source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
"Hope this will help. Thanks" Why some people use thanks after "Hope this will help"? I saw "Hope this will help. Thanks" recently but I really can't understand why some people use thanks. Here is an example; check the accepted answer here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22870968/wfc-rest-service-put-with-json-received-object-is-always-null <Q> It sounds like the writer is being polite. <S> Since you only supplied an excerpt , the thanks probably has more to do with something communicated before this closing remark, or possibly the correspondence in general. <S> Possibly the writer might be extending a thank-you for using them as a resource. <S> Hope this <S> will help <S> sounds formal compared to the colloquial Hope <S> this helps <S> My guess is the writer or the situation <S> is somewhat formal <S> and that's why they may have chosen to say thank-you. <A> First, only the person who writes thanks can tell you for sure why they did. <S> So for the example added to your question you would have to ask user Faizan Mubasher why he said thanks . <S> However, I can give a couple possible meanings. <S> We say thanks when other people do something for us. <S> In the example added to you question, Faizan Mubasher could just be saying thanks for providing such a good question to answer or thanks for allowing me to answer your question or thanks for using Stack Overflow . <S> Who knows? <S> In general, when communicating in English, a sincere thanks or thank you is always welcome. <S> Except here on Stack Exchange. <S> Since this site is meant to build up a library of unique Questions and Answers usable by anyone, personal touches such as thanks <S> and hope <S> this helps are judged by a high number of users to be extraneous. <S> See https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts <S> and How helpful is it to add "Hope <S> this is helpful!" <S> to an ELL answer? <S> And while this might be true from one standpoint, it certainly makes SE seem an arid place to participate in sometimes, since the 1-on-1 connection between asker and answerer is discouraged or non-existent. <S> While writing a good answer is deemed the best way to help the user, this ignores the human element. <S> Other Question & Answer websites do not have such a policy. <S> Hope <S> this is helpful! <A> I'd have to see more context to know if this makes sense. " <S> Hope this will help" implies that the speaker has just done something for you. <S> It makes sense if there has been some exchange, i.e. A gives something to B or does something for B, B then does something in exchange for A, then B says "hope this will help", that is, the thing he gave to A, and "thanks", that is, for the thing A gave to B. <S> If this is a matter of A asked B for help, and then B offered some help, for B to say "thanks" wouldn't make sense. <S> Whether there's more going on here or the speaker just said something that doesn't really make sense in context, I can't say without knowing more of the conversation and circumstances. <A> That seems like someone getting their wires crossed. <S> They seem confused. <S> I guess you should just interpret the "thanks" as being polite, not actually meaning anything.
| "Thanks" is normally said to acknowledge that the other person has done something for him.
|
Possessive form of plural nouns Which one from following would be correct: woman pilots. women pilots. And the usage of which one from following options would be correct: Women's jobs Women jobs Woman jobs Woman's jobs. I cannot understand which option I should use. <Q> As noted in comments, it's generally (unofficially) discouraged to use "women" or "woman" as an adjective. <S> It's preferred to use "female". <S> So, while these may be perfectly fine, they are not adjectival uses of "woman": <S> The woman pilots the plane. <S> At Airline X, women pilot all of the planes. <S> *Note that in these examples, "pilot" is a verb, not a noun. <S> The preferred use would be: <S> Female pilots were well known as early as the 1960s. <S> As a note, none of these uses are "possessives". <S> There's no show of ownership at all. <S> It's just describing the type of pilot you're talking about. <S> This section options 1 and 4 both use the possessive but 2 and 3 <S> do not: <S> Women's jobs <S> Women jobs <S> Woman jobs <S> Woman's jobs. <S> So, if your goal is to understand the possessive use, I'll ignore 2 and 3, which I don't think should ever be used, regardless of possession. <S> Version 1 is plural possessive . <S> If that's what you're looking for, this is your choice. <S> "Women" is plural and the "apostrophe s" makes it possessive. <S> Version 4 is singular possessive . <A> There are several points you should consider. <S> First, The pilots example is not a possessive form unlike the another one. <S> You are using Woman/Women as an adjective. <S> Second, Choosing whether to use singular or plural depends on the context. <S> If you are talking about a single woman use Woman . <S> Otherwise it's Women for the plural form. <S> In case of possession like your second question, you use Women's/Woman's Jobs . <S> For instance, you might've seen Men's/ <S> Women's Section in a clothing store. <A> So coming at it as a native speaker, I'm not sure I can help you with "rules" as much as examples and <S> if there are any skilled grammarians here feel free to chime in. <S> But. <S> For the first one, "Women pilots" would be correct. <S> For example, a professional organization for women in engineering is the Society of Women Engineers. <S> For the second, it would be "Women's jobs" as in "Women's rights" or the "Philadelphia Women's Center". <A> The first, in both cases. <S> For the first sentence, "woman" is being used as an adjective, and adjectives in English don't agree in number. <S> See noah's post, I was incorrect here. <S> For the second, these are the jobs belonging to women, literally women's jobs. <S> 2 and 3 sound like the jobs are women, and that doesn't make sense. <S> 4 sounds like the jobs that a specific woman had, which doesn't seem to be what you mean.
| "Woman" is singular and the "apostrophe s" makes it possessive.
|
What of the following two sentences sounds more native? What of the following two sentences sounds more native? 1) If you wonder why I hold a balloon, so I got this balloon in order to hit Mike on his head with it 2) If you wonder why I hold a balloon, so I got this balloon in order to hit with it on Mike's head. <Q> A native AmE speaker would say If you're wondering why I have this balloon, <S> it's to hit Mike on the head. <S> in response to a quizzical look at the balloon and the person holding it. <A> A couple of things here: <S> First, the verb you should be using is "to wonder" not "to wander". <S> To wander is to walk around. <S> Second, you should be using the continuing form of the verbs "to wonder" and "to hold", and you need a determiner before balloon to sound natural, like "this" or "the". <S> Put that together <S> and you get the first, relative clause: " <S> If you are wondering why I am holding this balloon" <S> Now for the second clause, first the word "so" is unnecessary. <S> Second, if you already specified "the balloon" in the relative clause, it sounds unnatural to repeat it. <S> Also, when you say "hit Mike on his head" it sounds more natural to say "hit Mike on the head". <S> Finally, the last "with it" is unnecessary. <S> All together, a native speaker might say: <S> If you are wondering why I am holding this balloon, I got it in order to hit Mike on the head <A> The first construction sounds more natural to me, but nothing keeps it from being as accurate as the second one. <S> Some notes about the sentences: 1) <S> I guess that with "wander" you meant "wonder" - to imagine or to think about something. <S> " <S> Wander" means to walk aimlessly. <S> 2) <S> The word "so" sounds strange for me. <S> I don't think it fits there. <S> You could strip it off, as to make it more accurate.
| Neither sentence sounds native, both are too wordy.
|
What's a simple word for "it seems to me that it isn't going to happen"? Let's say my friend is jobless and lazy. I know he should find a job, but I highly doubt he will even try to look. I could say: It seems to me that it isn't going to happen . Which of these possibilities is better: It seems to me that he won't get a job. It seems to me that he isn't going to get a job. I don't want to refer to any particular job interview, just to the fact that I doubt he will find a job. Also, I'd like to know if there is a more sophisticated and colloquial expression (an idiom) that I could use, something like it's very improbable that [...] . <Q> Your two suggestions are perfectly fine. <S> In everyday speech, the second one would be more likely to become <S> You could also say It doesn't seem likely he'll get a job. <S> Since you're saying it, the "to me" part doesn't have to be said explicitly. <S> In speech you might include it to somewhat soften your negative opinion. <S> If you wished to be very informal, you could use @lurker's suggestion from the comments: <S> Him get a job? <S> Not gonna happen. <S> But that would likely be understood as insulting to the person you're talking about. <A> The first would be a little more informal since it uses won't . <S> There are several ways to express your friend's unlikely event <S> I doubt he will get a job. <S> It seems highly unlikely he will get a job. <S> His chances are slim to none <S> he will get a job. <S> It seems unfathomable <S> he will get a job. <S> It's incomprehensible <S> he will get a job. <S> some common expressions to signify something is very unlikely or impossible <S> I'll believe it when I see it <S> Snowball's chance in hell <S> When pigs fly When a cow jumps over the moon (dated) No way in hell <S> Ain't gonna happen <S> That ain't happenin' and <S> the very sarcastic P1: You think he will get a job? <S> P2: <S> That lazy slug? <S> Yeah, <S> right <S> (slight chuckle with possible eye roll) <A> A famous saying is sport is: "Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat." <S> This speaks to finding a way to win despite all the odds being stacked against you (check Google videos for "The Helmet Catch" or "Aguero in extra time"). <S> The inverse statement would apply to your mate. <S> Since he is lazy , and you highly doubt he will even try, it can be assumed that even if you convinced a firm to hire him and you told him exactly what to say at the interview <S> he would: <S> Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
| It seems to me that he isn't gonna get a job. Both of your options are correct.
|
Difference between 'Keep the change' and 'tip' After finishing my meal at a restaurant, I asked the waiter to bring the bill which was charged 229 units. I kept 230 in the that book which contains our bill and I told the waiter to keep the change because my car was waiting just outside and I was in a rush. He got really angry and said " Are you serious? you're insulting me by giving me 1 unit of currency". Even though I got out from the restaurant without much problem, I wonder why that was offensive? Is keeping the change same as giving the tip because I never actually say "keep the change" to the waiter. I just leave it on the table to collect. What could I say to the waiter so I could convey that I want him to keep the change in the main cash box instead of keeping it in his own pocket? <Q> I think the confusion here is more cultural than it is with the actual language. <S> In the United States, it is customary to give a tip of 15% - 20% (or more, if service was exceptional). <S> This is a bit relaxed in college towns/restaurants, as it is understood that students don't have quite as much, but for the great majority of the country, you are supposed to tip. <S> In fact, in the US, waiters are paid very little hourly wage because they are expected to receive tips, so the standard minimum wage doesn't apply to them. <S> See the quote from this article on this very problem (it is a regularly debated topic): <S> The federal minimum wage for [regular workers] is $7.25 , but the federal minimum wage for tipped workers has remained stagnate [sic] at $2.13 since 1991, with no adjustment for inflation. <S> They are required to be paid only $2.13 an hour, because the government expects them to make enough more on tips. <S> By providing such a small tip (1/229 = 0.4% tip), you are, in effect, saying that the service was very bad. <S> THAT is why it is insulting. <S> Don't feel bad, because it is an easy enough mistake to make for people from a different country or culture. <S> But yes, tipping is unofficially mandatory. <S> If you're interested more in the topic, there's a great video from Adam Ruins Everything that explains the huge problems with this system that is fairly accurate. <S> As for your other two questions, yes, when you say "keep the change," it is implied to be as a tip. " <S> Sometimes it comes with a cocky connotation, but it's fine for use. <S> There is no way to say to put the extra money in the cash register instead of as a tip, without saying it explicitly as I typed it out, which would be considered rude. <S> This is because there would never be any reason for this. <S> That would be even ruder than leaving a small tip - no tip at all, and telling them to put it in the register for some reason. <A> "Keep the change" is used in Britain to mean "The change from this bill is your tip." <S> Tipping is something we're a bit embarrassed about in Britain and this phrase allows us to pretend we aren't really doing it - we're just making things more convenient by not asking someone to make change. <S> It is tipping though, even if we're pretending it isn't, so telling someone to keep £1 of change from a £229 bill is extremely insulting when the standard British tip would have been either £23 (10%) or £21 (to round it up to £250) or nothing at all <S> (it's really very embarrassing). <S> There is nothing you can say to a waiter that means that extra pound will go into the main cash box, because that's not how restaurants work. <S> Either pay the bill exactly or leave an appropriate tip for whatever country you're in. <A> If there's a "take a penny leave a penny" jar, I've told them to put the change in the take a penny jar, but not all restaurants have that. <S> Otherwise if there is change I think "keep the change" sounds archaic, maybe a little elitist or uncaring. <S> I say "the rest is yours" or "I don't need change". <S> It leaves the server to choose what to do with it at that point.
| Keep the change" means that you're giving the person whatever change there was as a tip. The most common way to tip in a restaurant to avoid embarrassment is simply to put the all the money in the folder thing with the bill and then leave.
|
Try this cake (out) I was wondering if someone could tell me the difference between the following sentences: Try this cake Try this cake out I guess the second sentence mean the same as the first one, but the second one is a bit informal. <Q> When we "try something out ", we use it to see if it works as it should or if it meets our expectations. <S> When we "try something" we sample it (eat a piece of it, take a go at it if it's an activity). <S> We might try out a cake recipe , but we would try the cake. <S> Complicating matters, if a speaker in his mind is thinking "cake recipe" (of if the conversation is about cake recipes) he might say: I'm going to try out this cake. <S> What he says is not exactly what he means. <S> By "this cake", he means making this cake according to some recipe. <A> In general, these are very similar. <S> Hence you can also say, try someone out (see how they do at a particular task). <S> For food, I don't think that you can use "out" though. <S> Maybe officially you can, but in practice, this sounds very strange to me: <S> Try this chicken out <S> For food, you should just use Try this chicken <S> On the other hand, if you're talking about a new restaurant, either version works <S> We should try out the new Chinese place down the block! <S> OR <S> We should try the new Chinese place down the block! <A> I think it depends of context. <S> For example try this cake <S> just means test this cake . <S> try this cake out <S> makes it a little bit different since you can try a cake to see whether you like it or want to buy it. <S> For instance, I tried this cake out before I bought it. <S> (But which place or who allow this? <S> It's weird.)
| To try something out means you are sampling it and judging its performance.
|
A brick made a dent in the hood of the car I was wondering if you could tell me if the bold part of the following sentence seem to be redundant or somehow weird and unnatural to you or not: A brick fell down from a building and made a dent in the hood of the car. <Q> A brick fell down from a building and made a dent in the hood of the car. <S> This is a compound sentence. <S> Each half tells us something that the other does not. <S> We can see this by breaking it apart. <S> A brick fell down from a building. <S> [It] made a dent in the hood of the car. <S> From the first, we see where the brick originated. <S> It was not thrown by someone passing by or kicked up by the tires of a passing truck - it fell from a neighboring building. <S> ( How that happened - the cause - is not mentioned, nor is a concrete definition of which building it fell from.) <S> From the second, we see the result. <S> The brick - the same one as in the first sentence, so we do not repeat "A brick" - dented the car hood. <S> This is completely independent from its origin. <S> The distinction between "a brick" and "the brick" is important. <S> In the first sentence, it is non-specific. <S> "Of all of the bricks that make up this building, one of them fell. <S> " The only way we could use "the brick" here is if there were only one brick on the entire building. <S> In the second sentence, we would use "it" or "the brick" to link it to the previous sentence. <S> At this point it is a specific brick - the one that fell. <S> As other posts have mentioned, the only (possibly) redundant information is "down", since things generally do not fall "up". <S> However, this could be a rhetorical device rather than a physics lesson. <A> More concise: "A falling brick dented the hood of the car." <S> "Dented" in the past tense implies the falling action is done. <S> You could still add this phrase after "brick" (and maybe even add "nearby" before "building" if you want to emphasize this <S> is the only reason the building is relevant) if you want. <A> "A brick fell from a building at [address of building] and made a dent in the hood of my car," is just fine, since there is no way for you to know if it was thrown or dropped spontaneously. <S> You might also want to add, <S> "I wasn't present when it happened but noticed the damage when I returned to my car at approximately [time/date]." <S> Hopefully, your insurance company will accept this answer and cover your loss.
| "Down" is unnecessary in "fell down" here because bricks don't fall in any other direction. "From a building" is also likely to be implied from context, but is odd because it's not clear if the brick used to be part of the building or not (see TRomano's comment).
|
'What is it' vs 'what is there' We say: What is there in the box? There is a watch in the box. Can we also say: What is it in the box? It's a watch in the box. I think they don't have the same meaning, but does the latter sound grammatical? To me, it more sounds like you've seen the thing in the box and say it to mean " What is that thing in the box?" <Q> What's in the box? <S> Tell me what, if anything, is inside the box. <S> What is it in the box? <S> That thing in the box -- tell me what it is. <S> The speaker of the latter may be a smidgen more confident that there's something in the box, that it isn't an empty box. <A> You missed the most obvious one: <S> What is in the box? <S> Or, if you are pointing to an item in an open box, then: What's that thing in the box? <S> As for your comment under Peter's answer, which asks: <S> So do "What's in the box?" <S> and "What is it in the box? <S> " have exactly the same meaning? <S> The don't really mean anything different; they are both valid, grammatical ways to inquire about the contents of a box. <S> But they might be used in different situations (or contexts). <S> For example, If I can't see what's in the box, I'm more likely to ask: "What's in the box? <S> " On the other hand, if I can see what's in the box <S> but I can't recognize what it is, then I might as, "What's that thing in the box?" <S> (or, if I'm pointing at it, I <S> there's a good chance I won't mention the box at all: "What is that thing?") <S> So, there's no single way to ask a question like this: <S> What's in the box? <S> What are those things in the box? <S> What kind of animal in the box? <S> (or, maybe, if can tell it's a cat: <S> Why is that cat in my box? ) <A> What is it in the box? <S> What is it (that you have) in the box? <S> What is it there in the box. <S> Is perfectly acceptable and understandable that your asking about the contents of the box. <S> A native speaker would simply say: What's in the box? <A> I think, it differs on what <S> and why are you asking: <S> What is there in the box? <S> It could continue such way: <S> There is a cheese and bread and some vegetables <S> And what is there on the table? <S> There are apples and grapes and other fruits Good, put everything from table to the box too and we can go <S> (See, these questions are about what is where, directed at places and <S> these answers are not very specific about those items there.) <S> On the other hand the next question is not about box but about the particular one thing inside it <S> What is it in the box? <S> Those are my socks <S> Why, in the hell, are your stupid and disgusting socks in my pretty box? <S> How many times I told you to put them somewhere else? <S> I am so sorry ... <S> And the short version is even less specific <S> What's in the box? <S> Nothing much, just some garbage <S> So put it there in the corner and bring another one from the car (and both "box" and <S> "garbage" are forgotten in the same moment)
| It is just neutral question targeted at the box .
|
Grammatical gender of the word "child" I've been taught that a child is gender-neutral noun. But in the textbook on linguistics I've been reading, the noun is used as feminine. For example, a sentence in the book goes like this: The child must also learn many aspects of grammar from her specific linguistic environment. Is there an explanation for the use of the pronoun her instead of its ? <Q> Child is gender neutral. <S> As a result, when referring to a child, one must then choose a pronoun he , she or they when referring to the said child, as English does not have a gender neutral way of referring to that individual. <S> This causes a problem for writers. <S> Whatever you choose could be wrong. <S> Some would write he , but that sounds sexist and presumptive. <S> Some write they , but this does not confirm the singular as it could refer to many. <S> As an alternative some writers have taken to using <S> she to balance those that historically have used the masculine form. <S> Other writers go to great lengths to avoid any of these forms by just rewriting the sentences completely. <S> Stack Exchange questions and answers have the same problem. <S> Do we refer to a writer as he , she , they ...? <S> Whatever one chooses makes implications that it may not be correct. <S> We almost never use it or its to refer to a child, as this form is reserved for objects and not people and thus is considered to be demeaning. <A> "Child" is, indeed, gender-neutral. <S> For a long time, "he" was considered to be both the male pronoun and the non-gender-specific pronoun (see Wikipedia ). <S> An older text would talk about a child learning from his environment and it would be understood to mean that both male and female children do so. <S> "They" has a long history of use as a gender-neutral pronoun and is widely accepted, though some continue to insist that it is wrong. <S> The use of "she" as a gender-neutral pronoun appears to be something of a backlash against the former use of "he"; it's quite common in modern writing. <S> Wikipedia notes that "it" is considered OK to refer to a child in situations where there's no emotional investment, especially in scientific contexts. <S> Indeed, Wikipedia uses your very example as a case where it's reasonable to use "it". <S> On the other hand, if I was talking about your child and said "Is it OK if I give it some candy?", you'd be fully justified in slapping me in the face or worse. <S> The least controversial situation is to just rephrase the sentence. <S> For example, "they" is absolutely uncontroversially the gender-neutral plural pronoun, and the sentence you quote in your question seems to be talking about children in general, rather than a specific single child. <S> Thus, Children must also learn many aspects of grammar from their specific linguistic environment. <S> (Or, if you prefer, "linguistic environments ", since not all children have the same one.) <A> English doesn’t have “grammatical” gender at all, not even for <S> he , she , or it . <S> The “gender” he , she , and it refer to the actual, real-world gender of the antecedent, not its grammatical gender. <S> In general, one would use the word she for child because this particular child is female. <S> Even in cases such as this, where there is no actual person (or there are several people, in a mix of genders, and the text is referring to any one), the language still refers to the hypothetical “example person” as a person, with a gender. <S> The pronouns used, therefore, reflect the gender of the example person. <S> Again, this is not grammatical gender. <S> In the past, as a matter of convention, “the example person” was always male, and thus he was used as a pronoun for the example person. <S> More recently, the example person will sometimes be written as female, that is, with she . <S> Some authors will also use both roughly equally (though they can only switch when introducing a new example person; for clarity, any person who is supposed to be some consistent example individual could not switch genders). <S> The reason for this is simple: by having the example person consistently be male, you give the impression that all of the people involved are male. <S> It has not always been clear when male was chosen by convention, or because the individual under discussion actually is expected to be male. <S> Switching to female does not fix the ambiguity, but at least it makes things more even: <S> by having everything use male examples, it gives the impression that men do everything . <S> Finally, it is not gender-neutral <S> , it is the gender-specific pronoun for the neuter gender, that is, the gender of inanimate objects. <S> It is almost-always inappropriate, if not exceedingly offensive, to refer to a person with it as it implies that he or she is not a person, or not even a living thing. <A> In fact, really English as a whole doesn't have grammatical gender. <S> All that matters is the gender of the actual person that it is referring to. <S> If the child being referred to is a boy, then you use he . <S> If the child is a girl, you use she . <S> If the writer is not really referring to a specific child (as in this example), then you have a problem. <S> Traditionally, writers used the male he . <S> In modern English, that implies that all children are male unless otherwise specified, which smacks of sexism. <S> Some use the wordy he or she . <S> Others use just she , as a sort of corrective to centuries of assuming maleness. <S> Still others borrow they to refer to a single generic person. <S> Of course, it's also possible to rewrite the sentence in the plural. <A> From historic perspective, it used to be an appropriate pronoun for a child. <S> http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/09/28/a_girl_called_it/ <S> This is similar to other Germanic languages that have grammatical gender (which has degenerated in English except rare cases like ship-she), like German "das Kind" or Dutch <S> "het kind". <S> Modern connotation of the neutral pronoun in American English seems to have changed as other responses note.
| The word child is indeed gender-neutral.
|
Including A, B, and C vs. including A, B, or C I wonder which form(s) are correct amongst the following: [...] including A, B, and C. [...] including A, B, or C. Example: Short-text classification is an important task in many areas of natural language processing, including sentiment analysis, question answering, and/or dialog management. <Q> This becomes a question of logic, not of the English language. <S> In this case, I think the correct option is "and." <S> Short-text classification is an important task in many areas of natural language processing, including sentiment analysis, question answering, and dialog management. <S> This is because short-text classification is an important task in all of those three areas, not just one of them. <S> Look at the logical implications of what you are saying to decide which to use. <S> Consider these two sentences: To be able to get around, you need to buy a car, motorcycle, and bike. <S> and To be able to get around, you need to buy a car, motorcycle, or bike. <S> In that case, the second sentence is likely the correct option (logically). <S> Both are grammatically correct, but you don't need 3 types of transportation to be able to get around. <S> You only need one of them - any one of them. <S> Hence, "or" is the better choice, logically. <A> It depends on the intended meaning of the sentence. <S> If you want to say that only one of the three is included, than you say, "including A, B, or C". <S> English is a little ambiguous when there are several choices and one or more might be applicable. <S> For example, if a resort advertised that when you visit you can "play golf or tennis", they probably mean that you can do either or both. <S> But if they said, "For a $10 fee, you can play golf or tennis", they probably mean one or the other, and if you want to do both, you have to pay $20. <S> So sometimes people say "A, B, and/or C" to mean any or all. <S> To clearly say only one you usually need extra words, like "you can choose any one of". <A> Here, 'including' means 'and'. <S> Using 'including' to mean one or more of them can be excluded is not sensible. <S> Instead, use 'either A, B or C' to mean only one of them.
| If you want to say that all three things are included, than you say, "including A, B, and C".
|
Usage of "Pet" in "Pet Peeve" Why would someone want a peeve as a pet ? Upon searching for pet peeve , one explanation for the usage of pet was the complaint is adopted like a pet This meaning I can understand in pet project where one takes it under one's wing and cares for it. If I were to adopt a pet this is what I would do. Pets are usually warm and fuzzy, and certainly likeable . Peeves less so. Except for possibly alliteration , why is a peeve , that I must always feel the need to complain about (another searched definition), a pet ? <Q> Welcome to English, where, on a long enough timeline, all things become their opposite. <S> Case in point, the word epic , which now describes trivial things, like finding your favorite soda in a random corner store... <S> Pet is a synonym for favorite . <S> Peeve is a synonym for annoyance . <S> As you noted, " your favorite annoyance " seems incongruous. <S> And it is! <S> This is an example of irony: <S> IRONY <S> noun 1.the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect <A> Poorly written advertising is my pet peeve. <S> I lavish attention on it, point it out to my friends at every opportunity, and put a great deal of effort and care into its ridicule. <S> I complain about it so much that you might think I enjoy it, just as I would enjoy playing with a beloved pet. <A> The meaning of pet as used here is: 4) especially liked; favorite <S> So you could say: favorite peeve favorite project <A> Without etymology it's hard to be sure, but the phrase "pet hate" is common as well, as a synonym of "pet peeve". <S> In the UK I would say that "pet hate" is more common than "pet peeve", though not by as much as it used to be. <S> The simple "peeve" without "pet" is not very common as a noun, but is also seen, and again may be less common than it used to be. <S> Thus "pet peeve" could form by combining the synonyms "pet hate"+"peeve" for emphasis. <S> Interestingly <S> TFD also gives: pet² (pĕt) n. <S> A fit of bad temper or pique. <S> I'm not for a moment claiming this to be a direct influence, but an indirect influence caused by a homonym for one component of the phrase having a similar meaning to the other may help it to become more common.
| Pet Peeves tend to be trivial, mundane things that, for all intents and purposes, should not annoy us , but they do, and in ways we cannot explain without sounding finicky or touchy .
|
Why are a few letters named nothing related to how it is pronounced? Why are the names of these letters so different from how they are actually used in words ? 1. F - there are no words that start with an "F" that use the pronunciation "ɛf". 2. L - there are no words that start with an "L" that use the pronunciation " ɛl" Similarly, M (ɛm), N (ɛn), H (etʃ), R (ɑr), S (ɛs), W (dəbəlju), x (ɛks), Y (waj) and Z (zɛd). Apart from Z , which can be pronounced as 'zi', why are the names so different from how it is pronounced in words ? Examples for other alphabets with words that have the same (almost) pronunciation as its name : Ace, Beware, Cease, Deep, Eagle, Genes, Ice, Jail, Keratin, Oath, Piece, Queue, Tea, Unisex, Veal, X-ray. <Q> The names of most consonants in English contain a common sound of the consonant, plus enough of a vowel sound that the name is a syllable. <S> In some consonant names, the vowel sound precedes the consonant sound. <S> In other consonant names, the vowel sound follows the consonant sound. <S> There are three exceptions. <S> "H"'s name has drifted away from its pronunciation. <S> The names of "W" and "Y" match how they are written. <S> Consonant sounds at the start of the consonant name: . <S> B C D <S> G J K P Q T <S> V Z Consonant sounds at the end of the consonant name: . <S> F L M N R S X <S> Vowels: . <S> A E <S> I <S> O <S> U <S> There are only three exceptions: . <S> H W Y H: <S> Spanish pronounces its "j" as " hota ", so it would be possible to pronounce "H" using its consonant sound + a vowel sound. <S> According to https://infogalactic.com/info/H , the name has mutated over time. <S> In Latin, "k" and "h" used to have similar sounds. <S> The name of "H" picked up the "k" sound. <S> The "k" sound in the name of "H" then mutated to be a "ch" sound in Old French. <S> Various English speakers use a similar variety of pronunciations when pronouncing the "c" in the Latin word pace . <S> W: <S> This letter is named for how it is written -- as a doubled "U" or "V". <S> Y: <S> This letter is also named for how it is written -- as a combination of "V" and "I". <S> According to https://infogalactic.com/info/Y , the Romans borrowed the letter "Upsilon" from Greek twice -- once as the letter "v", and once as a "Greek i". <A> Just as the first letter of the Greek alphabet has the name alpha, the sixth letter of the Latin alphabet is named "ef" in English. <S> The names of the vowels do match up with a possible pronunciation of the vowel. <S> But the consonants don't. <S> Your example for "B" is wrong, as the B in beware isn't pronounced "bee", it needs to be followed by a vowel. <S> The name of the letter usually contains the sound that the letter normally makes, but there is no rule for naming letters, it is just historical accent that "B" is "bee" but "F" is "eff" <S> X-ray is an exception. <S> The letter X is being used for its name. <S> That could be done with any letter. <S> Maths students are sometimes taught that corresponding angles are "F-angles". <S> Parkinsons disease is treated with L-dopa. <S> There are examples that can be given for any letter. <A> This answer might complement the previous ones. <S> Names of letters should be taught with less strenght than sounds, we may say. <S> Which is important is to know how a sound correspond with a particular symbol, and the inverse in order for the language to be complete. <S> In any alphabet we write some symbols: a, b, c, d, e, f, g... and assign each symbol a sound. <S> But in our alphabetic system we can't pronounce consonants, so in order to speak about them we combine it with a vowel, and this gives birth to 'names'. <S> We can define a name as: consonant (sound) + vowel (sound). <S> (I think this answers part of the question) Example <S> So although c has a sound (and really this is not an unique sound), we name it differently to speak about it, and we say c(name)= c(sound) <S> + e(sound). <S> Curiosity <S> There is a strange case. <S> When we speak about Greek alphabet even vowels have names, but this, I believe, is a different story. <S> So when we want to speak about letters we use names, but they aren't completely related to the sound, as was pointed out.
