source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
"They are Australian" vs "They are Australians" On the very first page of " Essential Grammar in Use " book of R.Murphy. He wrote Those people aren't English. They're Australian. My question are Is this sentence grammatically correct? What is plural forms of "English" and "Australian"? "English" and "Australian" play role as adjectives or nouns here? <Q> Those people aren't English. <S> They're Australian. <S> In both these sentences <S> English and Australian are adjectives. <S> A singular noun would have a qualifier in front of it: <S> He's an Australian , and a plural noun usually ends in an s : <S> They're Australian s . <S> In the English language, each adjective only has a single form, regardless of number (i.e. whether it's describing a singular or plural word), which is how we distinguish each case. <S> They're Australian. <S> (adjective) <S> They're Australian s . <S> (noun) <S> He's Australian. <S> (adjective) <S> He's an Australian. <S> (noun) <S> The word English is a bit more complicated (or simple, depending on your point of view) because it doesn't have an associated gender-neutral noun, only Englishman and Englishwoman and their plural forms. <S> Those people aren't English. <S> (adjective) <S> Those people aren't Englishmen and Englishwomen . <S> (nouns) <S> He isn't English. <S> (adjective) <S> He isn't an Englishman. <S> (noun) <S> We could use the words British and Britons , however, they refer to any citizen of the United Kingdom including Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England. <S> Those people aren't British. <S> (adjective) <S> Those people aren't Britons . <S> (noun) <S> He isn't British. <S> (adjective) <S> He isn't a Briton. <S> (noun) <S> The English are all Britons, but not all Britons are English. <S> Australians are neither English nor British! <A> One: <S> Yes. <S> Three: They're adjectives. <S> Two: <S> The English, certainly, do not use "English" to mean an English person. <S> If you say "he's an English" an Englishman will look at you askance. <S> The word you're looking for is "Englishman," as in the joke format "an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman ..." <S> Englishman <S> A man from England http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/englishman <S> You can also have "Englishwoman": <S> A woman from England http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/englishwoman <S> But if you have a group of multiple genders, or you want to be modern and progressive about things, you'll have to go for "English people", however, <S> if you mean all English people, there is "the English": <S> The people of England http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/english?q=the+English <S> There's no "Englishperson" that I've ever encountered. <S> All this being so, the plurals you could use in this case are: "Englishmen" (a group of men only, or a group of indeterminate or mixed gender, although some people will take issue) Englishwomen (a group of women only) English people (a group of indeterminate or mixed gender) <S> The English (English people as a collective) <S> You couldn't pluralise "English" and turn it into "Englishes", or something like that, to mean English people. <S> " <S> Englishes", if it means anything, means different varieties of the English language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Englishes <S> "Australian", however, is different. <S> Australian can be an adjective, or a noun meaning a person who is from Australia: <S> A person from Australia <S> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/australian <S> The plural is "Australians". <A> Grammar looks fine to me. <S> The plural form of English is Britons as far as my writing is concerned. <S> Yeah <S> I know, don't care. <S> People and They are your (pro)nouns. <S> English and Australian are your adjectives. <S> If, for whatever reason, you wished to change forms so you could use Australians , consider: <S> Those people aren't English. <S> They're Australians. <S> It would still be grammatically correct. <S> It just lacks the balanced style of: <S> Those people aren't Britons. <S> They're Australians. <S> There simply isn't a suffix you can put on the word <S> English to transform it the way you do to Australia . <A> The sentence is fine. <S> Although it might be written a little better as: <S> Those people aren’t English — they’re Australian. <S> The plural of “English” is “English” same as the plural of “fish” <S> is “fish.” <S> I could say “here in the room there are Australians, Canadians, and English.” <S> All plural. <S> You can say “he is English” (singular) <S> and you can say “the English” (plural.) <S> The way you can tell is to put in the implied “people.” <S> Those people aren't English [people]. <S> They're Australian [people]. <A> One point that hasn't been brought up is that you could use "Australian" without the 's' to refer to things that aren't people. <S> E.g. You might say "Those beers are Australian." <S> But you'd never say "Those beers are Australians. <S> " <S> With animals, it's an edge case, e.g. "Those kangaroos are Australian. <S> " sounds more correct than "Those kangaroos are Australians." <S> But the latter might still be acceptable.
| In your example sentence “English” and “Australian” are adjectives.
