADDITION: Of course if someone highly attractive to you asked, you could respond with : Them: <S> Would you mind buying me a drink? <S> You: I don't know. <S> Would you mind <S> if I bought you a drink? <S> (emphasis on first you and smile) <S> and the conversation will take its natural course... <A> It's a common English language twist. <S> Even in my own family someone might say: Would you mind taking out the trash? <S> Which if you say "Yes", can mean either: "Yes, I'll take out the trash." <S> "Yes, I would mind taking out the trash." <S> So what people do when hit with the "would you mind... <S> " question is to answer it completely. <S> "No problem, I need to go outside and check the mail anyway." <S> "I'd love to, but I'm waiting for a phone call <S> so I can't do it right now." <S> In either case, you answer it fully and don't leave any room for doubt. <S> So specifically for this: <S> Would you mind buying me a drink? <S> I would answer it with: <S> "I'll buy a pretty girl a drink any time." <S> "I'd love to, but my wife probably wouldn't like it very much." <A> Often, if you simply respond "yes", people will clarify whether you mean you mind doing something or not. <S> If you actually say "I would", though, it is more likely to be interpreted as unwillingness to buy a drink. <S> The reason for this is that you are reiterating your thoughts, and essentially you are saying "Yes, I would mind" rather than "yes" (I agree with your proposal). <A> In English, people tend to answer the underlying positive question, which in this case is <S> Can you buy me a drink? <S> So if you want to positively respond, you could say "yes". <S> Questions that are negatively phrased in some manner are confuse even native speakers. <S> I have heard the "Did you mean 'Yes, I will' or ' <S> No, I will not'? <S> " discussion many many times.
| You can say "Yes, I would" - whether it is interpreted as willingness to buy a drink or not will be determined by the context and your tone, and your relationship with the person asking.
|
Difference between Past Perfect and Pluperfect tense Is there any difference between the past perfect and pluperfect tense? Please help me understand using the example below: As I got replies, I have modified my answers as "C". Let me know if it is correct Conversation 1 A) You need to call him B) I had called him. c) I had called him. But he didn't pick up my phone. Conversation 2 A) Why are you so upset? B) I had ordered this dress online. But this is not the same which I had ordered. C) I had ordered this dress online 2 days back. But yesterday when I opened the box I realized that this is not same which I had ordered. Are the replies given by B) correct? As per my understanding, the past perfect tense is used to tell 'past of past' and the pluperfect tense is used to tell completed action in the past irrespective of another action. <Q> They are synonyms. <S> Look up pluperfect in any dictionary to verify this. <S> Here at onelook dictionary are more than two dozen dictionaries to get you started. <S> Second, please see this answer to <S> When is the past perfect exactly needed? <S> It does a terrific job of stating when the past perfect (or pluperfect--they mean the same thing) is necessary. <S> In general your sentence 1B is grammatical, but it represents rather an incomplete thought. <S> And it is not necessary to use the past perfect/pluperfect tense here. <S> The present perfect or simple past would both be better choices, because they would not represent incomplete thoughts. <S> Your 1C adds more information to the response but still either the present perfect or simple past would be more common. <S> You don't need the past perfect/pluperfect there because it is clear from logic which past action happened first, namely that you called him first. <S> In 2B, there is no reason for using the past perfect/pluperfect tense. <S> The simple past is fine. <S> You mention only one past action. <S> And in fact both uses of the verb order refer to that same past action. <S> It would seem strange to think that one occurrence of the same past action can come before another occurrence of the same! <S> The first sentence of 2C is grammatical <S> But by itself gives an incomplete thought. <S> There is only one past action mentioned, and it occurs two days back . <S> Thus the simple past is better here because you are talking about one action completed in the past. <S> Having us wait until the second sentence to hear the most recent past action (Yesterday when I opened the box) makes it awkward. <S> The second sentence of 2C is the only sentence in which the past tense/pluperfect tense is used in a way that is intended. <S> You have two actions and you place one of them before the first one. <S> This is pleasant sounding and appropriate. <S> For example sentences and a much better explanation, see the answer I link to above. <S> And thanks for asking such a good question. <A> I don't think there's any need for the Past Perfect in these situations as they are both connected with present. <S> You need to call him.- <S> I have already done it.(called ). <S> The second situation shows the result seen now. <S> Why are you upset? <S> – I have ordered this dress online. <S> But it isn't quite what I have ordered . <A> Pluperfect is derived from the Latin term. <S> In Latin it was plusquamperfect (more than perfect). <S> "Past perfect" is the more systematic English term. <S> It often happens in grammar terminology that we have two terms for the same thing.
| First past perfect and pluperfect refer to the same tense.
|
How to talk about the act of pressing the cancel button once the conversation on mobile is over? At the end of the talk, people press cancel button to cut the call. What is that act called? If it were a land line phone, we could have said: She has put the phone down (?) Scene: My child was talking to her aunt on the mobile. Aunt pressed the cancel button to cut the call. Child didn't know this and continued talking. What should I tell the child now about the aunt pressing the cancel button to cut the call? This is mobile phone not the landline. <Q> But there may be others, more fitting for modern phones. <A> Another possible alternative (of <S> She hung up the phone ) is: (Honey,) she has ended the call. <S> A real example around the web: <S> She thinks she has ended the call at this point and then says to her colleague: ... (Mirror Online) <S> Most of our phones, smart or not, usually have a button with an icon of a phone handset, often in red, sometimes on red. <S> This is commonly known as the "End Call" button. <S> It's the button that we press to "end" the call. <S> Here is an example of such a button :-) <S> Image source: How to make a FaceTime call from your iPhone | iMore <A> Hang up and put down are hold overs from a time when phones were two piece devices. <S> Given the advent of one-piece hand-held smartphones and touch technology, pressing the end call button is what people usually do these days to disconnect or end a call. <S> The popular end call button has been stylised to have an outline of a two-piece phone's handset and is usually coloured red. <S> Hang up in slang has another meaning, whereas end call is unambiguous. <A> hang up for people who remember landlines, disconnect for people raised in the internet-era. <S> Eg. <S> in many conference-calling systems I've encountered phrase <S> "The leader has disconnected." even though everyone were using regular phone connections and "hung up" would also make sense. <A> The phrasal verb ring off also stands for finishing a phone conversation. <S> For instance, — aunt rang off the call when the kid was still talking. <S> — <S> The other one used is hang up on . <S> This one needs a subject. <S> The kid was talking to her aunt <S> but she hung up on him.
| There's the expression hang up the phone .
|
"Only the masochist would choose to study Russian" or "Only a masochist would choose to study Russian"? (use of articles in generic noun phrases) From English is not Normal , by John McWhorter: If someone were told he had a year to get as good at either Russian or Hebrew as possible, and would lose a fingernail for every mistake he made during a three-minute test of his competence, only the masochist would choose Russian – unless he already happened to speak a language related to it. Could we substitute "a" for "the" here? Both " the masochist" and " a masochist" are generic noun phrases. If someone were told he had a year to get as good at either Russian or Hebrew as possible, and would lose a fingernail for every mistake he made during a three-minute test of his competence, only a masochist would choose Russian – unless he already happened to speak a language related to it. Would this be okay? If not, why? <Q> "The masochist" and "a masochist" mean two different things in this context. <S> A masochist is simply a person who happens to be a masochist. <S> The masochist is a type, not a person. <S> "Is that your dog?" <S> "Yes." <S> "What kind of dog is he?" <S> "He's a German Shepherd." <S> But: "They tell me you specialize in dogs." <S> "That's true." <S> " <S> Specifically?" <S> " <S> The Lab, the Yorkie, and the German Shepherd." <S> That, in a nutshell, is it. <A> I'm another native speaker who can attest that a masochist is fine here. <S> Since the sentence is not taking about any particular masochist, then I agree with you that it is taking about a generic masochist. <S> So I have to turn to John Lawler's post Re: <S> A question about the generic use of... , which succinctly explains the difference in generic noun phrases when you use a and the . <S> I assume you've read this page, probably several times. <S> The masochist is the definite generic, which refers to the Prototype of a species, roughly the image we associate with tiger... <S> and a masochist refers to the Definition of a species, that is, those properties that are absolutely necessary for anything to be a member. <S> It doesn't work as the subject of any predicate that isn't definitional. <S> But with a definitional property, it's certainly true for any member. <S> At least that's how I interpret my intuitive and unflinching assurance that a masochist is fine here. <S> By the way, I tried to create a tag generic noun phrase <S> but it got shot down without any reason given. <S> Since not even English speakers are taught what they are, I think it's an important and germane topic for this site. <S> Maybe someone should do a metapost about it <S> but I feel like I did my part and really don't want to repeat my attempt. <S> Edit: <S> okay, thanks for creating the tag. <A> In your example, a can be substituted for <S> the with no loss in understanding, however there is a slightly different meaning between the two. <S> Both clearly refer to someone who enjoys having pain inflicted upon them. <S> A masochist refers to that type of person in a general sense. <S> They may be more or less a masochist. <S> The implies a higher degree or more extreme level. <S> Consider : <S> Blue is a color in the rainbow. <S> Blue is the colour of choice. <S> The first means: <S> blue is one of several colors in a rainbow. <S> The second sentence means: blue is the top chosen colour. <S> So the author is saying that if you want to be a top masochist (not to be confused with top/bottom usage) study Russian, since the more extreme masochist will probably have the enjoyable experience of getting their fingernails pulled out... <S> [NB: if one is a masochist and happened to be very good at learning languages, this exercise would be self-defeating] Having studied Russian, I can attest that the language, people, and culture are actually quite lovely, and the fingernail treatment does sound more Russian than Hebrew in aesthetic.
| Since the sentence would then assert what any masochist would do, then yes, using the indefinite generic is fine here.
|
Singular or plural when indicating something unique owned by many In the following sentences, which one is correct? Tom likes dogs with long tails. Tom likes dogs with a long tail. There are many tails because there are many dogs. But each dog has only one tail. I prefer the second sentence, but I am not sure if it's correct. <Q> Both sentences are correct and understandable. <S> To this native speaker, the first sounds more native-spoken, even though there may be interpreted as many dogs each having multiple tails . <S> The second is more wordy and does not sound natural since we already know that dogs only have one tail. <S> However, if the speaker further describes the tail then a would be used : Tom likes dogs with a full, bushy tail . <A> I don't even know whether there's a rule here. <S> The second one sounds kind of lame. <S> That said, there may be exceptions, such as when the plural form doesn't make sense while the singular does. <S> As in: I happen to like people with a good eye for architecture. <A> This is correct: <S> Tom likes dogs with long tails. <S> This one is also correct: <S> Tom likes dogs with a long tail. <S> Refer to this book on Google Books. <S> 1 <S> Here is an excerpt: <S> Have a good look at this chart from Google Books Ngram Viewer too: 1. <S> Current Issues in Romance Languages
| For what it's worth: Your first sentence is correct.
|
What does "One CPU is going to 'smoke' another CPU" mean? I faced the following sentence: You really can’t say a 4.1GHz FX-8350 is going to smoke a 3.5GHz Core i7-3770K because in a hell of a lot of workloads the 3.5GHz Core i7 is going to dominate. I can guess that 'smoke' is similar to the word 'win', but is it right?What is the exact shade of meaning? I appreciate getting the russian translation. <Q> When talking about lopsided contests, frequently-used slang verbs fall into a few different categories. <S> For example, there's the word beat , along with its synonyms (such as drub, thrash, whip, and trounce – all of these words can be found in headlines, articles, and recaps of sporting events , elections , and business rivalries ). <S> Another category would be metaphorical pressure from above, giving us words like <S> stomp and crush . <S> Furthermore, when the contest involves blazing speed (such as races between sprinters or microprocessors), many of the verbs deal with fire, such as smoke, burn, or torch . <S> Here are a few examples from recent news articles: <S> the next-generation Samsung Exynos 7420 chip, which is said to power these newest flagship phones, burns the competition with respect to 3D performance <S> He [Jeff Gordon] torched the field with 13 wins, which nearly doubled the next-best driver <S> "This is going to be a great game going against a team like that," Beckham said shortly after he burned the Dolphins with a seven-catch, 166 yard, two-touchdown masterpiece <A> To smoke someone originally meant (and still does mean) to shoot them to death with a gun . <S> The reference was to the smoke coming from the weapon's muzzle. <S> This colorful term has come to mean "defeat soundly, trounce". <A> When I hear this expression, I think of two possible metaphors: <S> Two cars are drag racing on a dirt road. <S> Carl's Camaro is much faster than Mary's Miata. <S> The Camaro quickly gets ahead of the Miata. <S> Both cars "kick up" dust. <S> Mary's Miata is literally in a dust cloud that Carl's Camaro "kicked up". <S> The Miata is figuratively "eating" the Camaro's dust. <S> In other words, the Camaro "dusts" the Miata. <S> The dust metaphor can be stretched a bit to "smoke": <S> Either the Camaro is burning a little oil, or Carl smokes cigarettes, or Carl spins his tires (causing the tires to give off smoke). <S> In other words, Carl's car "smokes" Mary's car. <S> Two chips are racing to complete a task. <S> The i486 is much faster than the i286. <S> You could "overclock" the i286 to make it go faster, but the i286 might overheat. <S> If you overclocked the i286 enough to keep up, the i286 might literally burn up -- it would literally start to smoke. <S> Even if you did not try to destroy the i286, the huge difference in the test performance could be metaphorically described as "The i486 smoked the i286." <A> The New Oxford American Dictionary says: 3 [ with obj. ] <S> informal kill (someone) by shooting. <S> • <S> defeat overwhelmingly in a fight or contest. <S> That's a pretty exact definition; I have nothing to add to it. <A> In plain English the meaning is as follows: <S> "A 4.1GHz FX-8350 is not necessarily going to make your computer run faster than a 3.5GHz Core i7-3770K, because in many real-life applications the 3.5GHz Core i7 is actually the faster processor." <A> Smoking could mean better benchmarks (what you get when you run programs like Prime95, Furmark etc.) or better real-life experience (better stability, better single-core performance, etc.).
| You have it right; "smoke" can be used to mean "win" (or maybe even, "win easily," or "win decisively").
|
Which verb should be used with injection - give or inject? What is the better way to talk about the injection? Normally, in India people around me say — Doctor will give you the injection . So, is give the injection fine or inject the injection would be better? Or is there a better word for it? <Q> It's not just India , by the way. <S> OALD entry: 'to give somebody an injection' <S> This use is very common and I've been practicing this for years. <S> My medical mind says that you can use inject but then, it is far more common when you have the name of the substance you are injecting. <S> Say... <S> Doctor injected penicillin into the muscle <S> Mice were injected with some chemicals <S> [I'm a doctor from India! ] <A> While both " give the injection " and " inject the injection " are technically correct, for the sake of sentence flow and smoothness, we prefer " give the injection ." <S> The repetition just sounds strange to the ear there. <S> Another common option is administer , which is used almost exclusively with medical procedures (in this context, anyway): <S> The doctor will now administer the injection. <S> It implies some sort of authority, care, or knowledge. <S> You certainly wouldn't say that a drug user "administers" the drugs. <A> Doctors give the injection and patients take the injection. <S> Often, you'll see this as give the shot and take the shot .
| Absolutely okay is "giving someone an injection".