| The names of the letters are just names, they don't pretend to represent the sound that the letters make.
|
The teacher told us that ice {floats/floated} on water If: The teacher said to the students, "Ice floats on water." Then did: The teacher told the students that ice floats on water. The teacher told the students that ice floated on water. Are both correct? If not, please explain it to me. <Q> Many native speakers, when reporting indirectly what someone has said, will cast the verb in the past without really thinking about it, as second-nature: <S> She told us ice floated on water. <S> That is perfectly grammatical, but the past tense is not required there for the statement to be grammatical, as there are plenty of speakers who would not use the past tense there but the present. <S> She told us that ice floats on water. <S> Again, these decisions are often made at the subconscious level. <A> 'Ice floating on water' is not something from the past alone. <S> It is applicable today, Ice will float on water tomorrow too, as it did yesterday and as it did millions of years ago too. <S> So we cannot term that as something from the past. <S> So the best answer should be : <S> The teacher told the students that ice floats on water. <A> Let's simplify it for a moment. <S> Without bringing the teacher into it, would you say "ice floats on water" or "ice floated on water"? <S> As the latter would seem to imply that something fundamental about the laws of physics has changed, you probably wouldn't want to use it. <S> Now when you put the teacher back into it, keeping in mind that the teacher saying something is past tense, but what the teacher was talking about is not past tense to the teacher at the time the teacher said it, you would want to go with the form that's more correct for the present tense. <S> Removing extra elements to simplify what you're actually thinking about is a useful technique for working out grammatical issues like this. <S> One well-known example is, "she gave it to Tom and [I / me]." <S> (If Tom wasn't present, would she give it to "I" or to "me"?)
| What you have are competing nuances: one person might be emphasizing the general statement of truth and use the present (float is what ice does) and another might be emphasizing that this remark is what someone else has said (she said it floated).
|
"Hi there!" -- What does this 'there' mean? There's this particular interjection-like usage of there that I think belongs to the spoken register and maybe doesn't refer to anything; as in: Hi there ! You alright there ? Why is it used, and what meaning (if any) does it serve to convey? <Q> Hi there! <S> is a greeting. <S> Hi over there! <S> or Hello over there <S> works the same way as Hi there or Hello there , except that the distance between the two people is greater. <S> The two people could be across a room or across the globe. <S> I think you you are right about social register, as Hi there! <S> seems to me to be informal or at least not formal. <S> This is also indicated by Hi . <S> The there in You all right there is also an adverb. <S> You can also say things such as <S> Hey there! <S> and You there! <S> and not say it in a friendly way. <S> You can also say Who goes there? <S> Another stock phrase is <S> There she goes! <S> where, again, there is an adverb and is used to attract attention to whatever she is, be she a female person , a boat, or, in this case just about anything. <A> With respect to people here who still think that " there " in greetings doesn't refers to distance here is my explanation: <S> Firstly, educated people (mostly native speakers) say that before, when sailors wanted to draw the attention of someone at a distance (to hail a ship or anything else at a distance) <S> they would shout, " <S> Ahoy, there !" <S> in which " there " refers to a distant object. <S> Sometimes "there" was followed by the identity of the object: <S> " Ahoy, there, ship/captain/matey ". <S> Now we use " hi ", " hello ", " greetings ", " hey " and etc. <S> instead of " ahoy " but " there " is still used to emphasize the physical distance between the speaker and the object addressed. <S> Often " there " is used in place of the unidentified object when the object can't be visually identified at a large distance of because of fog, mist, or other visual obstacles. <S> " Hi/Hello <S> /Greetings/ <S> Hey, There " is not impolite or anyway rude, but mostly appears in informal usage. <S> Footnote : <S> " there " isn't the dummy subject in these greetings. <S> " There " is a dummy subject mostly in constructions <S> there is or there are , or before certain verbs in certain contexts. <A> 'There' in such sentences is used to indicate direction or place where the person is and it is informal. <S> It directs attention towards the person indicated. <A> Some interesting responses here about "hi, there," although I would argue that in common usage, no matter its origins, it's mainly a cheery colloquialism. <S> On the other hand, if it helps, I'd most likely use a question like "Are you all right, there?" to address someone who seemed spaced out (distant in thought, in other words).
| There refers to the position that the other person is in, so it is an adverb . It can also serve to attract attention.
|
What is the difference between "disapprove" and "disapprove of"? Does adding "of" makes any difference in the sentences? For example: He disapproved of people marrying more than once. Can't I write in following way? He disapproved the people... Another question related to this: Is there any difference between these two? I beg you. I beg of you. <Q> When you disapprove of someone or something, you simply have a negative opinion of it: <S> My mother disapproves of the woman I am seeing. <S> When you disapprove something, you reject something, usually having the official power to do so: <S> The principal disapproved the students' request for less homework. <S> Based on this second definition, it is less likely that you would disapprove people, rather than things. <S> But you might: <S> The mayor disapproved the new nominee for dogcatcher. <S> Conversely, if you added of , the mayor would just be offering a personal opinion, not officially rejecting the nominee: <S> The mayor disapproved of the new nominee for dogcatcher. <A> Disapprove is not usually used with an object (in contrast to approve which often is). <S> It's because you don't take action by saying you disapprove of X, but you are expressing how you feel about X. <S> In business settings and similar it's common to use approve with an object <S> , e.g. I approved time for this project , but the opposite of approve in that context <S> is not disapprove but do not approve <S> - I did not approve time for this project. <S> So you cannot omit <S> the of . <S> I beg you [to do X, for X]. <S> You are begging someone to do something. <S> I beg of you [to do X, for X]. <S> You are begging someone to let you use a resource they have or control. <S> You're not technically really directly "begging" the person you are talking to. <S> As a person's ability to directly help you can be considered a resource, and "doing something" can involve letting someone use a resource one has, the distinction between these doesn't matter much. <S> I beg of you <S> has the connotation of sounding much more formal and polite, and somewhat archaic. <A> Your first example, He disapproved of people marrying more than once. <S> uses the following definition of disapprove: To have an unfavorable opinion; express disapproval (usually followed by of). <S> Your second example, He disapproved the people... <S> uses the following definition of disapprove: To withhold approval from; decline to sanction. <S> Source: <S> Random House Dictionary <S> Your question regarding beg has been answered here: Differences between {beg / beg for / beg of / beg from} <A> I think the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary gives more information about to approve / to disapprove : BrE : to disapprove of somebody/something and to disapprove. <S> She wants to be an actress, but her parents disapprove. <S> He strongly disapproved of the changes that had been made. <S> AmE as in BrE but <S> to disapprove of somebody <S> /something has a variant: to disapprove somebody /something <S> A solid majority disapproves the way <S> the president is handling the controversy. <S> As to the verb construction BrE is conservative. <S> Only AmE dares to get away from the genitive construction by dropping "of".
| While it is possible to approve and disapprove individuals, in most contexts (and including your example), to approve of and disapprove of people is appropriate.
|
How to ask to repeat a question after QA section politely? When you are a speaker on a conference and somebody asks you a question which you didn't quite understood or which is too complicated to give a short answer the common practice is to answer something like "Could you please find me after this talk and I try to answer you then?". In Russian there is a word for this - 'в кулуарах', from French word 'couloir', corridor. It is translated as 'on the sidelines' according to Google Translate. Still I never heard such an expression from a native speaker and apparently it has something to do with baseball, not conferences. So what would native speaker usually say in such a situation? <Q> The speaker or the introducer may something to the effect of So-and-so will be around after the Q&A if you want to come speak to them to alert the audience that questions will be answered, and the speaker is will to hang around to answer them and meet the audience <S> These requests but the speaker during a Q&A usually consists of several parts which in general are: An acknowledgement <S> Good question <S> That's a great question Thank you for your question <S> A reason for not answering immediately <S> That's a very specific question for this audience <S> There's a lot of detail in your question <S> I don't really want to get side-tracked <S> What to do <S> why don't we discuss this afterwards <S> come see me afterwards <S> let's talk about this afterwards if you could come see me afterwards <S> A closing where the speaker might say <S> I'll still be around to answer any further questions <A> It probably has more to do with American football rather than baseball! <S> Anyway, you could say That's a great question. <S> Could you please ask it to me individually? <S> or Could you please ask it to me after the presentation. <S> or I would be happy to answer that question after the presentation (after my talk). <S> You could add <S> I'll be in such-and-such place, or You can find me in such-and-such place. <S> where such-and-such place could be the snack line, a book table, the company's product table, etc. <S> You could use your sentence, with one change: <S> Could you please find me after this talk <S> and I will try to answer you then? <A> We'd generally just mention that we'd like to discuss it afterwards: usually with a short explanation for politeness sake. <S> Something like: <S> That's a great question but perhaps a little specific to answer right now, could we discuss it after the presentation? <S> or I don't actually have those numbers with me, but if you give me your email address during the break I'd be happy to forward them to you. <S> or To answer that would probably take more time than I have right now, but we could speak about it after if you'd like.
| You could skip the explanation and just stick to the "Can we discuss this after the presentation", although this can sometimes come across as defensive and suggest you don't actually know the answer.
|
"I have been saying it" vs "I have been said it" I am confused with the following sentences: You are right, I have been saying it. You are right, I have been said it. What would be the difference between the two sentences? <Q> "I have been said it" is grammatically incorrect. <S> As said is past tense <S> it would just be " <S> I have said it" or even "I said it". <S> With "I have said it" then the thing it is referring to could have been said just once. <S> In terms of grammar <S> I said/I have said is past tense, whereas I have been saying is perfect tense. <A> 'I have been saying it' is present perfect continuous that it is used to express an ongoing action that started in the past and is still going on. <S> But <S> *' I have been said it' is incorrect because it appears to be passive which is not, and its active structure would be *' <S> It has said me' that makes NO sense. <S> But you can say: It has been said to me/him/them ... <S> (Passive) <S> Or: <S> I/he have/has said to someone something. <S> (Active) <S> You cannot say someone something or to do something. <S> Instead, you should use tell. <A> I have been saying it. <S> In this sentence the perpetrator of the action is I , and this is fine and correct. <S> I have been said it. <S> This sentence is wrong because to be + past participle is the passive voice, which means someone else has said <S> it <S> to me , and said as a past participle only refers to what was said, not to whom . <S> Instead, this sentence could be changed to: I have been told it. <S> Told as a past participle can refer to the person to whom something was said, so it works, meaning "Someone/people/whoever has told me it". <S> The first sentence conveys the idea that you, the speaker, have repeatedly said something. <S> Perhaps it came up because an idea just recently got popular that you liked all along or something similar. <S> The second sentence means that someone or some people have told you it, whatever it is. <S> Maybe you got asked if you knew someone's name that you've never talked to, but someone had already told you.
| The difference between "I have been saying it" and "I have said it" is that the former denotes multiple instances.
|
Do we say "gain knowledge in school"? Which one is the correct preposition? gain knowledge in/at/through school. If I use the verb acquire instead of gain ,which preposition is correct? <Q> This may be cultural. <S> As an AmE speaker, I would say "at", but I believe BrE speakers would say "in". <A> Prepositions are tricky . <S> When we are in school, we are also at school. <S> The phrase in school can mean in the school building , or in a school program . <S> For example: I can't go to the game tomorrow; I need to be in school. <S> Tony will be in medical school next year. <S> The phrase at school usually means somewhere on the school grounds, which could be in the building, or it could mean in the parking lot. <S> I was at school when I felt the earthquake. <S> So, you can learn in school, and you can learn at school. <S> Both are used . <S> I wouldn't say, "I gained some knowledge through school," but I might say, "I gained that knowledge through my schooling (or through my training ). <S> That said, there's no single right way to express this; all of these can be used: <S> I learned how to dance in school. <S> I learned how to dance at school. <S> I learned how to dance during school. <S> I learned how to dance through my dance classes. <S> I learned how to dance by taking it in school. <S> These might have slightly different nuances; for example, I learned how to dance : in school could mean you took a dance class at school <S> could mean you learned it from a friend during recess during school <S> could mean you learned it sometime between your freshman and senior year <S> Bottom Line: Sometimes learners seem to convince themselves that one preposition or the other must be correct, when in fact both can sound acceptable, natural, and even idiomatic. <A> I acquired in school <S> is a fine sentence while I acquired knowledge in school <S> may seem a bit odd. <A> We gain knowledge at school <S> gain knowledge in school <S> gain knowledge through <S> school ing are all acceptable, the same with acquire
| I learned in school would be the usual phrase rather than, I gained knowledge in school which would seem a bit off for my Canadian English that can be a hybrid of American and British at times.
|
What is the difference of "can" and "may" in this case? https://careers.jobscore.com/jobs2/bustle?sid=68 -> This is a media website and I occasionally opened its jobs page. I noticed that some of the jobs are with "can work remotely" while one is "may work remotely": EDITORIAL (BUSTLE)Books Feature Writers (can work remotely) New York, NYEntertainment Writers (may work remotely) New York, NYFashion/Beauty Writers (can work remotely) New York, NYFreelance Writers/Reporters (can work remotely) New York, NYLifestyle News Writers (can work remotely) New York, NY And there is another job: News Writer (can be remote) New York, NY Does can be remote 100% equals to can work remotely ? What is the difference of can and may here? Hopefully to get some detailed information on this. Thanks, <Q> I think in this case the job advertisers are not being careful with their English usage, which is reasonable in such a small piece of text, and "may" and "can" are being used the same way. <S> Also "remote" and "remotely" are 100% equal in this context <S> (thought I feel that remotely is better English). <A> The words appear to mean the same thing here. <S> When I was in school my teachers made a big deal that "can" refers to ability and "may" refers to permission. <S> So for example if you said, "You may stand up now", you mean that you are giving the person permission to stand up. <S> But, "You can stand up now" is recognizing that the person is capable of standing (perhaps he has overcome a physical problem). <S> But in common use, "can" is used for both ability and permission. <S> If you say, "Can I drive your car?" <S> , you are almost certainly asking the other person to loan it to you, not asking if he knows whether you are capable. <S> "Remote" is an adjective. <S> "Remotely" is an adverb. <S> So a person can be remote, or you can work remotely. <S> You can't "work remote" or "be remotely". <S> In context I'd think the two phrases mean the same thing. <S> Perhaps it's worth noting that, in general, if you say a person "is remote", you mean that he is not interacting with other people, that is, that he is distracted or aloof. <S> Like, "Since his divorce, Bob has become very remote", meaning, he doesn't talk to anybody. <S> But it's very unlikely that a want ad would say that it's okay if you're aloof. <A> Keep in mind, different people have written these adverts, so their individual usages may vary. <S> May = permission, to be allowed to work remotely Usually, one needs to be granted permission before one's able to perform. <S> A finer point of difference between the two phrasings might be: can work remotely means that the person does not have to show up in an office setting. <S> Since the employer is already making the offer to work remotely , one can assume the applicant has been granted permission <S> may work remotely <S> means the employer is giving permission to work remotely , however this may be dependent on the applicant's skill level. <S> can be remote 100 <S> is equivalent to working remotely
| In the ads you are asking about, the intent of using can and may look to be the same. Keep in the back of your mind: Can work remotely = ability, to be able to work remotely
|
Word for a person who increases the argument What can I name a person who increases the argument between two people. Can I call him as catalyst or is any other word available? <Q> In this context, I think two words would work. <S> Instigator <S> - a person who causes something to happen, especially something bad or Inflammatory person <S> As we use 'inflammatory remarks' to denote something that causes something bad, inflammatory person is the one who causes dispute by adding fuel to the fire <A> Also acceptable: argument escalator. <S> The term for increasing an argument would be to "escalate" the argument. <S> Unfortunately the term "escalator" would normally be held to mean an actual "moving stairs" escalator, such as in a building with multiple floors, so it is awkward to try to describe this concept with a single word. <S> If an argument, or disagreement, between Amit and Shiva starts out with polite words, but then Amit begins insulting and cursing Shiva, one could say "Amit is the one who escalated the argument". <S> If you said "Amit was the escalator" it would most likely draw puzzled looks, as people try to figure out how Amit used to be moving stairs made of metal, but somewhere along the line changed into human form. <S> It would sound appropriate to label someone as a "conflict escalator". <S> For example, one might say, "His attorney is a conflict escalator" to describe an attorney who looks to instigate fights between the parties involved. <S> (Here, instigate means to start an argument, where there wasn't one before.) <S> The other available words mentioned thus far, catalyst, and instigator, are a bit too general to capture the sense of a back-and-forth argument. <S> A catalyst would be someone whose presence is required for the argument to occur, but does not necessarily participate in the argument, such as two men arguing over a whether the bartender's shirt is blue or purple. <S> The bartender (their shirt, to be precise) is the catalyst, but may not be involved in the argument, or even aware of it. <S> An instigator would be the person who starts , i.e., instigates the argument, such as by verbally attacking the other person. <S> Opinions can differ on who really started the argument, but the term instigator means the one who started it. <S> The term "inflammatory person" is a general negative label of another person. <S> It is not a specific description of the behavior of escalating an argument. <S> The one who "escalates" the argument would normally refer to a person or party who is directly involved in the argument, rather than an outside agent like a catalyst. <A> Agitator comes close and could work, although this is not the normal context for it... ...as well as incendiary , although, again, this is not commonly used in your context. <A> Stirrer is a British usage. <S> Troublemaker might fit as well although that can encompass as lot of things. <A> Believe it or not, there is a Positive way to fuel the fire : <S> The one who stokes the flames of an argument in a less positive light is an Antagonist : <S> ANTAGONIST <S> noun <S> 1.a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary <S> Some good synonyms are: obstreperous truculent vociferous <A> For figurative speaking occasions: accelerant <S> A substance that accelerates the development of a fire. <S> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accelerant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_accelerant <A> Merriam-Webster says one who provokes is a provocateur .
| Depending on your audience perhaps trouble stirrer or argument stirrer would be clear enough and also appropriate. Best suggestion: conflict escalator . DEVIL'S ADVOCATE noun 1.a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments An alternative definition, and more appropriate to a friendly debate is: Someone who takes the other side of the argument purely for the sakeof argument .
|
Meaning of "8 going on 48" I don't understand what this expression means: Little adults are the children that parents describe as 'eight going on forty-eight' . <Q> It means the children act very mature for their age, or else they are maturing very quickly. <S> If my child just turned 8 last month, I might say: Natalie is 8 now . <S> Or if she turned 8 eleven months ago, I might say: <S> Natalie is 8 going on 9 . <S> which implies she's almost 9. <S> So, when a parent says something like: <S> Natalie is 8 going on 16 . <S> That means something along the lines of: "Natalie is currently 8, but sometimes it seems like she'll be getting her driver's license any time now." <S> Or: <S> Natalie is 8 going on 28 . <S> means: "Natalie is only 8, but oftentimes she acts much like an adult." <A> Thus the age comparison, an eight-year-old child acting like a forty-eight-year-old adult. <S> That is why these children are also called "little adults" in your quote. <A> The most popular usage that I've heard is "my child is 5 going on 13". <S> Which usually means the child is young but full of attitude as a teenager might be. <S> I.e. the child challenges the parent's authority and intellect, and may lack respect sometimes. <S> This is a less playful usage most times, but meant to be somewhat humerous. <S> It's also meant to invoke a little sympathy for the parent. <S> "8 going on 48" usually is used when the child has some well defined adult habits. <S> I would say that about a child that watches the evening news, or scolds their parents about their eating habits.
| This means that a child acts as responsible and mature as an adult in many ways. The expression is meant to be playful and humorous.
|
Barking up a tree ("barking up the wrong tree") I don't understand expression barking up a wrong tree Does it think about putting bark on tree or taking it off? A person says you're barking up the wrong tree and he means don't bother me But what is it from? Does he mean the bark is wrong kind for the tree? Like "I am oak, take your pine bark!" In Croation we say the wall is closed meaning you have the wrong wall, have to climb through another with window. Is that how this means? <Q> You have a hunting dog that helps you catch a wild animal. <S> If it climbs up a tree, the dog is supposed to bark at the tree it climbed up. <S> Imagine the situation where the dog is barking at a different (wrong) tree and you would be very disappointed at the dog. <S> It could mean as a dog: You are wasting your efforts and energy by pursuing the wrong path. <S> In other words, you made the wrong choice. <S> As a tree: You are asking the wrong person. <S> You have to ask somebody else. <S> Leave me alone. <S> I am not the tree you want. <S> The verb bark means the following: to make the characteristic short loud cry of a dog. <S> It has nothing to do with the noun bark : the tough exterior covering of a woody root or stem. <S> [Merriam-Webster] <A> Here is a dog who is barking : <S> "Drooker style dog" by Balthazar , licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 <S> Here is a dog who is barking up a tree : "Treeing Fiest" by Scochran4, licensed CC-BY 3.0 <S> There is an animal in the tree that the dog wants to catch. <S> But what if the dog picked the wrong tree? <S> (Maybe the animal jumped into a different tree and the dog didn't see. <S> Maybe the dog didn't see which tree the animal climbed, and guessed wrong.) <S> Then we could say that the dog is barking up the wrong tree . <S> This is metaphorically like the dog (you) trying to catch the animal (information) in the tree (person). <S> The dog is barking up some tree, but the animal isn't in that tree. <S> The animal is in a different tree. <S> Similarly, you're looking for information from a person, but that person doesn't have the information. <S> Someone else knows the information you want. <A> Although the other skin of a tree is referred to as it bark , this is not what is meant by Barking up the wrong tree. <S> When a dog gives chase to a cat(as an example), it will bark while it frantically runs after the cat. <S> The cat may run up a tree to escape, leaving the barking dog below. <S> If the dog gets confused, (s)he may bark at/up a tree with no cat . <S> This is barking up the wrong tree Looking for something in the wrong place <A> This well-known phrase is an idiom, part of colloquial (AmE at least) speech, that means: <S> you are investigating something/gathering information, and the action you're currently taking to find information will not help you, and you probably don't know this, so that's why someone is telling you this. <S> Contrived example: <S> A: <S> Hey Bob, I'm looking for Sally. <S> (A thinks Bob knows where Sally is) <S> B: You're barking up the wrong tree, my friend. <S> She hasn't been around here for months. <S> (A obviously is not aware that Sally hasn't been around for months) <S> If you ask someone for information, and they respond with "you are barking up the wrong tree", they are indirectly telling you that they have not been involved whatsoever in what you are asking. <S> It's not quite equivalent to "don't bother me" <S> - more like "don't bother me because I can't help you get what you want." <S> Another contrived example: <S> Police officer: <S> Sally said she talked to you at the restaurant, before she was murdered. <S> What did she say to you? <S> Suspect: You're barking up the wrong tree. <S> I've never been at that restaurant.
| When you ask someone for information, and they say, "You're barking up the wrong tree," it means, "I don't have the information you want."
|
Confused! Are there any differences between "I have to go", "I had to go", "I've had to go", "I get to go", "I got to go", "I've got to go"? I am Confused! Are there any differences between " I have to go ", " I had to go ", " I've had to go ", " I get to go ", " I got to go ", " I've got to go "? In which situation is each term used? I checked this dictionary http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/get , & found that get to do something : to have the opportunity to do something Seem like if you have a opportunity to do something, then use " get ". The expression is in present but why we use present perfect tense (Ex: I've got to go ) here? <Q> It's not surprising these confuse you. <S> There are actually three different idioms involved in your list, expressed in different combinations. <S> GET to VERB means, as you say, "HAVE the opportunity to VERB". <S> PRESENT: I get to go. <S> = <S> I have the opportunity to go. <S> PAST: I got to go. <S> = <S> I had the opportunity to go. <S> Pr/Past PERFECT: I have/had gotten to go. <S> = <S> I have/had the opportunity to go. <S> ('gotten' is US; in BrE this would be 'got') <S> HAVE to VERB <S> means "must" (used nowadays only in the present tense) or "BE obliged to VERB". <S> PRESENT: I have to go. <S> = <S> I must go. <S> PAST: I had to go. <S> = <S> I was obliged to go. <S> Pr/Past PERFECT: I have/had had to go = <S> I have/had been obliged to go. <S> HAVE got is a replacement for "HAVE" in two uses <S> : 1) the "possess" sense and 2) the "BE obliged" sense. <S> It is used only in the present tense. <S> 1) "Possess": I've got an old car. <S> = <S> I have an old car. <S> 2) "Be obliged": I've got to get a new car. <S> = <S> I must get a new car. <S> It's even possible to combine the <S> HAVE got 2 idiom with the GET to idiom. <S> I have simply got to get to go to Disneyland! = <S> I simply must have the opportunity to go to Disneyland! <S> There are lots more idioms using these two verbs, but it would take me all night to go through them, and it would probably confuse you even more. <A> Three completely different idioms here. <S> " have to go " and its conjugations (including "I had to go", "I've had to go") mean " need to go [somewhere else or to do something else] <S> ". <S> I have to go. <S> (say, to do your homework.) <S> I had to go to school that day. <S> " get to go " means to get the opportunity to go [do something or to a different place]. <S> I get to go play hockey at noon. <S> " got to go <S> " can mean either "have to go" or the past tense of <S> "get to go". <S> You'll need context to know the correct meaning for each situation. <S> I only really see " I've got to go " used in the "have to go" sense. <S> You've got to go clean your room. <S> I got to go. <S> ( "have to go" sense ) <S> They finally got to go swimming. <S> ( "get the opportunity to go" sense ) <S> "Got to go" and "get to go" are generally informal. <A> Firstly, in this context, "got" = "have", even though the tenses dont match. <S> The idea is, if you got something (past tense) <S> OR if you've gotten (present perfect) something, you now have it. <S> This not only works for possesion <S> "I've got 3 dollars" = <S> "I got 3 dollars" = <S> "I have 3 dollars", but also posession <S> "I've got to go" = <S> "I got to go" <S> = "I have to go" Regardless of the actual tense, these three mean you must go now. <S> The phrase implies you must go due to social obligation, physical need, etc. <S> "I had to go" is the past tense version. <S> e. g. <S> "I had to go to school on Saturday when I was a young boy". <S> "I've had to go" <S> is the present perfect tense version. <S> e.g. "I've had to go to the bathroom for 2 hours now (and still have to)". <S> e.g. "I get to go to Disneyland next week". <S> The past tense version of this is "I got to go". <S> "I got to go Disneyland last week". <S> As you may have noticed "I got to go" <S> can be used in both expressions. <S> You have to figure out which one through context.
| On the other hand, "I get to go" is a compeletly different expression that means "I am permitted (either by someone or the circumstance) to go).
|
Is there any difference between "to pull over" and "to park"? These verbs have pretty much the same meaning. To pull over - If a vehicle or driver pulls over, it stops by the side of the road. To park - To leave a vehicle into a place where you are going to leave it for a period of time. For example. Let's pull over and have a look at the map. Can we say Let's park and have a look at the map. with the same meaning? <Q> In the senses that you give above, we use pull over more often to indicate a brief pause while travelling: to look at a map, to let others pass in front, in response to a police car's red light, etc. <S> We can also pull over without stopping, while to park implies stopping. <S> We use park more often to indicate a longer stop at a destination. <S> We can say Let's park and have a look at the map with the basic meaning of stopping clear, but it would be more common to use pull over in that utterance. <A> "Pull over" is more of parking away from the road proper in order to do something (like getting snacks, or for police). <S> Can we pull over, because I want to eat. <S> The police pulled him over to test him for drunk driving. <S> "Park" is used generally for leaving one's own vehicle/whatever (stationary) at a place. <S> He parked his car in his driveway, and now someone broke the car window. <S> "Pull over" is more specific on the manner of how/why the car gets parked, while "park" doesn't have such implications. <S> In your case, they pretty much have the same meaning, except with the specific-ness I noted above. <A> And to specify where you want to stop and look at the map, you ... ... pull over to the curb. <S> but ... <S> park at the curb. <S> or ... <S> park by the curb. <S> (or ... park on the curb.) <A> On the other hand, you "park" in a variety of places: a parking lot, a driveway, a parking space, etc. <S> You don't usually "pull over" into those places.
| "Pull over" generally means to stop at the side of the road, in a place where you normally wouldn't park for an extended period of time (i.e., not in a designated parking space).