|
Saying "I feel you" in a conversation As I've heard many people say "I feel you" without sexual connotation. But I am a bit uncomfortable to say that. When do you often use it?Do native speakers commonly use it? <Q> It's very much slang. <S> The person is trying to show empathy with the person or confirm agreement. <S> For the Sci-Fi nerds, it's a more casual version of Avatar's "I see you". <A> It means they understand you. <S> Another similar, but less awkward sounding phrase that would get the same meaning across would be <S> I get you. <S> But their isn't a reason behind those, it's just slang. <A> "I'm sorry," is usually appropriate when you are showing empathy over some misfortune, regardless of the level of formality. <S> In this case, it's not an expression of guilt; it expresses that you wish the misfortune hadn't occurred. <A> It is common to say, "I feel for you" to mean, "I sympathize with your problem". <S> I don't recall ever hearing someone say "I feel you" to mean anything other than "I am touching you" (with some part of my body). <S> It could be sexual, but not necessarily. <S> Like if two people were stumbling around in a dark room, one might say, "Oh, I feel your foot" or some such. <S> I could imagine someone using the phrase like in Stangdon's comment, "Hey, I feel you, man. <S> " It intuitively makes sense to me, but I don't recall ever hearing someone say that. <A> This is used pretty often, and basically means 'I agree with you'. <S> It has nothing to do with sex, so don't use it in those circumstances. <S> Just another one of those weird English phrases that caught on.
| It could be interpreted as "I am understanding and feeling the same emotions as you", or simply "I understand and agree".
|
What is the definition of "a fierce competitor"? I have a question about this sentence. "I’m a fierce competitor." I've got a rough idea of "a fierce competitor". However, I don't understand it is used as good meaning, like "passionate competitor", or used as bad meaning, like "competitor of violent temper". I checked the definition of "fierce" on the dictionary, and I believe there are both good and bad meaning of "fierce". So is "a fierce competitor" also used as good meaning and bad meaning? Please kindly inform me. Thank you in advance. <Q> The lion is ferocious and afraid of nothing <S> Fierce does not necessarily mean good or bad, usually surrounding context is used <S> He is fiercely competitive at chess (determined, can't really be violent at chess) <S> His fierce attack was successful (violent, sudden, and determined) <S> The dragon is a fierce beast (violent and scary) <S> The snow storm was fierce and claimed several lives (violent and strong) <S> Other examples as fiercely <S> Professional athletes are fiercely competitive and want to win Mothers are fiercely protective of their young <S> Lions are fiercely aggressive to intruders <S> Soldiers are fiercely loyal to their leaders <S> these all describe a very high degree of what is being modified Some more examples of <S> fiercely can be found here <A> A fierce competitor has a neutral connotation. <S> " <S> Fierce" does not tell you if the competitor is good or bad, only that they are very competitive , with an emphasis on intensity . <S> Examples: <S> Hillary Clinton was a fierce competitor in the 2008 Democratic primary. <S> The poker champion was known to be a fierce competitor. <S> To survive in Primorsky Krai, the Amur tiger must be a fierce competitor. <S> The phrase refers to someone or something that does not give up easily , presses every advantage , and is challenging to compete against . <S> In the same sense, fierce competition can refer to multiple challenging opponents, or to a competition that is expected to be difficult. <S> The Democrats are fierce competition for the Republicans this year. <S> The NFL playoffs are always a fierce competition. <S> It can also be used in a playful or sarcastic way. <S> My two-year-old son was fierce competition for that Labrador puppy. <A> the term "fierce competitor" carries positive connotations. <S> among other things, the word "fierce" implies mercilessness, but not underhandedness. <S> a similar term with negative connotations would be "vicious competition" which implies malice on part of the competitor.