|
Using "recently" with past simple Is it fine to use recently with the past simple tense in the following sentence? Did you read any books recently? Is it grammatically correct? Or do I have to use: Have you read any books recently? <Q> As a native AmE speaker, I think your two examples are both acceptable and don't have any difference in meaning. <S> However, if you compared Did you read Bleak House recently? <S> Have you read Bleak House recently? <S> then there is a difference. <S> "Did you read Bleak House recently?" <S> pre-supposes that the other person has read that book once (or that we're discussing a particular time s/he read it) and asks whether that one time was recent. <S> "Have you read Bleak House recently?" suggests that the other person has read the book more than once and asks whether at least one of those readings was recent. <A> No, it isn't. <S> You have to use have you read . <S> The simple past tense has a concrete time frame, and "recently" is ambiguous, so the two don't work together. <S> It is either <S> Did you read any books yesterday ? <S> where you give a concrete time frame, or <S> Have you read any books recently ? <A> Recently is a general-time adverb. <S> Together with already , <S> yet , just , and many others, it states a non-definite and relative (to the listener or to the speaker) period of time, which could perfectly be sometime in the past (I've got no idea when) as well as sometime in the present <S> (I still have to think about this sometime in the present , maybe a theme for a philosophy paper). <S> Thus, we should not use definite verb tenses for these situations. <S> What is important to bear in mind is that whenever a sentence tells you when the action happened with some precision (it could be today , yesterday , but it could also be 11:47 AM, which is rather precise, isn't it?) <S> the general rule is to use definite verb tenses, like in the sentence <S> Did you read any books yesterday ? <S> or I will go to the market at 5 PM <S> (Note: 5 PM sharp ) <S> On the other hand, whenever we cannot say for sure when the action happened, the general rule is to use perfect tenses. <S> Have you read any books recently ? <S> or By 5 PM I will have gone to the market Just as a reminder, in languages <S> it's hell difficult to state "always" or "never". <S> There can be situations in which rules will be vanished, so that's why I said "the general rule". <A> I'd use the present perfect, as recently does not imply a fixed date in the (recent) past. <S> A general rule <S> I teach my students when asked whether to use simple past or present perfect is the following: <S> If the action is completed in the past, or there's a specified time, use the simple past. <S> Example: I read a book yesterday. <S> If you don't know if the action is completed, or it's still ongoing; <S> and/or you don't know a specific time in the past, use the present perfect. <S> Example: Lately, I have had strange dreams. <S> Or, indeed: Have you read any books recently? <A> Some adverbials, such as "just, recently, already, once/twice, ever/never, today, this morning /this week etc., and phrases with "for/since" are used with both forms [the Present Perfect and Past Simple]. <S> With "recently" there's little difference in meaning. <S> We have recently moved house.(recently = <S> lately ) <S> We recently moved house. <S> (recently =not long ago) <S> OGEG John Eastwood. <A> Did you read any book recently? <S> Have you read any book recently? <S> Both the sentences are correct grammatically, <S> The adverb recently means "not long ago" or "only a short time ago". <S> I saw him a short time ago" = <S> I saw him recently. <S> You can use the recently in both the present perfect and the past simple. <S> Look at the following sentences in the simple past: She graduated from college recently. <S> I saw him recently for the first time in many years. <S> We received a letter from him recently. <S> Strangely enough, Merriam Webster has stated five sentences using the recently, four of which are in the simple past. <S> As a matter of fact, you cannot use the recently in the past simple with times in the past such as I saw him yesterday, he went to New York last week. <S> Did you read any book recently? <S> is OK, but you cannot use the recently in the sentence "Did you read any book yesterday/last month". <A> Please see the definition of recently in the Oxford dictionary and look at its example sentences. <S> I don't want to copy them all here due to concerns of violating a copyright. <S> But one example is in the simple past: <S> Dean recently lost his job in a sports shop and applied to join the fire service. <S> The Merriam-Webster gives five example sentences for recently and four of them use recently with the simple past. <S> To say something like 'You have to use <S> have you read' or 'we should not use definite verb tenses for these situations' <S> is obviously incorrect.
| The sentence with the simple past is grammatical and fine.
|
What is the action of riding a swing called? Swinging is itself an action. I believe I could say: I swung on the swing. or I am swinging on the swing. or Do you want to swing on the swing? Except all of those sound horrible to me. We can also say: Ride on the swing. Is there a proper way of saying it? <Q> Those may sound horrible, but they are nonetheless relatively common when talking about playground swings. <S> I went swinging on the swing yesterday. <S> Such redundancies are sometimes inevitiable when the same word functions as both a noun and verb. <S> Here are some other examples that sound just fine: <S> I had too many drinks when we went out drinking last night. <S> I went fishing but caught no fish. <S> That said, these may be inevitable, but they aren't necessarily unavoidable. <S> Such sentences can usually be rewritten if the redundancies bother you: <S> I had too many drinks last night. <S> I went fishing but caught nothing. <S> In the case of the swing: I was playing on the swing yesterday. <S> I was using the swingset yesterday. <S> Sure, you could say: I went swinging yesterday. <S> but in the case of swinging , you might want to clarify that (see Collins #3 ). <A> Correct. <S> Swing itself is an action i.e. swing is a verb. <S> swing : to move backwards or forwards or from side to side while hanging from a fixed point <S> So, you can swing on something <S> But you also know what is that 'something' There, 'swing' serves as a noun . <S> swing : a seat for swinging on <S> So, if you have verb and noun both swing, you can certainly say: I am swinging (verb) on a swing (noun) . <S> How do we identify? <S> Check the countable noun that is taking an article there. <S> Google has patented on 'how to swing on a swing'! <S> Still sounds horrible? <A> If you wish to avoid redundancies: I rode the swing. <S> I really need to talk to this woman. <S> Mind riding that swing for a while? <S> Not very common, but perfectly usable. <S> Here's a pretty good article on the art of swinging on the swing: http://www.physicsinsights.org/up_in_a_swing.html <A> For variety, you could use the term "swing set" to refer to the playground equipment: <S> "I enjoyed swinging on the swing set during recess at school. <S> " <S> "She played on the swing set for half an hour."
| I'm riding the swing.
|
What's the difference between verbs pee and piss? I wonder what's the difference between these two verbs given that the dictionaries translate it the same way? <Q> It's common to ask a young child, "Do you need to go pee? <S> " I wouldn't ask a young child, "Do you need to take a piss?" <S> The words also have differences in how they are used, as those questions show. <S> You can go pee , and you can take a piss . <S> (Other variants may apply, with differences in how standard they might be. <S> I wouldn't say that take a pee or <S> go <S> piss are unacceptable, but they don't seem as common.) <S> Piss can also be used a slang verb. <S> To get pissed is to get very angry. <S> (For example: Joe was pissed about his traffic ticket. ) <A> In my (American) experience: "Piss" is a word used by men, and by boys who were raised by men. <S> "Pee" is a word used by women, by girls, and by boys who were raised by women. <S> "Urinate" is a word used by doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals. <A> to pee= ( informal) to pass liquid waste from your body to piss= ( impolite) to get rid of waste liquid from your body to wee=(spoken) to urinate [ this word is used mainly by and to children ] to urinate=(formal) to get rid of urine from your body <A> Both terms are informal and considered vulgar slang. <S> Piss is somewhat onomatopoeic and comes from the Old French "pisser" (PIS - ay) meaning to urinate. <S> "Pee" is just the first letter of "piss" and meant to soften it and make it more polite. <S> This may be a reason some associate the use with children and the female gender.
| Piss would be considered more vulgar, pee would be considered more mild and informal.
|
What does the nutshell in “in a nutshell” stand for? I know the meaning of “in a nutshell” but do not know what “nutshell” or “nut” itself stands for in this idiom. Since it is a metaphor, I would like to know what it recalls to the speakers/listeners’ mind whose first langage is English. Etymology of the idiom would also be greatly appreciated. <Q> I think that by definition, idioms have to be understood in their entirety; the meaning of the idiom does not necessarily correspond to the meaning of the individual words. <S> However, a nutshell is the shell, or outer covering, of a nut. <S> Like this: <S> Inside a nutshell is a very small space, where you couldn't put very much. <S> If you were trying to put an explanation inside a nutshell, it would have to be a very small one! <S> - so "in a nutshell" means "in a very small and simple way". <A> " <S> According to Wiktionary , the etymology is as follows: <S> A calque of Latin in nuce . <S> " Calque " means "a word for word translation," and " in nuce " means "in a nut" in Latin. <A> According to some historical rumors, Pliny the Elder wrote that Cicero once found a copy of Homer's Iliad , written in minuscule letters compressed in a nutshell. <S> Now the Iliad isn't particularly concise or anything, but that seems to be the origin of the concept as we know it today, if not the idiom itself. <S> Here's a likeness of Pliny (AD 23- AD 79):
| The shell of a nut tends to be small and compact, which is why "in a nutshell" is used to mean "in a few words," or, more literally, "in a compact statement.
|
"I'd better" or "it would be better"? I wrote the following question in another StackExchange website: If I want to save and retrieve an object, should I create another class to handle it, or it would be better to do that in the class itself? Is it better to say it as: If I want to save and retrieve an object, should I create another class to handle it, or I'd better to do that within the class itself? I thought the second is better because it is in accord with the first sentence of the OR conjunction (both begin with "I"). In general, are they equivalent? I mean "it would be better.." and "I'd better..."? Which is more common? <Q> Both are not quite right. <S> "It would be better" is how you would phrase a declarative sentence - a statement of fact. <S> To ask a question, start with the question word ("Would it be better...?"). <S> This makes the whole question of the contraction unnecessary :) <S> But if you still want to know a bit about "it would" read on: 1) <S> The correct contraction for "it would" is "it'd". <S> I'd means "I would", or "I had", depending on the context. <S> For example, "I'd better..." Would be "I had better...", meaning that I should do something. <S> "I'd like..." means "I would like..." 2) "It'd" is not very common in written English (although it is common in spoken English). <S> As a general rule, I would use "it would" 99% of the time. <A> We use “had better” plus the infinitive without “to” to give advice. <S> Although “had” is the past form of “have”, we use “had better” to give advice about the present or future. <S> You'd better tell her everything. <S> I'd better get back to work. <A> Your two sentences would make more sense if they were: <S> If I want to save and retrieve an object, should I create another class to handle it, or would it be better to do that in the class itself? <S> You started a question, so your phrases should all be questions (as mentioned by Sarah). <S> When you are using "it" in "would it be better", you are talking about the situation you will be in if you follow that path. <S> Or: If I want to save and retrieve an object, should I create another class to handle it, or would I be better off doing that within the class itself? <S> Changing the code won't improve you as a person, no matter what your boss might say! <S> That means that "I'd be better" isn't true. <S> As in your first sentence, your situation might improve, so you might be "better off". <S> Note that "would" still comes first, because you are still asking a question. <S> so: If I want to save and retrieve and object, should I create another class or <S> had I better <S> do that in the class itself? <S> This is a less common way of asking for a comparison of two options, however. <S> It is probably simpler (and easier to understand) <S> if you ask the question using the same type of phrase in both halves: If I want to save and retrieve an object, should I create another class to handle it, or should I do that within the class itself? <S> If I want to save and retrieve an object, would it be better to create another class to handle it, or do that in the class itself?
| "I'd better" is short for "I had better"
|
How to talk about putting water in the freezer to become ice? I have to tell the child that I have put the water in the freezer and after some time it will convert into ice. I say: I have put water in the freezer for ice to set . Does " for ice to set " make sense here? What is a short way to convey the conversion process of ice to water? <Q> I have never heard of that phrase before. <S> Personally I would say "I put water in the freezer to make ice" or even "I put water in the freezer" (why else would you put water in the freezer?). <S> I think "to make ice" is the best phrase, because that's what you're doing. <S> You're making ice. <S> Although including that phrase is unnecessary. <S> As a side note "have put" sounds a little weird here. <S> Maybe someone can comment more formally why it's right or wrong. <S> It's probably not technically ungrammatical, but it sounds stilted. <A> The conversion of water to ice is called freezing . <S> From dictionary.reference.com : to become hardened into ice or into a solid body; change from the liquid to the solid state by loss of heat <S> This is why it is called a freezer : it freezes things and/or keeps them frozen. <S> Also, it is important to note that the water is what freezes: ice cannot become frozen, it is already frozen. <S> Hence your sentence will need to be: <S> (As an aside: I would say you are making ice cubes rather than making just plain ice . <S> This is probably a British English variation, in the US <S> I believe just referring to it as ice is more common.) <A> There are ice makers that come with the fridge which you have to fill with water, but I assume you're talking about an ordinary ice tray. <S> You fill the ice tray with water (drawn from the faucet), and you stick the ice tray in the freezer. <S> To make ice. <S> "Make some ice, why don't you. <S> We're all out." <S> "How do you expect me to do that?" <S> "It's pretty simple. <S> First, you get an ice tray. <S> It's that plastic thing with compartments. <S> That's how ice cubes are formed. <S> You fill the tray with water. <S> From the faucet. <S> And you stick the tray in the freezer. <S> And then you just wait until all that water freezes up and turns into cubes. <S> You then remove the tray from the freezer and twist and squeeze and knock it until all the ice cubes are out. <S> " <S> I'm pretty sure you'll be able to construct something, well, constructive , from the above description.
| I have put water in the freezer for it to freeze (in order to make ice cubes).
|
'someone of X' is derogatory? I read a news here that says: Mother Teresa of Calcutta to be made a saint Now my question is: We all know Mother Teresa very well. To my mind, there is no other Mother Teresa who has done a similar type of work for humanity. So, is it necessary to write 'of Calcutta' after her name? Can't we write: Mother Teresa to be made a saint I find 'of X' a derogatory remark for the third-world countries as if European Mother Teresa is no longer a European and she belongs to Calcutta. Maybe I sound a bit upfront here, but I would appreciate if natives will clear my doubts. My only concern is which type of writing style is this? <Q> As a native speaker, I wouldn't take this to be derogatory in the slightest. <S> Typically when people are given an "of REGION" in a formal title, it's attaching a place that helps distinguishing the aforementioned individual. <S> Lord Douglas of Hawick and Tibbers Charles II of Scotland <S> etc... <S> The place mentioned doesn't have to be a birth place, but can be a place that has some significance to the individual for one reason or another. <S> Apparently in this case, it's significant because a large portion of the work was carried out in or from Calcutta. <S> This system appears to be a an unofficial emulation of Official Titles in the United Kingdom, but I'd argue that this isn't necessarily the case, nor are Titles in the United Kingdom the origin of using such terminology. <S> Take for example "Jesus of Nazareth", an ancient example of this. <S> In this case, adding "Of Nazareth" could help people determine just which Jesus is being referred to, since it was a fairly common name. <S> I suppose it's possible to abuse this system into an insult, but I can't think of any such examples and even if I could I don't think they'd be appropriate. <S> What I can clearly say is that this is in no way an insult. <A> Presumably Mother Theresa felt a great affection for Calcutta during her lifetime. <S> I assume she would not see the title as insulting. <S> It is common to extend a person's name as a sign of respect or status <S> (eg Saint Thomas the Apostle, Prince William the Duke of Cambridge etc) <S> There will be a necessity to distinguish this Saint Theresa and the others (google turns up St Teresa of Avila, St Terese of Lisieux, <S> St Theresa of the Andes and others). <S> You may or may not be aware that Teresa was not her name given at birth but was selected for religious reasons. <S> This link has very brief information about the selection of the religious name. <S> For this reason the use of her surname would not be appropriate to distinguish her and another form must be found. <S> Also the presence of a memorial shrine built to honour her in her home town indicates that your thoughts about her not being considered European are incorrect. <S> tl:dr <S> **No insult intended. <S> This form is a sign of respect and necessary for practical reasons also. <A> This is a common style for Catholic saints. <S> St. Teresa de Avila, St Therese Liseaux, St Francis of Asissi, St Augustine of Hippo, and many others. <S> Part of it is that there are so many saints that the clarification is needed, and then once it had been used for many saints, it became a badge of honor, that you represent that place in the line of saints. <A> it's not derogatory, nor has it anything to do with her nativeness or migration. <S> I'll take you to this style step-by-step! <S> According to a biography written by Joan Graff Clucas, in her early years Agnes was fascinated by stories of the lives of missionaries and their service in Bengal, and by age 12 <S> had become convinced that she should commit herself to a religious life. <S> Her final resolution was taken on 15 August 1928, while praying at the shrine of the Black Madonna of Vitina-Letnice, where she often went on pilgrimage... <S> then... <S> She arrived in India in 1929, and began her novitiate in Darjeeling (Bengal) , near the Himalayan mountains serving for 20 years... <S> She took her solemn vows on 14 May 1937, while serving as a teacher at the Loreto convent school in Entally, eastern Calcutta . <S> Teresa served there for almost twenty years and in 1944 was appointed headmistress. <S> ... <S> medical training in the Holy Family Hospital and then ventured out into the slums. <S> Initially, she started a school in Motijhil (Calcutta) ; soon she started tending to the needs of the destitute and starving.... <S> working for needy <S> Mother Teresa soon opened a home for those suffering from Hansen's disease, commonly known as leprosy, and called the hospice <S> Shanti Nagar (City of Peace). <S> The Missionaries of Charity also established several leprosy outreach clinics throughout Calcutta, providing medication, bandages and food... <S> She helped poorest among poor and her entire life, she dedicated in serving human lives in Calcutta . <S> Though her humanitarian work had no limits, her majority of such great work was quite limited to the region of Calcutta. <S> Indeed the are <S> no two Mother Teresas <S> but because of her excellent and pure work in and around Calcutta <S> (today's Kolkata) <S> , it goes pretty well like that. <S> In Hinduism it is known as Karmabhoomi . <S> Great souls can even make places (they worked throughout their lives) great. <S> Thus, places' names are then attached to their names. <S> One more example that you, being an Indian, might understand well include: <S> Sabarmati's saint -it has nothing to do with Mahatma's birthplace and nativeness Good question! <S> Source: <S> Mother Teresa on Wikipedia <A> It's not derogatory at all. <S> Indeed, many surnames in the English-speaking world are derived either from the person's occupation (Smith, Baker, Cooper, ...) or directly from place names ( Washington , Lincoln , ...). <S> In this case, "of Calcutta" isn't a surname but the fact that people use place names as surnames shows that it's not derogatory.