|
How to understand "throwing science at the wall here to see what sticks"? It's said by Cave Johnson -- an character in Portal2 . Full voice line is: "Just a heads up: We're gonna have a superconductor turned up full blast and pointed at you for the duration of this next test. I'll be honest, we're throwing science at the wall here to see what sticks. No idea what it'll do. Probably nothing. Best-case scenario, you might get some superpowers. Worst case, some tumors, which we'll cut out." I don't understand throwing science at the wall . In my opinion, what we throw should be a real thing (a ball, a stone), but science is an abstract concept, how could we throw it at the wall? And how could science (or something) stick to the wall? Please give me some hints to understand that. <Q> You take some spaghetti out of the pan and throw it at the wall. <S> If it sticks to the wall then it's cooked. <S> (Do not actually use this test. <S> It doesn't work well <S> and it makes a mess.) <S> So when you throw something at a wall to see what sticks, you are testing something to find out if it has the quality you're looking for. <S> 'Science' is being used to collectively describe all the inventions and ideas they have at Aperture Science. <A> This alludes to a phrase from the glory days of the Madison Avenue ad agencies (think Mad Men ). <S> To "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" (or "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks") means to submit one idea (or several ideas) for an ad campaign to a client and see if the client likes it (or which idea the client likes). <S> Another phrase with the same meaning was "run it up a flagpole and see who salutes". <S> The character is saying "We're trying this science-based approach to see if it works". <A> This is what is known as a figure of speech . <S> It does not mean that you are literally throwing science . <S> In the context it means that they are doing a scientific experiment and they don't really know what is going to happen. <S> Another example is its raining cats and dogs . <S> This means its raining a lot . <A> There are a variety of similar catchphrases to "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks". <S> One is " run it up the flagpole and see who salutes ". <S> There is even (according to this Wikipedia article, which appears to be similar to <S> this article in The Independent) <S> "Let's put it on the five-fifteen and see if it gets off at Westport". <S> They all imply some kind of an empirical test, usually of an idea. <S> Nobody is physically running a storyboard up a flagpole or placing a script on an MTA commuter train from Manhattan to Connecticut. <A> During a scientific experiment you carefully test only one thing and see if it produces the results you expected from the theory. <S> The sentence here basically means "we'll test every possible idea we've had and see if any of them works", implying they didn't do much theoretical work. <S> You can imagine it like having a lots of darts (ideas or science) on a table and throwing all of them on a target (wall) while blinded by a fold. <S> You then take off the fold and see if any dart reached (sticked) the target.
| They are testing them (throwing at the wall) to see which ones work (stick). This figure of speech comes from a test to see if spaghetti is cooked.
|
Past/after when talking about time I'll talk to you tomorrow morning past 11. I'll talk to you tomorrow morning after 11. Do both of them mean the same? Are both grammatically correct? <Q> It doesn't seem to sound quite right if you say past 11 . <S> It is better to say: I'll talk to you tomorrow morning after 11. <A> The sun should set at half past five . <S> This means that the sun will set at half an hour after 5, or 5:30. <S> You can't just use any number there. <S> Your options are "half" or "quarter." <S> "After" doesn't have this requirement of time specification, so we can say The sun should set after five. <S> OR <S> The sun should set half an hour after five. <S> Both of these are valid and correct. <S> So no, the way your first sentence is written right now, it is not correct. <S> This one, however, is correct: <S> I'll talk to you tomorrow morning after 11. <A> We often say "twenty past five", "ten past five", "five past" and so on. <S> Also, "quarter to five", "ten to five", and in some regions 'quarter of five' which does not mean 1 1/4 in this context. <S> However, the original sentences are grammatically correct, but the first one is not used.
| You could also say: I'll talk to you tomorrow morning, between 11am and 12 noon. When we use "past", we typically specify an actual amount:
|
Can I say to my girlfriend "You are my whole"? I want to say to my girlfriend that she is everything for me. And my question is if I can say her this thing by the sentence "You are my whole". I made a little googling about but I didn't find a clear answer. <Q> <A> I had to think a bit about why that sounds funny to me. <S> While whole is indeed both an adjective and a noun, so there isn't anything grammatically wrong with the sentence, the question "your whole <S> what?" comes to mind. <S> This is the reason for Subjunctive's comment. <S> While we see what you are driving at, we just don't say this. <S> She is your whole something , such as world or life. <A> "You complete me" would be very proper, but "You are my whole", based on the tendency of most to take things in a sexual nature might lead to you getting slapped... <A> "You are my whole" is not an English idiom, nor is it a complete sentence. <S> Here are some similar poetic statements: There is a song titled <S> You are my everything. <S> There is a popular country song <S> whose refrain includes the lines: There goes my life. <S> My future, my everything. <S> And another popular song 's refrain includes the lines: you are the one <S> That I've been searching for my whole life through <S> In American culture, if a young man says something like this to his girlfriend, he is taking a big risk. <S> Many women want a man who has a life of his own, and is not dependent on a particular woman for his happiness. <S> They appreciate it if they can make him happy -- but they might think less of him if he is not confident that he "can survive" "with or without" her. <A> In writing it sounds weird (because if she is "whole" it means that she's better off without you, so "my whole" makes no sense), and phonetically it's completely rude and vulgar. <S> I suggest you look for some other expression. <S> There are a few good ones in other answers.
| The more idiomatic expressions that you hear used are "You make me whole" and "You complete me".
|
How to describe duration of, and duration since, a finished past event? If I ate from 7:00 until 7:30am, At 7:10, could I say I am eating for 10 minutes? At 7:40, could I say I ate for 30 minutes , 10 minutes ago? <Q> for is used to say how long something lasts, so using the present continuous doesn't make much sense since the continuous forms are for temporary situations. <S> If ten minutes have passed and you want to continue (or not to) with your meal, there are some options to use for : <S> I ate for 10 minutes. <S> (Once the 10 minutes were over, I stopped eating.) <S> I' ve eaten for 10 minutes . <S> (We measure the duration up to the present.) <S> I' ve been eating for 10 minutes. <S> (I ate and I'm still eating.) <S> So if we want to express that an action is finished (so we're not retaking it later), we use it as you said I ate for 30 minutes, 10 minutes ago. <S> (Note that we can't use a perfect form in this case, since ago is a finished time expression which shows no connection with the present.) <A> I'm not sure that there's an easy, concise way to give all that information. <S> I would offer these options: <S> I started eating forty minutes ago, I was eating for half an hour. <S> I started eating forty minutes ago <S> and I've been done for ten minutes. <S> (People prefer to say 'a half hour' or 'half an hour' rather than 'thirty minutes' unless there is a reason the measurement of time must be precise.) <A> The situation described seems somewhat artificial, but I think the most correct sentence here would be <S> (Until/as of) <S> 10 minutes ago, I have been eating for 30 minutes. <S> The reason is that eating is a continuing activity. <S> You were eating 10 minutes ago, and some time before that as well. <S> In general, "for " is used for a proplonged activity so it should used a couninuous tense. <S> Your first suggested sentence doesn't fit the situation you described at all; it does not suggest that anything special happened 10 minutes ago. <S> The second suggested sentence is more descriptive <S> but it uses "have eaten for", <S> which has incorect tense for a continuous activity. <S> Consider the following sentence as a similar case in which present perfect would work: I have worked for the government for 10 years. <S> This means the period in which you worked for the government is 10 years, and was in the past; you are not working there now. <A> Both the sentence are incorrect grammatically. <S> I think you can use any of the following sentences to convey your message: <S> It's been 10 minutes now since I ate. <S> I ate ten minutes ago (you normally use ago in the past tense). <S> I ate for thirty minutes. <S> It took me thirty minutes to finish eating. <S> Ten minutes ago, I took thirty minutes to finish eating. <S> Ten minutes ago, I ate for thirty minutes. <A> No, for both sentences. <S> Here is what each sentence does mean: (at 7:10 a.m.) <S> I am eating for 10 minutes. <S> …means that you are currently engaged in eating a meal that takes 10 minutes to eat. <S> If you started eating at 7:01, then you will finish eating at 7:11. <S> If you started eating at 7:02, then you will finish eating at 7:12; and so on. <S> You could also say "I am eating for 10 minutes" to mean that there is a plan or schedule that says that you will eat for ten minutes, starting at some future time. <S> For example, "Tomorrow night, I am working for 8 hours" (when referring to a work schedule). <S> This function of the present continuous tense, to describe to a future event according to a present plan, is not likely to be used with the verb "eat", but someone would say it if they are currently following a special diet: "Each day while I am following this diet, I eat for 10 minutes." <S> (at 7:40 a.m.) I ate for 30 minutes, 10 minutes ago. <S> …means that from 7:10:00 to 7:10:59, you ate for 30 minutes—which is impossible because that's only one minute. <S> Really, the meaning is unclear. <S> A listener who hears "I ate for 30 minutes" expects that there is 30-minute-long time interval when you were eating. <S> "10 minutes ago" is a point in time, not a time interval, so a listener will be confused. <S> For this kind of sentence to make sense, the point in time needs to be described with a larger unit. <S> For example, "I ate for 30 minutes yesterday." <S> Since yesterday is a whole day, it includes enough time for a 30-minute time interval. <S> (The exact start of the time interval is not specified.) <S> Each of these means what you intend to say: (at 7:40 a.m.) <S> Ten minutes ago, I finished eating a meal that took 30 minutes. <S> (at 7:40 a.m.) <S> Ten minutes ago, I finished a meal that took 30 minutes to eat. <S> (at 7:40 a.m.) <S> I ate from 7:00 to 7:30. <S> (at 7:40 a.m.) <S> I finished eating 10 minutes ago. <S> The whole meal took 30 minutes. <S> (at 7:40 a.m.) I ate for 30 minutes, and finished 10 minutes ago.
| I finished eating ten minutes ago, I was eating for half an hour. Neither of the sentences you proposed is correct.
|
In this sentence, who are sitting on the bench? Consider: She spoke with him sitting on a bench. I think it is likely to mean she is sitting on the bench or he is sitting on the bench. So, I wonder if there is a way to eliminate this ambiguity. <Q> Yes, there is ambiguity here—we cannot tell whether it was he or she who sat on the bench, or even both of them. <S> Syntactically the likeliest predicand for sitting on a bench is him , since such modifiers typically follow their predicands immediately; but as InitK points out, the phrase may act as a secondary predicate modifying the subject, or it may act as a clausal adjunct modifying the entire clause. <A> I think, it's not possible to say who and maybe it's not important in this case. <S> I would still guess though and say it is she who is sitting, because she is the subject of this sentence: She - spoke - sitting If it would be he who was sitting it would have to be less ambiguous. <A> I would say at first glance <S> most native speakers would probably assume both are sitting on the bench conversing since this is a natural and ordinary occurrence, and it is only after the ambiguity is flagged that positioning of the two participants becomes questionable. <S> I think the next assumption would be the man is sitting and the woman is not. <S> I think much less <S> so would a listener assume the woman and not the man was sitting. <S> 1) <S> She spoke with him sitting on a bench. <S> is ambiguous <S> 2) <S> She spoke with him while sitting on a bench is also ambiguous, but more natural sounding 3) While sitting on a bench, she spoke with him Sitting on a bench, she spoke with him rearranging the exact same words in #1 and #2, may sound less ambiguous, but still remains unresolved. <S> If anything, there is an emphasis of she being seated due to proximity to sitting 4) <S> They spoke ( with each other ) while sitting on a bench <S> She spoke to him while they both sat on a bench is unambiguous. <S> The only way to resolve <S> this sentence would be to change the wording
| No, there is no way of resolving this ambiguity in the sentence itself, though it may be resolved in context.
|
The difference between "devil" and "demon" As far as I recognize, people use "demon" as a kind and can be used in plural form yet devil is not being used in plural. He is a demon, stay away from him! He is the devil, stay away from him! So what's the difference? In which situations I use demon and devil? <Q> In Christian theology, "demon" is a category of beings, the set of angels who rebelled against God. <S> "Devil" is one specific individual, the leader of the demons. <S> There is only one devil but there are many demons. <S> "Devil" is sometimes used to refer to any evil person, as in, "Joe is a devil". <S> But I think that's a metaphor. <S> Like people will say of a smart person, "Wow, Bob is a real Einstein". <A> Demon and devil can be used as synonyms to refer to a wicked person. <S> So I think these words can be used interchangeably in the same sense as the sentence presented by the OP. <S> In this sense, both the words can be used in the singular and plural, for example, "Be careful - he is a demon/a devil (not the devil) or they are demons/devils". <A> I would say that, using them toward a person would be basically equivalent, referring to evil, and would probably be a metaphor or simile depending on context. <S> However, in theology or fiction there are several different connotations <S> Demon <S> A demon is any of several types of evil creatures from another plane of existence. <S> Most frequently, red or purple or black. <S> Devil <S> The Devil (with the definite article), refers to a specific entity. <S> (see Wikipedia . <S> Usually presented as a red humanoid with horns, or sometimes appearing as a human, in either form, wings could be present. <S> In its plural, it refers to any of the servants of the Devil with similar appearances. <A> There is a subtler, connotations based, difference that neither of the answers have touched on so far. <S> A Devil is strongly associated with religion and sin. <S> In almost all contexts a devil, or the devil, represents evil. <S> Although it may sometimes be light-hearted; " <S> You devil!" could be playful, depending on tone of voice. <S> A demon does still appear in religious contexts but is also found in other references to the supernatural. <S> Although they can be monsters, demons are sometimes not portrayed so negatively. <S> They can be romanticised, for instance "Sweeney Todd; the demon barber of fleet street." <S> or in Kubla Khan " <S> By woman wailing for her demon-lover!". <A> Demon and devil come from theological terms and still retain those meanings. <S> The other answers provide great background on those. <S> In modern non-religious usage: <S> Devil <S> /devilish can mean mischevious (like a sneaky child), or something that strongly appeals to the senses and would be tempting. <S> A food or woman could be described as devilish . <S> Devilish can mean evil, but usually diabolical takes that role. <S> Demon is associated with the concept of obsession ("he studied every hour of every day like a demon.") doing something so well (or other quality) that one might not consider the person doing it human. <S> Can imply obsessive or obsessive-like dedication to the skill. <S> First thing that comes to my mind is speed demon . <A> The devil has a unique shape, derived from the Greek god Pan, the god of shepherds and flocks. <S> He had the attributes of a goat, horns, legs and tail of a goat. <S> The Christian religion took over the figure and made him the epitome of everything evil and the oppponent of God, which the Greek Pan was not at all. <S> A demon is a bad spirit who can have any shape. <S> Demons can even be invisible and they occur mostly in folklore.
| A wicked person could be called a demon and be meant to be a supernatural demon, or said to act devilishly and meant to be literally "like the Devil."
|
Now we're only a nip and tuck away Please explain the title of the following image: I know that tuck away is an idiom and may have a literal or figurative meaning. I also understand that according to The Free Dictionary, definition #16 nip may be: 16. (Medicine) plastic surgery performed for cosmetic reasons. Despite all the above mentioned I cannot realize the meaning of the whole sentence. Do I have to consider the literal meaning and as such the sentence may read: We are only (plastic surgery performed for cosmetic reasons) = nip, and are hiding the body non conformities? <Q> "Nip" can mean to make a cut, and "tuck" can mean to fold something. " <S> Nip and tuck" together typically refer to performing plastic surgery. <S> There was a television show called "Nip/Tuck" that was about plastic surgeons. <S> As this ad is for cosmetic surgery, I think this can be taken on that level. <S> " <S> Tuck away" was a good guess, but this use of "away" is more like "now we are just one step away"- not idiomatic. <A> Now we're only a nip and tuck away <S> The style seems similar to a common advertising style, for example "We are just a phone call away", meaning their services are nearby or conveniently available. <S> In this case, it is saying that there is a "nip and tuck" available nearby. <S> nip and tuck is idiomatic and refers to plastic surgery where excess fat is removed to improve one's figure. <S> See nip and tuck : n. <S> Informal <S> A cosmetic surgical procedure in which skin and usually fat are removed and muscle is sometimes tightened to create a slimmer or more youthful appearance. <S> Hence the slim model. <A> It is a play on words , the phrase needs to be taken as a whole: nip and tuck Nip and tuck is slang for plastic surgery (as popularized by the US TV show) but is also an idiom with the meaning of being very closely contested especially in athletic competitions. <S> The outcome was uncertain, it was nip and tuck all the way between the two boxers <S> One can envision two boxers, battling it out in close proximity to each other, forehead to forehead <S> So the advert saying the clinic is only a nip and tuck away (close by) and you are only a nip and tuck away (plastic surgery procedure) from Transform ing yourself. <A> First, while "tuck away" is indeed an idiom (meaning roughly "hide something of value for use in the future"), that is not at all the meaning here. <S> You have to parse the sentence differently. <S> The sentence has the direct meaning <S> "Now we're only away [from where you live/work], and <S> so it <S> it is more convenient for you to visit us." <S> (See the small print "Now open in West London"). <S> But the expression "Nip and tuck" is intentionally mixing two idioms: (1) has the meaning of minor cosmetic surgery (which is what the advertising is about), and (2) comes from the older meaning of a race in which (say) two horses are each very close to the lead, perhaps exchanging a small lead back and forth. <S> In other words, a very small distance. <S> A similar expression (for a race - NOT for plastic surgery!) is "neck and neck". <A> From Cambridge Dictionaries Online : <S> a nip (here) and a tuck (there) a series of small reductions: The department made a nip here and a tuck there, but <S> they were still way over budget. <S> Based on the Cambridge definition, being a nip and a tuck away could mean that the surgeries are very close to where you work or live. <S> This would be consistent with the many locations being listed underneath the ad.
| The pun is that a "nip and tuck" is a common term for cosmetic surgery, which is what is being advertised here.
|
Mammals "give birth to live young" I see the phrase "live young" used when describing mammals. For example, in Wikipedia : Most mammals are viviparous, giving birth to live young. What does the phrase "live young" signify here? I guess it might mean "a young [animal] that is alive", but if this is the case isn't it at best redundant? I mean of course an animal gives birth to a live thing (people don't say "give birth to eggs" or "give birth to rocks", right?). And of course when it's born it's young by definition - one can't be old when they're just born. So what does "live young" signify here? <Q> It's redundant for the purposes of emphasis and clarity. <S> After all, I suppose you could shorten the sentence to: <S> Most mammals are viviparous, giving birth. <S> and then let the reader infer that "giving birth" implies "to a young, living offspring. <S> " <S> However, that doesn't really help the reader understand the meaning of the rather uncommon word viviparous . <S> The main point of viviparous is that the animals give birth to live offspring (as opposed to, say, laying eggs), a fact that is made more readily apparant when we lengthen the sentence: Most mammals are viviparous, giving birth to live young. <S> Now, instead of the reader thinking, "Wait, doesn't every animal give birth?" <S> the reader is more prone to say, "Oh, I see – as opposed to laying eggs, or splitting. <S> " <S> There's times when redundant language is helpful, and one place is in an educational text. <S> This is one case where I don't think striking the "redundant" text would constitute an improvement. <A> [Birth to] live young is a phrase that means the opposite of "hatched from an egg". <S> Oviparous would mean born from an egg that is laid by the mother, rather than developing in a womb. <S> Of course the embryos in eggs are alive, but a meaning of live is also "moving around visibly." <A> Well, this is a very old phrase that's just been repeated for years and years without any critical thought, and so you're going to have to look back a couple hundred years at the old definitions of these words. <S> First interesting thing: " <S> birth" and "berth" were originally alternate spellings of the same word. <S> They're related to bear in the "carry" sense. <S> One's packages and offspring are both born. <S> So if you consider this sense, anything that's carried is born. <S> Eggs are therefore just as born as live young are. <S> Next up: "live" is more in the activity sense than the literal "having life. <S> " <S> Like, pulling the pin on a grenade makes it a live grenade, and if you don't get away from it, you won't be very lively soon yourself. <S> And "young" is a case of the very common phenomenon in this era of just using an adjective as a noun, much like how we love to use nouns as verbs in our era. <S> (except back then, no one was screaming that it was ungrammatical.) <S> So it's synonymous with "young ones" and one's "young ones" is their offspring. <S> So they used young instead of offspring to denote one's progeny. <S> (I can keep going with more and more exotic words for the same thing, but I won't.) <A> This detail is often either unknown or overlooked when speaking about mammals . <S> Being a mammal is defined by the production of nutritional milk for their young. <S> Thus the term mammary glands which provides the milk . <S> Cats, dogs, horses are all commonly thought of as being mammals , however, whales , dolphins , and porpoises are part of a group known as marine mammals <S> In your quote <S> Most mammals are viviparous, giving birth to live young. <S> the operative word is most (see below). <S> The phrases giving birth to live young giving birth to live offspring giving live-birth <S> produce <S> living young which are live-bearing can be used interchangeably without loss of understanding. <S> Giving birth can lead to a live birth or a stillbirth and by law both need to be registered for humans. <S> An additional distinction needs to be made between being born live and being born from an egg . <S> Egg laying mammals are called monotremes and egg laying this is due to evolutionary considerations, but they still produce the characteristic nutritional milk for their young. <A> Although "giving birth to live young" sounds redundant, I'd argue that it isn't. <S> There are alternative scenarios that could be presented by changing any of the three keywords to different circumstances. <S> This other animal gives birth to fully mature offspring. <S> This other animal's young are born dormant until coming alive after a short period of time. <S> This other animal lays eggs , rather than giving birth.
| Giving birth to live young is a possible characteristic of being mammal , but does not define being mammalian .
|
How to report the scores of a game In some games like basketball or ping-pong, there are two teams and they have scores. For example, one team has 10, and other has 15, how can I tell others the scores of the two teams? The scores are 10 and 15 The score is 10 15 The score is 10 versus 15 Also I'm not sure whether to use is or are here. <Q> In basketball, and team sports in general, the simplest way to tell the score is to start with the team in the lead . <S> Using your example, if Team Two has 20 and Team One has 10, you would say: Team Two leads, 20 to 10. <S> To address your follow-up question: while a team is comprised of players , the name of the team is expressed as a whole, so you want to use is . <S> To express the score in a more formal way, you would start with the tally, then finish with the team in the lead : <S> The score is 20 to 10, Team Two. <S> I am not 100% certain, but I believe Ping-Pong uses serving to express scores. <S> So if Player One has 5, Player Two has 8 and Player One is serving, it would be: <S> Five serving eight. <A> Ideally, scores are read out using 'to' . <S> For example, 'team blue' has a score of 10 and 'team red' has a score of 20 : <S> the score is 10 to 20 to team red. <S> or if you want to specify the team names along with their scores, you could say something like : team red leads team blue by a score 10 to 20. <S> As far as 'is' and 'are' are concerned, each game has a single score. <S> So it is generally referred to with 'is' . <S> eg: <S> "The score is 15-to-love" . <S> Please note that in some cases, take football (soccer) for example, consider a game in which Brazil lost to Germany with a score 7-1. <S> Now, the score (goals) can be said to a second person using the following format : <S> Brazil lost to Germany seven-one. <S> There are a few ways to mention the score, but a lot of them are sport-specific. <S> Generally, you could say 'to' . <A> The score is 10 to 15. <S> I don't have any deep explanation for why this is so, this is just the idiomatic phrasing. <A> I took sports journalism in college and the proper way to report a sports score is to give the larger number first. <S> You can say "Green Bay beat New Orleans 36-33" or "New Orleans lost to Green Bay 36-33". <A> For example, the New York Yankees are playing the Toronto Blue Jays in Toronto and the Jays win 5 to 3. <S> The proper, journalistic way to report that score would be: New York 3 Toronto 5
| I believe the proper format for reporting sports scores,regardless of who wins or loses, is to always list the visiting teams score first and the home-team's last.
|
I've got, I have I know this subject was discussed for many times, but I still don't get it.. I've read in a book that we can use "I've got" instead of "I have" for possesion and it gave some examples, I've got an English book. I've got a red car. So I understand that it can be used only for possession of physical objects, but I saw it used in sentences like "I've got something to say", is it correct? I hope it's not a stupid question..Thank you very much! <Q> I've got something to say is fine. <S> It can also replace HAVE in the "periphrastic modal" HAVE to = 'must', as in "I've got to get a haircut." <S> The principal restriction on HAVE got <S> is that it can be used only with <S> HAVE in the simple present form: <S> I/ <S> you/ <S> we/they have got , he/ <S> she/ <S> it/ <S> John has got . <S> It can't be cast in the past-tense form, or the progressive construction, or in the infinitive or participial form. <S> There are marked differences in BrE and AmE use. <S> In AmE HAVE got is largely restricted to conversational situations, probably because it was for a long time deprecated as vulgar by US English teachers. <S> It is acceptable in all registers in BrE. <S> In BrE HAVE got is routinely used in questions and negations: <S> Have you got any money? <S> I haven't got a penny. <S> This is rare in AmE; US speakers tend to revert to the ordinary HAVE in these contexts: <S> Do you have any money? <S> I don't have a penny. <S> The distinction may be attributable to the AmE preference for <S> gotten as the past participle of get , where BrE speakers prefer got : <S> BrE treat HAVE got as a sort of idiomatized perfect. <S> This analysis is supported by the fact that ain't got is fairly ordinary, and by the growing frequency of bare got , without the HAVE , in AmE: You got any spare cash? <S> We gotta get some gas. <S> Yeah, I got plenty, I'll buy. <S> Colloquial AmE, it appears, is coming to regard <S> got as the core of the expression and <S> HAVE as a dispensable ornament. <S> The descriptions of AmE use rest on my own analysis of the UCSB corpus of spoken English. <S> In conversational contexts I found 545 instances of indicative have/has and 158 instances of DO have , against 171 instances of <S> HAVE got , all indicative, and 90 instances of bare got . <S> In non-conversational contexts I found 167 instance of have/has/DO <S> have and only 4 instances of HAVE got . <A> There is nothing stupid about your question. <S> "I've got" for "I have" is acceptable idiomatic usage, but it is not used exclusively for possession of physical objects. <S> One can say, for example, "I've got a good relationship with my co-workers," or, "I've got a girlfriend now," or, as you pointed out, "I've got something to say." <A> Whenever the verb "to have" is used alone in a sentence in the present tense (i.e. not as an auxiliary verb such as "I have eaten 5 doughnuts"), you can replace it with "have got" which can be shortened like "I've got". <S> So all the following are fine: <S> I have got something to say. <S> (I have something to say.) <S> I have got nothing more to say. <S> (I have nothing more to say.) <S> I have got the best idea. <S> (I have the best idea.) <S> I haven't got a car. <S> (I don't have a car.) <S> But the following cannot be changed, without also changing the meaning of the sentence. <S> I have walked 500 miles. <S> (auxiliary verb) <S> I have been here for ages. <S> (auxiliary verb of 'to be') <S> I will have chemistry tomorrow. <S> (future tense) <S> I was having lunch earlier. <S> (imperfect tense)
| HAVE got can be used almost anywhere that bare HAVE is used as a "lexical" verb—that is, as a main verb rather than a perfect auxiliary.
|
I want to introduce Japanese food to her or I want to introduce her to Japanese food Which one is more natural? I want to introduce Japanese food to her. I want to introduce her to Japanese food. <Q> <A> Both versions are grammatical, and at first glance both are idiomatic... <S> but then you start thinking about how you'd go about the introductions in the first version. " <S> Esther, meet sushi; sushi, meet the girl who is gonna eat you." :-) <S> By all rights, the second version ought to evoke the same reaction. <S> The fact that it doesn't is a clue that it is, indeed, idiomatic , in both senses of the word: it's something people say, and its meaning is more than the sum of its parts. <S> Note that this restriction only holds for using "introduce" with inanimate objects. <S> If you're using "introduce" in its literal meaning of "Bob, I'd like you to meet Joe", then you can put the subjects in either order, although there's a pretty subtle difference in meaning. <S> I'd like to introduce my mother to her. <S> I'd like to introduce her to my mother. <S> It's kind of hard to articulate the difference, but I think in the first version, Mom is the visitor, while in the second, we're at Mom's house, perhaps not literally, but in intent. <S> Another wrinkle is that if both introduced items are inanimate, then you have to pay attention to which is the container and which is the added item. <S> I'd like to introduce Japanese food to her diet. <S> * <S> I'd like to introduce her diet to Japanese food. <S> The second version again brings up strange visions of anthropomorphized food items, and is not something most people would say. <S> If you choose different inanimate objects, though, either order can work: <S> I'd like to introduce Japanese food to her palate. <S> I'd like to introduce her palate to Japanese food. <A> I was always taught, in a one-on-one setting, that one introduces a junior to a senior <S> Please allow me to introduce... <S> I would like to introduce... or a person to a thing or group <S> I wanted to introduce my friend to Modern Art <S> She introduced me to dancing <S> Introducing Her Majesty The Queen! <S> Your second choice would be better.
| Both the sentences are idiomatic and grammatically correct, without any difference in meaning; however, the latter sounds more idiomatic.
|
which verb should go before 'error' - eliminate, resolve, remove or ...? I edited a lot of questions in StackOverflow, but there is one thing I face in most cases: what is the best verb that comes after error ? I mean when I have a problem and I ask others for help to solve the problem what should I say? Should I say Please help me to eliminate the error? Please help me to resolve the error? Please help me to remove the error? or there is a better verb for this case? ( error here means programming bugs) <Q> The most common idiomatic phrase nowadays is fix the error . <A> To correct is broadly used before error . <S> Put right (an error or fault ): <S> [Oxford Online Dictionary] <S> The linked Ngram viewer shows pretty big difference in each verb's usage. <S> To correct the error To fix the error. <S> To eliminate the error. <S> To repair the error. <S> To remove the error. <A> The most commonly used word would be "Resolve" . <S> 'An error' is usually a problem, to which a solution ought to be found. <S> Thus, 'resolve' would be the best option. <S> There is nothing wrong in saying : <S> Please help me to eliminate the error? <S> or Please help me to remove the error? <S> additionally, you could also say: <S> Please help me to rectify the error? <S> But for technical usage (say, in programming or coding) of "error" , you should ideally use resolve or remove .