| A fierce competitor is a very determined competitor meaning they will keep trying to defeat their opponent even if it becomes very difficult Ferocious and fierce are shown as synonyms in the dictionary, but ferocious has more of the violent meaning Fierce is an adjective that shows or describes a very high degree
|
meaning of "make-up" (besides to compensate) More accurately I'm asking about made up . Can it be used in the same way as ended up ? She made up looking wonderful after going to the hairdresser Now I know it's kinda weird. There are simpler ways to say that phrase. I'm asking this because in the subject of gerunds and infinitives I'm asked to correct the mistake in the following sentence: The hairdresser made me to look wonderful Now the easiest way to fix it is "made me look wonderful" and case closed. But is "look" by itself an infinitive? I got confused by this and started looking up ways to fix it with "looking/to look". Can it even be done this way? <Q> "Ended up" means "finished the (literal or figurative) journey", and is normally followed by some indication of where or how you finished. <S> We got lost, drove in circles for miles, and finally ended up in Cleveland. <S> I was angry at Sally, but I ended up forgiving her. <S> "Made up" has a number of meanings. <S> (a) Fictional (adjective) <S> "His story isn't true: it's all made up." <S> (b) Invented a fictino (verb) <S> "He made up that story." <S> (c) Reconciled, as in, after a conflict. " <S> Alice and Bob had a big fight, but then they made up and were friends again." <S> (d) Made prettier by applying cosmetics, etc. <S> (verb) " <S> Sally made up her face using eye shadow and lipstick. <S> She also made up her hair with braids and hair clips." <S> (e) Regained lost ground, compensated. <S> "Our company lost money in the first quarter, but we made it up in the second quarter, so now we are back on track. <S> " <S> Whew, this idiom has a lot of meanings! <S> Maybe there are more that I'm not thinking of. <S> I wonder if the sentence you quote has been garbled somewhere along the line, as women certainly do go to a hairdresser to be "made up". <S> Perhaps, "She was all made up and looking wonderful after going to the hairdresser." <A> To answer your second question: in English (and similarly in other languages, I guess), different words and phrases require different kinds of object or complement, and unfortunately there's no obvious reason to this: you just have to learn them. <S> So "want" takes an infinitive with "to", and optionally an object: <S> I want to go ; she wanted me to answer . <S> "Make" in this sense (='force' or 'cause') takes an infinitive without "to", and necessarily an object: <S> She made me take it . <S> "Like" takes an infinitive with 'to' and an optional object or a gerund ('-ing' form): I like to see the sunset ; <S> I like listening to the radio <A> The phrases "made-up" and "ended-up" are not interchangeable. <S> The phrase "She made up looking wonderful after going to the hairdresser" is not standard English. <S> The phrase "made up" does, however, have another meaning which is invented, created, or contrived. <S> An example of this usage might be " <S> The character Harry Potter is made up," or in the form of a verb as in "I made up a new recipe." <S> In English, the infinitive form of a verb is always two words, the first one being "to." <S> Thus, "to look" is an infinite while "look" is not. <A> so from what i gathered: 1.to make-up can mean to prettify. <S> in this case "The hairdresser made me up (in order to) to look wonderful" or "The hairdresser made up the girl to look wonderful" or...or "The hairdresser made up the girl <S> and she ended up looking wonderful" Make, combined with a subject (me, it, this) can exclude the "to" of an infinitive without causing it to cease being an infinitive <S> "The hairdresser made me look wonderful""You made this work"
| No, they don't mean the same thing.
|
I've been having/I have had a headache since I woke up I've been having a headache since I woke up. vs I've had a headache since I woke up. English Grammar in Use suggests the latter. But what should I do if I want to emphasize the painful feeling rather than just the state? <Q> Either construction is fine. <S> You can say, for example, I've had this bad headache since I woke up. <S> (Or nasty, or painful, or whatever other adjective you like.) <S> how long it's been going on for. <S> However, these implications are fairly subtle. <A> Don't use the verb 'have' in a progressive form to say that someone has an illness or disease (The Free Dictionary). <S> So the correct sentence is: I have had a headache since I woke up. <S> If you want to emphasize your headache, you can say: I have had really a headache..... <S> I have had a splitting/bad/nasty headache. <A> You indeed cannot use have been having to mean have had . <S> That's because have been having has a key aspect that's lacking in the other: that of habitual action. <S> I ’ve been having headaches in the mornings ever since I was in that car accident last autumn. <S> I ’ve been having someone look in on the children during the day while I’m at work. <S> He ’s been having his teeth whitened. <S> But more recently, though, Annie had been having a relationship with Edward Stanely, a bricklayer's mate. <S> (From Jack the Ripper: <S> A Killer Slops Not by Kevin Carmichael) <S> In answer to the question of how to emphasize the painful feeling, you do that by suitably qualifying headache : <S> I’ve had a terrible headache since I woke up this morning. <S> ”Right now I have a God awful headache. <S> Could you bring me a couple of aspirins and a strong cup of coffee?” <S> he asked. <S> (From Kiss the Fly Goodbye by Jo Anne Bunyak) <S> Sometimes it’s spelled a godawful headache .