| As a native speaker I see no insult intended in referring to Mother Theresa as 'of Calcutta'.
|
Man goes with Woman to ensure she is safe on her way to home There is a stereotype: The man (just one of... not a husband or boy-friend) goes with girl or woman (usually by walk) to "guard" her on her way to home. The question is how he/she says/call this: A man: I will ____ you... and/or Woman: Could you please _____ me... Do you know the verb or phrase for it? <Q> You asked The man (just one of... not a husband or boy-friend) goes with girl or woman (usually by walk ) to "guard" her on her way to home. <S> (emphasis added) <S> The answer is already there! <S> For Jane: Could you walk me home ? <S> For John: <S> Sure. <S> Here is a relevant definition by Macmillan Dictionary: <S> walk <S> 2 <S> [transitive] to go somewhere with someone on foot in order to be sure that they safely reach the place <S> When Valerie worked late, Carl always walked her home. <A> Escort — to go with (someone or something) to give protection or guidance (Merriam-Webster) <S> Formally, an escort is either someone who goes with someone to protect them (as in a "police escort") or a man who accompanies a woman to a social event (usually used in more formal contexts, like a wedding). <S> However, be aware that in common use, "an escort" is a woman paid to accompany a man and often (in fact, mostly , when used this way) <S> a euphemism for a woman acting as a prostitute. <S> This doesn't stop the main definition from being valid and appropriate, but does lead to some snickering at, for example, an area university's "Late Night Escort Service Hotline", which you can call if you feel insecure walking around a part of campus at night, but sounds like it might provide some other service. <S> Anyway, if you offer to escort a woman home, in context, the traditional definition will be assumed. <S> (The euphemistic meaning is rarely used as a verb.) <S> It's also just fine to say "I'll walk you home". <S> "I'll accompany you home" could also work, but to my ear has the possible implication that you plan to <S> stay once you get there. <A> (I'm not a native speaker of English, so I turned to dictionaries) <S> Damkerng's walk <somebody> home seems to be a great option. <S> Thanks to his suggestion, I recalled "I'll see you home ", built along the same lines but allowing for the possibility that the girl will reach home not by foot <S> but, say, by train or tram. <S> This phrase has been in use for a long time: <S> The fair was over, night was come, <S> The lad was somewhat mellow, <S> Says he, 'my dear, <S> I'll see you home ', <S> I thanked the charming fellow. <S> We trudged along, the moon shone bright, <S> Says he, 'If you'll not tell-o, <S> I'll kiss you here by this good light', <S> Lord, what a charming fellow! <S> ( The Agreeable Surprise , John O'Keeffe , 1795) <S> Another option (but see the comment by mattdm below): <S> I will accompany you. <S> Could you please accompany me? <S> There is also the old-fashioned term "chaperone", but that is usually applied to old dames accompanying ladies, not to men. <S> Yet another option: come along - to accompany someone who leads the way. <S> asked me to come along on the trip <S> In cases like this, it's usually nice to google for synonyms. <S> There are a number of thesaurus sites on the web. <S> Here's a thesaurus entry for accompany . <A> Accompany : to provide company, to be an escort. <S> (e.g. "I will accompany you," "Could you please accompany me.") <S> Traditionally, a chaperone was an older woman who accompanied a younger woman when in public. <S> However, the word has evolved to generally refer to accompanying a person or a group of people in general 1 , usually by a "protective" figure (e.g. a teacher or adult supervising some children.) <S> It works nicely with your first example ("I will chaperone you."), but escort may be a better word for the second sentence ("Could you please escort me.")
| I'll walk you home . Another word is chaperone : to accompany and look after or supervise.
|
Mistake x AS y, or mistake x FOR y? Don't mistake my confidence for arrogance Don't mistake my confidence as arrogance Is "for" or "as" more appropriate in the sentence? <Q> The following definition of for is now obsolete, but it survives in few expressions like this one. <S> So in your example mistake my confidence for <S> arrogance and mistake <S> my confidence as arrogance both equivalent in meaning. <S> They mean the same thing. <S> But mistake my confidence for arrogance <S> is idiomatic. <S> Definition reference - Oxford English Dictionary (OED) <A> The expression "mistake <S> X for Y" takes "for". <S> It is simply set like that as a phrasal verb . <S> http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/mistake-for http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mistake-sb-sth-for-sb-sth <S> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mistake?s=t <S> (sense 3) <S> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mistake <S> (transitive verb sense 3) <S> However, you can use "as" to as part of the "misinterpret as" meaning. <S> I mistook your exam score as how well you were performing this semester. <S> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mistake <A> Don't mistake my confidence for arrogance. <S> Don't mistake my confidence as arrogance. <S> Look at the following sentences: <S> I mistook her offer as a threat (Oxford). <S> He mistook my politeness for friendliness (The Free Dictionary). <S> I think "as" and "for" are interchangeable in these sentences. <S> The use of "for" is also more appropriate <S> when you confuse someone or something with someone or something else, for example, he mistook me for your brother.
| I think there's no difference in meaning between these sentences. To "mistake X for Y" means that you wrongly identified X (which is what the thing actually is) as Y (which is what the person thought X was). When you misunderstand or misjudge someone or something to be someone or something else, you can use either "as" or "for" after the verb "mistake," but the use of "for" is more common.
|
Cutting one's own hair - how to say it? Is it "I cut my hair myself" or "I cut my hair by myself" or "I cut my hair"? Which one of the three is grammatically correct? <Q> Each one of those sentences has a different implication although they all could give the same meaning which is doing something alone. <S> The first one is used when you want to imply that you are the only one who cut his hair. <S> The second sentence implies you cut your hair without anyone helping you. <S> The last one is kind of ambiguous. <S> You are just saying you did cut your hair. <S> There could be someone that helped, cut it for you or did the same thing to himself. <S> No implications. <A> To make something shorter by cutting trans.without the help of anyone else. <S> All the sentences are correct grammatically, with a little difference in meaning. <S> As the past of the verb cut is also cut, these sentences may be in the present or past simple. <S> Let's think they are in the present simple. <S> You use the verb cut for hair to mean "make your hair shorter by cutting". <S> If you cut your hair, it may mean that you cut your hair with or without the help of another person; the sentence is ambiguous. <S> If you cut your hair yourself, it means the same thing as above, but there's an emphasis on your doing it. <A> Out of the three, the best option is: <S> I cut my hair by myself. <S> It sounds the best. <S> It gives the complete information. <S> Additionally, take the following sentence, <S> I cut my hair once every year. <S> Now, this means that the subject gets a haircut once in a year. <S> But that doesn't mean he does it himself. <S> He could get it cut by a hair stylist, or whoever it maybe. <S> So the third option need not mean the same as the first two. <S> PS: I would advice you not to use the example I suggested. <S> But I only used that to explain the context. <S> The best way to use the example I suggested would be ' <S> I get a haircut once every year' .
| If you cut your hair by yourself, it's quite clear that you cut your hair yourself without the help of anybody else.
|
What is the opposite of sunny when there is no sun in the sky? Shade is caused by some object blocking the sunlight. So, opposite of sunny in this case cannot be shady(?). So, when there is no sun in the sky and therefore it is not sunny, then how should I describe the climate/area? <Q> The best adjective in your context would be " overcast ." <S> As defined by Wiki: <S> Overcast or overcast weather, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization, is the meteorological condition of clouds obscuring all of the sky. <S> An example of overcast weather: From Wikipedia "Cloudy" is fine, too. <S> But if you want to convey that there is no sunlight at all, then this would not be the best option. <S> You need to further describe it. <S> Sky can be very cloudy, but this doesn't mean that there is no light striking the land because of the clouds, as clouds can very well be transparent . <S> You can, for example, see here: <S> You can read these definitions taken from ldoceonline : <A> Is there no sun in the sky because it is covered by clouds? <S> Use "cloudy", "overcast", or "grey" (or "gray"). <S> Or because it is night? <S> If there are clouds, "cloudy" and "overcast" still apply. <S> If there are no clouds (so you're trying to say "it would be sunny if it wasn't night"), use "clear" or "clear skies". <S> If it's raining (or hailing, snowing, etc.), then say that. <S> It's implied that you can't see the sun when it's raining, unless you very specifically say so (a "sun shower"). <A> The adjective "sunny" means "being with sunlight; having a lot of sunshine." <S> You may use "cloudy," "dark," "overcast," or "gloomy" as an antonym of the "sunny," depending on the context. <S> But I think the most appropriate antonym is "sunless." <S> The adjective "sunless" means "being without sunlight; having no sun." <A> "Dark" describes a lack of light. <S> As Tim Pederick suggests, the darkness could be due to clouds, overcast, or nighttime. <S> The darkness could also be caused by fog, an eclipse, being in a deep hole, being in a deep canyon, being deep underwater, or being billion(s) of miles from the sun. <A>
| To me, the best opposite of "sunny" is " cloudy ".
|
Reducing ambiguity in a description that might apply to one or two nouns in a list The state and local governments must take into account characteristics of family members and family types in coming up with the policies. In the way it is expressed right now, there is no way to tell (it is ambiguous) if 'characteristics' is associated with both 'family members' and 'family types', or just 'family members'. How would you rephrase this so that this distinction is clear? (i.e. 'characteristics' should only be associated with 'family members') Also, what would be the natural assumption, if there is any, as to the question of associativity of 'characteristics' in the given sentence? <Q> To rephrase unambiguously, change the order of the items in the list, giving The state and local governments must take into account family types and characteristics of family members in coming up with the policies. <S> Of course, this only works because the list has only two items and "characteristics of" applies only to one of them. <S> For more complex constructions, such as family types, characteristics of family members and characteristics of family pets, a more significant rephrasing would be needed; perhaps something like ... must take into account family types and characteristics of both family members and pets... <S> The following suggestion by the asker in a comment doesn't work: <S> The state and local governments must take into account characteristics of family members, as well as family types, in coming up with the policies. <S> This is still ambiguous because it could reasonably mean "... characteristics of family members, as well as characteristics of family types..." <S> An alternative solution is just to ignore the "problem". <S> Anything you might consider about a thing has to be a characteristic of that thing, so "considering family types" and "considering characteristics of family types" amounts to the same thing. <S> This is in contrast to, for example, "I don't want to go to India because of my fear of tigers and the cost of plane tickets", which you might want to rephrase to avoid the suggestion that you're afraid of the cost of plane tickets. <A> Family composition (per modulusshift) is one way to solve this, but if you want to make sure that characteristics of does not apply to family types but applies only to family members , you can simply reverse the order: <S> The state and local governments must take into account family types and characteristics of family members in coming up with the policies. <A> I didn't think it was ambiguous, I assumed it was just referring to the family members. <S> But if you want to make sure no one can misunderstand you, you can just change the order. <S> "must take into account family types and characteristics of family members" is clear. <S> It's kinda wordy, though. <S> I would phrase this as: <S> The state and local governments must take into account family composition in coming up with these policies. <S> (I used "these" because I assume you were just talking about the policies, so it directly refers back to the last couple sentences.) <S> "composition" means both the specific parts and the characteristics of those parts, as well as their arrangement and kinds and number, and so how they fit together. <S> I think that covers the same meanings. <A> The state and local governments must take into account <S> the characteristics of both family members and family types in coming up with their new policies. <S> This looks like a news article. <S> Journalists write within the constraints of a word count and are renown for omitting articles and modifiers that, to them, add nothing to the telling of their story.
| I read "characteristics of family members and family types" as one massive noun phrase.
|
Can we say "Floor 10"? Is it acceptable to say: "Floor 10"? Or should we always say: "the 10th Floor"? <Q> It is acceptable to say or write "Floor 10"; in the U. S., it is commonly used that way in writing an address in business correspondence and on envelopes for mailing. <S> Writing "the 10th Floor" is also acceptable. <A> We may not always say: "the 10th Floor". <A> I'm agreeing with the other answers that say "Yes". <S> Context can also affect the likely answer. <S> If I am near the swimming pool on the ground floor, and I ask where the gift shop is, people are probably more likely to say "the second floor". <S> If I am in an elevator, and somebody asks me which floor I'm going to, I am more likely to say "Floor two" (or perhaps just "two"). <S> Both are acceptable in either case. <S> I suppose that the difference is in expectations. <S> If there is a clear reason why a person would expect a floor number, "floor two" would seem more natural/common. <S> If a person isn't necessarily expecting a reference to a floor, then "the second floor" just feels more natural/common. <S> (This may just be my own opinion, rather than a universal rule that most people would be likely to agree with.)
| Yes, it is acceptable to say: "Floor 10".