| To resolve the error.
|
Why "hundreds and hundreds" instead of just "hundreds"? What does one mean by "hundreds and hundreds"? What's the difference between "hundreds and hundreds" and "hundreds"? <Q> From Cambridge English Dictionary : "If and is used to join two words that are the same, it makes their <S> meaning stronger". <S> I have been waiting for hours and hours <S> We laughed and laughed! <S> The noise grew louder and louder. <S> There were hundreds and hundreds of wellwishers. <S> It can also suggest a progression in time - the sound is getting progressively louder, or the wellwishers were arriving in large numbers, continuously. <S> It can be used for exaggeration, and should not always be taken literally, especially when used by children. <S> Imagine a situation where little Johnny's favorite food is spaghetti. <S> He had spaghetti on Thursday last week, and wants it again today. <S> Mum, mum, can we have spaghetti for dinner? <S> We haven't had it for ages and aaaaaages! <S> Looking at published usages of reduplicative and-numbers, all of them seem popular with religious fanatics of all sects, with Christians scoring the only quadruple reduplicative - millions and millions and millions and millions . <S> scores and scores was popular in the 19th century and is often used in historical novels set in that period. <S> dozens and dozens has quite varied usage, and is gaining in popularity. <S> Hundreds and hundreds features mainly in books targeted at children. <S> The majority of the remaining usages are quotes from uneducated people. <S> This suggests to me that a hundred is a kind of event-horizon for pre-numerate or innumerate people, and hundreds could be used about any number that they can't imagine counting- and for a five year old, that's probably not very many at all. <S> Adults who can count and have some idea of the actual numbers would be more likely to use a couple of hundred for anything between one and three hundred, and a few hundred or several hundred for anything between three and nine hundred. <S> Putting this all together, it seems likely that many usages of hundreds and hundreds are hyperbolic, and bear little relation to real numbers. <A> "Hundreds and hundreds" has almost exactly the same meaning as "hundreds", it is just used for emphasis. <S> "Hundreds" means at least 200, but "hundreds and hundreds" means at least 400 - <S> neither of these is used to refer to any specific amount beyond that. <S> They are used interchangeably, although 'hundreds and hundreds' is a bit less formal. <A> However, you could also use "hundreds upon hundreds" for a more literary perspective. <S> Both could also mean that after each hundreds (possibly fallen soldier), there is always hundreds more waiting, whereas with "hundreds", once those hundreds are done, it's over. <A> Its a way of emphasizing the quantity. <S> Consider the following sentence : <S> The army had hundreds of blood thirsty warriors. <S> It is pretty clear that the army had a multiple-of-hundred warriors (roughly). <S> This could mean 200 or 300 or 500 warriors, or any multiple of 100 (not strictly a multiple, but ideally). <S> Now imagine if the sentence was framed as : <S> The army had hundreds and hundreds of blood thirsty warriors. <S> Now this emphasis is far more terrifying than the former. <S> The whole concept of picturing the army in your mind changes when the sentence is re-framed like this. <S> Its a word play. <S> The meaning actually doesn't change.
| As it has been said before, "hundreds and hundreds" is used for emphasis.
|
What does "burst" mean in this context? Source : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/man-shares-photo-that-perfectly-shows-why-he-loves-his-hardworking-girlfriend_5697bf18e4b0ce496423637b In the article ; This is how I found her tonight. I'm so proud of this woman I could burst. I am fine with this sentence except the word burst, what could it mean? Also in the same article : "I'm gonna take all of y'alls advice and marry the sh*t out of her," he wrote. What does the phrase (the sh*t out of her) mean? Also, how polite is it? <Q> This is more of an informal way of speaking. <S> This simply means that the speaker is super proud of his hardworking girlfriend and his feeling of pride towards her is very high, and for the same he has used "burst" to describe the level of pride he has towards her. <S> This feeling fills him up and he feels like he may explode (metaphorically, of course). <S> "To marry the sh*t out of her..." simply means to marry her and keep her very happy. <S> This is a common usage, especially in American English. <S> Similar sentences would be: <S> I'm going to scare the sh*t out of them this Halloween. <S> This is just to create an emphatic impact. <S> There is specific meaning and sh*t has got nothing to do with the actual concept. <S> Another usage is to replace 'sh*t' with 'hell' or 'bejesus' : <S> I'm going to scare the hell/ bejesus out of them this Halloween. <S> This simply means : 'to make one feel extremely frightened' . <S> These are highly informal and never to be used formally. <S> It may come off as very rude or offensive to many people. <S> NOTE: ' <S> scare the sh*t out of someone' is commonly used. <S> 'Marry the sh*t out of her' is an analogy to the same, but isn't used widely (it is content-specific). <S> There are many ways you can recreate it, based on the context. <A> To burst means to explode. <S> So X I could burst <S> is an idiom meaning that you feel X very very strongly. <S> It doesn't usually mean you will explode. <S> However, sometimes X can be "full" as in "eaten too much," in which case it might mean that a little. <S> X the sh_t out of Y basically means to do X to Y the maximum extent possible. <S> Where X is something that is binary (e.g. you either marry someone or don't), it means you want to do X very, very much. <S> The phrase falls in the category of "curse words" - it can be vulgar but sometimes is just used to express something very strongly. <S> Avoid in polite company and do not use in business or formal settings. <A> Burst could be short for burst into tears which means: to begin to cry suddenly: ' After the last notes of her song, the audience burst into tears, such was its beauty and tenderness. <S> The children burst into tears on hearing of the death of their dog '. <S> [McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs] <S> The writer feels so sorry and pround to see her sleeping that way that he wants to cry feeling sympathy and pride at the same time. <S> To burst literally means: <S> break open or apart suddenly or violently especially as a result of an impact or internal pressure feel a very strong or irrepressible emotion or impulse: [Oxford Online Dictionary]. <S> To burst could mean a few different things, but one thing is he is full of pride and emotion. <S> The sxxt out of in "marry the sxxt out of her" is an idiomatic expression to intensify the verb marry . <S> Please see the related question, How to understand “bomb the expletive out of something”? <S> Is that an idiomatic expression? . <S> The link contains very similar expressions, but "marry the sh*t out of her" is not a very common expression compared with other expressions in the link.
| To "burst" implies (in this context) : to be full as if to the bursting point with pride.
|
Can I use 'Why are you into ~'? Can I say 'Why are you into studying music?' instead of 'How did(do) you happen to study english?' Is the expression 'Why are you into ~~" grammatically right? <Q> Yes , the expression to be into something , like "I'm into bowling" or "Why are you into baseball? <S> " is grammatically correct. <S> For example, if I said, "I'm into history," that would mean that I have an interest in history and enjoy studying it. <S> "Why are you into studying ____" does not mean exactly the same thing as " How did you happen to study ____", though. <S> "Why are you into X?" means why does X interest you? <S> "How did you happen to study X" means more simply <S> what events caused you to study X? <S> For example, if I learn that someone had learned Mandarin Chinese, I might simply say, "How did you happen to study Chinese?" <S> and they might say "My work required me to learn Chinese" or "I wanted to be able to talk to my in-laws." <S> But if I learn that they study languages for fun, I might ask "Why are you into languages?" <A> +1 to @stangdon. <S> Let me add: To be "into" something is informal. <S> You might say to a friend, "Hey, I hear you're really into football. <S> " But you wouldn't write in an academic paper, "After retiring from the presidency, George Washington returned to his home in Mount Vernon and got really into farming." <S> "Into" can also be used to indicate entering a profession or similar calling. <S> In this case it is used following a version of the verb "to go". <S> Like, "After college, Mr Jones went into accounting." <S> "George decided to go into the priesthood." <S> This usage can be used in formal writing. <A> It's grammatically fine, but that phrase "into ~" is typically used for hobbies and interests, not their work or primary field of study. <S> I'd also use "How did you get into ~?" instead.
| To be into something means that that thing is an interest of yours.
|
What's the difference between "flicker" and "twinkle"? What's the difference between "flicker" and "twinkle"? By dictionary definition, they are almost identical. <Q> They have different connotations. <S> A 'twinkling' light references images like Christmas lights or other pretty, cheerful things. <S> For example, the poem Twinkle Twinkle Little Star is where many native English speakers hear the word 'twinkle' for the first time. <S> A 'flickering' light has neutral or negative connotations. <S> A flickering candle can be neutral, but flickering lights are usually spooky, or at least poorly-maintained. <S> 'Flickering' implies that the light has the potential to go out completely, while 'twinkling' <S> does not. <S> This is why stars twinkle, and candles flicker. <A> Both twinkle and flicker have the meaning of a variation in intensity of emitted light, however they are different <S> twinkling is a variation caused by <S> an increase in light flickering is caused by a decrease in light <S> An often used reference is to a twinkling star as in the popular children's lullaby . <S> When a star is not twinkling it is already observable, and when it twinkles appears to increase in brightness . <S> Star twinkling is caused by the distance of star from the observer making them appear to be very small sources of light and atmospheric variations . <S> Because planets are closer and larger (as a light/image source) <S> they do not twinkle . <S> Another often used reference is flickering candle . <S> A candle that is lit will have a constant glow , variation in light output can be caused by slight air movements causing the candle to flicker , in the extreme the candle will flicker before going out . <S> A lit candle does not twinkle , and an unlit candle can not flicker . <A> Going strictly by the images that are conjured in my head when I read the two words, it's most often a question of degree. <S> If I read that a light "flickered", I imagine that it is varying randomly and widely, sometimes almost going out completely. <S> If I read that a light "twinkled", I picture it varying only slightly and more slowly and regularly.
| In terms of connotation, twinkling has a generally positive meaning: the twinkle in one's eye .
|
'Two of us' or 'the two of us' If my dad and I are going a market, can I say Two of us are going to the market. or I should say The two of us are going to the market. I am kind of confused about the " the " here. What role is it playing over here?? If I take a guess, I would say that the difference is just like "a car" and "the car"? Am I right? <Q> Let's say there are 5 persons in your family. <S> Imagine that you and your father are talking with a friend of your family. <S> The friend knows that there are 5 persons in your family. <S> The other 3 members of your family are not present. <S> You say: Two of us are going to the market. <S> Depending on the context of your conversation, he might understand this as: 2 persons from your family of 5 will go to the market. <S> That might be the mother and one of the daughters. <S> That might be the father and the mother, etc. <S> 2 persons out of the 3 persons present during the talk will go to the market. <S> That might be the friend and you, or the friend and your father. <S> Who that will be exactly has not been determined yet. <S> 2 persons out of some group you have mentioned during the talk will go to the market. <S> You belong to this group, but that does not necessarily mean that you personally will go to the market. <S> However, if you say: The two of us are going to the market. <S> Then, depending on the context of your conversation, he might understand this as: <S> You and your father are going to the market. <S> You and him are going to the market. <S> The most likely situation is that you and your father are going to the market, and you're telling this to the friend of the family. <S> Note that with the , in both cases you are part of this two-person group. <S> Without <S> the , in all the three cases you may be part of the two-person group, but not necessarily. <A> The role being played is being specific. <S> " <S> Two of us" could be any pair in theory while "The two of us" is more specific by using a definite article. <S> There could also be some emphasis as another part added here since the second sentence seems to focus more on there being two of us. <A> When you use the phrase "two of us", it means you + a person (indefinite) who the listener doesn't know are going to the market. <S> On the other hand, when you use "the two of us", it means that the listener knows who you are referring to (i.e. you + your father) who are going to the market. <A> I've just up-voted CowperKettle's answer, but on second thoughts, I agree with only the first part. <S> The is the definite article. <S> When you use it, you think that your listener/reader already knows the thing being referred to, or that he will be able to understand what you are referring to from the context. <S> I agree with this part. <S> I am just another English learner, but I want to know if what I feel is correct. <S> I think that either 'two of us' or 'the two of us' might include the speaker, but not necessarily. <S> Also, I think when there are only the speaker and his son in the living room, the father starts to talk about his idea by saying "Two of us are going to the market." <S> Here it doesn't matter how many are in the family. <S> It's the same ' two of us ' as spoken by any couple of people meaning 'you and me.' <S> And this is the reason it implies 'excluding the rest.' <S> And when he talks more about the idea, I think it's natural to keep saying 'two of us' or ' we .' <S> (This is when talking among the two person.) <S> When ' the two of us ' includes the speaker, it might be just an alternative expression to talk about the two already mentioned, but I think it gets to sound like the speaker is being objective or a story teller, or shifting his point of view to the third person. <S> (You use 'The two of us' to talk about us to someone else.) <S> I would like a confirmation or correction from native speakers. <S> I have another situation: I think it's natural to start speaking by saying "Two of them look sad" while watching the two people sitting in some distance, though " The two of them look sad" is also natural without any context because you are watching them. <S> Am I correct?
| When you use it, you think that your listener/reader already knows the thing being referred to, or that he will be able to understand what you are referring to from the context. The is the definite article.
|
How to understand the grammatical stucture of sentence "Interrupting a thread that is not alive need not have any effect."? I have found this sentence in javadoc for one class Thread.While I've understood its meaning, not sure if I understand its grammatical form. Interrupting a thread that is not alive need not have any effect. I could pull out "that is not alive" - quite clear. Then left Interrupting a thread ... need not have any effect. Looks like "a thread" could be also thrown away Interrupting ... need not have any effect. Is " need not + bare infinitive " a correct grammatical form? <Q> ...that is not alive... <S> This can be rephrased as inactive . <S> Interrupting an inactive thread is no big deal. <S> If you pull that out phrase out, and assume the rest is fine, then you are stating that any thread can be interrupted. <S> If you take this route, you are setting a bad precedent. <S> Is "need not + infinitive" a correct grammatical form? <S> The infinitive , of course, is the word to used with the base form of a verb. <S> to cause to interrupt to read <S> How do the following read to you: <S> You need not to cause a problem. <S> Young children need not to interrupt conversing adults. <S> When you watch the movie you need not to read the book. <S> All of these examples (albeit crude) would sound smoother using a bare infinitive (using the root verb with to removed.) <S> If you want to look at the rule book, see: Modals. <A> Interrupting a thread that is not alive need not have any effect. <S> IMO, "Interrupting a thread that is not alive..." can be considered as a gerund here - a verb participle phrase or clause which is carrying out the role of a noun. <S> It can be understood as equivalent in meaning to "The act of interrupting a thread (which is not alive)... <S> " "...need not have..." can be understood as "...will not necessarily have..." or as "... <S> may not have... <S> " "need not" used in conjunction with a (suitably declined part of) a verb is grammatically correct. <S> It's perfectly correct, although it is no longer used as commonly as it used to be. <S> Please note that is not an infinitive being used here ; there is a subject for the verb. <S> "To need not do" would be an infinitive form - <S> and I myself have never encountered this construct in the infinitive. <A> It essentially means, if you interrupt a thread which is not alive, it may or may not have any effect (2 outcomes). <S> In this sentence, it is framed as, "it need not have" which means "it doesn't necessarily have any effect"
| If you interrupt a thread, specifically a thread which is not alive, the interruption may have no effect.
|
Is the 'w' in sword silent? I have heard people pronounce the word sword as either sord with the 'w' being silent or as sword with the 'w' pronounced, like "ss-wOrd" Which pronunciation is correct? <Q> " <S> C-word" definitely isn't correct. <S> However, I can see why you'd be confused. <S> The "w" in "sw" in this case is silent. <S> However this isn't always the case. <S> Take the word "swore" for example. <S> It is pronounced as "sw-ore." <S> This is one of the things that makes English so hard to learn. <A> You will find that all good dictionaries include pronunciation. <S> For example, the Wiktionary entry for sword shows that there are up to four different pronunciations of this word, all of them with a silent "w": General American: /sɔɹd/ Received Pronunciation ("typical" British): /sɔːd/ rhotic , without the horse–hoarse merger: /so(ː)ɹd/ non-rhotic, without the horse–hoarse merger: <S> /soəd/ <S> I was brought up in Australia, and I pronounce the word /sɔːd/ ( soohd , with a long "o" and no "r"). <S> An American might pronounce it /sɔɹd/ (sord). <S> It is a common enough word that all native speakers will know how to pronounce it. <S> Sometimes we pronounce the "w" to be funny, such as words are stronger than the s w ord (usually the pen is mightier than the sword ) to emphasise the similar spelling of words and sword , however, we know that the person who said it has humorously mispronounced it. <S> If you are having trouble reading the pronunciation symbols, they are explained on Wikipedia on International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects <S> which includes eleven variants of English from around the globe. <S> This sort of question can be easily answered by checking a dictionary. <S> If you still have questions after consulting one or a few, write a question saying "Dictionary X says this word is pronounced ?? <S> ? <S> , Dictionary Y says this word is pronounced ??? <S> but I'm still confused about ???" and be clear about how you have tried to find the answer yourself and what you still don't understand after reading the information you found. <S> You might ask "Every dictionary I've checked, (X, Y, & Z) says that the 'w' in 'sword' is silent but I've heard some native speakers pronounce the 'w'. <S> Why is that?" <A> "Sohrd" is the correct pronunciation. <S> Dictionaries traditionally provide pronunciation guides as the first part of the entry. <S> The Oxford English Dictionary provides phonetic pronunciation guides and sound recordings of native speakers pronouncing words. <S> Pronunciation is often as distinctly different between English and the American dialect as word choice is. <S> However sword is pronounced 'sohrd' the world over. <S> Examples of words beginning 'sw' where the 'w' is pronounced: 'swashbuckling', 'swat', 'swallow', 'swan', 'swerve', 'swell', 'swim', 'swoosh', and 'swung'. <S> I haven't been able to think off-hand of another word where the 'w' is silent, when following immediately behind an initial 's'. <S> The only ones I have so far are words with a preceding syllable, such as boatswain, (which is now often spelt "bo'sun" or "bosun") and coxswain.
| " Sord " is the correct pronunciation.
|
Preposition for an Item on a list I wrote: After the page has loaded, you can apply a filter from the Filters box to automatically extract the main content and eliminate clutter. The Filters box is: Did I use from correctly? However I could also say it as: After the page has loaded, you can select a filter from the Filters box and apply it to automatically extract the main content and eliminate clutter. But I feel it is verbose. <Q> However, I would use words like "select" and "choose," since the button is named "apply," just to avoid any confusion. <S> This is an example of what I would write: To eliminate clutter on the page, choose a filter from the Filters box, and then select Apply. <S> This also makes the sentence less verbose. <S> I hope this helps! <A> Your usage of from is correct. <S> If you use the following wording After the page has loaded, you can select a filter from the Filters box and click Apply to automatically extract the main content s and eliminate (any) clutter. <S> It will keep your steps in sequential order and ties in the Apply (note capitalisation to reflect the label on the button) click button. <A> The main point of this process is to eliminate clutter, so I would start with that. <S> Also, it's best to keep infinitives intact. <S> Yours: After the page has loaded, you can apply a filter from the Filters box to automatically extract the main content and eliminate clutter. <S> Suggestion: To eliminate clutter, you can extract the main content automatically by applying a filter from the Filters box after the page has loaded.
| Your use of "from" and "apply" are correct.
|
Difference between "keep somebody from doing" and "prevent somebody from doing" Do these sentences have a different meaning ? You kept me from having dinner by keeping me waiting for you. You prevented me from having dinner by keeping me waiting for you. <Q> When it comes to definitions they are synonymous. <S> However in conversation, it is implied that kept delayed your meal, <S> whereas prevented did precisely that: you did not eat dinner. <A> (1) You kept me from having dinner by keeping me waiting for you. <S> (2) You prevented me from having dinner by keeping me waiting for you. <S> You went without a "proper" dinner. <S> You may have eaten something afterwards like a snack before bed. <S> A English speaker would certainly understand both sentences, and both sentences could have conceivable been spoken. <S> However I don't particularly like either sentence. <S> The first sentence uses kept and keeping. <S> It just seems awkward. <S> Better phrasing would be: <S> You kept me waiting, so I missed dinner. <S> The second proposed sentence seems awkward too. <S> I assume that the sentence is trying to express righteous indignation for having been stood up. <S> " <S> Prevented me" and "keeping me" have the wrong connotation since it was the speaker's decision to wait for what seems like an exceptionally long time. <S> So if the speaker transfers all the blame in such a manner then the speaker's objection seems overstated and it makes the speaker seem hotheaded. <S> I missed dinner because I waited for you. <A> "To keep someone from doing" and "to prevent someone from doing" are just variants. <S> "to prevent" is Latin, "to keep" is more everyday language. <A> Both sentence have a similar meaning in terms of not having dinner at a given time , however there is a difference <S> You kept me from having dinner by keeping me waiting for you. <S> potentially has two different interpretations, 1) <S> it could mean you were delayed having dinner in the sense that one was kept (held) and then subsequently released <S> You kept me from having dinner at 6:00pm by keeping me waiting for you. <S> You delayed me from having dinner on time by keeping me waiting for you. <S> or 2) it could mean you were stopped from having dinner <S> You kept me from having any dinner last night by keeping me waiting for you. <S> You stopped me from having any dinner last night by keeping me waiting for you. <S> The ambiguity is usually resolved by the surrounding context. <S> You prevented me from having dinner by keeping me waiting for you. <S> You stopped me from having any dinner by keeping me waiting for you. <S> Snuffing out cigarettes will help prevent forest fires. <S> Taking vitamin C will help prevent colds.
| Using prevented is unambiguous, meaning the event did not happen Both sentences mean the same thing.
|
One word for body's intimate/private parts? How to refer to a body's private/intimate parts with one word? Can't seem to find on the web. As in this sentence, for instance: Hey, please stop shaking your the word . More looking for "flamboyant" words that can be used in funny contexts. <Q> You probably have two options for this. <S> In general conversation - regular to formal environments - you'll want to use "genitals": <S> If you're talking to little kids, though, or in a much more colloquial setting you can use "privates": <S> Please, stop shaking your privates . <S> You do have more playful options: <S> Family Jewels - for guys only. <S> Pecker - More common in British English, <S> but I think Americans would still get it. <S> Only for guys. <S> While looking for more answers to your question, I found something perfect. <S> Here are 2,600 words for male genitals and a couple of thousand words for female genitals spread out on a timeline over the last ~120 years or so. <S> Here is a screenshot - it's really quite exhaustive: <A> Assuming you're talking about bits that can be shaken (i.e. dangly bits) you could use "tockley" but it is a mostly Australian slang term <S> so may not work for your audience. <S> I don't know of any word to refer to a labia that could be shaken. <A> Well, let's try one of these (only for guys):Hey, please stop shaking your "package".orHey <S> , please stop shaking that "third leg". <S> Hey, please stop shaking your "middle leg". <S> And then there is "willy": <S> Hey, please stop shaking "willy".(I'm a guy - sometimes I say it to myself.)
| Please, stop shaking your genitals .
|
How understandable is "sans" as the opposite of with? I use on occasion sans for without . It has the advantage to consist of the same number of letters (great for nice code formatting). Also, writing without is 75% longer and I don't like it. Of course there's w/ as an abbreviation but partly I wish to use full words (albeit short ones) and partly, consider the below. Oh, so clever: with/sans $$$ Plain stupid: with/w/o $$$ My fear's that people in general don't understand the context of sans and/or that they find my text unnatural, though. Example from coding world. public enum Equipment{ None, With, Sans, Full} <Q> The Oxford English Dictionary (OED online), gives the Frequency Band of 5 for sans . <S> Such words comprise 4% of the entries in OED. <S> This word belongs in Frequency Band 5. <S> Band 5 contains words which occur between 1 and 10 times per million words in typical modern English usage. <S> These tend to be restricted to literate vocabulary associated with educated discourse, although such words may still be familiar within the context of that discourse. <S> In addition, the OED labels sans as Archaic , including as part of its definition "chiefly with reminiscence of Shakespeare. <S> " It also says it is used in jocular nonce words. <S> The frequency band for without is Band 7: <S> Band 7 contains words which occur between 100 and 1000 times per million words in typical modern English usage. <S> This includes the main semantic words which form the substance of ordinary, everyday speech and writing... <A> Sans is of course the French word for without. <S> We use the word interchangeably with without, but there's a certain sense of insouciance about it that probably wouldn't seem appropriate in the context you appear to be describing. <S> It wouldn't typically be used in entirely serious prose. <S> Here is a nice little explanation of usage in English, with some examples that do a good job of conveying what I'm trying to say. <A> Whether its use is particularly "clever" is certainly a matter of taste. <S> If you enjoy the word / length / whatever, use it. <A> This is because "with" and "without" are English words, whereas " avec " and " sans " are French words. <S> If you want to be sure that your code and comments (that are otherwise written in English) are understood, you should use "without" or "w/o", not "sans". <S> (Unfortunately, "w/o" does not work in code.) <S> If you want your comments to line up, manually add space(s) to make them line up. <S> (Many IDE pretty printers respect how you space your comments, even if they mess up how you space the rest of your code.)
| My guess: Far more English speakers know immediately what "with", "without", and even "w/o" mean, than know what " avec " and " sans " mean. sans is a perfectly fine English word with French "heritage". My gut feeling is that sans is in a somewhat higher register than a more "everyday" without , and it may not be in the (active) vocabulary of every reader (you know your audience better than we do), but I see no compelling reason to abstain from it. Technically you can absolutely use it instead of without .
|
Articles with the days of the week: "Is it a Monday today?" Is it possible to come up with a context for this sentence. "Is it a Monday today?" I know it is usually "Is it Monday today?" but I also know that articles can be used with the days of the week. So, is that sentence possible and in what situation? <Q> We say "a Monday" (or whatever day of the week) when we want to say that the event in question will occur on an unspecified Monday. <S> For example, if you said, "The next meeting of the Zetetic Society will be on Monday", that would normally be understood to mean the next, upcoming Monday. <S> If today is Friday, that would mean three days from now. <S> But if you said, "The next meeting will on a Monday" -- with the "a" -- that means that it will occur on Monday, but not necessarily the next Monday or any other particular Monday. <S> Just that the day it happens will be a Monday. <S> Point of clarification: "The meeting will be on Monday" <S> USUALLY means next Monday, but it could mean some other Monday if the context makes that clear. <S> Like, "The preliminary meeting will be on June 15. <S> Let's see, that will be a Friday. <S> So then the full meeting will be on Monday. <S> " <S> Presumably here "Monday" means "the Monday following Friday, June 15." <A> You will hear people refer to future days with an article. <S> The common sayings are along the lines of: We will be leaving on a Monday. <S> School starts on a Thursday this year. <S> Not this Saturday, but the Saturday after next. <S> Examples: <S> We get together on Tuesdays. <S> I am having a case of the Mondays today. <S> On Sundays I lounge around and watch football. <S> Of course as the sentences become more complex, both examples can come into play: Bill's Friday is actually on a Tuesday because he has Wednesdays and Thursdays off. <A> What's usual for me is <S> Is today Monday? <S> The sentence with the indefinite article is grammatical, but would differ little in practical meaning. <S> Consider a zoo whose entrance fee is free on Mondays. <S> You call and order tickets and are informed of the free day. <S> You could say 'Is today (or tomorrow, etc) a Monday?' <S> Or something like 'Is that day a Monday, by any chance?' <S> One sentence that sounds idiomatic is the ellided response on a Monday to <S> What day does Christmas fall on this year? <S> (Christmas falls on a Monday this year.)
| In conversational settings, days of the week are generally used in the plural.
|
Difference between 'hope' and 'believe'? I was told I can say: 1) I hope to play a good match this evening. On the other hand I cannot say: 2) I believe to play a good match this evening I was told I can say the following: I believe I´ll play a good match this evening. Why is that? Is there any rule for this? <Q> The English language is truly complicated at times. <S> Too many options and too many exceptions to the rules! <S> Rather than attempting to give you a few rules to which there will almost invariably be a few exceptions, I'll simply give you a number of ways to say the same thing, using the sentences you've provided. <S> The infinitive, to play , can function as a noun and as the subject of a sentence (technically, a predicate nominative), <S> as in To play a good match this evening is what I hope to do. <S> With the insertion of a few more words, including the word that , you can make your second sentence correct as well, as in I believe that to play a good match this evening, I will need to bring my best game. <S> [To bring one's best game is an idiomatic way of saying I intend to play my very best.] <S> Your third sentence is fine, as is. <S> Moreover, the word believe could be substituted with the word think , with very little (if any) change in meaning. <S> In other words, you can say either I hope I'll play a good match this evening, <S> or you can say <S> I believe I'll play a good match this evening. <S> As for the difference in meaning between hope and believe , the words <S> I believe have the ring of certainty to them, while the words I hope communicate less certainty than <S> I believe . <S> Which of the following two sentences conveys more certainty? <S> I believe I'll attend the party tonight, or <S> , I hope <S> I'll attend the part tonight. <S> If you say the first sentence conveys more certainty, you're correct. <A> Hope: something maybe can happen in your expectation.believe : something will going to happen in your expectation. <A> example: hope : <S> I hope she will come here (you are not sure she will come).believe <S> :I believe she will going to come here <S> (you are sure about that) <A> believe gives some surety whereas hope doesn't yield good results.
| In hope we have less expectation while in believe we are confident of something.