| "Have been having" emphasizes more the headache as you're currently experiencing it ; "have had" emphasizes more
|
When to use forget and forgot I just want to know when should I use the following two: I forget I forgot For example, I had to call someone, but I didn't remember to call. So, what should I use:"I forget to call you" or "I forgot to call you" <Q> I forget to call you sounds like a routine or permanent action. <S> (Direct application of the present simple tense.) <S> So regarding the past tense I had to call someone , I'd use <S> I forgot to call you. <A> I wanted to call my mother yesterday, but I forgot her phone number. <S> Sorry <S> I don't have your shirt. <S> I forgot to <S> put it in my backpack before I came over. <S> "I forget" can be used to describe a recurrent or continuous state. <S> I forget my lunch almost every day, and end up buying from the cafeteria. <S> I forget people's names very easily - remind me of yours? <S> "I forget" is also often used as a stand alone to reflect the current knowledge of the speaker with regards to some piece of information. <S> This is a little informal. <S> Q: <S> What's the capital of France? <S> A: I forget. <S> Maybe Grenoble? <S> I forget that guy's name - remind me? <A> When you say "I had to call someone" you speak of an event in past time. <S> Then you can only say " <S> But I forgot to call him". <S> You forgot the phone call in past time, not now.
| "I forgot" can describe something that happened in the past.
|
How to say that my pet sleeps "next to my legs"? I have a pet that often sleeps next to my legs in my bed . How can I say it properly in English? Is there a neat idiom for it? I want to sound natural and I don't think the above expression is natural. <Q> Consider this portion of Rudyard Kipling's poem: <S> Pussy will rub my knees with her head <S> Pretending she loves me hard; But the very minute I go to my bed <S> Pussy runs out in the yard, <S> And there she stays till the morning-light; <S> So I know it is only pretend; <S> But Binkie, he snores at my feet all night, <S> And he is my Firstest Friend! <S> I hope this answers your question. <S> You can find the complete poem here . <A> <A> My cat often cuddles with me in bed. <S> Her favorite spot is to spoon behind my kneecaps while I'm laying lying on my side. <S> I don't think there's a name for that spot you make behind them, when you flex your knees. <S> Cuddles up to my [legs] - and spoons [them/it].
| At my feet can mean literally next to one's feet, but also below one's waist Around my legs means on , next to , under , in the general vicinity of your legs.
|
Why do we use 'telling' in the following sentence? Why do we use 'telling' in the following sentence? Was it difficult, telling your mum and dad? -Well, yes and no. Instead of 'telling' could we say 'to tell'? What's the difference between them? Thank you. <Q> I feel like "telling" emphasizes the process, the way we would use the imperfect aspect in languages that have such a thing. <S> It is very subtle. <S> I tried it out with different verbs <S> : Was it difficult, cooking this sauce? <S> Was it difficult, choreographing that routine? <S> Each time I tried it, I got the sense that the whole process was in the spotlight and not final outcome. <S> Great question! <S> It was fun thinking about it. <A> The main difference that I see has to do with context . <S> You could ask the question " <S> Was it difficult to tell your Mom that you have cancer? <S> " even if the conversation had nothing to do with your Mom or your cancer. <S> The form "Was it difficult to X" introduces the question with no expectation that someone already understands what X is. <S> You would only ask the question, "Was it difficult, telling your Mom that you have cancer? <S> " if the conversation was very recently talking about how they had told their Mom about this problem. <S> That's because "Was it difficult, Xing" contains a small pause, as if the asker wanted to stop at "Was it difficult?" <S> but immediately realized that there were many possible things that they could be talking about (for example "was it difficult, fighting the cancer?") and they wanted to be more specific. <A> The construction is called 'right dislocation'. <S> It occurs when the speaker utters a pronoun and then realises it may not be clear what the pronoun is being used to refer to. <S> The speaker then adds this information in clause-final position, as a sort of 'afterthought'. <S> In the OP's example, the referent of "it" may be unclear, so the explanatory clause is added. <S> It's not a noun, but a clause outside the nucleus. <S> The infinitival to tell your mum and dad would be okay, and analysed just the same. <S> The comma is vital in such constructions. <A> Well I think the confusion comes from the misconception that the two statements are being understood as a verb or a preposition and a verb but that is a misconception because "to tell" I believe would actually be a infinitive verb. <S> Which means the question with "to tell" could be understood as the question of was the intent to express that action difficult, or was that action itself difficult. <S> However when you say "telling" you are asking clearly if the action of telling was difficult.
| Understanding that "to tell" is an infinitive verb, we know that "to tell" becomes an adjective or adverb phrase that expresses purpose or intent.