|
How do Americans respond when asked for their names? I heard a character on TV, when asked for his name, responded: My name is Bond , James Bond. Why doesn't Mr. 007 reply, "My name is James Bond". I am not familiar with first/middle/last name concept much, as in my region we have mostly our full names and father/family names at the end. i.e. (Full Name) + (Family/Father Name) Side Question: Is a person's last name a kind of identification in USA? How could it be used if it is? Our last name doesn't reflect much of identification so I'm not familiar of this as well. <Q> There are as many answers to this as there are situations. <S> In informal settings, one might only give their first name. <S> So, if I'm at a bar <S> and I start chatting with someone, I would usually only give my first name... <S> or if I'm being introduced to new people by friends, I'll only give my first name. <S> In formal or business settings, one might give both first and last name. <S> So, if I'm introducing myself to a business partner, I'm more likely to use both first and last names. <S> This is often because you want people to be aware of your full name, so if they need to find you later, they can do so. <S> When giving your name because it may appear on a list, as when checking in to a hotel, it's common to give your last name, as that is usually what the reservation is filed under. <S> So, as an example: Receptionist: Welcome to the Hotel. <S> May I have the name on the reservation? <S> Guest: It's under Bond. <S> James Bond. <S> This could be the case in many different situations other than simply at hotels. <S> Since you ask what the significance of last names is... <S> well, there are many groups that only use surnames as means of address... particularly within the military or on sports teams. <S> Often, only the surname of the person is known in those cases, with the possible addition of a first initial if the surname is common. <S> James Bond is a member of a military organization, and started out in the British Navy, so it makes sense that he would introduce himself emphasizing his last name. <S> Also note that the original Bond books were written in the 1950s and the movies first came out in the 1960s both of which are eras that are much more formal than modern times, so much of the characterization of James Bond stems from that time. <A> In the United States it is not very common to lead with your last name when introducing yourself. <S> Mostly, this will happen in situations where what you are is more important than who you are, and will generally drop the first name altogether. <S> A good example of this is a police officer, who will only commonly introduce themselves using their first name in informal situations. <S> “Hello, I'm Officer Powell” establishes their identity, but emphasizes that they are acting in their capacity as Police Officer. <S> If you meet that same Officer at a Police Benefit dinner, an introduction of, “Hello, I'm Officer Judy Powell” <S> would be more likely. <S> In this case, that she is a Police Officer is relevant, but downplayed by the informality introduced by offering her first name. <S> As a side note, it's also uncommon to ask for someone's name. <S> Either they offer it, or you are introduced, but the closest we come is an implied expectation of reciprocation when introducing oneself. <S> Salespeople will occasionally use the oblique request, “I'm sorry, what was your name again?”, which is a gamble as the response may very well be a blunt (and annoyed), “I haven't given it to you.” <S> Even hotels and restaurants have a tendency to ask, “Under what name is your reservation?” - which makes sense as that's what they actually want to know, and they have no way of knowing who in your party made the actual reservation. <A> In other words, they'll say something like one of these lines: <S> Hello, I'm Joe. <S> Hello, my name is Joe Smith. <S> There are a few instances, though, where someone might be inclined to give their last name first. <S> For example, people in uniform (firefighters, soldiers, etc.) often refer to each other by last name. <S> So, in that kind of environment, someone might give their last name first, and then clarify by giving their first name afterward, almost as an afterthought: <S> Hello, I'm Smith. <S> Joe Smith. <S> Outside of James Bond movies, this isn't all too common, but it's not so rare that it sounds jarring. <S> In a James Bond movie, however, the line you quote is pretty much expected to be in the script somewhere. <A> Bond is British, and movies about super spies are not a good place to gather behavior characteristics about the average person. <S> The answer is: there is no answer as to why they say this, because they don't say this. <A> In certain governmental subcultures in America and Britain, it is common to refer to and address individuals by their surname only. <S> For example, in the American military it is common to issue orders by surname. <S> The "Bond, James Bond" idiom is a combination of the spy service type name reference, followed a civilian type of name given for added emphasis. <A> The family or last name is the proper way to refer to someone whereas the first name is the casual way. <S> Western society has become very casual so often even complete strangers will give and refer to each other by first name. <S> However in formal situations the last name is still used regularly preceded by the person's title or mister/miss if the person doesn't have one, for instance Officer Bond, Lord Bond or Mr. Bond. <S> Why does Mr. Bond say it that way? <S> Well James is most often in rather formal places, but the simplest answer is that it sounds cool, and has become a catchphrase of his. <S> Also it is impolite to ask a person directly for their name. <S> The proper way is to introduce yourself giving your name, and hope for them to reciprocate.
| Usually, when someone introduces themselves, they give either a first name, or a first name followed by their last name.
|
What is the correct word for a 'band' of frogs? What is the correct replacement for a 'band' of frogs? <Q> I'm not sure at what point it was decided that every animal should have its own collective noun, but it's always seemed like total nonsense, to me. <S> There's nothing wrong with "a group of frogs" and, since "band" doesn't necessarily mean a musical group, "a band of frogs" is fine, too: <S> indeed, it sounds rather nice as one can imagine the musical sense, too, with the frogs croaking melodiously. <S> The "correct" term is "an army of frogs". <S> However, I strongly recommend against using that because it's likely to be actively misleading. <S> Anybody who doesn't know that "army" is the collective noun for frogs ( <S> and that's almost everybody, trust me) <S> will assume that you're talking about a very large number of aggressive frogs. <A> "army", from this very interesting page . <A> If you search on Google for collective nouns frogs , you will find your answer. <S> That all said, you can use band of frogs , if you like. <S> Words like band, group, gathering, troop , and bevy are not "wrong," irrespective of the animals being referred to. <S> English may have a special word associated with an animal, and perhaps this would be the preferred word among zoologists. <S> However, if you were writing a children's book, for example, nothing forbids you from referring to an ensemble of frogs , if that's what you want to call them.
| The term you are looking for is "collective noun", a term that refers to the (sometimes whimsical) names for a group of animals, such as a murder of crows, an ambush of tigers, a charm of goldfinches, a smack of jellyfish, a pod of whales, a mob of kangaroos, or an army of frogs.
|
What is the difference between prodding and poking? What is the difference between prodding and poking ? According to the Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary, their senses are almost the same. Prod- to push sb/sth finger or with a pointed object Poke- to quickly push your fingers or another object into sb/sth But I've found sentences where both prod and poke were used together. For example, He was looking at her closely through his half-moon spectacles, his long fingers gently prodding and poking. <Q> They may have been used together, not because their meanings are different, but because their meanings are very similar, so the words either reinforce or complement each other. <S> You'll find these every now and then in English, with the paired-up words often beginning with the same letter. <S> Some common examples include: vigor and vim short and sweet pots and pans trials and tribulations zig and zag <S> In fact, words pairs like these even have a name: Siamese twins. <S> You can read about them in Wikipedia . <S> So, it could be that the words are used together by design for emphasis, even though the writer could just use one or the other. <A> They are sometimes interchangeable. <S> If you jab someone with your finger, you are poking them. <S> Prodding can be more gentle. <S> It could be pushing someone with your whole hand instead of just your finger. <S> They are often interchangeable, but there are certain times when I would only one or the other. <S> For example, "the nurse poked me with the needle" only makes sense with "poke." <S> Also, "I prodded the cat off the table" is more accurate than "I poked the cat off the table," which to me would mean that I pushed one finger into the cat until it left the table. <S> More likely, I gently pushed (prodded) the cat. <A> I have found out that the use of both can mean " examine carefully " (as a doctor does in a health check or as your family do when they meet your boyfriend for the first time, in a more figurative sense). <S> I had a chance to poke and prod the SUV model, and drive the sport truck. <S> I've been poked and prodded by most of your family now . <S> He examined me silently, poking and prodding . <S> Then he stood and stepped aside, leaving me. <S> But it can also be used meaning to forcefully encourage someone to do something . <S> My mother poked and prodded my brother to spend more timestudying for exams <S> *. <S> Lisa has poked and prodded Marta to find out who she likes .
| In my opinion, the only difference is that "poke" refers to a very specific action, which is when you push someone or something with the tip of a sharp object.
|
call it -- what does this term mean? Context: I can't. I'm calling it. I'm calling it Source: The Martian (2015) starring Matt Damon Example: I have doubled my battery life by scavenging Rover 1. But if I use the heater, I will burn through half my battery every day. If I do not use my heater, I will be slowly killed by the laws of thermodynamics. I would love to solve this problem right now, but unfortunately my balls are frozen. I can't. I'm calling it . I'm calling it . What exactly do you think that means? Is this a variation on the expression call it a day ? <Q> The exact meaning is slightly ambiguous. <S> When I hear "I'm calling it", I don't personally think of "I'm calling it a day". <S> The character is not exactly saying, "Well, I'm stopping work for the day"; the overall meaning in this case seems to be something like "I am declaring my decision." <S> One meaning of to call something is to announce , proclaim , or <S> declare it, and this is used in a number of phrases like "calling it a day" meaning proclaiming that work is done for now "calling your shots" meaning announcing in advance what play you will make in the game of pool (or sometimes in other sports or games) " calling a code " meaning declaring a medical condition <S> The last one is actually what I am most reminded of. <S> When a patient dies despite attempts to save their life, it is standard (at least on TV and in movies!) <S> for the doctor to say, " I'm calling it. " <S> (where it is a code in the medical sense) meaning, roughly, " <S> I am declaring that nothing more can be done for this person. <S> Nurse, please note the time of death so we can put it on the death certificate." <S> So when the character says "I'm calling it", what I interpret it to mean is "I am announcing my final decision on this matter." <A> In short, yes. <S> To understand this, you must consider the context. <S> In this scene, if I remember correctly from the movie and book, Mark Watney (the main character of the book) is giving his rover a test-drive after making some modifications to his rover. <S> He is trying to see how long the battery can last (after rewiring the rover to not use any power for heating, as that was wasting a lot of the battery). <S> He is absolutely freezing and can't carry on any longer. <S> After he says "I'm calling it. <S> I'm calling it," he turns on the vehicle and drives home. <S> Now in this context, though there are many possible meanings for "I'm calling it," he does mean, "I'm calling the experiment," or that he's done. <A> We use "call" quite heavily in English as you can see below, I think in this case the correct idiom would be " <S> I'm calling it off" rather than "I'm calling it a day". <S> To "call it a day" implies that the job is complete, "to call it off" suggests that it's a failure and needs to be aborted or cancelled. <S> In any of these cases he's saying in a short phrase that the decision to stop is his to take and that he's taking it. <S> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/call call noun (DECISION) <S> informal a decision: It was a tough call, but eventually I decided to give up my job. <S> More investment? <S> That's got to be your call - you're the one that's paying! <A> Both of the above answers are right, in a way. <S> The beginning of the definition chain seems to be when you flip a coin to make a decision, one person has to call out their prediction, and if their prediction is right, the matter is decided in their favor. <S> A call is therefore a prediction. <S> If you can game the prediction in some way, and know that one call is more likely than another, then there can be better and worse calls to make. <S> This is why when, in a game of strategy, a player makes a move expecting the other player to make a certain move, but the other player makes a different move, it can be said to be a bad call. <S> He predicted wrongly, and then made an incorrect move based on that prediction. <S> In cases like this, making a call becomes making a decision, and that became one of the definitions of "calling it". <S> This seems to be the making a decision definition, maybe influenced by "cry mercy" because he can't bear the situation anymore. <A> It basically means you're ending the debate and coming to a decision on something, and moving forward with that decision & whatever subsequent actions (or repercussions) that follow from it. <S> It's something that generally comes up when someone is hemming & hawing or weighing a decision, with a 3rd party person saying "we're out of time, let's just call it" - because a decision has to be made one way or the other, and often other people then need to move forward with the specifics of whatever the decision entails. <S> In this specific instance, he's weighing the pro's & con's of using the heater. <S> I haven't seen the movie but based on his comment about "my balls are frozen", I would assume that his "call" or decision is to use the heater, even though he will "burn through half his battery every day". <S> He's decided to "call it" and use the heater, and then live with the outcome (potential problems) of whatever may happen as a result of it. <S> There is another usage of the term, when someone says "I'm calling it right now" or "you watch, I'm calling it" - <S> this is making a prediction about something and <S> you're going on record announcing it. <S> This is not the usage Matt Damon was using in the excerpted quote. <A> Also: "Call it quits" - to end an activity https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Calling+It+Quits
| You could also just "call an end to it" or "call time on it" which are fairly neutral, or "call it quits" which basically implies giving up.
|
What is 'little despite diminishing returns'? I read a blog where I stuck here: Having started his career by levelling allegations against all politicians, Kejriwal has changed little despite diminishing returns on this tactic . I can't understand the meaning of the last portion of this sentence. To my mind, the writer wants to say that Kejriwal has changed his tactic, but then what is the meaning of 'little despite diminishing returns'? Is the above portion grammatical? What is the exact meaning of it? <Q> leveling here means targeting and putting allegations on someone. <S> The author wants to say that Kejriwal started his career by putting allegations on almost all politicians. <S> However, the return is not good . <S> It is diminishing i.e. he's getting little and little response to his allegations. <S> While most of media calls him champion in 'mudslinging', the author wants to say that *though he's getting diminishing returns, he has not changed . <S> In other words, "Kejriwal, stop mudslinging, people don't like it, they don't respond all this in a positive way. <S> Change your tactics." <A> There should be a comma after little. <S> Having started his career by leveling allegations against all politicians, Kejriwal has changed little, despite diminishing returns on this tactic. <S> That's still not great phrasing, I'd rearrange the whole sentence if I had wrote it. <S> Maybe he's made small adjustments, but that's all. <S> edit: Here's the way I would phrase this sentence: <S> Despite diminishing returns, Kejriwal has changed little from his initial tactic of leveling allegations against all politicians. <A> The concept of diminishing returns (more on it in this article ) was popularized in the early 19th Century by such important British economists as Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. <S> In a nutshell: If you double the number of seeds, you'd expect your crops to double, but they won't. <S> You'll get less than double. <S> If you triple the number of seeds, you'll get even less, proportionally. <S> And so forth. <S> Or, if you invest a hundred dollars in some project and get two hundred in return, and assume that investing two hundred would get you four hundred, you'd be assuming wrong <S> : you'll get less. <S> The more you keep milking something, the weaker the return. <S> The sentence that puzzles you so means, roughly speaking, that even though Mr. Kejriwal's tactics have been getting less and less effective over the years, he has been unwilling to alter them dramatically: they're still (the tactics) pretty much the same as they were in the beginning of his career, and he is still the same old Kejriwal as he was back then <S> ("He has changed little").
| Anyhow, it's saying that even though his initial tactic (leveling allegations) doesn't work as well as when he started his career, he still does it pretty much the same way.
|
Improve vs Improve on I just want to confirm the usages of the phrasal verb "improve on" and the word "improve". My understanding is that one improves his skills, abilities and one improves on results, a numbers. Am I right? or both are interchangeable? I will need to improve on my English. I will need to improve my English. <Q> You're correct, but your examples hit upon a special case where "my English" is both a result, something visible and measurable, and an ability or facet of yourself. <S> Here, either could be used, though I would personally use 2. <A> As you stated that 'improve' is a verb and 'improve on' is a phrasal verb. <S> While both are nearly close, here is the minute difference I can think of. <S> TheFreeDictionaries states: <S> improve: to make or become better in quality <S> but... improve (intr; usually followed by on or upon) to achieve a better standard or quality in comparison (with) <S> The example follows: to improve on last year's crop. <S> As I see a few more examples on the dictionaries, I notice that 'improve on' comes with comparing it with previous state. <S> Said that, if you can precisely measure something or if something is tangible , you improve on it. <S> In other words, you improve on the last year's sales figures. <S> If you are not peculiar to compare your English and simply want to improve it, dropping 'on' is okay. <S> But in the case, say, you know English <S> but now you want to improve on English grammar . <S> This means you are now comparing English (in general) with improved English with better grammar. <A> I shan't go into detail about the grammar since I'm not very knowledgeable about that,but as I understand it the two have a slightly different connotation. <S> For example, if I have a car and I improve it, I would do so by replacing some of the parts for instance. <S> If I'm improving on the car however, I would be building a new car, similar in many ways to the original car, but this time I'm using different parts to make it better than the original. <S> In other words, to improve modifies the original while to <S> improve on leaves the original intact. <S> This difference is confirmed by the Oxford dictionary entry found here : <S> Definition of improve in English: verb <S> 1 Make or become better: [WITH OBJECT]: efforts to improve relations between the countries (as adjective improved) <S> an improved design <S> 1.2 [NO OBJECT] <S> (improve on/upon) Achieve or produce something better than: <S> they are trying to improve on the tired old style
| To improve means "to make the original instance better" where to improve on means "creating a new instance which is similar to the original, but better" .