|
What is a simpler/more natural way to say "One defines himself with his doings!" This is the German text I would like to translate: "Der Mensch definiert sich durch seine Taten." I know all the words above in English, but if I use online translators to verify my translations like Linguee or Google, I get confused about whether I am right with my translations or not. These are my attempts: "Men defines itself with its doings!" Or "One defines himself with his doings!" Both seems to me strange and not really English. How would you translate this sentence? <Q> Translation: <S> "A man defines himself by his deeds." <S> or, more passively than the German, "A man is defined by his deeds." <S> This is of course not gender-balanced because of "man" and "his," but that is matching the German and you could neutralize this if important for your context. <S> Thanks to StoneyB for an update. <A> "We define ourselves through our actions" seems more natural to me, and also avoids the issue of grammatical gender. <S> Of course, using the first person pronoun is a grammatical change, but I don't think it ends up changing the meaning much <S> (presumably, it's safe to assume that the author and reader both fall under the category of "Menschen"/"men"). <S> I think "actions" sounds more normal than "deeds" in English for this sentence, even though the latter is the cognate word to Taten . <S> Another translation I have found that seems reasonable: <S> A man is defined by his actions listed on the Reverso context search . <S> Translation questions are often somewhat opinion-based and don't have one right answer. <S> For this reason, I don't think Stack Exchange is the best place to ask questions like this. <S> Also, since this site is dedicated specifically to English, many of the users here don't know German (I don't) which makes it hard for us to evaluate the accuracy of a translation. <S> In the future, I'd recommend asking about translation of specific sentences like this on a forum for English-German translators, such as the Word Reference German forum . <S> English Language and Usage Stack Exchange is great for questions about how specific words or constructions are generally used. <S> English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a good place for questions that relate most to people who are learning English. <A> You could also make it more contemporary (especially since you ask for a natural way of expressing the idea): <S> We define ourselves by our deeds. <A> Another example could be "A person is what they do".
| If you need a gender neutral version, it could be written as "A person's actions define them" or "A person is defined by their actions".
|
Verify a signature or confirm a signature I'm making an online petition and after somebody signs my petition, I will send an email to make sure that the email address belongs to right person. Should I write verify a signature or confirm a signature ? The White House's petition service uses the word verify but UK Government's petition service uses the word confirm . <Q> Since you are using email, you can verify or confirm that the email address is valid by sending the recipient an email to a target address and asking them to reply or click on a link . <S> It is not possible to verify a signature via email alone . <S> It could be anyone(!) <S> Signature verification usually requires watching someone write their name and checking it against a known sample of their signature. <S> For example, the back of a credit card. <S> Banks are very cautious about this and usually require a personal interview the first time. <S> If you are using an email address as an electronic signature, then you would be asking to verify <S> the email address belongs to the appropriate owner, and they would confirm that it is theirs. <A> Just as Maulik suggested in the comment, verify typical means you are comparing two things. <S> Usually one is a source document that you know is accurate. <S> If the second signature matches the source document, you have verified the second signature is accurate. <S> In your case, it sounds like you want the person to confirm <S> that their signature is truly their signature. <S> Confirm works well in this situation. <S> Depending on your profession, another way to say the same would be to use "Please attest to your signature." <S> This is used in the Audit world often (of which I am a part), as well as other professions. <S> I hope this helps! <A> When it comes to rechecking something (here, a signature), you could use any of the following terms : Verify Check Double-check Cross-check (by using an alternative source) <S> Confirm <S> Review <S> Out of which, my personal suggestion would be 'Double-check' , but it may sound informal. <S> For formal usage, I would suggest 'Verify' , as it sounds a bit for official than "check" .
| In this case, you should use "please confirm your signature."
|
All dishes have been served I work in a restaurant. Sometimes I need to inform English-speaking customers that all of their dishes have been served. What are some common phrases that I can use? <Q> What happens frequently in American restaurants is the waiter/waitress will ask after serving the last plate of food, especially if it's a large party <S> I think that's everything (looking around the table) <S> Does everyone have everything? <S> or something to that effect, which is asking three things at once 1) <S> Does everyone have their food? <S> 2) Is anything missing? <S> 3) <S> Is there anything else you might need? <S> (i.e. condiments) <S> If something is missing or believed to be missing <S> the customer will point it out or ask for it After a few minutes, the waitress/waiter will usually circle back and ask How is everything? <S> to check that the food was prepared as desired In high-end restaurants what may be said after serving the main course is <A> If everyone at the table has a plate, simply asking <S> "Can I get you anything else?" <S> implies that you believe everything has been delivered to the table. <S> This question gives the guest(s) <S> the opportunity to notify you if anything actually was missed. <S> It also gives the opportunity for guests to make adjustments: "Can I get a hot sauce to go with this?" <A> "Is there anything else, Sir/Ma'am?", (to clarify if something's amiss or if a customer needs something - usually the last spiel in any customer service related work) About your inquiry, you can simply notify them using this line: <S> "Sir/Madam, the order is now complete. <S> Is there anything else I can help you with?" <S> Kindly note that there are other possible ways to notify/inform. <A> You don't need to explicitly say, "All dishes have been served. <S> " If you ask Would you care for some desserts? <S> or Would you like to have some dessert? <S> They would have the same meaning as "All your dishes have been served." <S> Dessert is served at the end of a meal unless specifically asked by customers during a meal.
| Please enjoy your meal as the wait staff deferentially move away from the table
|
What is 'explain like I'm five'? In my recent question , I got this link in an answer. Here, ' Explain like I'm five ' is written. I tried to find its meaning on the Internet, but I got only an acronym ELI5. Is 'explain like I'm five' a phrase or an idiom? What does it mean? <Q> It's a shortened form of <S> Explain <S> like I'm five years old. <S> I'm not sure whether this already has the status of an idiom, but it's quite frequently used. <S> The meaning is quite literal: Explain a complicated subject in a way a five year old can understand. <A> Whilst someone using this might mean that they really don't understand, it is also possible that the person asking suspects that the person explaining doesn't really understand either and is only parroting jargon. <A> It means, "Please explain it to me in the simplest possible terms, as one might explain it to a five-year-old child. <S> " <S> I sometimes say that to someone who is explaining technical matters of computing to me, for instance, where I am reasonably computer-literate but know little or nothing about programming or the inner workings of my laptop. <S> Does this make sense? <S> It's not an insult, it's just a request for a patient, easy to understand explanation. <A> To fully answer this question, one must first examine the underlying assumptions of the statement <S> "Explain like I'm five", mainly, what does it mean to "Explain" and what is the relevance of being "five". <S> Let us first elucidate the bourn of this directive. <S> For the sake of clarity, we should begin by prescribing to the aesthetic justification of Occam’s razor. <S> As Thomas Aquinas stated, "If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments [if] one suffices." <S> With this in mind, it is most likely that an unobfuscated exegesis is being solicited from the requester. <S> In Stephen R. Shirk’s book, “Cognitive Development and Child Psychotherapy”, he states that “By recognizing the implications of the self-definition in a social and psychological context, the 15-year-old’s response can be said to be developmentally advanced relative to that of the 5-year-old.” <S> One can only assume that the intersection of the definitional self and the subjective self is the key factor in having chosen “five” as the conditional context for the desired exposition. <A> "Explain like i'm five" simply means that the explanation should be elaborate at the same time very easy to understand. <S> The situation should be explained in its most elementary form, as one would explain something to a five year old child. <S> The explanation should be detailed and should be elaborate enough, yet explained in its simplest form. <A> This phrase is used primarily in the academic and professional world, and typically in one of three scenarios. <S> In one situation, the person requesting the explanation does not fully understand the concept or situation being discussed, and is requesting a basic explanation that uses simpler terms. <S> The explanation will probably include a number of oversimplified analogies. <S> In this scenario the person asking might not have a personal relation at all to the subject matter; however, academics and professionals from nearly related fields may use this phrase to indicate some interest in their colleagues' work. <S> Here, it would mean something like, "I'm not sure I understand, but I am interested - please explain this idea to me." <S> In another situation, two persons may be having a professional discussion in which a superior is asking a subordinate (or potential candidate) for a brief demonstration of real understanding. <S> This typically takes the form of a question posed during a job interview, but is also occasionally used during other certification interviews. <S> In this context, it means something more like <S> "Please demonstrate for me that you understand the most essential elements of the subject." <S> The final scenario is also typically between two working professionals, but is spoken more abruptly, in a manner that indicates frustration or impatience. <S> In this situation the meaning becomes "I am very busy, but I need to fully understand what you're trying to explain. <S> Slow down, and give me the most important parts. <S> " This usage would typically follow some kind of inter-disciplinary interaction concerning a growing problem. <S> One might imagine an accountant explaining his changing needs to a software engineer. <A> Let me explain this to you, like you were only five years old... ... <S> it means, making a complicated matter easy to understand. <S> Like you would do for a little child with limited understanding. <A> It simply requests to explain the thing in very simple words, as if the person to whom it is being explained is just five years old.
| The phrase means 'explain it to me in very simple terms, as if I were only five years old'.
|
Is 'spent a meal' correct or not? The following lines are written in this blog : The Ritz hotel in Paris, where Princess Diana spent her last meal and evening with Dodi Al Fayed before their fatal car crash in August 1997, was the scene of a dramatic blaze this morning. I know that we can write 'spend an evening', but can we write 'spend a meal with someone'? If yes, then which type of construction is this? To my mind, the correct sentence is: The Ritz hotel in Paris, where Princess Diana had her last meal and spent an evening with Dodi Al Fayed... <Q> Since "meal" can mean not only "food" but also "time for eating" the author could use the verb "to spend" uniting the time for eating and the time meant by the word " <S> evening". <S> But writing the headline he preferred the verb "to have "(had her last meal). <A> The expression is not idiomatic considering the below headline where the writer used just "had her last meal". <S> Fire Burns World-Famous Paris Ritz Hotel <S> Where Princess Diana Had Her Last Meal . <S> More idiomatic expression would be The Ritz hotel in Paris, where Princess Diana spent her last evening having dinner with Dodi Al Fayed... <S> The headline seems to be the most concise description, but it seems that the writer didn't want to repeat the same sentence. <S> It is understandable, but not idiomatic. <A> You spend a period of time, and you consume a meal. <S> But if you're considering the meal as a period of time rather than as something consumed, as in the text you quote, then you can spend it. <A> Yes, it could be written as you have suggested. <S> But it depends on what "spent" is referred to. <S> In my opinion, the author has clubbed "meal" and "the evening" as a single event , and among the two, "the evening" has a little more prominence as "spending an evening" with someone would most probably include a meal. <S> In your suggestion, you have treated "having the meal" and "spending the evening" as two events, unlike the author of the blog (most likely), which led you to construct the sentence in a different way. <S> Among the two, your sentence has a little more clarity, but I wouldn't label the writer's sentence as incorrect. <A> In addition to the other answers, it's also possible that the author was thinking of a last meal or last evening as something that you can only have one of, by definition, so having your last meal is "spending" it in a sense that usually doesn't apply with common meals. <S> This usage seems slightly poetic though, so I'd expect it to be intended this way more often in contexts less objective than the source you provided.
| If you use "had her last meal and spent an evening", it sounds a little redundant as last evening could include the time spent for her last meal .
|
Sorry for your loss. But why? There are many times when at the time of giving condolence or showing sympathy to someone, we say " Sorry for your loss ". What does the word "Sorry" signify here? Why it is "Sorry for your loss" and not," Sad to know about your loss "? The word sorry is used basically for apologizing then why not in this phrase? <Q> 'Sorry' is most often used to apologise, but it's not the only meaning of the word. <S> Google's dictionary has a pretty good definition: <S> sorry <S> feeling sad or distressed through sympathy with someone else's misfortune. <S> "I was sorry to hear about what happened to your family" <S> feeling regret or penitence. <S> "he said he was sorry he had upset me" in a poor or pitiful state. <S> "he looks a sorry sight with his broken jaw" <S> In this case, it's the first meaning. <S> You're expressing your sorrow for their loss. <A> "Sorry" (as used in this context) doesn't automatically imply regret for something <S> you have done wrong. <S> Consider: <S> Sorry ( MW Online ) <S> feeling sorrow , regret, or penitence <S> mournful, sad and subsequently Sorrow ( MW Online ) <S> a feeling of sadness or grief caused especially by the loss of someone or something a cause of grief or sadness By saying "Sorry for your loss" you <S> are saying "Sad to know", by expressing sorrow. <A> Feeling or expressing sympathy or pity. <S> Feeling or expressing regret. <S> In this context, the second meaning of 'sorry' is used. <S> When we go somewhere to offer our condolences to a person who has lost somebody, we express a deep feeling of sympathy. <S> That's why we use <S> "I'm sorry for your loss" . <S> It doesn't mean that we are apologizing for that person's loss, ie, the loss of a very dear person. <S> Although it means <S> "I am deeply saddened about your loss" , the sentence, as such, isn't used that commonly.
| 'Sorry' can mean any of the following : Feeling or expressing sorrow.
|
Why break wind means fart? As a non-English native speaker. I found it hard to understand why break wind means fart.should I just remember the phrase and give up to try to understand why it means that. <Q> Yes, you should give it up. <S> "Breaking wind" is simply an idiomatic, descriptive euphemism for passing gas anally or "farting. <S> " If you think about it, it actually makes sense. <S> Try looking it up online for more information about its origins and etymology. <A> The verb break in break wind <S> means very close to its intransitive sense defined in Wiktionary: (intransitive) <S> To burst forth; to make its way; to come into view. <S> The reason that the transitive usage is not defined in major dictionaries is it is rarely used that way. <S> Break wind is an idiomatic expression where the noun wind means flatus : <S> (uncountable) Gas generated in the digestive tract. <A> An ancient idea was that these intestinal gases were winds, and one of the old meanings of the verb break was 'to expel'. <S> Þe jous of þis herbe put in mannys nesetherlys brekyth out reume oþer wycked fylthe.
| To break wind literally means: To make one's flatus (gas) burst forth from one's anus or to expel gas from the anus [Wiktionary, McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs]
|
Is taking things on 'rent' be called 'shop'? There is an abstract paragraph talking about ski products. And, the website is all about giving ski products on rent. There is a button after abstract clicking on which takes us to the product page. I am naming the button as 'shop now'. So my question is: Can I say 'shop now' for the products we give on rent? I am afraid that 'shop' means to purchase a product and own it, but here it is for rent. <Q> I'd suggest the word you are looking for is Hire. <S> So, on this website, the button would be Hire Now instead of the more usual Buy Now <A> It does not necessarily imply that you are buying outright and not renting. <S> In the U.S., anyway, people routinely talk about "shopping for an apartment", "shopping for a rental car", etc. <S> There's a website called "shopapartments.com", where users "shop" for "apartments to rent". <S> "shoprentone.com" is a site where users can rent (not buy) home appliances, and it has "shop" in the name as well as a "Shop Now" button. <S> (Disclaimer: I'm not recommending either of these sites. <S> I just found them now with a Bing search, I have no idea whether they are good companies or not.) <S> "Buy" or "purchase" indicates that you are taking ownership. <S> You would not say that you are "buying a hotel room" if you mean that you are just paying to spend a night or two. <S> But there's no problem saying that you are "shopping" for things that you will rent. <S> " <S> Shop now" is fine for rental products. <S> Side note: You wouldn't say that you "give products on rent". <S> You can say, "We offer products for rent", "We have products available for rent", or "We rent products". <S> (The last is ambiguous, as both the person offering the product and the person paying for it are said to "rent" it. <S> "I am renting a house" could mean that you own a house that you are charging someone else to live in, or that you are paying to live in a house that belongs to someone else.) <A> 'Shop' and 'Rent' are two totally different things. <S> In shopping, you generally take ownership of a product after you purchase it, in exchange of money. <S> Whereas, "To rent" means to lease out something for a particular period of time, and must be returned thereafter. <S> So if it is for rent, I wouldn't use shop. <S> Might I suggest an alternate word you could use ? <S> Checkout <S> This is widely used in many e-Shopping sites. <S> Although Checkout literally means : a point at which goods are paid for in a supermarket or similar store <S> It can be used for renting out a product too. <S> Checking out (something) means that you're approving of taking its ownership, and taking it out of the place of purchase, under your authority. <S> So maybe you could replace the word "Shop Now" with "Checkout" . <S> In my opinion, there are very few words you could use that would sound okay in terms of both "purchasing" and "renting", and I'm only aware of this word.
| To "shop" is to search for things that you may want to buy or rent.
|
How much certainty is there in adverb "probably"? Merriam-webster defines probably as: very likely : almost certainly How much certainty does adverb probably actually contain? Examples and contexts are greatly appreciated! <Q> it's true. <S> I would use other words if I was trying to give someone a good idea of how certain I was, for example "it's possible (not very certain) <S> " , "fairly sure (somewhat certain, but a little concerned I could be wrong)" , "very certain" , or <S> "almost positive (I think it's true unless something really crazy happens)" . <S> I use probably where it's not important to know how certain I am <S> and I just want to say I think something is likely/could be true/could happen. <S> Some examples of using "probably": <S> Alan : "When will you have this task done?" <S> Colleen : " Probably some time next week." <S> Alan : "Will it be done at the beginning of the week or the end of the week?" <S> Colleen : " <S> I'm certain I can have it done by the end of the week if nothing else happens, and I can probably get it done sooner if it's very important." <S> Alan : " <S> Why didn't Colleen get that task done?" <S> Bill : " <S> Probably because she was home with a cold all last week, but she's in the office today <S> so you should ask her to be certain." <A> There is no definitive answer. <S> You can't say "probably" means 80% chance while "likely" means 70% and "maybe" means 40% or any such. <S> I'd quibble with the definition you quote: People often say "probably" meaning "more likely than not, over 50% chance", far from "almost certainly". <S> I'd say anything over 50% could be called "probably". <S> Exactly what the speaker means by it depends on context. <S> "My wife emptied our bank account and took all her clothes and jewelry and the kids and disappeared. <S> I think I'll wait here by the phone for her to call and let me know where she is." <S> "Dude, she's probably not going to call. <S> " It is almost certain, over 95%. <S> "I like the blue one, but I also really like the green one. <S> This is a tough decision, let me think for minute, but I'll probably end up taking the green one. <S> " It's barely more likely than not, maybe 51%. <S> "There are ten candidates running for this office. <S> I think Jones will probably win. <S> " Of the ten, the speaker thinks Jones has the best chance. <S> His chance might be well below 50%, just more than 10%. <S> If you have really calculated an exact probability, you would quote the probability, you'd say, "We have calculated that there is a 62.4% chance", not use a general word like "probably" or "likely". <A> Six degrees of probably guaranteed (definitely will happen) <S> most <S> probably very <S> probably probably <S> some- <S> what probable coin toss (50-50%, maybe, maybe not) <S> unlikely <S> not probable <S> improbable <S> no way <S> (definitely will not happen) <S> For example Snowfall will probably be in the range of 6-10in, most probably causing delays in commuting meaning if there is heavy snowfall <S> it <S> almost certainly will cause traffic delays (it may not cause delays if everyone stays at home). <S> Traffic delays will happen with more certainty since the occurrence is conditioned on there being significant snow in the first place.
| The way I use probably in AmE it means "more likely than not" or I'm 50% or more certain
|
What is the difference between revenge and avenge? Please explain me. I tried the dictionaries but they do not help. For example ODO gives the following for revenge : Inflict hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong done to oneself:- I’ll be revenged on the whole pack of you 1.1 [WITH OBJECT] Inflict revenge on behalf of (someone else): - it’s a pity he chose that way to revenge his sister 1.2 Inflict retribution for (a wrong or injury done to oneself or another): - her brother was slain, and she revenged his death ... and it gives this for avenge : 1 Inflict harm in return for (an injury or wrong done to oneself or another):- he vowed in silent fervour to avenge their murders 1.1 Inflict harm in return for an injury or wrong on behalf of (oneself or another): - we must avenge our dead - they avenged themselves on the interlopers As you can see these two sets of definitions seem interchangable. <Q> People avenge a (perceived) wrong. <S> In honor-based societies, to avenge oneself or to avenge something or other is a respected form of redress. <S> In modern societies with judicial systems, the ideas associated with the act of avenging oneself are rather anachronistic. <S> It usually involves a killing. <S> Revenge on the other hand is often about something petty, without regard for any honor-based or justice-based principle. <S> It can take petty forms, far less drastic than homicide, such as butting in line or not inviting someone to a party. <S> People in modern societies are always getting their revenge and taking revenge or seeking revenge, but they are rarely avenging themselves. <A> Avenge is when you 'feel' that you are going to inflict hurt or harm on someone because to you that person was the one who caused harm to you (or someone / something close to you) first in a highly wrong and unprovoked manner , thereby 'settling' the score, to get 'even', to get justice done. <S> Revenge is the same reaction but can be thought of as just to inflict hurt or harm, because you feel angered, but there is hardly any evidence who is in the 'right'. <A> I like the following: Avenge is a verb. <S> To avenge is to punish a wrongdoing with the intent of seeing justice done. <S> Revenge can be used as a noun or a verb. <S> It is more personal, less concerned with justice and more about retaliation by inflicting harm.
| To avenge oneself has connotations of justice meted out, at least in the eyes of the avenger.
|
JSON request sample or JSON request example Can I call this snippet of code an example, or should I call it a sample or both will work? JSON request sample: { "mac": "10:B5:S3:06:C6:E9", "route":0, "latitude":73.834588, "longitude":60.704048, } <Q> If the context is part of an instruction or lesson on code snippets, I would use example : 3) <S> a person or thing to be imitated; model; pattern; precedent 4) a problem, as in mathematics, designed to illustrate a principle or method <S> But if I asked "What is a code snippet?" you could show me and reply either way: <S> This is a sample code snippet. <S> Here it is an illustration or typical instance. <A> A sample describes something taken from or captured from reality or a bigger picture, e.g. the code exists in production or "real life." <S> An example can be contrived and not exist in reality, and may not work in reality. <S> Samples can be examples, but not the other way around. <A> In documentation, where brevity is prized, "JSON request example" or "Example JSON request" would also be acceptable.
| This is a an example of a code snippet. You could say "Example of a JSON request".
|
What is the English word for a “map indicator"? See this: What is the English word for the red markers with a letter on them? Google itself seem to use, well, marker , but I wonder if that’s too technology-related (like, say, pointer ?). I need a word that applies to red markers on the map above, but also to the real world object, like this : in other words, something with a pin that is literally placed on a map to indicate a point. Thought about pin itself, pinpoint , but I am not sure about which is the best. <Q> Google themselves use pin to select a location: <S> dropped pin <S> Locator is possibly the single word <S> you're looking for to call the red bubbles. <S> Each locator on the map points to a location of interest. <A> To my mind, the best word choice would be just '' balloon mark " or " balloon pointer ". <S> It would be simple and uncomplicated and would be easy to say also. <A> Officially, it's the 'Google Maps pin ' , that "teardrop-shaped marker icon including a shadow" which is part of its description found in the patent for the very thing you ask about. <S> See Wikipedia on the Google Maps pin . <S> I note that the article says The Google Maps pin has been called "a product of pure function that has evolved into a cultural phenomenon," which assuages my predilection for referring more to its function than its name. <S> At least now I know what to call it, as before I was thinking just to say 'red bubble thingy' or 'red balloony thingy'. <S> Thus if pressed, I can call it a pin, map pin or pushpin: <S> pushpin a thumbtack with a spherical or cylindrical head of colored plastic, used to fasten papers to a bulletin board or to indicate positions on charts and maps <S> (definition found simply by googling for 'push pin define') <S> It's a more generic term than map pin (which I wouldn't use) and more pleasing than any such overlong term as location indicator, position locator, etc. <S> Although virtual tear dropped red balloony GPS/map indicator position-location marker thingy might work. <S> ;) <A> I think the phrase indicating balloon is okay because the indicator is very much like a balloon (balloon shaped).
| The red bubbles are location indicators or location tags acting as locators to mark geographic points .
|
What's the reverse of underlying? When one thing is based on another, we can refer to one of them using the word "underlying". For example, if object A is based on object B, we can say: the underlying B What are good ways to refer to the other object, A? <Q> The outcome A Or <S> The resultant A. <S> The derivative <S> A <S> Also, A is dependent on B. <A> Other ways to show a progressive dependent path from object B to object A are <S> A is a derivative of B <S> A is evolved from B <S> A is more advanced than B <S> A is based on B <S> A is created from B <S> All these sentences mean that B underlies A <A> A is derived from B. A is subclassed from B. A <S> is a wrapper for B. . <S> The derivative A. (has a specific meaning in a mathematical context.) <S> The subclass A. <S> The wrapper A. <S> The superficial A. <S> The surface A. (has a specific meaning in a mathematical context.) <S> Per Damkerng's suggestion: The derived class A. The derived object A.
| A is refined from B
|
How to describe someone who strongly believes in caste system? How do I describe a person who strongly believes in caste system? Does even a word exist to describe the same? <Q> Since caste in India signifies a social hierarchy , different classes (though I think caste in its meaning is actually stronger than class), possibly elitist could be used for members of the upper caste who feel the way you describe. <S> Usually the top of the pyramid look to maintain their status. <S> But elitist possibly doesn't have the strong feeling that <S> racist carries. <S> It's unfortunate that racist by definition applies only to race . <S> If different castes were thought of as different races, it might be appropriate with all the connotation associated with it. <S> ** <S> In UK law, discrimination based on caste is being considered as a form of racism , the debate has been going on for years. <S> Other terms which might be associated with someone who believes in the caste system are casteist feudalist <A> There aren't many words related to the idea of a caste system in English, because such systems are uncommon in countries with English as the primary language. <S> Probably the best choice for a person who supports a caste system would be classist . <S> Be aware that this carries a negative connotation. <S> Saying someone is a classist is an insult; you're saying that they support judgement, discrimination and mistreatment of others based on their social standing. <S> I don't know of any words or idioms which have the same meaning but express a positive opinion. <S> The closest opposite would be something like egalitarian , meaning a person who doesn't discriminate and treats people fairly. <S> However, this term includes more than just social standing, because it is a general term. <S> Skin color, gender, age, etc. are all included here. <S> If you're trying to say something beyond just that the person supports a caste system, then please elaborate on what exactly you want to say. <S> English has plenty of words for issuing value judgements. <A> You could simply use caste believer , which sounds neutral enough in my humble opinion. <S> And it's obvious that I'm not the first who's ever used this term. <S> There are 7 results in Google Books (it's used as part of a longer phrase in some results) and a lot more in Google search results. <A> jaati (जाति) in Hindi is the word for caste. <S> They modifier "vaadee" translates to plaintiff in English, the person bringing the suit in court, or pointing out a difference with an public objection, like "you are drinking from the wrong fountain", or the NYC Central Park Karen who had her dog off the leash and reported the Black bird-watcher who objected to the police, as an attacker. <S> That Karen is definitely a jaativaadee. <S> Just import the Hindi word into English. <S> They own the intellectual property, I'd say. <S> Google Translates this incorrectly as "racist", <S> but there is no other word for race in Hindi, but jaati (जाति), they are conflated. <S> Another possibility is to call casteists Karens, although you would have to stop conflating that with persons merely complaining to the management because the service is actually lousy.
| An exponent of caste is someone who promotes the ideas of the caste system An advocate of caste is someone who promotes the practice of the caste system jaativaadee (जातिवादी) in Hindi is the word for casteist.
|
Repetitive use of word "Basically" Why do people use the word " Basically " alot? Like they would mostly start their sentence with " Basically I am trying to do this ". <Q> To quote Arch Lustberg, author of How To Sell Yourself , "Sometimes we use garbage fillers, phrases, and sentences. <S> I'm tired of 'so to speak,' 'if you will,' 'as it were,' 'at this point in time,' and 'in a manner of speaking.' <S> John F. Kennedy had 'let me say this about that.' <S> Richard M. Nixon's classic was 'let me make one thing perfectly clear.' <S> Some others we hear all the time are: 'I'm glad you asked me that question,' 'to be perfectly honest,' and 'to tell you the truth.'" etc. <S> Overuse or misuse of words like "basically," "literally," and others qualify as such "garbage fillers," used either as a way to buy time while thinking of what to say next or simply as bad speech habits. <A> Mark Hubbard's answer, and in turn the quote from Arch Lustberg, are very insightful, as far as bad speech habits are concerned. <S> From a more Machiavellian interpretation though, the overuse of words like "basically" may point to the use of speechcraft and neuro-linguistic programming to get the addressee to agree with the speaker's point of view. <S> This is especially effective if used at the end of a long argument, because it leaves a strong final impact, which makes it more likely to be remembered, and at the same time reinforces the conclusion (and maybe drawing attention away from supporting arguments). <S> Incidentally, Monty Python reference! <A> We use basically to show that you are describing a situation in a simple, general way, and that you are not concerned with less important details. <S> So there is nothing wrong in using it. <S> But, some of the speakers use it very frequently in their speech which probably decreases the significance of that word which isn't correct. <S> So it should be used in a limit. <S> And most important thing is if the word ‘basically' is used in its proper sense it’s an attention-seeker word.
| By using such words or phrases, the speaker draws attention and adds emphasis to the words that immediately follow -- and at times away from other things they said .