|
Can an 'adverb' modify 'nouns/pronouns'? While answering to this question here, very interesting discussion took place with CopperKettle. It's absolutely right that adverbs modify many things, but nouns/pronouns. But then, expressions such as... Almost everyone would agree to this... and... Hardly anyone would do that... are quite common. What do natives say about this? Are there any special cases wherein adverbs modify nouns/pronouns? <Q> Many people say that by definition a word that modifies a noun or a pronoun isan adjective, which is why there's an ample debate on the subject among English native speakers. <S> Some argue that since an adverb modifies a noun or a pronoun it automatically becomes an adjective. <S> Yet, others assert that adverbs can modify pronouns: <S> Definition of an adverb modifying a pronoun: <S> An adverb which precedes a pronoun and modifies the pronoun. <S> Examples of adverbs modifying pronouns: adverb (bold), pronoun (italicized) <S> Almost <S> everybody came in the end. <S> Note: almost; nearly; hardly; about, etc., can be used in this way <S> And others agree that: Sometimes adverbs modify pronouns: <S> Almost everyone gave something. <S> Nearly all of them came. <S> Naturally, some will argue that these words are adjectives. <S> Of course, they function as adjectives in these sentences. <S> Yet they are quite unlike adjectives in other uses. <S> However, in my language it is unanimously accepted that an adverb, as a dependent and inflexible part of speech, always acts as a determiner to the: verb, verb phrase, adjective, another adverb, interjection, noun that denotes actions, states or properties, pronoun and numeral. <S> This said, I can't contradict any of the English native speakers but can only picture the way other people see the subject. <A> An adverb is a word that modifies a verb, adjective, another adverb, determiner, noun phrase, clause, preposition, or sentence. <S> and adnominal adverbs and adverbials, such as (over) <S> there in the noun phrase the man (over) there <S> === EDIT == <S> = <S> However, other sources including external links on the latter article contradict it, and so does wikitionary. <S> From the usage cases, however, it seems that such a usage is permitted. <A> Very truly yours. <S> The influence is unquestionably hers. <S> This can't be exclusively mine. <S> The likeness is unmistakably his. <S> I'm going to put it in the nicest way possible on the chance <S> it might help me to avoid further downvotes on this answer of mine, <S> o ye cavemen ... <S> I mean, nice generous people ... <S> I agree with the OP that adverbs can absolutely modify pronouns. <S> There's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't. <S> The OP suggests I should put it in "a smarter way. <S> " <S> Okay, here goes: <S> Harmony is very smart. <S> Which is why it always takes precedence. <S> Once it has established itself, being smart and all, a bunch of nerds rush in to make up some rules that profess to reflect this harmony, but it never really works. <S> Harmony is pure. <S> Rules are often stifling and oppressive. <S> Nerds are hardly ever smart. <S> O Reader! <S> Bruder! <S> You're smart. <S> You're not a nerd. <S> Please don't down vote this answer! <S> Smart people should stick together! <S> I'm not quite certain what this modifying business is all about, because I don't even know what an adverb or a pronoun is, and why should I, it's beneath me. <S> But, being smart, I don't admit to it. <S> I pretend it's not beneath me. <S> As the poet said, I'm sufficiently proud about knowing something to be occasionally modest about my not knowing everything. <S> Or something to that effect. <S> I'm also quite drunk right now. <S> I have a nasty cold, but I'm smart, which is why I'm drinking good cognac instead of taking stupid disgusting pills. <S> It may not be as healthy, but it sure as hell is a lot more enjoyable.
| Yes, an adverb can modify a noun, according to wikipedia here and here .
|
How to say that you have plans to go to the movies tonight? How to say that you have plans to go to the movies tonight (but you are not sure yet, maybe you will have a pizza)? I mean there are options: I am going to the cinema tonight. Way too much certainty in this. For me it means that you have already bought tickets, the least. I am going to go to the cinema tonight. Sounds a bit awkward. I will go to the cinema tonight. Sounds too formal to me. <Q> I am going to the cinema tonight. <S> This indeed shows that plans are already made (not necessarily that tickets are bought already, but the speaker is sure that he will end up watching a movie tonight). <S> I will go to the cinema tonight. <S> This is not "formal" as you mentioned, but for this scenario rather implies spontaneous decision (the speaker decided that he will go to the cinema just now). <S> If you want to express uncertainty, you could go with: <S> I'm thinking about going to the cinema tonight. <S> I might go to the cinema tonight. <A> A far more casual response could be, "I'm thinking of catching a movie (film, flic, or flick) tonight." <S> I am Canadian and as such, I do tend to borrow from the French, hence, flic/flick for film. <A> You could simply say: I have plans to go to the movies tonight. <S> Plans are plans, not cast in stone, and are implicitly subject to change. <S> You nailed the answer in your question. <A> I'm answering based on common, informal speech. <S> Not necessarily proper, well structured English. <S> "I think I'm gonna go to the movies tonight. <S> "I think I'm gonna go to the movies." <S> In the second example, it's okay to drop "tonight" because it's just common and expected that you'll be seeing a movie in the evening. <S> "I think I'm gonna go see a movie." "I might go to the movies." <S> It's my experience (Canada) that this type of speech is more common. <S> You rarely ever hear people say theater or cinema in this context. <S> Typically people will use "movie" or "movies" when describing the act of going to the theater to see a movie, because they're describing the event rather than the location or venue. <S> Where you will hear people use theater/cinema <S> is in speech directly associated with the location rather than the event. <S> On the phone, Jane asks Jim where he is. <S> He replies: <S> "I'm at the theater." <S> .. <S> rather than: <S> "I'm at the movies". <S> ... <S> although it would be perfectly acceptable in informal speech and convey the same meaning to use the latter. <S> Again, to illustrate the point about location versus event: Jane: <S> "Where did you get those cool 3D glasses?" <S> Jim: "At the theater." <S> Or Jane <S> : "Can you grab me a pack of smokes on your way to the theater?" <S> Jane is a terrible chain smoker and soon she will suffer a premature hypothetical death and no longer be used in my examples.
| I am planning to go to the cinema tonight.
|
How to read "1 + (-2) = -1" and "1 - 2 = -1" How to read this to others, so they can write it down just by listening? 1 + (-2) = -1 Also: 1 - 2 = -1 I want to know the differences. <Q> How you explain this really depends on how much you want to convey, and how much you think will be assumed. <S> For instance, the most specific wording of the first example would go something like this: One plus open parenthesis <S> negative two close parenthesis equals negative one. <S> The second example would be as follows: <S> One minus two equals negative one. <S> The important difference (pun intended) is how to say the '-' sign. <S> I have found, contrary to the other answers so far, that a '-' when used on only one number (such as on the right side of those equations) is referred to as a 'negative' operator, whereas when used on two numbers it's a 'minus' sign. <S> Saying 'two plus minus one', to me, implies 'plus or minus', which might not apply in most contexts but is definitely worth avoiding. <S> On the other hand, 'two plus negative one' is immediately clear to me. <S> This even makes the parentheses in your first example unnecessary, and you can just say One plus negative two equals negative one. <S> Unless you actually want everyone to write down the parentheses, in which case you should be explicit. <A> As a maths teacher, I would accept any of the following as correct (listing my most preferred reading first): 1 <S> + <S> (−2) = −1 <S> One plus negative two equals negative one <S> One plus minus two equals <S> minus one <S> One add negative two equals negative one <S> (Other arrangements of "negative" versus "minus", and "add" versus "plus", are also possible, although I'd be a little bemused if someone said "negative two" and then "minus one"!) <S> Other readings are, of course, possible, although I would regard something like "the sum of one and minus two is minus one" as an interpretation, or maybe a paraphrase— describing the meaning, rather than reading it as written. <S> 1 − <S> 2 = −1 <S> One take two equals negative one <S> One subtract two equals <S> negative one <S> One take away two equals <S> minus one <S> One minus two equals <S> minus one <S> This last one illustrates the potentially confusing status of "minus" as both "something done to two numbers" and "a type of number" (in grammatical terms, both a verb and an adjective; in mathematical terms, both a binary and a unary operation). <A> There's no much difference on those examples. <S> For example the second one is read as one minus two equals minus one . <S> The first one can be read similarly ( one plus minus two equals minus one ), but having something like 1 - (1 - 2) = 2, <S> that's different, you need to say there's a bracket, and then that's one minus, open bracket, one minus two, close bracket, equals two. <S> You can also use parenthesis . <A> In the first example, i would personally say One plus [pause] <S> [quickly] minus two [pause] equals <S> minus one <S> Depending on my mood, i might say "negative" instead of "minus". <S> It's shorter than saying aloud "parenthesis/bracket", but still conveys the separation. <S> I've never had anyone complain about it being hard to understand, at least not with short expressions. <S> A slightly more complex example to explain: <S> 1 <S> + (2 * 3) <S> = <S> 7 <S> One plus [pause] <S> [quickly] two-times-three [pause] equals seven <S> But (1 + 2) <S> * 3 = 9 <S> [quickly] One-plus-two [pause] times three equals nine <A> and <S> One <S> minus two is equal to minus one. <S> Logically, there is no difference between the two expressions. <S> I'm sure you're aware of that. <S> Generally brackets () are used to avoid confusions with the arithmetic operators. <S> If you want to know more about the mathematical aspects of the expression, you should ask the same questions here . <S> The math geniuses there will certainly help you. <S> In these expressions, you need not specify the brackets as they are mostly used only for written purposes and not used verbally. <S> Additionally, you could swap 'is equal to' with 'equals' . <A> You can say, with emphasis on the bolded part, One plus minus two inside bracket equals one and one minus two, equals minus one <A> Well, over here (Nigeria) it is quite different as it reads: 1 <S> + (-2) <S> = <S> -1 <S> one plus open-bracket <S> minus <S> 2 close-bracket equal-to minus 1 <A> I know this doesn't sound grammatically right. <S> I remember my Math teacher saying something like 1 <S> + (-2) <S> = <S> -1 <S> One plus of minus two equals <S> minus one And 1 - 2 <S> = <S> -1 <S> One minus two equals minus one <S> But then this is Math! <S> It's a wholly different language by itself!
| You could simply say : One plus minus two is equal to minus one.
|
Is Irene Adler in the Sherlock Holmes series pronounced eye-REEN or eye-REE-nee? For some years I thought that, over in England, any woman with that name was always eye-REE-nee (like the second principle character of the Forsyte Saga by John Galsworthy), and never eye-REEN. Now I'm watching this super-popular Sherlock series (my friends made me; it ain't my fault; I don't watch TV) ... you know the one I mean, with what's his name, and I'm beginning to have doubts. I looked it up. Turns out, both versions are in use in Britain. Check this out: How to pronounce Irene Adler Is Miss Adler eye-REEN or eye-REE-nee ? Do please enlighten me. <Q> Some names have the same spelling and yet are pronounced differently. <S> Consider my name. <S> "VARUN" . <S> Now this name can be pronounced in so many different ways (it is really annoying when you live in a country with so many dialects and accents). <S> My name can be written as "VAROON" too. <S> That's the thing with proper nouns. <S> There is no hard and fast rule that specifies how you should pronounce proper nouns. <S> So its up to you. <S> An American series on Sherlock will have different pronunciation when compared to a British version. <S> Even two different Sherlock series made in England might have either of the pronunciations for Irene, as you mentioned. <S> I found a question that might help. <S> Do check it out. <A> In the Jeremmy Brett version of the Scandal of Bohemia, (English), the king is pronouncing her name <S> "I-ri-na Ahdler". <S> ( from 13:45～ ). <S> So at least Brits in 90's pronounced ( or considered ) <S> so. <S> Here we need to take into account <S> the king itself is not English ( or British. ). <S> However, Watson is too, pronouncing her name ( from 2:03 ) "To Sherlock Holmes, a woman is always a nobleman. <S> The beautiful "I-Rei-Na Ahdler"." <S> But Watson's pronunciation of her name changes, for example, from 14:14～ ""I-Ri-Na, Adler, born, New Jersey"". <S> I don't know which ones, "Ireina" or "I"-"ri"-"na" and "Adler" or "Ahdler" is correct, but at least in the Brits' version of the story "back then", the sound is not at least "Eye Reen". <A> In the radio version of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes(1940's) both Sherlock and Watson pronounce her name as Irenee, with the long EE sound.
| Some names have the same pronunciation but the spellings may differ. Now as for the Irene in Sherlock Holmes, if you want to know the actual pronunciation intended in the book, you'll have to ask Arthur Conan Doyle himself, which is unlikely to happen given the fact that he passed away long ago.
|
"I'm not afraid" vs "I don't afraid" Sometimes I hear people say 'I don't afraid...' For example: 'I don't afraid to be alone' Or 'I don't afraid of the darkness'. But is it right? I've always thought that we can only say: 'I'm not afraid of something' of 'I'm not afraid to do something' And with 'don't' we can say only to someone: 'Don't be afraid'. Is it possible to say 'I don't afraid', 'You don't afraid' etc.? <Q> As other answers have pointed out, this is not good grammar, and you are correct that it should be 'be afraid' rather than 'do afraid'. <S> The reason you still hear it is likely due to a troll post on 4chan which became a meme and, as such, was perpetuated by native speakers, even though they knew it was wrong. <S> The original post was in December 2007 and concerned Halo / Master Chief. <S> Potentially NSFW KnowYourMeme reference: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pretty-cool-guy <A> Is it possible to say 'I don't afraid', 'You don't afraid' etc.? <S> No. <S> It is not possible. <S> See, the verb " be " ( is, are, was ..) is a copular verb . <S> When the copular is or an auxiliary verb is present in a clause, we do not use the so-called do-support when forming a negative version of that clause. <S> We add not instead. <S> It is possible. <S> ("is" is a copular verb) <S> It is not possible. <S> It was possible. <S> It was not possible. <S> He will laugh. <S> ("will" is an auxiliary verb ) He will not laugh. <A> "I don't have any fear. <S> " <S> "I don't feel afraid." <S> "I'm not afraid." <S> Unfortunately, "I don't afraid" sounds very wrong to native speakers. <S> Unlike some subtle mistakes that we easily overlook, this one is quite distracting and obvious, at least written down. <S> The meaning is still clear, once you stop and figure it out. <A> All dictionaries list afraid as an adjective <S> so you can't use it as if it were a verb. <S> Furthermore, the adjective in question can be used only after linking verbs (for example be or feel ): <S> I feel afraid. <S> Don't be afraid. <S> Be careful! <S> Afraid is used only after linking verbs such as be and feel. <S> Don't use it in front of a noun. <S> For example, don't talk about 'an afraid child'. <S> However, you can talk about 'a frightened child'. <S> He was acting like a frightened kid. <S> The link I provided explains further the use of the word afraid . <A> Afraid is used like this: to be afraid of something. <S> Perhaps the original source was mixing afraid and fear. <S> Fear can be used together with 'do'. <S> For example: 'I don't fear ghosts' means the same as 'I am not afraid of ghosts'.
| Afraid is something you can be (adjective), not something you can do (verb). You can say "I don't fear <x> ."
|
How do I choose between "as to", "on", "of", and "about"? I know that " as to ", " on ", and " of " are synonymous with " about ", but I also know these words are not always interchangeable. I was wondering if there are rules for picking between these prepositions. There is still no news as to whether he will leave the company. ( all four can be used with no change in meaning) I don't know what you are talking about . (only about and of can be used) I heard of that from Jim. (only of and about ) The speaker spoke on the issue of liquidity markets. ( all four? ) Thanks for the help. <Q> The most basic answer to your question is that when and how they can be used all comes down to their definitions. <S> The words "of" and "on" have quite a few variations and so there is no single right way to use them, but several. <S> It seems to always be followed by an adverb, but I am not sure whether or not that is the rule. <S> I am unsure as to how we will go about this. <S> (how to go about this is what must be decided) <S> As to whether or not you won, I could not say. <S> (The winner has not been decided) <S> "On" usually indicates a detailed or direct relation between the subject and its modifying prepositional phrase. <S> Think of it like an object sitting on a table - there is direct contact. <S> He gave a speech on the ramifications of not wearing protective gear while cycling. <S> (The ramifications were the main topic of the speech he gave.) <S> She was working on a solution for the global climate crisis. <S> (The global climate crisis was the main subject of her work.) <S> "Of" often lends itself to less knowledge or detail on a subject on the surface, though that is not always the case. <S> I have heard of him before. <S> (I have at least a general awareness of him, but don't necessarily know much more detail.) <S> Of all the cars, twenty were red. <S> (There were twenty red cars, but specifically which ones were is left uncertain.) <S> "About" simply signifies a relation or subject. <S> It can indicate great detail or a general association. <S> Often times "of" or "on" can be used in place of "about." <S> He knew many things about life and love. <S> (He knew a good number of things about life and love. <S> It's very general. <S> Both of and on can be used here.) <S> Her story was about the joys of sailing. <S> (The subject of her story was the joys of sailing. <S> Both on and of can be used here, though I feel on would work better.) <A> Right, they aren't exact synonyms, and it's all pretty idiomatic. <S> So no hard-and-fast rules, no. <S> In 1, "news of whether" does not really work and would have to be reworded as "news of the possibility that" instead I would say. <S> In 4, "spoke of" has more of a meaning of "merely mentioned", whereas the others would mean closer to "spoke directly about". <S> And "spoke to" would be less awkward than "spoke as to". <S> "As to" is a bit highfalutin as well. <A> In all of the examples, about can be used. <S> Sentence #3 would sound better with about , while sentence #4 probably sounds better as written. <S> Also, regarding sentence #3, if "I heard that from Jim" accurately conveys the meaning, it would be better than what is written.