|
Could you simplify the following passage so that it won't be hard to grasp and more, please? Health care providers other than the vaccine administrator treating a patient for a suspected adverse event should notify the vaccine administrator and provide the information about the adverse event to allow the vaccine administrator to complete VAERS form to meet the vaccine administrator's legal responsibility. When it says "other than" does it mean that someone else must intervene or not? Is it mandatory to a new doctor other than the administrator to complete the form? what does it mean? <Q> I'll add a bit of context and an example. <S> If you experience side effects to a vaccine, the person administering the vaccine (let's say your family doctor) has to record it in a VAERS <S> (Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System) form. <S> Imagine <S> you took a vaccine from your family doctor and a few hours later got so sick that you decided to go to a hospital instead of your own physician. <S> In this case, the hospital is a "health care provider other than the vaccine administrator" and they are treating a possible case of adverse effect. <S> The hospital should warn your family doctor, so that your doctor can complete the form. <S> So to answer your question: if the VA(vaccine administrator) intervenes, they fill out the form. <S> If someone else does, they notify the VA and the VA fills out the form. <S> Your VA is responsible for recording all adverse effects and reporting them to the vaccine producers. <A> The sentence is unnecessarily complicated by the other than restrictive clause and by its lack of punctuation. <S> The other than means "except for". <S> In this sentence, the meaning is weird: why would the vaccine administrator notify itself? <A> The sentence is clear for me, although complicated. <S> The meaning is: <S> The vaccine administrator is legally obliged to fill the VAERS form. <S> The patient can be treated by vaccine administrator or someone else. <S> If some health care provider other than vaccine administrator istreating a patient with suspected vaccine adverse event it isobliged to notify the administrator, so that he can fill the form. <S> The clause "other than" ... <S> well, I think it is necessary to prevent interpretation that "EVERY health care provider should notify vaccine administrator ...", which could be understood by some silly clerk/inspector that vaccine administrator should notify himself in writing, just because this act says so, doubling the amount of documentation. <S> (This assumption is based on personal experience ;) ) <S> I would leave all names in well established form (such as "adverse event"), and omit obvious part about information: <S> Health care providers other than the vaccine administrator treating a patient for a suspected adverse event should notify the vaccine administrator and provide the information necessary to complete VAERS form by vaccine administrator, to meet his legal responsibility. <S> Other version: Health care providers other than the vaccine administrator treating a patient for a suspected adverse event should notify the vaccine administrator, who is legally responsible for completing VAERS form, and provide the information necessary to complete the form.
| Those health care providers who have treated a patient for a suspected adverse reaction to a vaccine must notify the vaccine administrator and provide information about the event, so that the administrator can complete a VAERS form, as it is legally required to do.
|
How to invite a couple when I don't know husband's name? On an invitation card... Mr and Mrs Jack Anderson works very well. It includes both Mr. Jack Anderson and his wife. The beauty of this style is, I need not know Jack's wife's name. Here, Jack is my friend and I know him. Personally, I'm quite terrible at names. So, what if I know Julie Watson but don't remember her husband's name? I don't want to sound ignorant and ask Julie about her husband's name (it's embarrassing too!). I'm now stuck. While writing Mr & Mrs Jack Anderson includes his wife, is there such a way that I can write Julie's name and her husband is included automatically? What are the possible ways to address Julie and include her husband's name as well? Mrs & Mr Julie Watson (Julie's second name after marriage is Watson; it's not her maiden surname. Also, I'm inviting her husband just because he's her husband. He's not a friend of mine! Kinda formality.) works...? Please mind that I don't want to include all the members (i.e. her in-laws) . Or else 'Watsons'' would have worked. Answers from all cultures are welcomed. <Q> British point of view: Many women nowadays would be annoyed to get an invitation addressed to "Mr and Mrs Jack Anderson". <S> Historically this was the correct usage, as married women were referred to with their husband's first name, e.g. Mrs Jack Anderson. <S> But this is no longer common practice. <S> Normal ways to address them would be: Mr and Mrs Anderson <S> Mr Jack and Mrs Jane Anderson Jack and Jane Anderson <S> (The exception is royalty. <S> It's correct to refer to the wives of British princes by their husband's name if they're not royal themselves when using the title of Princess. <S> The Duchess of Cambridge is also Princess William of Wales.) <S> Referring to a man by his wife's first name has never been correct, so "Mrs & Mr Julie Watson" doesn't work. <S> The best option is to ask his name. <S> (It's embarrassing, but it's polite. <S> When I got married I had to ask a lot of people what their spouse's name was.) <S> Second best is not to use first names. <S> Mrs Julie and Mr John Watson Mr and Mrs Watson <S> As user8399 says, you can also use "Julie Watson and guest". <S> However, this is normally for people whose relationship status you're unsure about. <S> Since you know Julie is married, it's better to face the embarrassment and ask his name. <A> If Julie's children are also invited, you could use Julie Watson and family – <S> In the U.S., at least, that's usually interpreted as "immediately family," i.e., spouse and children. <S> " The traditionalists might bristle at that one, but those who are fed up with traditional (and some would say sexist ) roles might appreciate your progressive solution. <S> Note <S> : I looked through a four-page guide on this, and couldn't find my suggested answer there, but I was a little surprised at that. <S> If you don't feel comfortable going “outside the box,” you have one solution left: <S> Next time you see Julie, ask her what her husband's name is. <S> That goes along with the advice found at this website : <S> What if I don’t know the person’s name? <S> If you're embarrassed that you've forgotten her husband's name, you could maybe tell her that you're just checking the spellings of everyone's names. <A> Mrs. Julie Watson and husband (if you know he is the husband), Mrs. Julie Watson and wife (if you know Mrs. Watson is married to a woman), Mrs. Julie Watson and spouse (if you know Mrs. Watson is married), Mrs. Julie Watson and partner (if you don't know that she is married, but you know there is a partner). <S> However, all these are only Ok if the primary person invited is Mrs. Watson. <S> For example, if you invite your colleagues, the women from your tennis club, etc. , plus partners. <S> Borderline Ok if you are inviting the neighbours, and you talk to Mrs. Watson every day while Mr. Watson spends all his hours at work and is rarely seen. <S> Mentioned elsewhere: <S> Mrs. Julie Watson and guest if you don't know she has a partner but should be free to bring someone to the party (husband, partner, or her brother or her best friend, whatever). <A> I Think Mr. and Mrs. Watson and family should work fine. <S> If Julie's children are also invited, you could use Julie Watson and family or Watson and family
| Whenever possible, take the time to find out the recipient’s name . If it's only the couple you want to invite, you could go with "Mr. and Mrs. Julie Watson.
|
Can someone be confidential? I understand what confidential information means, but can a person be confidential? Can you use it to describe a person who you can trust with sensitive information? "She is organized, resourceful and confidential?" <Q> A person who can keep a secret (confidential information) is said to be <S> a confidant <S> discreet <S> tight-lipped trusted <S> The woman was his mistress and confidant . <S> The manager discreetly handled the situation to not draw any attention. <S> The concierge was tight-lipped about the personal matters of the hotel guests. <S> Her trusted <S> aide never revealed what happened behind the scenes. <A> No, generally the word used for that is "discreet". <S> Trustworthy" is also good in a more broad sense. <A> I can think of one sense in which a person can be "confidential". <S> It means somebody whose identity is confidential. <S> The term "confidential informant" or "confidential source" can refer to someone who gives information to someone else under an agreement not to publish his or her name. <S> One example is a "whistleblower" , or someone who witnesses abuse within an organization and reports this abuse to the mass media. <S> Another is a "criminal informant" , a former criminal who cooperates with a police investigation in exchange for less harsh punishment.
| A discreet person is sensitive to secrets and won't misuse them. "
|
When to use don't + pronoun When have I to use "don't + pronoun"/"doesn't + pronoun"? I saw it a few times and I'm not sure how to use it. An example could be: You're going to school, don't you? <Q> In all the varieties of English that I am familiar with, a tag question on a sentence with an auxiliary (or a form of be even when it is a full verb) uses the auxiliary in the tag question, not do : <S> You are coming, aren't you? <S> He will win, won't he? <S> I can finish it, can't I? <S> He is, isn't he? <S> You like it, don't you? <S> I have heard some English speakers (from Pakistan, I think, but I'm not sure) <S> using isn't it as an invariable tag question. <S> I don't know of any who use <S> don't you/ <S> we/ <S> they and <S> doesn't he <S> / <S> she even where there is an auxiliary, <S> but I would not be terribly surprised if there were a variety of English somewhere that did do this. <A> Don't is a contraction of "do not". <S> Doesn't is a contraction of "does not". <S> Do and <S> Does are forms of the verb to do . <S> Which one to use just comes down to conjugation: <S> I do. <S> You do. <S> He does. <S> She does. <S> We do. <S> They do. <S> So You like apples <S> , don't you? <S> but He likes cake, doesn't he? <A> The two acceptable forms of this sentence are, <S> "You're (You are) going to school, aren't you?" <S> (are you not?) <S> and, <S> "You go (You do go) to school, don't you?" <S> (do you not?) <A> You can dance, can't you? <S> You will dance, <S> won't you? <S> You have danced, haven't you? <S> You are dancing, aren't you? <S> If you look at the sentences above you will see that they use the same auxiliary verb in the question as they do in the main sentence. <S> So in the first sentence we see can <S> and can't ; in the second we see <S> will and won't ; in the third we see have and haven't <S> ; in the last wee see are and aren't . <S> Notice that we can't use the main verb dance in the tag. <S> We have to use an auxiliary verb. <S> Now look at the sentence below. <S> Which auxiliary can you use here: <S> You dance, ___ you? <S> In sentence (5) we have a problem because there is no auxiliary verb in the main sentence. <S> When we don't have an auxiliary verb in the main sentence we have to use a dummy auxiliary . <S> The dummy auxiliary in English is the verb DO . <S> When we don't have an auxiliary but we need one, we always use DO . <S> It is like a spare tyre that we keep in the back of the car: <S> You dance, don't you? <A> Don't you open that door! <S> Don't you touch that stove! <S> Normally, imperatives in English don't require any subject (addressee) pronoun. <S> The "you" is acting as an intensifier in these sentences. <S> Whoever is giving orders is angry, or will tolerate no disobedience. <S> It is similar to the effect of placing a swearword in the same position: <S> Don't [bleep]ing open that door! <S> or appending the addressee's full name <S> : Don't open that door, Jane Windslor Wexler! <A> The tag question is opposite to the answer you want to suggest. <S> So if you believe that someone goes to school <S> and you want them to confirm it, you might say: You go to school, don't you? <S> but if you think (or suspect) they don't go to school <S> and you want them to confirm that, you could say: You don't go to school, do you?
| Only when there is no auxiliary, do we use a form of do : Don't you can also appear in negative imperatives:
|
I abandoned or broke or aborted my thesis Which one can I say? I abandoned or broke or aborted my thesis because I did not like the topic. <Q> As a native U.S English speaker, I would use "abandoned". <S> "Broke" is simply incorrect. <S> " <S> Aborted" is technically correct as well, but it sounds a little harsher, and can carry some negative emotional weight because it's a form of the word "abortion" (i.e., terminating a pregnancy). <S> That said, there are some uses (like "abort the mission" mentioned in another answer) where "abort" is the normal and expected word. <A> You would not use broke , but you could use either abandoned or aborted . <S> If I woke up one morning and abruptly decided not to work on my thesis any longer, then I would have aborted the effort. <S> On the other hand, if I gradually worked on it less and less over a period of several weeks, it might be more accurate to say that I had <S> abandoned the effort. <S> However, both verbs are a bit flexible, and I don't think that distinction always holds. <S> The verb broke <S> is not a good fit, but the phrasal verb break off might work: <S> According to M-W , to break off means "to discontinue". <A> Abandoned is often used to describe properties or large objects that are no longer wanted by their owner, or that their owner has been forced to part with. <S> It can have the underlying meaning that the property/large object is unguarded and that a random person could trespass or take it, but not always. <S> This would be OK to use. <S> Broke is often used to describe physical things. <S> It's not used to talk about someone's work. <S> Aborted means an action was attempted and then halted when something bad happened. <S> The first thing that comes to mind with this word is mission in the sense of tactical or short-term goal, and it's a common term in computer-related nomenclature - e.g. aborted process, etc. <S> Things aborted cease to exist and have to be started over. <S> This would be appropriate if you just started your thesis and something caused you to have to start it all over, such as a fire or physically losing the papers. <S> If you were like 2 pages in to your thesis and decided to change topic, aborted would be appropriate to describe that as well.
| If you are past the "halfway" point, aborted is probably not the word to use unless something really out of your control happened. The word abandoned might suggest that it was a slower decision. I broke off my thesis work because I did not like the topic.
|
Difference between apart and separate What is the difference between apart and separate? From the dictonary I think that both are the opposite of together. <Q> They are very close in meaning. <S> I think the difference is that if you describe things as apart , there is an implication that they should be, or used to be, or might be, together. <S> Describing them as separate does not have this implication; in fact it may have (weakly) <S> the opposite implication that they do not belong together. <A> Both words can be used in a variety of contexts, so it's hard to concisely express when one word is more fitting than the other. <S> Here are some differences that come to my mind: <S> I would use apart to describe two people in a close relationship who did not live near each other: <S> My brother and I were apart for two years . <S> My brother and I had separate bedrooms . <S> I would use apart when emphasizing distance between two things: Our bedrooms were far apart, but our sisters had bedrooms that were close together . <S> I would use separate when talking about something that is related to, yet different from, something else: <S> I paid $40 for these teacups and saucers, but the teapot came separate. <S> However, there are times when the two words could be used pretty much interchangeably: <S> The hermit lived separate/apart from everyone else . <S> In addition, separate is more readily converted to a noun ( separation ), and an adverb ( separately ). <S> Separate can also be used as a verb (although it changes pronunciation): <S> Separate the dark clothes from the whites before you start the wash . <A> Separate can mean "different": <S> Those are two separate questions. <S> You could not substitute the word "apart" in the sentence above. <S> The two trees are far apart. <S> This says that there is a large distance between the trees. <S> It would not make sense to say "far separate" here (though you could say that the trees are "widely separated").
| I would use separate to describe when two people don't share the same living quarters:
|
The opposite of 'A coin has two sides' I'm looking for a simile or idiom that means two things might look alike but are in fact way too different . Something like the opposite of the saying A coin has two sides There's two sides to a coin something like behind every mask lies a different person <Q> A good idiom for your example of being angry with every member of a particular race, due to what one member of that race did is 'to tar everyone with the same brush', which means to think (incorrectly) that every member of a particular group has the same bad qualities shown by just one member of that group. <S> You might 'Tar everyone with the same brush' because you think that 'birds of a feather, flock together' - i.e. that people who decide to be a part of a group with other people with similar traits to themselves. <S> "I hate people from that town - one of them stole my money." <S> "You shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush" "Birds of a feather, flock together" <A> One rather common idiom in English is <S> don't paint with such a broad brush. <S> A broad brush means something that is sweepingly general , and the idiom paint with a broad brush means to describe a class of objects or a kind of phenomenon in general terms , without specific details and without attention to individual variations. <S> Usually, painting with a broad brush is considered negative, in that it's used to describe people who are overgeneralizing . <A> a simile or idiom that means that two things might look alike but are in fact way too different. <S> Beware that this phrase is very well known and if you use it in formal writing or persuasive writing it will come across as a cliche. <S> It's as if someone is angry at an entire race because one person of that race hurt someone in their family. <S> You could also refer to "the good Samaritan", who, in a biblical parable, was a man who helped a Jew in distress, despite the Jews and Samaritans being enemies. <S> More often, though, a "good Samaritan" is just someone who helps a stranger.
| "Don't judge a book by its cover" means you cannot judge things or people by their external appearances.
|
how to call a lesson that a TEACHER has carried out how to call a lesson that a TEACHER has carried out? I need a short, precise expression which will be used a lot in the documentation of a system that I am writing. I thought about "delivered lesson", "implemented lesson"?Would these expressions work? Can you come up with something better? Examples: "The modification history of the ..... lessons." "This view allows you to display .... and planned lessons." "This PHP class is responsible for retrieving data of .... lessons from the database " Please help :) <Q> So, I did a bit of research on Google Ngrams and thought I'll share the details. <S> From my comment, I got a couple of suggestions that perfectly fits the context. <S> The words I suggested were: Completed. <S> Covered. <S> Taught. <S> (Not the best option) <S> I searched for the occurrences of 'Completed lessons' , 'Covered lessons' and 'Instructed lessons' . <S> The result showed no occurrences for 'covered' lessons and 'instructed' lessons. <S> Google Ngram for 'Covered lessons' , 'Completed lessons' and 'Instructed lessons' . <S> I further dug a bit deeper and checked for occurrences of 'Lessons completed' , 'Lessons covered' and 'Lessons instructed' : <S> Google Ngram for ' <S> Lessons completed' , 'Lessons covered' and 'Lessons instructed' . <S> Lessons are generally completed or covered or plainly finished (very informal). <S> I'll substitute one of your sample sentences with the best possible words you could use, and let you choose the best option, based on your context. <S> "This PHP class is responsible for retrieving data of the completed lessons from the database." <S> or "This PHP class is responsible for retrieving data of the covered lessons from the database." <S> Note : For this particular sentence, I would recommend completed , as it sounds a bit better. <S> But you should try both in your context and choose the best one. <A> We would use the term "delivered lesson" when opposed to "planned lessons". <S> I'm coming at this from the angle of an E-Learning developer who works at a university. <S> Because we have both tradition tutor-led (T) lessons as well as self-taught (S) lessons, we have terminology that applies to one method, the other, or both. <S> Planned Lessons : <S> These may have been made but students haven't seen them yet. <S> (T/S) <S> Delivered Lessons : These have been given to students. <S> (T/S) <S> Taught Lessons <S> : These have a teacher leading the lesson (not necessarily past tense!). <S> (T) <S> Completed Lessons : <S> The student has reached the end of this lesson. <S> (S) <A> Lessons that are taught by a teacher are called instructed lessons instructed learning Lessons which are studied by a student , on their own, are called self-study lessons self-taught lessons <S> self-taught learning Generically, lesson learning is understood to be taught by a teacher Instructed lessons can take the form of classwork lectures coaching <S> Sometimes <S> homework assignments are given to students to be handed in the next day.
| " Delivered " is the most generic term we use to describe lessons that have been presented to students.
|
Is "sing" a noun or a verb in this quote by Samuel Beckett? "When you are up to your neck in shit, all you can do is sing." Samuel Beckett I just checked some credible online dictionaries like Longman, Macmillan and American Heritage and they all had "sing" as a verb only. Though there was an entry as a noun in the latter, obviously it wasn't relevant to the context here. On the other hand, I checked and saw the infinitive form of "sing" as "to sing"so I'm confused and very curious to find the grammatical point behind this usage. Plus I'd like to know how it would be if we replaced "sing" with "struggle" here. Can both "noun" and "verb" forms of a given verb be used here after "is"? Thanks! <Q> In A Practical English Grammar by A. J. Thomson & A. V. Martinet (the section on bare infinitives, section 246K) <S> the authors claim: K. <S> The to is optional in sentences such as: <S> The only thing to do <S> /we can do is (to) write to him or <S> All we can do is (to) write to him. <S> This fits in with my understanding, but the 'to' sounds a lot less idiomatic with some verbs than with others. <S> There is probably also a trend towards favouring the bare infinitive. <A> It’s a verb. <S> When the sentence is: <S> All we can do is ________. <S> then the blank will be filled in with a verb, and it’s tied back to the word do , because it will say what we will be doing. <S> For example: All we could do was laugh . <S> The only thing they could do was clap . <S> ( laugh and clap function as verbs) <S> Without the “do”, we would use an infinitive. <S> For example: We needed to stop . <S> They had to eat . <A> All you can do is sing. <S> Sing is a bare infinitive used as a complement. <S> The sentence could look like <S> All you can do is (you can) sing. <S> The words <S> you can being redundant are left out. <S> If you use struggle instead of sing , it will also be a bare infinitive. <A> Surely, this is simply intended humour. <S> In various parts of England and Ireland this word 'sing' can also mean to have a very strong smell, as in, 'That pile of manure really sings!' <S> Other words with a similar meaning are, 'reek', 'stink'. 'pong', 'hum', 'smell', etc. <S> All of these, with the exception of 'sing', may be found in the on-line English Oxford Living Dictionary at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/ . ' <S> Hum' (described as British Informal) is the closest, but 'Sing' is used to be more emphatic. <S> I have heard both of these expressions used frequently in Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire in England. <S> So in the same way, one could say that in the circumstances of the quote in question, 'all you can do is smell'. <S> If what I believe is right, then it is clear that he did intend to use the words, 'all you can do ...', because you couldn't help but smell/stink/pong/hum/sing, could you?
| I believe that Samuel Beckett, being from Ireland, is using the word 'sing' here, in a sense different from 'uttering melodious sounds', as has been assumed in this thread.
|
What preposition is correct 'sleep on the bed' or 'sleep in the bed' Are both expressions correct? If yes, do they have different meanings? It seems to me that I came across both of them in books, but I'm not sure. <Q> A bed usually is made of a surface for sleeping upon and a warm cover of some kind. <S> The phrase on the bed would be taken to imply that something is placed upon both. <S> Take this example: <S> I placed my luggage on the bed . <S> This would mean the luggage was placed upon the top of the upper surface of the bed and bedding. <S> The phrase in the bed would be taken that something is placed between the warm covering (or bed cover) and above the sleeping surface. <S> It is placed inside the bed, as illustrated by this example: <S> The hot water bottle was placed in the bed . <S> If the hot water bottle was placed on the bed <S> it would get cold and not warm the bed properly. <S> Thus if we use sleep as the action being performed, you can see that we can both sleep in the bed and sleep on the bed . <S> For example: He was too drunk to sleep in the bed and was found sleeping on it . <S> There is a very famous bed in event which can also be used to illustrate the difference: <S> This is John and Yoko on the bed : <S> This is John and Yoko in the bed : Image of John and Yoko <S> http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=urn:gvn:ANP01:15397082&role=image&size=variable <A> They are both correct, but convey slightly different ideas. <S> I will sleep on a bed. <S> Implies that I will sleep on the piece of furniture I refer to as a bed. <S> As opposed to sleeping on the couch or sleeping on the floor. <S> I will sleep in a bed <S> Specifically conveys the idea that I will be inside the bedclothes, typically underneath a blanket or duvet. <A> Sleeping in the bed would actually mean to be inside the bed(covered by under the sheets") however, Sleeping on the bed logically mean laying on the bed on the surface of it, don't go deep into the holy crap of English literature. <S> Conclusion : <S> * "Sleeping in the bed", is correct one to use. <A> Normally, one would say IN bed when they are going to go to sleep. <S> But before sleeping or after waking up, you can say: I'm sleeping ( in bed) <S> I'm in bed reading <S> I'm in bed watching the TV <S> I'm in bed having tea and breakfast <S> The OP's example (to) sleep in the bed <S> the article ‘the’ suggests that the listener knows which bed is mentioned; or there is only one available bed in which to sleep. <S> The preposition in tells us the person is under the covers, sandwiched between the mattress and the bedsheets.
| (to) sleep on the bed suggests the same as the above with the exception that the person is lying on top of the bed. Both expressions are correct and can have different meanings.
|
What is the meaning of 'playing hard to get'? Today I heard the phrase 'playing hard to get'. What is its meaning? Is this phrase commonly used in English speaking countries? <Q> Being " hard to get " is the idea of not displaying interest when you have it. <S> The end goal of this action is to increase the affection the opposing side displays and/or has for you. <S> It is often used in romantic pursuits: <S> " She's playing hard to get! " - would translate to - " <S> She likes me, she just doesn't want to show it ". <S> Keep in mind, that it can be used by native speakers in any context that linguistics allow it: <S> " How did the meeting go ? <S> ", " They are playing hard to get, but they have no other choice than to accept our terms. <S> " - would mean - " They are pretending not to be interested so we can make them a better offer, but they... " <S> However, it is important to note that the term is commonly used by the receiving side of the said action. <S> This means the side that is " hard to get " may not have any actual interest in said person, or object, at all but for various reasons such as ego, clouded judgement, misunderstanding and/or others, is falsely alleged to. <S> " I asked her out and tried to kiss her <S> but she's playing hard to get " - whereas her thoughs might be - " <S> I barely even know him, why would he do that? " <S> implying she has no interest in him, despite his beliefs. <S> Source: <S> My surroundings and experience. <A> Example <S> : Why won't you call him back? <S> Are you playing hard to get? <S> Quoted verbatim from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. <A> Often in romantic relationships, this is where someone may make it difficult for the other person to pursue a relationship by having limited availability, being mean or a few other factors that make having the relationship a challenging goal. <S> In March 2014, a magazine called "Psychology Today" had an article on <S> When Should You Play Hard to Get? <S> as an example of its use.
| The meaning of this phrase is: To pretend that you are less interested in someone than you really are as a way of making them more interested in you, especially at the start of a romantic relationship It is a commonly used phrase in some circles.
|
Difference between "advantage" and "benefit"? From Webster: advantage: something (such as a good position or condition) that helps to make someone or something better or more likely to succeed than others a good or desirable quality or feature benefit or gain benefit: a good or helpful result or effect money that is paid by a company (such as an insurance company) or by a government when someone dies, becomes sick, stops working, etc. something extra (such as vacation time or health insurance) that is given by an employer to workers in addition to their regular pay It seems same to me. My professor use benefit more, some website use advantage more, is two of them same? or which one is more official? <Q> Benefits are generally gifts or results. <S> Examples : <S> The company gives you benefits for working there, and if you do really well, you'll be given a bonus as a benefit. <S> If you go through with this plan, it could benefit some people. <S> We're holding a benefit concert, the proceeds from ticket sales will go to benefit children in hospitals. <S> Advantages, which can include some benefits, are not always gifts. <S> Examples : <S> One advantage to this plan is that it doesn't cost as much money. <S> He had many advantages from birth, being the son of an accomplished and rich business man, growing up with the future captains of industry, that propelled him to create something great. <S> The battle turned and pushed Don Quixote uphill, and he cried out "Now I have the advantage! <S> I have the upper ground!" <S> He proceeded to fight his way back down the hill. <A> A note, in addition to the existing answers. <S> Taking advantage of someone has a negative connotation to it, based on the situation. <S> But there usually isn't that negative side when getting benefits from someone. <A> An organization can get advantages from female workers by discriminating in salary and paying lower range than male which is unethical. <S> Here, in this case, we can't say the organization is getting benefit from the female workers. <S> Another organization has applied women empower policy and giving first priority to female workers for over time work where they get 1.5 times more wages than their normal salaries. <S> The organization also provides special training to female with male to increase productivity. <S> In this case, female workers are benefited from the organization and the organization is also getting benefit from female workers with higher productivity. <A> Benefit can be used as a verb whereas advantage isn't typically used as a verb. <S> The money benefits me greatly. <S> The money was an advantage. <S> The money was a benefit. <S> I would also say benefit probably tends more often to refer to an item or something similarly concrete, whereas advantage is appropriate if you are talking about a place, situation, or ability. <S> But there is no hard/fast rule. <S> Benefit has a meaning of things besides pay a company uses to compensate you for work, such as "medical benefits". <S> It can also mean a government payment, such as "social security benefit." <S> Advantage never means that. <A> I think there is comparative meaning in there in ligal terminology likely ‘ entrest been using in criminal libelty . <A> What I've come to understand is that advantage is a relative term. <S> It is, advantage over something. <S> There need to be comparison to mention advantage. <S> It's like, you'll get this benefit which was not available to you before..
| While benefit is something which is free of comparison.
|
Too many to's? 'I am not able to come to office' Is this sentence correct or not? I am not able to come to office. Can we use "to" twice or can we write this sentence in a better way? <Q> I don't think it's incorrect to use the to come to form (and here <S> you may find several examples). <S> However, you should put a determiner (like the ) before the word office : <S> I can't come to the office. <A> It is fine to use several to 's in the same sentence: <S> I want to try to learn to ride a bike. <S> Here we can see three to 's in the same sentence. <S> The Original Poster shouldn't change their example. <S> It's a fine sentence. <A> In my opinion, there should be a "the" in there after the "to": <S> I am not able to come to the office. <A> This can be taken as an extended comment on Araucaria's succinct (and entirely correct) answer. <S> Technically, you're not using the single word 'to' twice; the first instance of 'to' is inexorably wrapped up with the word 'come', as the two words together form the infinitive form of the verb 'to come'. <S> The second instance of 'to' is indicative of direction, placed immediately before a destination (in this case, the office). <S> They have entirely distinct meanings in the sentence. <S> In other words, these instances of 'to' are homophonous , but not synonymous . <S> English has many homophones (such as 'mean' or 'bat'), but 'to' is one of the most commonly used, and commonly confused. <A> The use of "to come" is the infinitive form of "come", in English. <S> It's also commonly called a helping verb . <S> The second "to" is the preposition of the prepositional phrase, "to office". <S> That being said, I would recommend adding the article adjective "the" between, "to" and "office". <S> The resulting sentence would be: "I am not able to come to the office". <A> the sentence <S> "i am not able to come to office" is correct. <S> because here both "to" have their own meaning first one for infinitives and second one for preposition and alternative for the same <S> could be " <S> i am unable to reach the office" <A> Although the word "to" is used twice in one sentence, it is used in two different ways. <S> The first use is as an "infinitive." <S> Specifically, "to come. <S> " Many other languages have infinitives, but they often have a suffix to the verb, as opposed to a separate word. <S> The second use is as a directional preposition, to, in the sense of "toward" or "into. <S> It's a confusing point in the English language, but you're not really using the same word twice. <S> More like two "similar"-looking words in two different ways. <A> It's correct. <S> Here in the US replacing the second to with into is also acceptable in conversation. <S> "I am not able to come into the office." or "I am not able to come in today" <S> If you're speaking to someone you work with, it's implied you're talking about the office.
| As it stands, your sentence does make sense, and would not sound or look strange. The two uses of the word "to" are fine but the sentence as a whole sounds weird to me (as a native British English speaker).
|
A story about Webster and one word for people who carry on false information My friend told me a story about Webster, which had been told to him by another friend of him. The story goes on like: Noah Webster was a famous scholar and writer, and had many haters, as great men generally have. One day, he went to a dinner-party. He met one of his rivals there, who wanted to show off his knowledge. The conversation was like: Rival : Do you know that sugar is the only word in the English language which begins with su but has a sound of shu . Webster : Are you sure ? Well the answer was quite witty, but I smell a rat. Do rivals really meet at dinners? What kind of rival he was when he didn't know about sure ? My questions are: Has anybody heard this story before? If not, then what is the word for people who carry on wrong information . I don't want a word for people who generate false information (I guess that would be a liar ), but instead, a word for people who unknowingly carry on the given false information (like my friend). <Q> It seems like you are describing someone who like to pass along "incredible" facts, but doesn't really take the time to find out if they are true. <S> I can't think of a single word that captures what you are getting at - although I certainly know people who fit the profile! <S> Your meaning is some combination of: <S> Gullible can be fooled easily <S> Incurious doesn't try to find out what is true. <S> Credulous having or showing too great a readiness to believe things. <S> Gossip a person who passes on information that is not confirmed as being true. <S> Perhaps you could build up a two-word appellation based on these, and the particularities of the person in question. <S> Marie is a credulous gossip. <S> She is always reposting obviously bogus facebook stories that she should be able to tell are nonsense. <A> Such a person can be called a misinformant . <S> This comes from the verb to misinform , which means To provide with incorrect information. <S> When someone is misinformed , they, in turn, can carry on and spread false information unknowingly. <S> misinformed not having accurate or completely accurate information about something <A> I person who tells incorrect information without realising it is unwittingly <S> unintentionally inadvertently passing on the bad information. <S> They are usually thought of as misinformed , not clued in , and unsmart . <S> The British saying that might be used to describe such a person is <S> Seldom right, never in doubt <S> That is different from someone who intentionally spreads disinformation and lies
| Rumor monger someone who delights in spreading rumors
|
Term for bed sheet that embraces and partially encapsulates the mattress I went to IKEA and got me a new sheet. It's awesome on the bed because instead of being "sheety", it's got those rubber parts so one doesn't fold it under the mattress to keep it in place but rather skewers it or maybe embraces it onto it. What's that kind of sheet called? What's the traditional, foldy, kind called? What's the right verb to describe the thing you do with the new kind of sheet? <Q> The other sheet is a flat sheet referred to as a standard bed sheet or drop sheet or top sheet. <S> When you are putting fresh linens on a bed, you are making up a bed. <S> The opposite is to strip (down) a bed. <S> The total effect of putting a bed together (sheets, pillows, covers) is called dressing a bed <S> When you are tidying up a bed after sleeping in it, you are making a bed. <S> The common command by parents <S> Go make your bed! <S> Before going to sleep, some hotels will turn down your bed by folding back the covers and (if you're lucky) leaving a chocolate on the fluffed pillows. <S> If you are in a mischievous mood, you can short sheet a bed; a common prank played on newlyweds. <S> We spend about a third of our life on top of a fitted sheet (usually) , this intimate and fated relationship has lead to the phrase You've made your bed, now lie in it since there's no escaping it. <A> From Wikipedia... <S> a fitted sheet has its four corners, and sometimes two or four sides, fitted with elastic, to be used only as a bottom sheet. <S> You still make the bed regardless of whether it has a fitted sheet. <S> But if it does , people often call the other one a top sheet to distinguish it from the elasticated one (a fitted sheet doesn't work on top). <A> I'm going to have to make a trip to IKEA because it sounds like you are not describing a traditional fitted sheet. <S> It sounds like you are describing a modified standard sheet where the corners have rubber (for grip) pockets sewn in such that the corners of the mattress fit into the rubber pockets of the sheet which holds the sheet firmly attached to the mattress like a fitted sheet. <S> But this kind of sheet seems like it would be much easier to fold than a traditional fitted sheet. <S> I would still say, "making the bed" with this kind of sheet, but to describe the specific action of hooking the sheet pocket around the mattress corner I would probably say I was, "buttoning" the sheet down, or "dressing" the mattress up. <A> The name "Fitted Sheet" has already been given. <S> I was going to suggest "evil sheet of difficult foldiness and doom", but since I see that issue has been dealt with <S> , I'll suggest instead contour sheet as a relatively uncommon synonym used -- so far as I can tell -- mostly by marketers trying to make them sound fancier. <S> I am interested by your description of them as "fancy" sheets. <S> Growing up in the UK, I found beds with fitted sheets to be frowned upon as "not as good". <S> I think, though, that this might be more a factor of the amount of extra work needed to provide crisp linen sheets carefully tucked into the corners of the bed. <S> So upmarket hotels generally provide tucked-in apple-pie beds because it provides the impression of hand-cared service, but likely also because there's no elastic to go out on them if you wash them very hot, so they last longer, and are probably cheaper.
| Fitted is the word you are looking for, a fitted sheet is the sheet above the mattress that has extra fabric to extend around the mattress and an elasticized outer edges to fit around the mattress holding it in place.
|
What is "Vermittlung" (finding two parties, one needs something one offers something) in English? I am looking for a verb which is called "vermitteln" in German. According to dict.leo.org did not give good results. An example sentence would be: German: Die Firma vermittelt Jobs. English by Google Translate: The company provides jobs. However, "provide" seems to be the wrong word. It is not the company itself where people work, but the company finds people who want to get a job and have some abilities, as well as other companies which need those abilities. (So a recruiter who has his/her own company.) How is this verb called in English? <Q> My ex-wife used to work as a head-hunter. <S> She would liaise with client companies and search out people with particular talents to fulfill specific job needs, but that usually involves "stealing" employees away from other firms. <S> A word used in the movie and sports industry is talent-scout. <S> from the question... <S> (So <S> a recruiter who has his/her own company.) <S> These terms would seem to describe the above part of the requirement, but not completely the first asking for an interpretation with a verb. <A> My limited German vocabulary relies on me internally using literal translations to understand why a word translates like it does -- <S> German's nice like that. <S> For me, I'd translate it as a "go between" or "middle man" since they're fairly literal. <S> Other translations (cherry-picked from <S> http://www.dict.cc/deutsch-englisch/vermitteln.html <S> ): <S> to mediate / to broker / to liaise [arbitrate] / to arbitrate / to go between / to act as intermediary / to act as a broker / to facilitate <A> As has been said in comments, the nearest equivalent in general appears to be "broker" (can be a verb or a noun - the agent, or "middle-man" involved - while the noun-form of the activity itself is "brokerage"). <S> This doesn't fit will in all English contexts however <S> , you would normally "broker a deal" between two parties but wouldn't normally use it in an employment context because more appropriate words exist for that particular purpose - "The company brokers jobs" is not quite idiomatic. <S> In regard to the specific example regarding jobs - correct me if I'm wrong, but from the sentence structure, it appears the intent is to describe the company rather than the specific action. <S> If that's the case, then idiomatically, appropriate phrases could include: <S> The company is a recruiting agency. <S> The company is a job agency. <S> Despite what I said before, you could also say: The company is an employment-broker Agents and brokers, are those who act on behalf of another party, so an "agency" is a collection of "middle-men". <S> "Recruit" is the normal verb that is generally used in these situations, but it does have a directional perspective - you could say that the job agency recruits applicants for an employer; but you wouldn't normally say that an agency recruits employers for applicants. <S> Instead, in the world of recruitment, you are likely to find the jargon of "job- matching " used for this purpose. <S> And while this may be the closest equivalent to "vermittelt Jobs", because it still has a jargony taint, it may not be quite idiomatic to use it just by itself <S> The company job-matches <S> Will probably be quite clear to your average English speaker, but there will likely be a compulsion to add additional context - for instance: <S> The company job-matches applicants with positions or <S> So in summary, "brokers" may be an acceptable translation of "vermitteln" for many contexts, but in at least some other contexts (another example would be dating agencies) words such as "matches" may be more appropriate.
| The company matches job-seekers with appropriate positions
|
Difference between "over" and "on" I found a question in a textbook: "All the employees at SEI Corporation are invited to the meeting _____ the new internal communications system that the company is about to bring in." A: at B: with C: over D: on The answer from book is "on". However, when I check Oxford: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/over_2 At the meaning no. 12, it says that "over" can also mean "about something". So I wonder if we can use "over" in this sentence. Is there any difference between "on" and "over" in this case? Thanks all. <Q> Yes, there is a difference. <S> One usually doesn't have a meeting "over" something, without using more words. <S> For instance, "All the employees at SEI Corporation are invited to the meeting where we will go over the new internal communications system that the company is about to bring in." <S> We argued over who would do the dishes. <S> So why wouldn't we say, "We had a meeting over who would do the dishes"? <S> It is largely idiomatic, but to a native English speaker it would sound odd. <S> A better choice than either "on" or "over" in the original example would be "about," except that it is used later in the same sentence. <S> The sentence could be rephrased to use "about" like this (changing the second instance to "going"): <S> "All the employees at SEI Corporation are invited to the meeting about the new internal communications system that the company is going to bring in." <A> In dictionaries, the more common usages are listed first. <S> If you were to use 'over' in this context, most English speakers would think you meant the more common definition in that Oxford dictionary page, definition #3, "from one side of something to the other; across something". <S> It would sound like you are saying people were talking from one side of the new internal communications system to the other side as part of their meeting. <S> This would be strange because the company is "about to bring in" the system, so it doesn't exist yet. <S> "On" in this case makes it sound like the communications system is the topic of the meeting. <S> "Over" implies that is something used for the meeting but not the topic. <S> As another example, it is common in English to say "We will have a meeting over lunch." <S> In that sentence, lunch is not the topic of the meeting, but it means that people will be around a meal while they are having the meeting. <A> I'm afraid that the relevant information from (some) dictionaries here is not the meaning of "on" or "over", but <S> the (arbitrary) fact that "meeting" takes "about" or "on" for its argument. <S> In fact the same is true for "lecture", "discussion", "thesis", and other words. <S> The definition 12 of "over" that the OLD gives, in fact, applies only to words like "argument" and "disagreement", where the meaning is subtly different from the argument of "meeting" etc.
| You are correct, however, that "over" can also mean "about something," as in this example:
|
What is the common term for the word "menstruation"? What is the common term for the word "menstruation"? Can I use cyclus ? In my native language, we normally say it by "monthly guest". <Q> Cyclus isn't a common term. <S> I never heard that word before this question. <S> If the context is medical you should use menstruate . <S> Period is the common term. <S> A less direct/somewhat more polite term is time of the month - e.g. <S> It's that time of the month for me ... , <S> Is it that time of the month? <S> On the rag is a (at least AmE) slang term - not vulgar <S> but nowhere near polite. <S> Often condescending in meaning unless females themselves use the term to express frustration. <A> The very popular term in India is " <S> She has MC" meaning Menstruation cycle. <S> Or, ''the aunt has come!" <A> In the UK: Decoraters in (as in painting) / Aunt Flo is visiting / <S> On the Blob <S> / On / <S> On the rag
| One who is menstruating is said to be on her period .
|
How to describe the condition of not having enough light in the room? I work in a room where it does not have enough light but it is not a dimmed room. If regular office rooms get 10 score on the brightness of light, this room would get 6. The lighting condition is like one in the picture below. Is there an English work to describe such a condition? <Q> Peter's answer gets part of the way there: "too X to Y", if X is the opposite of Z, is a useful construction in general to say that there's some Z lacking that makes it hard to do Y, even if there's still a pretty significant amount of Z. <S> That is, even if the room isn't very dark, it can still be "too dark to work" or "too dark to read". <S> However, in this case, "too dim to work" is probably better. <S> That's a somewhat weaker opposition, and in cases where there's really not much lacking at all, that has a better match to the idea that a smaller change might fix it. <S> Alternatively, say "not bright enough in here to work". <S> Similarly, you can use "There's not enough light in here to work." <S> In this case, rather than negating the basic adjective ("light" → "dark") <S> you're negating the adjectival phrase ("enough light" → "not enough light"). <A> and that will cover cases of diminished lighting to no lighting . <S> In an office environment, this situation can be described as poor lighting inadequate lighting insufficient lighting <S> dim lighting <S> (different from dimmed lighting) lowered lighting <S> In a home when done for effect, it can be called mood lighting subtle lighting romantic lighting tv lighting <A> Is there an English work to describe such a condition? <S> There isn't a single word, unfortunately. <S> When something blocks light, the effect is called shade , but that implies being outside. <S> During the day, it is reasonable to leave the lights out and expect the natural sunlight to fill the room. <S> The first thing that comes to mind is this room doesn't have enough natural light. <S> Because typically you could turn on a light to illuminate the room but just would prefer not because of the available sunlight. <A> You could say the room is underlit . <S> Lit can be used as an adjective meaning "supplied with light" (as in the great hall was lit by candles and torches ), and the prefix under- indicates that something is not enough (as in undersized , underfunded , underachiever ). <S> If the room had too much light, you could say it was overlit . <S> I believe these words are often used by photographers to describe a scene that has too little or too much light for a satisfactory photograph.
| Not having enough lighting can be expressed by simply saying It's too dark to work in here.
|
What is the difference between 'run off' and 'run away'? Both run away and run off mean escape, but is there any difference? <Q> Run away means you put distance between yourself and the unpleasant thing. <S> It doesn't say whether your escape was successful. <S> It doesn't say whether you're coming back. <S> It doesn't say whether anyone will catch up with you. <S> It usually implies that you're not coming back. <S> "Run off" can almost always be changed to "run away" without making a statement false. <S> A specific use of "run away" is actually closer to the meaning of "run off", and that is when a child or teenager runs away from their parents for a long period of time (days, months, years or permanently). <S> The child or teenager is said to be "running away from home" and is referred to as a "runaway". <S> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/run%20off gives another usage of "run off". <S> Run off can refer to causing someone else to run off. <S> "I ran off the intruder by chasing him and throwing rocks at him". <S> "The intruder ran off when I chased him and threw rocks at him". <S> Both sentence are good and mean pretty much the same thing. <A> To run away is to escape an undesirable situation with the usual implication of not coming back <S> run away from the burning building <S> The run aways <S> left home by bus <S> The dish ran away with the spoon <S> it can also mean out of control <S> the run away train <S> but because something is running away <S> it does not necessarily mean it will get away <S> they ran away from the police but were caught before they got away in their get away <S> car <S> To get away is to successful evade (usually) capture <S> he got away from the law <S> We will get away for the weekend by running away without the kids <S> it can also mean a vacation or holiday <S> a quick get away to a foreign country tropical island <S> get away <S> Take some time off and get away from it all <S> If you run away <S> it does not mean you will get away , but if you get away <S> it means you successfully ran away <S> One usually will run off with someone or something in a sudden manner <S> she ran off with her boyfriend before anyone noticed <S> he ran off with the goods when no one was looking If you run away <S> it is best to run off and not delay, or you might get caught and not be able to get away from whatever is chasing you. <A> That's quite a tricky question as I found out. <S> As a non-native I had to consult Oald. <S> They have an entry for to run off with, saying that to run away with and to run off with are interchangeable. <S> There is also an entry for to run off with special meanings. <S> See BrE and AmE. <S> http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/run-off-with http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/run-off_2
| Run off means you went somewhere that you cannot be effectively retrieved either because you went someplace hard to reach or because no one knows where you went.
|
What's wrong with saying "Can I have a ketchup?" My friend corrected me that asking "Can I have a ketchup?" instead of "Can I get some ketchup?" It sounds wrong and not native. I understand that ketchup is not countable, but since it's a fixed size, I thought it'll be okay to say it like that. Like if you were to order a glass of Coke at a restaurant, which one sounds more native and are there any that sounds grammatically wrong? Can I have a Coke? Can I have some Coke? Can I have a glass of Coke? Can I have Coke? And what if you were to pick a can of soda instead of a glass of soda? And would you say "I want to order a drink" or "I want to order drink"? <Q> Depending on the context, it could be fine or improper. <S> For example: Can I have a ketchup and a couple of mustards for my burger? <S> This sounds fine (at least in AE) <S> However, if you are at someone's house and the ketchup is in a bottle, then "a ketchup" would be incorrect. <S> When in doubt, I would use "some ketchup" over "a ketchup". <S> To go further, there is also a difference between "some ketchup" and "the ketchup". <S> "The ketchup" implies that existence of ketchup is not in doubt and is slightly more forceful than "some ketchup". <S> Examples:In your own home, <S> and you know there is a bottle of ketchup in the cabinet: <S> Please get the ketchup. <S> A guest in someone else's house and the bottle of ketchup is at the other end of the table: Please pass the ketchup. <S> A guest in someone else's house and the host asks if you'd like anything with your burger: <S> May I have some ketchup? <A> Depending on the context, "ketchup" is a mass noun - any quantity of it is treated as an undifferentiated unit, rather than as something with discrete subsets. <S> If you take a puddle of ketchup and split it in half, you have two puddles, not two ketchups. <S> The puddles are differentiated, but the ketchup itself is not. <S> There are some rarer edge cases where it may be okay to say what you did. <S> If there are multiple varieties of ketchup available, and you don't care which one they give you. <S> This would be part of a longer conversation, and "Give me any ketchup" would be better than "give me a ketchup". <S> If you're talking about the small packages of ketchup. <S> It would be informal but not too odd, if there was a known context that indicated you meant "Give me a ketchup packet ." <S> As far as your Coke example goes, it's complicated by the number of ways beverages can be served. <S> There's a lot of implied meaning, again based on context. <S> "Can I have a Coke?" <S> - The container is implied; it could be a glass, bottle, or can. <S> At the time you're asking, you only want one ("a") container full. <S> "Can I have some Coke?" <S> - The quantity and container are implied. <S> (Unless you're the kind of person that tries to drink directly from a soda fountain, but that makes you kind of odd anyway.) <S> "Can I have a glass of Coke?" <S> - Nothing implied here; you're asking for Coke in a glass. <S> "Can I have Coke?" <S> - This is the same as "some". <A> In English we have "countable nouns" and "uncountable nouns". <S> Countable nouns are used with a number or an article. <S> "I have two books." <S> "There is a book on the shelf." <S> Uncountable nouns are used with no indication of quantity, or with general words like "some". <S> "I have some water." <S> "There is water on the floor." <S> Either can be used with possessives. <S> "Give me my book." <S> "Give me my water." <S> All that said, uncountable nouns are sometimes used with a number or article when we mean one container of this thing, or one standard quantity. <S> So for example if you're in a restaurant where they have little packets of ketchup, "please give me a ketchup" would be understood to mean one of those packets. <S> But you wouldn't say, "I like a ketchup on my hamburger", you'd just say, "I like ketchup ...". <S> Well, maybe if you were trying to say that you like exactly one packet of ketchup, but it would be a very odd sentence. <S> If the ketchup is in a bottle, you would normally say, "I would like ketchup" or "I would like some ketchup. <S> " You could say, "Pass me the ketchup", meaning, give me the bottle. <S> But you wouldn't say, "I am putting the ketchup on my hamburger", but rather, "I am putting ketchup on ..." <S> Likewise, "Please give me a Coke <S> " means one can or glass or bottle. <S> Arguably this is leaving out assumed words rather than an alternate use of uncountable nouns. <S> What you really mean is, "Please give me a packet of ketchup" or "Please give me a can of Coke". <S> I think you mostly hear this talking about food, but it is sometimes used for other things. <S> If you were buying cans of fuel, you might say, "Give me two kerosenes and a propane." <S> Etc. <A> I think your error may be in comparing this to "Can I have a Coke". <S> "A Coke" is an abbreviated form of "a bottle of Coke" or "a can of Coke" or "a glass of Coke". <S> The reason the patron at the restaurant may use "a Coke" may not know how the restaurant serves Coke <S> (do they serve it in a can or a glass or a bottle?), or they may be influenced by Coca-Cola advertising " <S> I'd like to buy the world a Coke". <S> In both instances, people will understand you, but it is not "proper" construction. <S> The most proper way to ask for an uncountable noun is to use "some" whether you are talking about Coke or ketchup, regardless if it comes in a fixed size. <S> If you want to use "a", you should specify the fixed size (e.g. a bottle of ketchup, a cup of flour).
| If you are at a fast food that has condiments in small packets, then "a ketchup" is fine as the "packet" is implied.
|
'the very strong acid, chloric acid' vs. 'a very strong acid, chloric acid' Chlorine(VII) oxide reacts with water to give the very strong acid, chloric(VII) acid - also known as perchloric acid. ( source ) I guess we can use a instead of the here: Chlorine(VII) oxide reacts with water to give a very strong acid, chloric(VII) acid - also known as perchloric acid. After all, this is the first mention, and we're describing "chloric(VII) acid". Chloric acid is a very strong acid. I wonder what might have nudged the author towards the use of the here. Is there any difference in meaning? <Q> As always, the choice of article reflects the speaker's attitude with respect to the listener's ability to recognize what he is referring to. <S> A speaker who says a strong acid, chloric acid is not projecting the attitude that he expects the listener to recognize the acid by name. <A> It depends on how you interpret the statement. <S> Chlorine(VII) <S> oxide reacts with water to give a very strong acid, ( which is ) chloric(VII) acid... <S> Here using an indefinite article is OK, considering that there are many strong acids, and chloric(VII) acid is just one of them. <S> Chlorine(VII <S> ) oxide reacts with water to give the very strong acid, chloric(VII) acid... <S> Here using the definite article is OK, considering that you are specifically naming chloric(VII) acid. <A> We often signal the topic of what we are going to talk about not with a/an but with the . <S> The acid Chloric(VII) <S> acid is the topic of the portion of the article following its first mention. <S> The definite article is used because of the discourse prominence of the referent. <S> The definite article serves a variety of functions in discourse besides the previously mentioned identifiability/familiarity. <S> It also denotes: the discourse prominence of an entity;... <S> Source: <S> Page 151 of Extension and its Limits . <S> Search the text for "discourse prominence". <S> Consider also: <S> An especially clear illustration of a discourse prominent entity is one that is highly topical. <S> Most interesting in this respect are entities entered into the discourse with an initial definite description in order to signal that they will be topics in the subsequent portion of text <S> [my emphasis] Source: pdf <S> The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents by Richard Epstein .
| A speaker who says the strong acid, chloric acid is, intentionally or unintentionally, projecting the attitude that he expects the listener to recognize it by name and to already be aware that the name is associated with a characteristic, namely "strong acid".
|
Differences between competent and competitive I understand from dictionaries and web research that both terms can mean capable, of a person. Do they tend to carry other important meanings in this sense? Is competent used often enough in daily life that it's useful to learn? Is it particularly formal, colloquial, strong, or literary? <Q> Competent focuses more on the skill level itself, while competitive, in this sense, marks someone as attractive enough to be selected for (or "winning") some role or position. <S> Competent: <S> adjective <S> 1 <S> having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully. <S> "a highly competent surgeon" <S> Oxforddictionaries.com competent <S> Competitive: <S> adjective <S> 2 <S> As good as or better than others of a comparable nature: a car industry competitive with any in the world <S> Oxforddictionaries.com competitive <S> Competitive makes more explicit that such a situation involves a comparison between the person described and others in a contest for such a position or role, while this idea is implicit in competent (someone can't be sensibly considered good or good enough at something if no one, at least in theory, is not good or not good enough for that thing). <S> Should you upgrade or develop new skills that would make you more competitive in the job market? <S> -- Baby Boomers and Their Parents <S> Both words can be used to indicate a relatively wide range of strength or degree of positive evaluation, but both of them generally indicate at least an acceptable degree of skill, capability, potential, or desirability. <S> The dictionary I've cited here gives pretty good information on how competent can be graded as more or less positive. <S> We tend to use very and highly to intensify both of these terms. <S> Competent is a useful word to know. <S> It is one of the 7,500 most common words used in English. <S> See the Macmillan Dictionary's entry for competent for more on this. <S> Especially note that it is a red word there, and you can click What are red words? on the page for more information. <S> In some situations, competent can carry a negative connotation, as in <S> He's not a great architect, or even a good one, but I suppose he's competent. <S> In other words, it can communicate a just barely passable level of skill or ability. <S> Competent seems to be at a medium level of register (formality). <S> In some very relaxed and informal conversations, it may be more appropriate to simply say something like <S> she's a good/great lawyer. <A> The confusion arises from the fact that both words are adjectives. <S> I think competent relates more to a person, institution, authority <S> (may be machinery): a competent machine, a competent athlete, a competent department. <S> It shows the quality and ability rather than comparison. <S> Competitive includes abstract terms as well as the above: competitive salary, competitive sport, competitive examination. <S> It shows spirit, desire, passion and comparison . <A> To me is clear that competitive can be somewhat degrading to others. <S> It implies to compare yourself to others. <S> E.g. A better soccer player with better skills. <S> In other words, always trying to prove yourself that you are better than others. <S> Competent in the other hand, it implies that you are doing your best for your soccer team regardless of your lack of skills. <S> Basically what you are trying to "prove " is that you are trying your best. <S> Starbucks vs Peet's coffee. <S> Peet's makes the best coffee. <S> Starbucks makes the most profit.
| Competent and competitive are both used to characterize someone as at least adequately qualified or suitable for some role or position.
|
What is the meaning of "Jump into the bridge"? During a one-to-one technical chat with my client, he sent me a meeting link and texted me: Jump into the bridge. Is he trolling me (as there was a particular issue that had been left unresolved for a long time)? Or is it a normal phrase that is used to ask a person to join a meeting? <Q> No, he didn't troll. <S> Yes, this is the normal term used to ask a person to join the conference call/meeting. <S> Bridge is a common term used in the companies instead of the Conference call. <S> So he is asking you to join the conference call, and not any insult or troll. <S> As source from the wiki about the conference call , the bridge is defined as: Conference calls can be designed so that the calling party calls the other participants and adds them to the call; however, participants are usually able to call into the conference call themselves by dialing a telephone number that connects to a "conference bridge" <A> If he wanted to "Troll" or insult you, he would have used the colloquial idiom <S> Go jump off the bridge. <S> in which case, he wouldn't send you a link to a web meeting (Unless the link is to a video in which he would swearing the living crap out of you, haha). <S> Free Dictionary defines ' bridge ' as a connecting, transitional, or intermediate route. <S> to join by or as if by a bridge. <S> The client referred the "Bridge" as the link between you and him. <S> The very communication link (web conference link) is referred to as the bridge as it connects the both of you, sitting far apart. <S> So the comm lines acts as the 'bridge' between the both of you. <S> Since the link is given to you, the connection is already established. <S> This means that the 'bridge' is already built and all that needs to be done now is for you to be a part of it. <S> That is why he has used the phrase: Jump into the bridge. <S> So no, nobody is trolling you. <S> Cheers. <A> Depending on the context and his attitude towards the situation he may have used the idiom: Jump into the breach. <S> In historic combat, a breach (e.g. a hole in a defensive wall) is where a lot of the fighting would be. <S> There is a quote "Once more unto the breach" (from Shakespeare's Henry V ) that could cause some to use "into the breach" to mean "get involved".
| To "jump" is to join.
|
In what cases can we or had we better omit "please" when you use an imperative sentence to a stranger? I always find it difficult to use the word "please".When you use an imperative sentence politely to a stranger, it is generally safe to use "please".For example, "Please don't smoke here."Of course, when you demand a stranger to do something, you usually don't use it. For example, "Get out!" However, it seems to me there are cases in which you can or better omit "please" even if you mean to say it politely.For example, when you say "Feel free to do something".Am I right?If yes, what cases are they? Are there some general rules with which we can decide whether to use "please" or not?I think this is an interesting problem of the English language. Do you have any book recommendation on this subject? Edit Since some people seem to misunderstand my question, I will add some other examples. Steve Jobs said in his speech at Stanford university, "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish."It seems to me "Please stay hungry and foolish" is acceptable but awkward. "Have a nice weekend." "Watch out!" "Sleep tight." "Take care." Edit I searched COCA(Corpus of Contemporary American English): Please feel free to: 50 Feel free to: 967 <Q> As you acknowledge, "please" is a polite filler word. <S> So when is it best NOT to say "please"? <S> (a) <S> If you are trying to be abrupt or rude. <S> " <S> Get out before I throw you out!" is more effective than "Would you please make your way to the exit". <S> (b) <S> Like if you know the stove is hot and see someone about to touch it, it makes sense to shout, "Don't touch the stove! <S> " If you said, "Please don't touch the stove", it makes it sound like a mild request. <S> The person might casually touch it thinking they're about to ask, "Oh, why not?" <S> Arguably, in an emergency where a fraction of a second counts, the time it takes to say an extra word like "please" might be crucial. <S> (c) <S> If the sentence already has other polite words. <S> Like your example, "Feel free to look around." <S> "Feel free" already makes the command polite. " <S> Please feel free" is probably overkill. <S> One polite word or phrase is normally sufficient. <S> Unless you're desperately begging, like, "Please, if you would, if it isn't too much trouble, would you consider, maybe possibly ..." (d) If the imperative is something that is for the hearer's own benefit, adding "please" may not be necessary, and indeed may make it sound like you are asking them to do it for your benefit. <S> Like, "Have another piece of cake" versus "Please take another piece of cake. <S> " The first would be understood to be giving the person the option. <S> If they don't want any more cake, they can say no. <S> But the second implies that you want them to take the cake, like you are afraid the person who baked the cake will have hurt feelings if too little of it is eaten or some such. <A> You can use please almost anywhere. <S> Say, you're angry at someone, even then you could use please: Buzz off, please. <S> Please go kill yourself. <S> Please leave me alone. <S> So there isn't any hard and fast rule when it comes to the usage of 'please' . <S> Then there are occasions when the use of "please" is necessary, <S> it's not mandatory , but it should be used generally. <S> For example: Please remain quiet. <S> Please don't smoke here. <S> Please come here. <S> These sentences all include a request to the listener to do something. <S> Now, if the listener thinks your request is too harsh, he may not consider listening to you. <S> That's why you add a "courtesy" factor to your sentence. <S> The main purpose of the word "please" is to add a respectful and polite note, so as to make the listener feel good. <S> It is always good to be polite to another person, especially a stranger. <S> There are few limits to the use of "please" ; however, you must be very careful that you don't overuse it and sound too cheesy. <S> Nobody listens to somebody who is way too polite, even in this harsh world. <S> Try to limit the use of "please" and use it the right amount of times. <S> You'll get a hang of it once you start using it extensively. <A> I have a different take on this from the other commenters. <S> Putting aside "watch out" and the Steve Job quote for the moment, the other examples you cite, while expressed with the imperative, do not represent a demand, but rather a wish or hope by the speaker, e.g., "(I hope you) have a nice weekend" or "(I would like you to) <S> feel free to look around." <S> Steve Jobs is not issuing a demand, but offering advice: "(I advise you to) stay hungry." <S> You can drop the "please" from "Watch out!" <S> because you are being playful (said while smiling), because of urgency <S> (it'll be too late if you take time to say please), or because you are angry or serious (not trying to be polite).