| In general, "about" has a connotation of "directly but also around", where "on" means more "specifically to", and "of" requires a more definite object than the others. "As to" almost always points to a decision that needs to be made, is going to be made, or can be made.
|
Is there a difference between "revoke" and "revocate"? I'm trying to find a verb that would correspond to noun "revocation", and it seems logical to me that I should use "revocate". However, in many editors this word is highlighted by the spell checker, and I wonder if it is used at all. Should I use "revoke" instead? Is there any difference between these two words? <Q> For example, to send a message to troops to retreat. <S> I have an excellent vocabulary, but was previously unaware this word existed, so <S> I think it's reasonable to assume its use will usually raise eyebrows among even very fluent, well-educated speakers — most of whom will assume you misspelled "revoke". <S> Some dictionaries mark it as obsolete, and I'm not surprised. <S> "Revoke", on the other hand, is a fairly common word, meaning to undo a previously-valid decision or law . <S> For example, to cancel a previously-granted permission to do something. <S> If you want to use revocate , you should seriously consider simply saying "call back" or something similar instead. <S> Even in formal uses, this will likely be the best choice; borrowing from the previous example, a military text that mentioned a general "recalling" his troops would be perfectly natural, while one that mentioned that general "revocating" his troops would be hard to understand. <S> "Revocation", itself, has nothing to do with "revocate", other than by etymology. <S> It's the noun form of "revoke". <S> So one might refer to "the revocation of an order", meaning its cancellation. <A> They mean the same, can be used in same place. <S> Revocation is more eloquent Revocation refers to the cancelling or annulment of something by some authority. <S> When revocation happens, a privilege, title, or status is removed from someone Revocation is not used as much. <S> In the 80s and early 90s it was used, but i have not heard it being used for some time. <S> It is what you would call a more eloquent form. <S> When i did hear it used it was for titles <S> Example: <S> the revocation of land titles or no revocation of title to land shall be effectedThis is a Petition for revocation of a Heirship Certificatea Revocation of Power of Attorney <A> I have been an attorney in southwest Wisconsin for the past ~14 years and revocate is a word which only comes up in my life in the context of probation/extended supervision/parole revocation proceedings. <S> It is a word used earnestly by probationers instead of revoke or revocation in a context like "My P.O. (probation officer) wants to revocate me." <S> Since probationers facing revocation proceedings are always or almost always held in a county jail while the revocation proceedings are pending in my area, and because prisoners in my experience are prone to try to fit in with other cellmates as a way of not showing weakness (thereby exposing themselves to increased risks of physical attacks or other exploitation), it seems possible that the use of revocate has caught on partially as an affectation by people trying to sound more "street."
| Revoke-put an end to the validity or operation of (a decree, decision, or promise).While revoke used to be used example:your license was revoked.your privilege was revoked "Revocate" means to call back , recall .
|
use 'to' to indicate a verb in flashcards I am trying to guide my son on how to create flashcards to study vocabulary for Spanish as a second language. My question is about english though. When I learned english long time ago I used 'to' to indicate that the word is a verb. So, I would write 'to go', 'to be', etc instead of 'go' or 'be'. Is there still any reason why I should use 'to go' instead of 'go' or is it just that long time ago people were more formal? My son asked me and I don't have a good answer. <Q> In English, the infinitive of a verb, which is the "basic" form, is usually preceded by "to"; this is called the full infinitive or the to infinitive . <S> Without the "to", and standing on its own, it's called the bare infinitive or the base verb . <S> Using "to" or not doesn't have anything to do with formality. <S> It does make it clearer that the word is a verb, though: consider the word seat . <S> Without "to", it's not clear if you mean the verb to seat or just the noun seat . <A> Using "To verb" tells the reader you are using a verb when it would otherwise be unclear. <S> There is a lot of overlap between verbs and nouns in English. <S> For instance, in your question, you use "answer" as a noun, but down here, I answer your question with answer as a verb. <S> Another example- <S> I decided not to comment (verb) with a comment (noun). <S> In addition to well established examples like those, English allows speakers to make nouns into verbs by simply using them that way (verbing a noun). <S> "Go" is almost always used as a verb, but "To have a go at something," means to make an attempt at it. <A> While it would be most technically correct to translate ir as the infinitive "to go", I would say that putting the "to" on flashcards is not idiomatic in English. <S> I recommend dropping the "to", because that's what a native English speaker would probably do. <S> The reasoning is probably clearer when you consider an analogy with nouns. <S> Spanish flashcards would probably be labelled el chico and la chica . <S> But English speakers would consider the definite article to be useless noise, because the gender hardly matters. <S> English flashcards would just say "boy" or "girl". <S> Similarly, English verbs are just verbs. <S> We don't have to learn whether the infinitive ends in -ar , -er , or -ir . <S> Present-tense conjugation, for the most part, is simple and regular. <S> There is therefore no point in learning the infinitive form preceded by "to" — unless that's how your brain prefers to learn it.
| Since so many English words can function as both verbs and nouns, it's helpful to be completely clear about which one you're referring to.
|
introduction to vs introduction into (which is correct?) I would like to know the difference between "introduction to" vs "introduction into". I feel the former is the right choice in the following sentence, This chapter provides an introduction to Maps. which is correct? Basically, I'm asking this because my supervisor replaces my "to" to "into". I didn't ask him why and at the same time I'm not able to understand the difference. <Q> As a native speaker, I agree with your initial assumption. <S> I probably would never correct someone who said introduction into <S> but I personally think it sounds weird. <S> This probably doesn't answer your question very well, but I know language learning can be frustrating, and I wanted to let you know that I think your sentence is better than the one your supervisor chose! <A> Both are correct but used in different places. <S> It depends on which you would use aside from the introduction . <S> For example, if I said; I'm going to learn about maps. <S> Then I would use introduction to . <S> I'm going to be introduced to maps. <S> explanation of introduced to <S> Also when you use this, it generally means you are being introduced to someone <S> not something . <S> Now if I were saying; I'm going into a seminar. <S> Then I would use introduction into . <S> I'm being introduced into a seminar. <S> explanation of introduced into <A> According to online collocation dictionaries (I checked a few), using to or into depends on the meaning of "introduce". <S> If it's used in the sense of bringing something (technology/knowledge) into a field/place: use "into". <S> Examples: <S> Emma introduced me to artificial intelligence. <S> [I now know of artificial intelligence.] <S> Emma explains how she introduced artificial intelligence into Company X. <S> [Artificial intelligence is now used in Company X.] <S> Note that it would thus make a huge difference whether Emma would introduce me to or into Company X.In the first case <S> , I would get to know Company X and feel respected as an individual person. <S> The second case would imply that I am some sort of asset and from now on to be used within Company X.I would start doubting my rights. <S> I would start doubting if I am in fact human. <S> Maybe I am just a robot, one of many, introduced into Company <S> X. Source: <S> http://www.ozdic.com/collocation-dictionary/introduce
| If it's used in the sense of getting someone/something acquainted with someone/something else: use "to". In EVERY context, Introduction to sounds more natural and correct.
|
Use of "Taken care of" as a reponse Dialogue: — Did you do your homework? — Taken care of. Is this a normal response or rarely used? <Q> I'd call it "niche", or possibly "trendy". <S> The "normal" response might be: <S> Yes, I took care of my homework. <S> However, more "terse" responses might include: Check. <S> Done. <S> Finished. <S> Taken care of. <S> Words and phrases like this often crop up, rise in popularity, and then temper off. <S> They often become popular among a younger demographic first. <S> (In recent years, I've been introduced to some new and "epic" words and phrases from my kids and their friends.) <S> (hence, I'm hesitant to call it "normal"). <S> Yet it's not so foreign that I couldn't figure out what it meant (therefore, I wouldn't want to call it "rare," either). <S> A more verbose (yet equally slangy) response might include: <S> I've crossed that off my to-do list. <A> Yes, it is a normal use. " <S> Taken care of" can often be given as a reply to the status of a routine task like homework. <A> Not to be contrary, but I don't use it as a normal response. <S> I do, however,use such a phrase when I am in my mothering or teacher-modes... <S> and I am both. <S> To me, the into,iced message is one of suggesting responsibility for a task. <S> Otherwise, a simple, "did you... ?" should suffice.
| I wouldn't describe it as "normal" or "rare". I can't remember anyone ever saying "Taken care of" when I've asked if they've completed a task
|
Can "Wow!" be a sentence? The question is clear. Can "Wow!" be a sentence? Imagine a hypothetical context where I'd utter something like this: Wow! What an amazing idea! I should think about a way to push this fix. We see "wow" in casual speech often. It bears punctuation marks (typically an exclamation mark, denoting the rising intonation) and a capital letter — just like all "regular" sentences. On the other hand, neither Wow! nor What an amazing idea! contain any verbs. These certainly don't have any parts of speech in the other sentence, so what are they? Are they sentences or clauses? In other words, can "Wow!" be a sentence despite its lack of [any implied] verbs, and subsequently lack of any distinguishable predicates? Please back up your answers with references. <Q> Short answer: <S> Yes, these are minor sentences . <S> They consist of a single clause that's usually categorized under "minor clauses". <S> Examples of minor clauses are optatives, conditional fragments, verbless directives, parallel structures, elliptical constructions, vocatives, exclamatives, interjections and other stereotyped expressions and headlines. <S> [1], [2], <S> [3] Long answer: <S> A normal sentence usually consists of a subject and predicate: <S> {I} {go to school everyday}. <S> ↑ <S> ↑ <S> subject predicate <S> However, unlike the popular (?) belief, a sentence does not need a subject and a predicate in order to be a real one. <S> There are a set of irregular forms of sentences referred to as "minor clauses/sentences". <S> The choice between the use of "sentence" versus clause doesn't matter, since these sentences consist of a single clause. <S> Let's look at some definitions: <S> Minor sentence <S> A fragmented, elliptical, or incomplete sentence or clause that still conveys meaning. <S> Also called a minor clause, an abbreviated clause, or a sentence fragment. <S> [2] [1] defines " minor clause " in the beginning of Chapter 10: Clause type and illocutionary force under § 10: <S> Minor clause types in page 944 as any form of clauses that don't belong to the major clause types. <S> These would be (with some further assistance from other sources such as the mentioned page in Grammar. <S> About) <S> 1. <S> Optatives "Optative <S> " is a grammatical mood that tends to overlap with the "subjunctive" . <S> The Optative mood (abbreviated opt) is a grammatical mood that indicates a wish or hope. <S> It is similar to the cohortative mood, and is closely related to the subjunctive mood. <S> English has no morphological optative, but there are various constructions with optative meaning. <S> [4] <S> Examples: Long live my king! <S> May God be with ye. <S> So be it. <S> Example one is a subjunctive. <S> 2. <S> Conditional fragments 3. <S> Verbless directives 4. <S> Parallel structures 5. <S> Elliptical constructions <S> 6. <S> Vocatives 7. <S> Exclamatives 8. <S> Stereotyped expressions <S> 9. <S> Interjections 10. <S> Other <Under construction> <S> References: [1] The Cambridge Grammar of English language (CGEL) ; <S> [2] Minor sentence – Grammar. <S> About <S> [3] Major and minor sentences – Wikipedia [4] Optative mood – Wikipedia <A> This question is anything but clear. <S> It's muddled by design. <S> : <S> ^) <S> But I'll take a shot at it. <S> NOAD defines sentence like this: sentence ( n. ) <S> a set of words that is complete in itself, typically containing a subject and predicate, conveying a statement, question, exclamation, or command, and consisting of a main clause and sometimes one or more subordinate clauses. <S> ( emphasis added ) <S> The word "typically" is crucial; it suggests that the subject and predicate are not "required." <S> Therefore: <S> Wow! <S> is a grammatical, legal, legitmate one-word exclamation sentence, consisting of a lone interjection. <S> For further reading, I recommend taking a look at <S> this answer to a similar question on ELU. <A> As said above, the question is imprecise and depends on context. <S> Others have agreed that it is a sentence, so I will try to assume the opposite opinion. <S> It is not a sentence, it's an exclamation. <S> In school I was taught to answer in full sentences. <S> Saying "Five!" was not acceptable. " <S> Yes." is in a different category than "Yes!" <S> as in "Yes! <S> I did it. <S> " As was pointed out above, it might be a minor sentence, but I'd say it's still not a fully qualified sentence. <S> If it is not ambiguous and you don't have to shout(!) <S> to get the point across, just use a full stop instead. <S> In mathematical predicate logic, false and true are predicates on their own. <S> Now I could go on about zeroth-order logic [1], but I don't want to make too many mistakes. <S> The point is, could you write a complete text only of exclamations? <S> Doubt it! <S> I mean, I doubt it, not that you should, but the interpretation as imperative would actually be the most common use of the exclamation mark. <S> Otherwise it's more like "wow <S> ... did you see that?" <S> (not fully quallified on it's own). <S> So it depends on context. <S> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth-order_logic Edit: <S> Of course, "Wow!" can also be understood imperative. <S> Anyhow, a minor sentence seems rather colloquial. <S> In any formal setting where the distinction between a sentence or something else would matter, colloquial styles would be mistaken. <S> Edit to address @J.R.'s comment: In mathematical predicate logic, "true" as well as "true -> true" (implication) are predicates, but "true ->" is syntactically incorrect. <S> I allude that the exclamation mark likewise expresses semantic meaning that requires some consequence. <S> The meaning is implicit and hence not an explicit sentence i.e. formally incomplete. <S> The exclamation mark distinctly symbolises the difference to a sentence. <S> Otherwise, I don't see a difference between "Yes." and "Yes!". <S> The distinction is indicative vs imperative. <S> Of course, this is an argument by analogy and therefore debatable. <S> Also, that's highly formal, therefore use of a single word exclamation could be precluded for style reasons alone. <A> "Wow! <S> Robert just won the Lotto!" <S> Is an emphatic interjection followed by an exclamatory sentence. <S> "Wow, Ann was 15 minutes late!" <S> Is an exclamatory sentence containing a mild interjection. <S> See Schoolhouse Rock "Interjections". <S> "...or by a comma when the feeling's not as strong."
| "Wow!" is an interjection offset by an exclamation mark, not necessarily a sentence.
|
What is the meaning of this sentence from "A Study in Scarlet" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? I had neither kith nor kin in England, and was therefore as free as air -- or as free as an income of eleven shillings and sixpence a day will permit a man to be. Under such circumstances I naturally gravitated to London, that great cesspool into which all the loungers and idlers of the Empire are irresistibly drained. It is not quite clear to me what "gravitated to London" means. The rest of the sentence isn't particularly clear either. Please explain. <Q> The author is saying that as a free person with minimal responsibility , he was attracted to London with all the good and bad adventures London had to offer, but hinting at the darker side of life. <S> gravitated to London <S> means attracted to , drawn to <S> , the author is saying these types of people naturally and move towards this destination (London) just as gravity is a natural (an irresistible) force <S> that great cesspool <S> A cesspool is a pool (or pond) of human waste (both solid and liquid), referring to something as a cesspool means it has undesirable qualities, in this case there is a moral context loungers and idlers refers to types of people that are socially undesirable, <S> those that do nothing and do not contribute to society of the Empire refers to the once mighty English Empire (commonly referred to post the Acts of Union as the British Empire ) of which London was (and still is) its capital and largest city <S> irresitibly drained Draining is a process driven by gravity , " draining water from a bathtub". <S> It means the undesirable people are removed from other parts of the geographically spread Empire and drained into (or concentrated into) London. <S> In this usage irresitible means can not be stopped . <S> Please keep in mind <S> this is a picture of a Dickensian London. <S> The author's attraction for adventure is as a moth to a flame . <A> There are two metaphors here. <S> Metaphor One <S> The narrator had no reason to settle down anywhere: he had no family and no friends. <S> He had a small income that allowed him to spend as much time as he liked without looking for a job. <S> He had nothing to do. <S> The implication here is that he was, at that point of his life and career, a drifter: moving around without purpose, like a rogue asteroid in interstellar space. <S> A large space object - like a planet or a star - can attract such an asteroid, which will thereupon gravitate towards it. <S> In the British Empire, London is that planet (or star) for all drifters. <S> Metaphor Two <S> The second metaphor compares London to a cesspool: an underground storage space into which all kinds of waste is drained. <S> Loungers and idlers are being compared to waste drained into a cesspool, and London to a cesspool. <S> This view is complimentary neither to idlers nor London, but it was very popular among England's upper middle class towards the end of the 19th Century: <S> the very group that was to constitute the vast majority of Sir Arthur's readers. <A> I would submit that the first part of the statement is a self-justification for indulging in the life-style of the idle. <S> He stipulates that he has no purpose in life. <S> Why not join the flow?
| The author is saying that London, being the major city of the Empire, attracted many different types of people especially undesirable ones , as any major city in the world still does.
|
Away they went over stock and stone - What is stock and stone? That statement is from Grimm's fairy tales. What is the meaning of the phrase "stock and stone"? Where else can I use it? <Q> I think stock means tree stump. <S> I'm German and "over stock and stone" is a typical German expression (über Stock und Stein). <A> The definition comes from the word stock . <S> See the meaning of the sentence on DamkerngT.'s comment below. <S> According to definition 5: <S> stock : <S> the trunk or main stem of a tree or other plant, as distinguished from roots and branches. <A> Q: What is the meaning of the phrase "stock and stone"? <S> This stock seems to literally mean "tree trunk" or "stump". <S> Q: <S> Where else can I use it? <S> It's not commonly used in everyday English. <S> It's probably a fixed phrase which, as GoDucks said , "It is an old fashioned phrase, so you basically would not use it anywhere else unless you deliberately wanted to sound old fashioned or quaint." <S> From the original page, <S> The Golden Bird by Grimm Brothers : ... <S> ; so the fox said, ‘Sit upon my tail, and you will travel faster.’ <S> So he sat down, and the fox began to run, and away they went over stock and stone so quick that their hair whistled in the wind. <S> This appears to be translated from the original German text in Der goldene Vogel KHM 57 (1857) : <S> ..., antwortete der Fuchs, "und damit du schneller fortkommst, so steig hinten auf meinen Schwanz. <S> " <S> Und kaum hatte er sich aufgesetzt, so fing der Fuchs an zu laufen, und da gings <S> über Stock und Stein , dass die Haare <S> i <S> m Winde pfiffen. <S> I read this part as: the fox, with our protagonist on its tail, ran over hill and dale (literally, tree trunks and stones) very quickly (so quick that their hair whistled in the wind). <S> FUN FACTS <S> Leo.org, a well-known German-English online dictionary, gives a few definitions for über stock und stein : across country, over hill and dale, over rough and smooth. <S> ( über means over; stock means stick, staff, cane, floor, level; stein means stone, rock) <S> Tolkien uses this phrase, stock and stone , in his The Lord of the Rings as well: '"Hoom! <S> Gandalf!" said Treebeard. <S> "I am glad you have come. <S> Wood and water, stock and stone, I can master; but there is a Wizard to manage here." <S> (Treebeard was the eldest of the Ents; and by a Wizard , he meant Saruman.) <S> Apparently, the line made it to the movie <S> The Return of the King , as you can see (with some screenshots) on a page at TK421 .
| In my opinion, it's best to understand over stock and stone as a fixed phrase, a merism (a figure of speech) meaning "across country", "over hill and dale", "over rough and smooth", or as StoneB nicely put it , over "all sorts of terrain": woodlands and bare rock.
|
Does "throw up" have alternative meaning? I always thought that "throw up" means to vomit. But I heard on a news channel ... The police officials cornered < robber's name >. He had no other option than to Throw up . .... I initially thought that the robber vomited. But I saw on another channel that he has told the truth. Question: Does "throw up" mean to reveal details? I read this but it gives another interpretation of the word <Q> Underworld slang for "to confess, to tell". <S> (slightly obsolete per E.P. <S> some 40-50 years ago) <S> A Dictionary of the Underworld: British and American By Eric Partridge <A> To "throw up" usually means to vomit. <S> That is the most straightforward meaning that most people will assume. <S> To "throw something up", like "throw up his hands", is different. <S> Likewise, if there is a reason to think that a person actually throws an object, then we might think that the sentence is talking about the direction that an object travels through the air. <S> However, if the phrase "throw up" is used without any context that provides further description, then vomiting is generally what is meant. <S> That is what I would likely think of ( <S> and so is probably what many other native speakers would think of). <S> Despite Usernew's answer showing that "to reveal" is another definition, which may be a way to use the phrase which is technically accurate, I'm saying (as an American English speaker) <S> that isn't the most common usage. <S> "To reveal" is not what people tend to initially think. <A> Yes, it means to produce problems, results, ideas, etc. <S> So basically the robber had to give details or relevant information to officers. <S> For instance, the talks with the robber threw up interesting possibilities. <S> Other meanings of throw up include: Leave suddenly a job, position, charge to do something else. <S> — <S> I threw up my waiter job to look for something better. <S> Create dust to make visibility harder. <S> — <S> The car threw up so much dust <S> and we couldn't keep driving. <A> Throw Up 1 means "to vomit" or "regurgitate" which further means to eject the contents of the stomach from the mouth. <S> ..... <S> He had no other option than to throw up <S> There's the first clue in your question. <S> And here's the second clue: <S> I initially thought that the robber vomited. <S> But I saw on another channel that he has told the truth. <S> This means that he spoke the truth (that he was a thief or he stole or something else). <S> He spilled the beans. <S> Speaking of your question: "Does "throw up" mean to reveal details?"Answer 3 : † <S> Since further information/context in unavailable. <S> Source: 1. <S> Oxford Dictionaries 2. <S> The FreeDictionary
| "Throw up" is used as a figure of speech † .
|
How do you convey the effect of a poor phone connection? Recently, I was talking on a phone which had a faulty connection, as a result of which I was only able to hear the person's voice in patches. Something like "......I think.........may.......jaguar....study.." (where "..." represents things which he said that I was not able to hear). I tried: I can hear you only in patches That sounds awkward. How do I say this to him in a natural way? <Q> You could say this: I'm sorry I can't hear you. <S> You're breaking up ! <S> From Macmillan Dictionary: <S> break up 5 <S> [intransitive] if the sound on a radio or mobile phone breaks up, you can no longer hear the person who is speaking on it. <S> I can't hear you, you're breaking up. <A> There are various ways of conveying difficulty in hearing a caller: <S> You're breaking up , it's really difficult to hear you <S> This is a really bad connection, could you please call back <S> It's really difficult to hear you, could we try again <S> You sound very spotty , could you call again <S> Breaking up is a hold over from radio usage days, it can be used for both mobile and landlines. <S> Usually the caller is asked to call back and <S> hopefully a better connection is made. <S> When appropriate, the caller may ask if it's possible to recall on a landline , or the callee may offer a landline to call on. <S> In extreme circumstances I can't hear you, can you hear me? <S> is used and after a few moments the call is automatically ended with reattempts by the caller, or by either side if they know each other. <A> (gär′bəl) <S> To mix up or distort to such an extent as to make misleading or incomprehensible: The report garbled all the historical facts. <S> To scramble (a signal or message), as by erroneous encoding or faulty transmission. <S> … Note that garbled <S> describes the message that was received, not the connection.
| Whether the signal is bad due to crosstalk, lost packets, or delayed packets, you can say that the message or sentence is garbled : gar·ble
|
Is saying 'I do a job' grammatically correct? My sister wanted to convey the idea that she works somewhere and she used this sentence which I found quite odd. I tried looking for similar sentences but only found sentences like, 'she does odd jobs' which sounds perfectly fine. But saying 'I do a job' sounds very wrong grammatically and otherwise. <Q> I have a job <S> means <A> I do a job <S> The sentence isn't ungrammatical, but the use of the verb "do" in the context is far less common. <S> You usually say: I have a job. <S> I am working or I work. <S> I am employed. <S> I am in a job (though less common). <S> In BrE, you can also say: I am in work. <A> "I do paint houses" is a valid statement. <S> Usually people will say "I paint houses". <S> (However, since most people do a job of some sort, the sentence seems to have little point, just like "I breathe" is usually something that people safely assume.) <A> In what context would you use this phrase? <S> Variations of the phrase that would be used more often are "I did a job [where I...] <S> " as in past tense. <S> If you're talking about being employed, try using "My job is..." or a longer version like "I work at (somewhere, e.g. Intel) where I (job e.g. build computers)." <A> I do a job. <S> The sentence is grammatical. <S> Incorrec: <S> With the right tools, I could make the job in five minutes. <S> Correct: With the right tools, I could do the job in five minutes. <S> Do a job (NOT make ): <S> 'There are lots of jobs to do when we get home.' <S> (= pieces of work) ' <S> There's no need to thank me. <S> I was just doing my job.' <S> (= what I do to earn a living) <S> Reference : <S> Longman Dictionary of Common Errors.
| I am employed or I work. The exact sentence you said is valid English.
|
What does "leaving somebody flat" mean? From the lyrics of Ma Baker : Freeze I'm ma Baker Put your hands in the air and give me all your money This is the story of ma Baker the meanest cat from old Chicago town She was the meanest cat In old Chicago town She was the meanest cat She really mowed them down She had no heart at all No no no heart at all She was the meanest cat For she was really tough She left her husband flat He wasn't tough enough She took her boys along Cause they were mean and strong When saying she left her husband flat, does this mean that she left her husband's apartment or does it mean she actually flattened her husband like the people she mowed down at the bank? <Q> or ditching somebody all of a sudden and walking away. <S> Since ma Baker is a ruthless woman who steals money, she could do both to her husband. <S> So either meanings are valid. <S> I personally feel it is the latter. <S> Check out the usage of this term here . <A> She left her husband flat <S> The phrase here is flat on his back (i.e. Knocked Out ). <S> Imagine a tree falling. <S> The inference is that she punched him so hard he fell flat on his back (unconscious) and while he was out cold <S> she packed her things, took the kids and left. <A> When we were children ...a friend would leave us "FLAT" or even "FLAT <S> LEAVE"...if they chose to leave (without notice) our play date activity to run off and play with a "cooler" friend. <S> BUT of course I have heard the term "FLAT BROKE" <S> so that makes sense in this context too as I read it.
| "Leave flat" is an expression which means either To take a person's complete assets and walk away, leaving him with nothing.
|
Why we need "ever" between "have" and "seen" I am reading English Grammar in Use by Raymond Murphy. I have seen 2 sentences below, It is a beautiful painting? Yes, it is the most beautiful painting I have ever seen. I dont know why did they use "ever" between have and seen . Please advise! <Q> Is your question about why "ever" is needed at all ? <S> That is, do you want to know how these two are different? <S> It is the most beautiful painting I have seen. <S> It is the most beautiful painting I have ever seen. <S> These two mean the same thing. <S> However, the second is preferred for several reasons: "have seen" usually takes an indication of time ("have seen today", "have seen since Monday"...). <S> It sounds a little strange without it. <S> While "have seen" on its own suggests that "ever" is meant, it's often preferable to actually say that clearly. <S> Saying "ever" also makes the statement more emphatic. <S> Given that the statement is praise for the painting, being emphatic is expected. <A> In your sentence example, ever is a superlative adverb and is linked to most , and as an adverb it could be placed either way <S> 1) I have <S> ever seen 2) I have seen ever 3) <S> I ever have seen where ever is defined by the totality of relevent experience, usually understood to be one's life time, but could also be Queen Elizabeth is the longest reigning monarch ever in the UK. <S> Where is relevant experience is the history of the UK. <S> From my experience <S> #1 is used most often . <S> #2 can be used for emphasis, where there is a slight pause before ever <S> and then the ever is emphasized similar to really . <S> #3 is more poetic and literary in its cadence. <A> In that particular sentence and in many instances of practical uses of English Grammar, ever is used between have and seen :1. <S> To emphasize the degree of interest in an object2. <S> To indicate the totality of time before actually seeing that object. <S> To put simply, in one's lifetime3. <S> Used in affirmative sentences before superlatives to pass the sense 2 (above) <A> I would say that it gives the sentence a word that can be emphasized and possibly a better-sounding rhythm. <S> It also helps avoid some confusion. <S> I think I would dare to say that most of the time when no timeframe is mentioned the context is going to imply how far back to consider the comparison/superlative. <S> So depending on the setting it could implicitly meant something like these: "...have seen [during our visit to the art gallery today.] <S> " or "...have seen [since I started working at this art gallery.] <S> " <A> "ever" or "ever in my life" refers to the total time span of your life. <A> As a mathematician, I would say that 'ever' is technically superfluous. <S> This is called a pleonasm as I just learned from here . <A> Depends on the implied time period <S> In your particular example, the word 'ever' may be left out because in this context, the implied time period of question actually is 'ever' and the meanings match. <S> However, contrast "Have you seen John?" <S> and "Have you ever seen John?". <S> In this case (again, depending on the wider context) the answers may well be different - the first question can be used with a meaning closer to "Have you seen John today/recently, I'm looking for him, where is he?" <S> and thus you may have a truthful answer of "No" even if you have seen him last week.