| 'Please' is word that is mostly used in polite requests. If you are trying to express urgency.
|
When "have studied" takes place What is the right meaning of the sentence? No.1 or No.2? <Q> For image <S> No. 2, I would say that picture describes this sentence: <S> I had <S> studied the book for three years . <S> By the way, this sentence: <S> I studied the book for three years . <S> could be depicted by either picture. <S> (There may or may not be any time between when the three years of study began, and when the speaker made the utterance.) <A> The answer is both 1 and 2. <S> Whatever any books may tell you, the difference between 1 and two is not captured by the choice of a perfect construction. <S> When I say "I have studied the book" I am choosing to imply that there is some present relevance to this event in the past. <S> What that present relevance may be is left open. <S> Often, it will be that the event has finished very recently, as in no. 1 (though as others have said, if it continues right up to now, "I have been studying the book" is far more likely). <S> But in some contexts, the sentence is perfectly consistent with No 2, because the speaker for some reason want to bring the present relevance into the conversation. <S> For example: I've studied the book for three years, but I still haven't finished writing my thesis about it. <S> or, in answer to <S> "You don't understand this book", <S> Excuse me, I've studied the book for three years! <S> Both of these might mean the speaker has studied it recently, or it might be quite a while ago. <S> I don't dispute that in situation 2 the speaker is more likely to use the simple past; but they may choose the present perfect to describe exactly the same events for the reasons I've outlined. <A> There is no implication in the present perfect that you have <S> finished anything, with the verb study (i.e. with durative verbs). <S> Durative events which have been finished are expressed with the simple past. <S> The present perfect expresses the idea that the event has some bearing upon the speaker's present or some relevance to the speaker's present. <S> You could be only half-way through a degree and say: I have studied biology for two years. <S> I have studied the book for two years. <S> (you could be at page 345 and the book has 500 pages). <S> You have not finished your studies. <S> Your studies could be ongoing. <S> Rather, the meaning is that you are a person with two years of experience doing biological study. <S> The relationship with your present state: you possess the experience of two years of biological studies. <S> You are a person who read that book for a period of two years; you may still be reading it, or you might have thrown it in the trashcan; we don't know which. <S> If you decided to quit biology and take up mathematics instead, then your biological studies would be finished, and if you wished to express the idea that you quit biology, that is, the biology studies ended , you could say: I studied biology for two years. <S> Even if you have quit, you could still say "I have studied biology for two years" if you wished to express the idea that you have two years of experience studying biology. <A> I have done something, means that I started in the past, and in the present, I am no longer doing it. <S> It matters not if I stopped now or 10 years ago. <S> Both pictures can be described by "I have studied the book for 3 years". <S> If the question does not allow such an answer, the question is incorrect.
| No. 1 is the way I would interpret the sentence.
|
What is the difference between "cry" and "burst into tears" "I burst into tears every time I see my late Mother's picture." "I cry a lot every time I see my late Mother's picture." What is the difference between those two sentences? <Q> Conceptually, there's not much difference at all. <S> However, the phrase burst into tears conveys the notion of a sudden outburst of crying. <S> It's possible to cry a lot without bursting into tears . <S> You could weep more gradually, sniffling, sobbing, and crying one tear at a time over an extended time span. <S> For example, a chef might "cry a lot" while slicing onions, without ever "bursting into tears." <S> Bursting into tears is an expression that usually describes someone who breaks into sudden weeping after being overcome by a strong emotion, such as joy or grief. <S> It's also possible to burst into tears without crying a lot . <S> For example, after a mining accident, the father of a rescued coal miner might "burst into tears" upon hearing the news of his son's rescue, but then quickly regain his composure and smile in a huge sigh of relief, hugging his neighbors and other supporters. <A> Some of the fans cried after losing to their rival. <S> To burst into tears is to initiate crying with a sudden explosive action of tears and a facial expression of disbelief. <S> After the initial outburst , it can then lead to any one of different types of crying (answers OP's original question) . <S> The children burst into tears <S> when Santa didn't come. <S> There are various forms of crying in order of intensity (these descriptions are only guidelines and subjective) tearing is water coming from the eyes possibly without a runny nose weeping is a more intense tearing with subdued sounds of sadness sobbing is a more intense form of weeping and a runny nose crying <S> is what on would usually think of tantrum (for children) <S> involves a physical breakdown and possibly flailing on the floor <S> wailing is a full on display of anguish characterised by screams Crying usually occurs with sadness but may occur in times of happiness which are then called Tears of Joy <S> She cried when he proposed marriage <S> The beauty contestant burst into tears upon winning the pageant. <A> As J.R. says, bursting into tears is a sudden reaction. <S> I've recalled a poem, An Ancient Gesture , that illustrates the usage of the expression nicely: <S> I thought, as I wiped my eyes on the corner of my apron: <S> Penelope did this too. <S> And more than once: you can't keep weaving all day <S> And undoing it all through the night; Your arms get tired, and the back of your neck gets tight; <S> And along towards morning, when you think it will never be light, And your husband has been gone, and you don't know where, for years, Suddenly you burst into tears ; <S> There is simply nothing else to do. <S> You see - there's the build-up of emotion, and then suddenly <S> you burst into tears. <A> Compare: <S> She cried for hours. <S> * <S> She burst into tears for hours. <S> Bursting into tears refers to the moment of starting to cry. <S> But of course it could also be used metonymically to refer to the full act of crying. <S> Dave is such a cry-baby, he bursts into tears all the time.
| Crying is a form of coping with strong emotions where tears run from the eyes, the nose runs, and may be accompanied by sounds of crying out in disbelief , anguish , or sadness .
|
How do I avoid misspelling "receive" as "recieve"? As a non-native speaker and before the advent of the panaceas called spell-checkers and auto-correct , I used to often misspell words like receive ( as " recieve ") and achieve (as " acheive "). I still make the mistake sometimes and thanks to auto-correct/in-built spell checkers in browsers, I am never able to get a hang of which spelling to use when! Is there any easy way to remember when to put 'i' before 'e' (as in "believe", "relief" etc.) and when to put 'i' after 'e' (receive, receipt, deceit, and so on)? <Q> The usual mnemonic in English to remember the ruling for this is represented by a fairly simple poem: i before e, <S> Except after c, Or when sounded as "a," As in neighbour and weigh. <S> Of course, as with any rule there are some exceptions: the most notable ones are either, neither, inveigle and seize. <S> Unfortunately there isn't a cast-iron procedure for determining what's an exception and what isn't, though the most common cause of an exception is when the word has a long 'e' sound. <A> This might not be what you want to hear, but the answer is practice and internalization. <S> And spell checking. <A> Most native speakers of English have trouble spelling weird words like "receive" and "achieve". <S> I also remember a few related words: Reception does not have any confusion between Es and Is. <S> It makes it clear that the "e" goes immediately after the "c" in related words like "receive", "conceive", "perceive", "deceive", et cetera . <S> Chief is a fairly common word. <S> There is an American professional football team named the Kansas City Chiefs. <S> A "chief" is like a minor "king", where the "i" goes immediately after the consonant. <S> This helps me remember how to spell related words like "achieve" and "mischief". <S> By the way, Kansas City sports teams have a "king" theme. <S> The following teams have played in Kansas City, either now or in the past: Royals (American League baseball) Monarchs (Negro League baseball) Kings (National Basketball Association) <S> Chiefs (National Football League) <A> There is only a handfull of words where long /i :/ is spelt with ei. <S> The following list is from my own collection: 1 to conceive 2 to deceive 3 to receive 4 to seize 5 <S> a surfeit - Short i. <S> 6 weird adj <S> No.1 <S> with 3 go back to Latin cipere, in French concevoir, decevoir, recevoir. <S> I think the logic of the spelling is from French -cevoir. <S> The i is placed after e. <S> This seems to be a way to remind of the French connection. <S> The French ending -voir is replaced by -ve. <S> The case is different with no. 4 to 6. <S> Added: As sumelic said "surfeit" is pronounced with short i, <S> so in Oald. <A> I have found that, for situations like this, auto-correct is your enemy. <S> If you use auto-correct, you will not learn, since it is done for you. <S> I have my web browser and word-processor HIGHLIGHT <S> ONLY my errors, and I correct them manually. <S> That way, I learn. <S> It's annoying, which helps. <A> You can try using a Spaced Repetition Software (SRS), like Anki or Supermemo. <S> Simply create a flashcard which asks you for the proper spelling. <S> Wih an SRS you won't have to review the spelling very often.
| The "I before E, except after C or said as 'a' like in 'neighbor' and 'weigh'" rule helps, but still has "weird" exceptions. I try to pay attention when spell-checkers complain about these words.
|
meaning of a complex sentence From the University of Alabama " Application for Admission ", as of February 2016: At the time of your entry to UA, will you have been separated from the U.S. Armed Forces, National Guard or Reserves with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge or been dismissed by sentence of a general court-martial or sentenced to confinement adjudged by a court-martial or in a federal or state penitentiary or correctional institution? The meaning of the above sentence is that, I will not be disrespectful or not to the US army or any national Guard services. Is it right? <Q> The sentence is a question. <S> It is difficult to read, even for a native speaker, so let's consider what it asks, one piece at a time: <S> At the time of your entry to UA, will you have been... <S> The question asks about a condition being true at the time you enter UA. <S> The condition might be true now (at the time of your application) or you might expect it to become true between now and whenever you enter UA. <S> ... <S> separated from the U.S. Armed Forces, National Guard or Reserves with... <S> This asks if you have left (or will have left) <S> the U.S. Armed Forces, National Guard or Reserves under certain conditions (in the with phrase that follows). <S> In order for this to be true, you must have been a member of the U.S. Armed Forces in the past and then left the Armed Forces. <S> If you have never been in the U.S. Armed Forces, National Guard, or Reserves, the answer to this part of question must be "no" ( but see the final point for a possible "yes"). <S> ... <S> with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge... <S> A "dishonorable discharge" or "bad conduct discharge" is a specific kind of formal dismissal from the U.S. military . <S> When you leave the military, your discharge can honorable or dishonorable. <S> If you were in the military and left the military dishonorably, then the answer to this question is "yes". <S> ...or been dismissed by sentence of a general court-martial... <S> A court-martial is a military court. <S> ... <S> or sentenced to confinement adjudged by a court-martial or in a federal or state penitentiary or correctional institution? <S> If a court-martial sentenced you to confinement, or you were you otherwise sentenced to jail (by a non-military court), you must answer this question "yes". <S> The " or " here joins modifiers on the type of confinement: <S> either confinement adjudged by a court-martial or confinement in a federal or state penitentiary or correctional institution. <A> The way I would phrase it would be: <S> At the time of your entry to UA, will any of the following be the case? <S> You have been separated from the U.S. Armed Forces, National Guard or Reserves with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge <S> You have been dismissed from the U.S. Armed Forces, National Guard or Reserves by sentence of a general court-martial <S> You have been sentenced to confinement adjudged by a court-martial or in a federal or state penitentiary or correctional institution <S> If none of those are the case, you answer no. <A> This sentence combines 5 questions and a time-frame. <S> The intent is to understand certain aspects of your personal history as related to character and conduct. <S> This intent is identified in the headings for this section of the application form and the 3 paragraphs following it. <S> The time-frame is "when (if?) <S> you are accepted to the university." <S> The questions are: "Have you been discharged from the Military for dishonorable service?" <S> "Have you been discharged from the Military for bad conduct? <S> " <S> "Have you been discharged from the Military by a military court? <S> " <S> "Have you been sentenced to confinement by a military court? <S> " <S> "Will you be in prison?" <S> Answering 'yes' to any one or more of these five questions should result in a 'yes' answer on the form. <S> The context of the application form and the 5 previous questions implies that the fifth portion of this question also applies to persons who have not served in the military.
| If you left the military because of sentence passed by a military court, you must answer this question "yes".
|
"Every time there's a thunderstorm ...." What part of speech are 'there' and 'every time'? According to my instructor, 'every time' is used as an adjective + noun, 'there' is used as an adverb. But in the sentence below I think "every time" is used as a time expression adverb, and "there" is used as a pronoun. But every time there 's a thunderstorm around Marshfield, they say you can hear his rolling voice in the hollows of the sky. <Q> But every time there's a thunderstorm around Marshfield, they say you can hear his rolling voice in the hollows of the sky. <S> Let's simplify the sentence to make it easier to analyse: <S> Every time there's a thunderstorm, you can hear his voice. <S> The phrase <S> every time there's a thunderstorm is a temporal Adjunct (of frequency). <S> Some grammars call Adjuncts " Adverbials ". <S> Notice that you can move this phrase around: <S> They say you can hear his voice [every time there's a thunderstorm.] <S> In terms of what kind of phrase this is, it's a noun phrase. <S> The head noun is the word time . <S> This noun has a Determiner, the word every . <S> Determiners are words like <S> the, a, my, this and so forth. <S> The word time is also being modified by a restrictive relative clause <S> there's a thunderstorm . <S> We could rephrase the sentence like this: <S> Every time [ that there's a thunderstorm], you can hear his voice. <S> Every time [ when there's a thunderstorm], you can hear his voice. <S> The word there is the Subject of the clause <S> there's a thunderstorm . <S> It is analysed as a pronoun in modern grammars such as The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002). <S> There are many reasons why. <S> One reason is that it is repeated in question tags at the end of sentences: <S> There are many thunderstorms, aren't there ? <S> This is a different word from the locative word there that we see in sentences like <S> I'll meet you there . <S> It seems then that the Original Poster is correct (apart from the small detail that every time ... <S> is an Adverbial, but not an adverb - an adverb is always a single word). <A> As commented by Araucaria, the word "every" is not an adjective; it's a determiner. <S> I think when it's followed by "time", it functions as an adverbial phrase interchangeable with the adverb whenever. <S> Moreover, "Every time there's a thunderstorm" is an adverbial clause. <A> Mother to daughter: Every time (when) I go into the bath <S> it's filthy. <S> Liz Phair, song: <S> Every time I see your face <S> I get all wet between my legs. <S> I would say "every time when" is a three-part conjunction. "when" is mostly dropped. <S> As to the sentence type "There is a spot on your shirt" / <S> "There is a God"the views are divided. <S> Some say it is an adverb of place. <S> The demonstrative character can fade away when "there" is used in existential sense. <S> Some say "there" is the subject. <S> That's the view of CGEL. <S> Not my view. <S> For those who are interested in Liz Phair's song, here is the Link
| As for the word "there", it's a pronoun used as a dummy subject to introduce or indicate the existence of the logical subject of the sentence (a thunderstorm).
|
How is the rank for "exceptional" for this situation? His English is exceptional. If it is applied to non-native speaker: What rank of English when someone is considered being "exceptional"? Does his knowledge of English is similar with native speaker? Does he perform English in a different way compared to the other English learners? What things can be classified as being exceptional in this context? <Q> Suppose someone told me that your English was "exceptional". <S> Regardless of whether you are a native speaker of English, I would expect your English to be much better than most native speakers of English. <S> For example: Your vocabulary would be good enough that you could read a George Will column, and know what 98% of the words mean. <S> You know how to put together parts of words to make understandable longer words. <S> You know how to put together words to make understandable phrases and sentences. <S> Your spelling would be good enough that if you entered a spelling bee against a sample of typical thirteen year old native speakers, you could easily beat half of them, and you would have a chance of winning. <S> (But you might only know how one country spells the hard "spelling bee words".) <S> You can use conjunctions (like "and", "or", "but", "either", "neither", and "nor") to make logically correct sentences. <S> You know how to split up a run-on sentence into easily understandable sentences, without changing the meaning. <S> When a grammar checker complains about your writing, you either know why it is right, or you know why your way of writing is better. <S> Some of the frequent answerers on this website have "exceptional" English. <A> In this context, exceptional has the idea of being extremely good . <S> If the word is used correctly, you should get essentially the same meaning if you substituted extremely good for exceptional . <S> In answer to your direct questions: the speaker's English would be considered extremely good; interestingly, exceptional is strongly bound to the speaker's standards and the context, so there may not be a direct correlation with an arbitrary group that is judged by someone else. <S> For example, a non-native speaker in their first year of primary schooling who is judged to have exceptional English is not likely to have a comparable grasp of the language to an adult native speaker; his use of English is likely to be more fluent, grammatically correct, natural-sounding, etc. <S> compared to one whose English is not as polished; and anything that can be compared to any standard (even a subjective, internal, hard-to-articulate standard) by any judge can be considered exceptional by their standards within the context of their assessment. <A> If a person's usage of a language is considered exceptional <S> For non-native speakers this would include speed of comprehension and response, and the emotional understanding that native speakers will naturally have for wording and phrasing. <S> In other words: the culture . <S> The acid test would be to be confused for someone who is a native speaker both over the phone and in an email. <S> To speak with a native accent can be quite an accomplishment.
| it usually can be said that they are articulate or well-spoken , and their usage of both spoken and written language is better than most of all native speakers (as an absolute scale).
|
How to understand "The alarm went off while I was asleep" I see a sentence which is "the alarm went off while I was asleep", but I'm not quite sure the meaning of it. Because I see the explanation of the phrase "went off" in my dictionary seems in contradiction: One is running suddenly，another one is stop running So in this sentence, is the alarm ringing or not? <Q> Here is a definition taken from one dictionary : <S> Go off: [INTRANSITIVE] to explode, or to be fired <S> "The gun went off while he was cleaning it" <S> In fact, another dictionary explains that this phrase can be directly applied to a noise, and defines it in the following manner: <S> Go off (NOISE) <S> If a warning device goes off, it starts to ring loudly or make a loud noise: <S> "The alarm should go off automatically as soon as smoke is detected" "Didn't you hear your <S> alarm clock going off this morning?" <S> Therefore, " go off " can have the meaning of something being spontaneously activated or animated, such as with a gun, bomb, or indeed, an alarm. <A> There's a term for words like that which can be their own antonym: Auto-antonym . <S> Also "Contranym". <S> There's actually a surprising number of them. <S> English is funny that way, allowing for statements like: "The alarm went off again. <S> Can somebody turn the alarm off?" <S> Though they both use the same word "off", the first sentence implies that the alarm is ringing, while the second is asking someone to make it stop. <S> Unfortunately, there's no consistency with this sort of thing, it all depends on context. <S> For instance, if I said "This switch makes the lights go off. <S> " you'd expect that the lights would be off after pushing the switch. <S> But "This switch makes the alarm go off. <S> " implies that the alarm will be on after pushing the switch. <S> Another example of things that work like the alarm would be "Pulling the trigger makes the gun go off.", meaning that the gun fires a shot, not that the gun is deactivated. <S> English is a messy language... <A> True, off can mean "inactive, deactivated" or it can mean "active, activated, in motion, moving from a state or point of stasis". <S> (I am attempting to be as general and as vague as possible there, to accommodate a wide range of particular meanings.) <S> off combines with verbs to form collocations (run off, go off, set off, fly off, blast off, shot off, etc). <S> When used with something which in its normal state is active , "to go off" means to stop functioning : <S> The TV went off after that lightning bolt. <S> The alarm clock went off. <S> We waited for the 100 meter dash to begin. <S> The starter's gun went off. <S> Here's one with "dashed off": <S> The door slammed and the skittish horse dashed off. <S> Alarms and guns are normally in a state of readiness . <S> A skittish horse is always "ready" to be spooked. <S> All three can be triggered into action. <S> Then off, off forth on swing / as a skate's heel sweeps smooth on a bow bend. <S> The sail caught a sudden breeze and we were off. <S> Ciao. <S> I'm off. <A>
| When used of something which in its normal state is in a state of readiness , "to go off" means to become active suddenly , to go from the ready state to the active state: It is potentially ambiguous; but because of the familiarity of the collocation "the alarm went off", (meaning triggered), anybody who said that meaning that it had turned itself off would be very likely to be misunderstood, so it is unlikely anybody would say it in that sense.
|
there was an accident on dam neck road / there was an accident at dam neck road How do you determine when to use which proposition? (in on at...) Its easy to say I'm sitting on a box or in a box But sometimes its confusing Like for example, do you say-I'm in schoolOr-I'm at school -there was an accident on this roadOr-there was an accident at this road <Q> At refers to a specific location, a point on the geography... ... <S> at the intersection of Broad Street and Maple Avenue. <S> On refers to the road as a surface or as a route. <S> There was some debris on the road. <S> We are on the road that takes us into the city. <S> Thus, we cannot say not OK <S> "there was an accident at the road" not OK because the road is never a point . <S> The road is analogous to a line, straight or curvy. <S> P.S. <S> But as Peter indicates in his answer, if you're traveling on Broad Street and reach Maple Avenue, where there is an accident at the intersection , you can say: There was an accident at Maple Avenue <S> But the sentence above requires the context that you were traveling on a road that intersects Maple Avenue; "at Maple Avenue" is there understood to mean "at the Maple Avenue intersection". . <A> Do you drive on the road or at the road? <S> there was an accident on Dam Neck Road <S> means somewhere along that road <S> there was an accident at Dam Neck Road <S> would mean you are already on a different road which crosses Dam Neck Road and the accident <S> was where the two roads intersect (as you point in the direction of Dam Neck Road) <S> If there was a specific location <S> There was an accident at Dam Neck Road and River Street <S> it would signify the location of the intersection Additional examples <S> There is an accident on highway 247 <S> There is an accident on the bridge <S> (this one is tricky) <S> There is an accident on the off ramp at junction 64 <S> There is an accident at junction 64 on highway 247 <S> There is an accident at the bridge <S> (this one is tricky) <S> There is an accident at the traffic light <A> In X is appropriate if you are surrounded on most sides by X, such as in a container, building, etc. <S> On X is appropriate if you can physically be atop something, or to refer to flat surfaces. <S> Typically you are on a road. <S> The notion of a place is a logical construct and while usually associated to specific flat surfaces and buildings, it's a loose association - when we say X is at Y <S> we don't care how X and Y are touching. <S> Some things can be both places and other things, so sometimes this distinction is blurry. <S> For example, school is a place, as well as a building. <S> So you can be at school or in school . <S> A road can be considered a place sometimes as well. <S> Typically this happens when an intersection is involved or one cares more about someone or something's location (or place) than the physical orientation against the road.
| At X is appropriate if X is a place.
|
Meaning with/without of between noun and gerund Their constructing the monument was something of a feat. Their constructing of the monument was something of a feat. As a native speaker , what sort of difference in meaning do you sense between the sentences , bearing in mind that the only difference is the adding of "of" to the second sentence ? <Q> It's hard to answer this question due to the fact that a native speaker would not say either of your sentences. <S> I suggest using: <S> "Their construction of the monument was something of a feat." <A> As an American native English speaker, I perceive no difference in meaning between the two example sentences; however, without additional context justifying its inclusion (for instance, in the preceding paragraph), I would drop "Their" from either sentence; i. e., <S> "Constructing the monument was something of a feat." <S> The only problem with either sentence is that "something of a feat" is a weak description. <S> Constructing a backyard BBQ is "something of a feat. <S> " Constructing a monument is presumably something much more than that; for instance, Constructing the monument was a considerable (or enormous, or magnificent) feat. <A> Construct takes an object, and gerunds can take objects. <S> Their constructing the monument was something of a feat <S> You can use of X to explicitly provide the reason, purpose, or "destination" of many nouns. <S> The monument is the "destination" or reason for the constructing. <S> As gerunds are nouns this can be done with them as well. <S> Their constructing of the monument was something of a feat. <S> Both expressions are basically two paths that arrive at the same meaning. <S> If you wished to draw attention to the monument - i.e. if the act of constructing the monument is a feat and not just the act of constructing (without regard to what is being constructed) - then the second sentence would be better.
| The monument is an object of constructing .
|
Difference between "mortals" and "the mortals" in a text where "the" doesn't seem to be referring to specific ones Here is a tale from a video game. Sheogorath is a god, a so-called Daedric Prince, whose sphere is Madness, and whose motives are unknowable . In the earliest of days, in a time when the world was still raw, Sheogorath decided to walk amongst the mortals . He donned his guise of Gentleman With a Cane, and moved from place to place without being recognized. After eleven days and eleven nights, Sheogorath decided that life among mortals was even more boring than his otherworldly existence. "What can I do to make their lives more interesting?" he said to himself. At that same moment, a young woman nearby commented wistfully to herself, "The sounds of the birds are so beautiful." Sheogorath silently agreed with her. Mortals could not make the beautiful and inspired calls of birds. Their voices were wretched and mundane. He could not change the nature of mortals , for that was the purview of other Daedric Princes. However, he could give them tools to make beautiful sounds. Sheogorath took hold of the petulant woman and ripped her asunder. From her tendons he made lutes. From her skull and arm bones he made a drum. From her bones he made flutes. He presented these gifts to the mortals , and thus Music was born. I don't see why the is being used in those two sentences. The definite article doesn't seem to be describing any specific mortals. There was an answer about half a month ago: I was in the N.Y. Library. I was reading the books there, and one book interested me. This sentence treats "the books" as a single fixture in the New York Library. That doesn't make sense if you're reading them; it makes sense in a context like this: The yearly cost to insure the books in the New York Library is over a million dollars. As in the above example, is the article in my text referring to all mortals as a single entity (i.e. not individually)? <Q> This is a case where English uses "the" to reference a group of people or a species in a generalized sense. <S> For example: I like walking alone in the woods so that I can listen to the birds . <S> There he [Biddle] lived with the natives, learned their language, and worked at his painting . <S> Through characters like Tom Bombadil and the Ents, Tolkien seems to be saying that nature is an entity separate from ourselves. <S> (Anne Pienciak) <S> You have made him a little lower than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor . <S> (Ps. <S> 8) Some additional information about varied uses of <S> the can be found at this related ELL question . <A> The 'the' refers to all mortals as a single entity. <S> Note that when you omit the 'the', you are usually referring to mortals as a class, you are signaling to the reader that you are about to describe or define that class. <S> like below... <S> "Mortals could not make the beautiful and inspired calls of birds." <A> A way to explain the use of <S> the is to ask what the choice of determiner means to the person whose thoughts the words reveal , whoever that may be. <S> In normal conversation, people speak for themselves. <S> In a story, sometimes the narrator is revealing his or her own thoughts but sometimes the thoughts of the character whose story is being told. <S> The choice of a definite article here implies that someone, either the narrator or Sheogorath, has in mind members of a particular class , just as we might if we were to say <S> The king decided to walk among the commoners.
| It's normal usage, and your hunch is correct: this has nothing to do with describing any "specific" mortals.
|
Does when imply that it must? Here's a hypothetical scenario: When you become a soldier, you will fight in wars. Does this imply that the person in question will become a soldier; must I use "if you become"? <Q> When you become a soldier, you will fight in wars. <S> This indicates you will become a soldier at some point in time. <S> If you become a soldier, you will fight in wars. <S> This is conditional. <S> It does not say you will become a soldier, but if you do, you will fight in wars. <S> This ELL post may help: When are 'if' and 'when' interchangeable? <A> If you refers to a particular person being addressed, then yes. <S> If you means people in general ("one"), then it just means that people who become soldiers will fight in wars, and a person in question may not have been contemplated. <A> "When" can be interpreted either way, depending on context. <S> But other times it means more like, "if this happens, then at the time that it does ..." <S> If I read the statement you quote about "when you become a soldier" as a stand-alone statement with no context, I'd understand it to be conditional. <S> Of course not everyone becomes a soldier, but of those who do become soldiers, then when they become soldiers, this is what will happen. <S> But if, say, I was a soldier, and my commanding officer said to me, "When you leave for Afghanistan ...", I would take that to mean that it was already decided that I was going. <S> Sometimes people will make a point of saying, "When ... not if, but when ... <S> " Their point then is that the question is not whether the event will happen, but only the timing. <S> On the other hand, if someone wants to make sure that his audience will not understand him to mean that an event is inevitable, he may say, "If and when ..."
| It depends on the meaning of you and who the person in question is. Sometimes "when" implies that the event is guaranteed to happen or at least is expected to happen.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.