| Heuristically , I think 'ever' is used for emphasis like when people say ' true fact '. Probably the context might be that the previous sentences consisted of things like 'it is the most beautiful painting I have seen today' or 'it is the most beautiful painting I have seen in the museum'
|
His greatness - "lies" or "lay"? So, in the following extract, students are supposed to fill the correct form of the word (given in the parenthesis) in the blank beside it. The first one (0) has been given as am convinced . Here's the passage: From ICSE board paper Page 5 Question 4 , I (0) ____ (convince) that my father (1) ____ (remember) by all those who value integrity. He (2) ____ (be) a man of learning and also saw to it that he (3) ____ (teach) his pupils with passion and patience. He, at times (4) ____ (use) to lose his temper, but that was because he always (5) ____ (want) his pupils to learn and learn well. As a person, he was honest and simple. His greatness (6) ___ (lie) in the fact that he (7) ____ (have) a pure heart, devoid of malice. Such a man is always valued and (8) ____ (be) very rare to find. Here are my answers: is remembered was taught used wanted lies had is Problem: All my answers except point 6 were marked correct. So the passage reads: I am convinced that my father is remembered by all those who value integrity. He was a man of learning and also saw to it that he taught his pupils with passion and patience. He, at times used to lose his temper, but that was because he always wanted his pupils to learn and learn well. As a person, he was honest and simple. His greatness (6) ___ (lie) in the fact that he had a pure heart, devoid of malice. Such a man is always valued and is very rare to find. Question: Is my teacher correct when she says that the point 6 should be "lay" not "lies"? In my opinion, even though the man is dead, his greatness is present (and that's the reason why he is remembered (point 1)). And since 'greatness' is present, the verb lie should be written as lies in point 6. What's the correct answer for point 6 and why? UPDATE: (to answers by VarunKN and miqdadamirali) While it is true that the sentence and most of the passage are in past tense, but the fact is that verbs must agree with their subject, and so that the verb lie should agree with its subject greatness . So, since greatness is still present and exists, therefore the verb should be written as lies UPDATE 2: Thank you all! I am finally convinced that the verb should be lay . Here are some points to note: You used 'had' as you answer for (7). Now since that is in the past, you should've used 'lay' to maintain the tense of the sentence. And to start with, the sentence is already in the past tense with the inclusion of 'was'. (Varun KN) His greatness lay in things that only held while he was alive. He is no longer alive and therefore no longer great. That is to say that he is no longer honest and simple with a pure heart devoid of malice, so he is no longer great. (Brythan) Another point: even in cases where someone is still great, it is controvertible that he was great while alive. So lay is always correct. In some circumstances, he may still be great. In this case, the context is to talk about his characteristics while alive. His greatness in life is clearly past tense. (Brythan) It is exceptionally hard to write a passage in which every blank or every choice will have one correct answer. (Go Ducks) <Q> IMO, The teacher is correct to mark it wrong. <S> Let me explain. <S> As a person, he was honest and simple. <S> His greatness (6) ___ (lie) in the fact that he (7) ____ (have) a pure heart, devoid of malice. <S> You used 'had' as you answer for (7). <S> Now since that is in the past, you should've used 'lay' to maintain the tense of the sentence. <S> And to start with, the sentence is already in the past tense with the inclusion of 'was' . <S> As a person, he was honest and simple. <A> You have to be able to differentiate the difference between he verbs <S> lie and lay . <S> Notice that that in these questions, all the words you have been provided with, are in present tense. <S> to lay: is to put something down to lie: is to rest or recline. <S> His greatness was not put down on a fact, instead it rested on a fact. <S> The verb lie in simple past is written as lay . <S> The sentence becomes in past tense because firstly, the mentioned person is dead, and secondly, the verb have (7) is in past tense. <S> You have to maintain the same tense throughout the sentence. <S> Therefore: His greatness lay in the fact that he had a pure heart, devoid of malice. <S> When you say "lies", it is still in present tense. <S> For further info <A> Your sense of using lies is correct. <S> As a native AmE speaker, in a eulogy one would hope the memory of a person and their deeds to continue and persist , and in a eulogy, I would use the memory of his greatness lies for emphasis and since it continues to the present day and there would be no ambiguity. <S> Ghandi's greatness lies in his example of the use of nonviolent protest Ghandi's greatness <S> lay in his example of the use of nonviolent protest <S> The use of lay , grammatically, would only speak to his reputation while he was alive, though it may be implicitly understood to continue to persist through common knowledge. <S> As a grammar exercise , I can understand why your teacher would choose <S> lay as the correct answer, but in a real world eulogy, I would use lies . <S> Also, from my experience, I can understand why a BrE speaker would choose lay , as culturally it is a bit more understated . <A> UPDATE: (to answers by VarunKN and miqdadamirali) <S> While it is true that the sentence and most of the passage are in past tense, but the fact is that verbs must agree with their subject, and so that the verb lie should agree with its subject greatness. <S> So, since greatness is still present and exists, therefore the verb should be written as lies <S> While clever, this is incorrect. <S> His greatness lay in things that only held while he was alive. <S> He is no longer alive and therefore no longer great. <S> That is to say that he is no longer honest and simple with a pure heart devoid of malice, so he is no longer great. <S> Another point: <S> even in cases where someone is still great, it is controvertible that he was great while alive. <S> So lay is always correct. <S> In some circumstances, he may still be great. <S> In this case, the context is to talk about his characteristics while alive. <S> His greatness in life is clearly past tense. <S> Or to put it another way, his pure heart made him great in life. <S> If you also want him to be great in death, you need to give a more persistent reason. <S> For example, the memory of his actions makes him great now. <S> But that's not what the passage is saying. <S> It's saying that when alive, he was great. <A> It is exceptionally hard to write a passage in which every blank or every choice will have one correct answer. <S> For example, I am not convinced that #1 should be is remembered . <S> It seems as natural and probably more natural to cast that as will be remembered . <S> Second, a person's greatness can live on after the demise of that person. <S> And one could put lies for #6. <S> However, if one does that, the resulting sentence <S> His greatness lies in the fact that he had a pure heart, devoid of malice seems awkward because of the past simple had in the second clause, as well as throughout the passage. <S> A man can be great during his lifetime, and that past greatness can be referenced after his death. <S> This does not mean that the person's greatness cannot outlive the man himself. <S> But it also does not mean that we cannot refer to the greatness he had while alive, which is what the sentence is doing here, taken in its best form. <S> You are free to disagree, and ultimately neither choice, lies or <S> lay <S> is incontrovertibly correct or incorrect. <S> But stylistically and temporally, I would write lay here ... ...and will be remembered for #1. <S> Because it is natural to assume that the writer wants his father to be remembered, and by more and more people, in the indefinite future ( will be remembered ) not just in the indefinite present is remembered ). <A> You are misunderstanding. <S> " <S> His greatness" refers to his greatness while he was alive; therefore, it is in the past, and the past tense should be used. <S> Greatness is an attribute of the person who passed, like kindness. <S> It is immaterial , and it cannot survive the person. <S> He cannot continue achieving greatness or being kind after death.
| His greatness lay in the fact that he had a pure heart, devoid of malice.
|
What is the word for mud on road which becomes wet due to rain? / What is keechad called in English? After the heavy rain falls, the mud becomes so wet that it sticks to your feet if you walk over it. In Hindi it is called Keechad . What is the word for it in English? <Q> I'd just call it mud. <S> If you want to suggest that it is very wet and sticky, slime or muck would also work. <S> Since slime can also refer to other liquids besides mud, you could be even more specific by using the two-word phrase slimy mud. <S> Or if you want to emphasize the stickiness, call it sticky mud. <S> But this seems unnecessary to me because when we describe something as "mud", the default assumption is that it is not only dirty and wet, but also somewhat fluid and slimy. <S> If it is dirty and wet, but solid and not slimy, we'd be more likely to describe it using other words than "mud," like "damp earth" or "wet ground" or "moist soil." <A> If you want to be more specific, you need to add more words. <S> For mud that builds up and sticks to your feet, I'd use things like: <S> Sticky mud. <S> Mud that sticks to your feet. <S> Mud that builds up on your feet. <S> And in conversation: <S> "Seriously, that mud stuck so much that it was like wearing platform shoes!" <S> (platform shoes are shoes with very thick soles, usually 1 - 4 inches) <A> "Keechad" translates exactly to Wet Dirt or Mud Slush or Muck <A> Muddy terrain (कीचड़) is not unique to India. <S> I would use "a quagmire" to describe a challenging muddy condition.
| Mud is indeed the correct word.
|
When I say, "they will get married", will it be fully understood as "they will become a couple"? I have read the web page about Jonathan Morris and Charlotte Aulin on this URL, ( http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/CastlevaniaPortraitOfRuin ) According to that web page, Jonathan Morris and Charlotte Aulin are close friends since childhood, and some said, "they are more than just close friends, hinting that they have sincere feelings toward each other". I am going to write this comment in the page (if I can), "I think they will get married after they have defeated Dracula" , but I am afraid that my comment will be understood in this way: Jonathan Morris will marry some other girl instead of Charlotte, and Charlotte Aulin will marry to someone else. Because "they will get married" can either mean that they will become a couple or they marry to some other people. Please correct me if I am wrong. Or should I write, "I think they will get married to become a couple after they have defeated Dracula" , but it looks redundant. <Q> The default assumption when talking about two people is "to each other". <S> There are no other people that you might be talking about, and the default assumption is definitely not "to other people they haven't met yet. <S> " <S> You'd have to say "They will get married, but probably to other people" if that 's what you meant. <S> If the two people in question are not even potential partners for each other (e.g. close relatives, or known incompatible sexual preferences (gay/straight)), you just wouldn't phrase it this way. <S> Even if your audience also knows that they're related, or highly unlikely to be interested in each other that way, the implication of "to each other" would still be there. <S> So it would sound weird. <S> If you don't mean "to each other", you could say " <S> they'll probably both get married", because that phrasing implies it would be possible for one to get married without the other. <S> That would be the implication for this phrasing even for two people that are potentially romantically compatible (e.g. two gay males, or a straight guy and straight girl). <S> You could shorten even further to "I think they'll marry after they defeat Dracula." <S> However, I think that fits better for people that are already a couple. <S> It makes me think you're taking the getting married as a given, and you're guessing about the time it will happen. <S> For people that haven't shown any obvious romantic feelings for each other, it seems to fit better to say "I think they'll get married after they defeat Dracula". <S> That feels like you're guessing about them hooking up at all, and the specified time frame is secondary. <S> I'm a native English speaker, born and raised in Canada. <S> It's possible that other English speakers might have a different understanding of this, but I'd be quite surprised. <S> Especially the "they'll marry" phrasing <S> makes it clear that we're talking about "to each other". <S> That implies it's something they'll do together, and "to each other" is what normally happens when two people get married as a joint activity. <A> Maybe you can rephrase the sentence as : <S> "I think they will get married to each other after they have defeated Dracula". <S> This avoids the redundancy and it becomes quite clear that Jonathan Morris and Charlotte Aulin will get married and become a couple after they defeat Dracula. <A> will be getting married both are usually understood to mean the same thing. <S> Just as you might say to your friends <S> My partner and I will be getting married <S> My partner and I are getting married <S> They would start congratulating you and asking when (or sending condolences as the case may be...) <S> If you want to say each will get married in time and not to each other without ambiguity <S> A and B will each get married Because it is a common event (among the population, hopefully not for individuals), the sayings do get shortened .
| You are correct in sensing that there is an ambiguity in A and B will get married it can be rephrased to A and B
|
"try to bleep open your car" why "bleep" can be used in this phrase “Imagine trying to bleep open your car one day,” says Graham Steel, the boss of Cryptosense, a firm that makes automated security-checking software, “but then you’re told that your car has been locked, and if you want back in you need to send $200 to some shady Russian e-mail address.” This sentence is extracted from The economist . I looked up the dictionary and found that "bleep" can be used as noun or verb. In this sentence, I think "open" is the verb, then "bleep" should be an adverb to modify "open". But there is not such usage in dictionary. Does "bleep" make sense if it is a noun or a verb in this sentence? and how? The whole paragrah is: A recent development is “ransomware”, in which malicious programs encrypt documents and photographs, and a victim must pay to have them restored. “Imagine trying to bleep open your car one day,” says Graham Steel, the boss of Cryptosense, a firm that makes automated security-checking software, “but then you’re told that your car has been locked, and if you want back in you need to send $200 to some shady Russian e-mail address.” <Q> At first I thought it might have been an expletive that was deleted. <S> If the sentence had been Your car has been bleeping stolen <S> I would have interpreted that as a placeholder for a swear word. <S> But in context it is clear he is talking about a car remote keyless system . <S> Typically these make a bleeping sound indicating that the door was locked/unlocked successfully. <A> In the same way that a TV remote is called a blipper (rhymes with flipper). <S> It could be a split infinitive , but may also be the language in transition. <A> It's not a compound verb as others are writing. <S> Compare sugarcoat vs. bleep open in the following sentences: 1a. <S> I tried to bleep open my car. <S> 1b. <S> I tried to bleep my car open. <S> 2a. <S> I tried to sugarcoat the scenario. <S> 2b. <S> *I tried to coat the scenario sugar. <S> (1b) is perfectly valid, separating the verb <S> bleep from the object complement adjective open . <S> Doing the same in (2b), with compound verbs like sugarcoat , this is clearly ungrammatical. <S> If bleep open were indeed a compound verb, it would behave as a single verb -- an inseparable unit like sugarcoat or tap dance -- but it does not. <S> The sentence structure used in the article is the same as in "I tried to force open my car". <S> Again, force is the transitive verb and open is an object complement. <S> So what kind of a verb is bleep ? <S> It's an onomatopoeia used as a transitive verb. <S> This happens now and then in informal, spoken language. <S> Here's a less grammatically confusing example from Merriam-Webster: <S> [She] keeps dinging it into him that the less he smokes the better. <S> You could also say something like this: He told me my air horn was getting annoying, so <S> I honked him away. <S> Here, that means: I drove him away using some tool (the air horn) that makes a honking sound. <S> Similarly, bleep is used in the same sense; the tool being used (the keypad on a remote keyless system) makes a blip! <S> sound when you open your car with it. <A> This is a case of using the effect (a noun, in this case the sound) of an action as a verb to describe the action itself. <S> If you are unfamiliar with the sound heard when unlocking a vehicle, listen to this video for an example of the bleeping sound. <S> Consider other examples such as: <S> "I'll buzz you in" …to describe pressing a button to allow somebody to enter a building — this creates a "buzz"ing sound to indicate to the visitor that the door is now open. <S> "I'll ring you" …to describe contacting somebody via telephone — this causes the recipient's telephone to "ring", alerting the recipient that they have a call incoming. <S> "I'll chug a drink" …to describe consuming a drink — depending how loudly this is done <S> you may hear a "chug" sound from the throat when swallowing. <S> "…bleep your car open" …to describe pressing the "open" button on your keyfob — this causes the car's doors to unlock. <S> To alert you that the car is now locked/unlocked, typically there will be a series of flashes/beeps to indicate that this has happened. <A> In this case bleep open acts like a compound verb, such as the verb finger paint . <S> A compound verb is when a noun is "added" to a verb, so that it becomes part of the verb. <S> Other examples are sugar coat and tap dance . <S> Many times a hyphen is used when spelling these words: this is to show that the noun/verb compound is being used as one (compound) word . <S> And then if they get used a lot <S> they can be spelled with no hyphen or space ( breastfeed ). <S> So the author could have written bleep-open . <S> But it is probably a fairly recent combination, without a lot of usage, and so people don't consider it a true compound word yet.
| In your example, the word bleep is as an onomatopoeia to signify the sound the car makes when remotely unlocked.
|
"It is Germanys oldest pub." or "It is Germany's oldest pub."? The title says it all: I just want to know which of both are correct: (A) It is Germanys oldest pub. or (B) It is Germany's oldest pub. If you can give the rule, that would be nice. (I know that in some cases 's is only a shorthand for "is", like "it's" for "it is" whereas "its" refers to who something belongs to. But are all other cases without ' ? Are there differences in American English to British English?) <Q> The standard way to show possession is by adding 's ( apostrophe s ) to singular nouns. <S> (Pronouns my , your , his , her , its , their have their own forms.) <S> Plural nouns that do not end in <S> s <S> work the same way: <S> the children's oldest toys <S> Plural nouns that end in <S> s <S> get only an apostrophe added: the two boys' newest room Reasons you might see possession without the apostrophe include: 1 contexts where standard punctuation is bypassed, such as in texting or other highly informal or stylized contexts. <S> 2 writers who choose not to use it because they feel it is unnecessary. <S> These writers are deliberately going against the "rule" or standard usage. <S> However, these are special exceptions. <A> "It is Germany's oldest pub," is correct. <S> The apostrophe followed by an "s" confers possession. <S> For many words that already end in "s" (or are plural), an apostrophe alone is sometimes enough. <S> For instance, "I just sold my parents' home this past week." <S> If you do a search on "use of apostrophes," I'm sure you will find many more examples. <A> The correct usage is <S> It is Germany's oldest pub <S> Since it is possessive , it is not a contraction. <S> In terms of grammar, there is no difference between AmE and BrE. <S> However, the difference between AmE and BrE is that traditionally, Americans do not have pubs , they have bars or saloons (Western cowboys). <S> The British have pubs . <S> They are demarcated by hanging flower baskets on the front outside wall, have wooden interiors , and a very regular clientele . <S> BrE has the phrases pub culture and pub grub (food). <S> [NB: To refer to Germany's oldest pub would be a reference to a non-German(origin) drinking house , i.e. Irish pub, or possibly a non-German referring to a gaustehaus . <S> Gaustehaus is more like a British free house which includes accommodations ]
| So Germany's oldest pub is the standard form and the form that learners need to learn.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.