|
Which is correct, to be built or to build? Robots are too complex to be built . Robots are too complex to build . I'd like to know which is correct. Thanks a lot. <Q> However the first sentence Robots are too complex to be built . <S> Has greater emphasis on being not buildable <S> Robots are too complex to be built <S> (ever, by anyone) . <S> Robots are too complex to build . <S> Could also mean the same as to be built , but can also mean by someone at this present time given the current circumstances Robots are too complex (for me) to build Robots are too complex to build (on our budget) <A> They mean much the same. <S> Perhaps some light on any nuanced differences can be shed by adding an agent phrase and then examining the prepositions we use with each. <S> A microbe is too small for the naked eye {to see}. <S> A microbe is too small {to be seen} by the naked eye. <S> The car is too expensive for the average wage-earner {to buy}. <S> The car is too expensive {to be bought} by the average wage-earner. <S> Semantically, we supply [the implied object] with the first (if it is not present, though it can be): <S> A microbe is too small for the naked eye {to see} [it]. <S> The car is too expensive for the average wage-earner {to buy} [it]. <S> but that step is not necessary with the second, the by form. <S> The idea is <S> the naked eye cannot see the microbe <S> the average wage-earner cannot afford the car <S> Is this idea expressed with any greater directness or emphasis by either of the versions? <S> the naked-eye cannot see it <S> it cannot be seen by the naked eye <S> the average wage-earner cannot afford it <S> it cannot be afforded by the average wage-earner <A> The active infinitive is prefered if you're thinking more about the person who will do the action. <S> The passive infinitive is used if you are thinking more about the action, or the person/thing that the action is done to. <S> The papers to be arranged are in the desk. <S> (NOT The papers to arrange are in the desk. ) <S> The thing is, passive infinitive is normally used after be forms ( am, is, are ): <S> » <S> Robots are too complex to be built .
| Both sentences are correct and have essentially the same meaning.
|
Which one of these sentences is more correct? If I'm explaining a specific rule to someone. I would like to say that the rule has exceptions. How to choose the correct proposition? This rule is not valid in all cases. This rule is not valid for all cases. Are these sentences commonly used among native speakers? or Is there more powerful sentence? Edit: I'm teaching Arabic to someone. I need to tell him if he sees a specific character at the end of a word. This word is categorized under "feminine words". But it is not a general rule. It has some exceptions. There are some irregular words. <Q> This rule is not valid in all cases <S> This rule is not valid for all cases after which you might enumerate or explain the cases, or you can simply say There are exceptions to this rule. <A> As Peter has said, both sentences are correct. <S> For all cases has the approximate meaning of if applied to all cases , while in all cases has the approximate meaning of if made a part of all cases . <S> As you can see, either meaning is equivalent in this context. <A> I agree that in a general sense there is not much difference, but based on the usage of "cases" meaning "words" in the Edited Question, I would use: <S> This rule is not valid for all words . <S> "This rule is not valid in all words." would not make sense. <S> So it depends on the context or the specific meaning of generalized words.
| Both of your sentences are equally correct
|
Can "wage war" be synonymous with "declare war"? I know that "wage war" is an idiomatic expression that the American Heritage Dictionary defines as: To engage in (a war or campaign, for example). and Dictionary.com defines as: to carry on (a battle, war, conflict, argument, etc.): to wage war against a nation. My question is: does "wage war" mean also 'declare war" or does it refer only to the development of war operations? <Q> The two concepts ("declaring war" and "waging war") are distinct. <S> A declaration of war is a formal statement that a state of war exists. <S> It can occur after war has started, at the beginning of a war, or before the start of hostilities. <S> In practice, a war can be waged without the war having been declared. <A> A nation will declare war at the outset of the conflict. <S> After war is declared, war is waged until the conflict is over. <S> The declaration stage simply means that a nation has stated that it is formally at war. <S> Once declared, war can be waged in several ways over a long period of time, including: skirmishes and battles; maneuvers and mobilization; manufacturing, supply, and logistics; training, etc. <S> That said, war is a complicated process with a messy history. <S> Not all wars get formally declared. <S> I've pretty much summarized how the two words would "normally" work in instances where war is formally declared, and then waged. <S> In practice, this 2-step process is not always followed. <A> The two are not synonymous. <S> To wage war is the actual process of conducting hostile actions. <S> It can be done with or without a formal declaration. <S> So, in very simple terms, declare war <S> is what the diplomats do, and wage war is what the soldiers do. <S> Aside from content, declare is a point in time <S> - you do it once, and then it is done, while wage is a period of time, an ongoing activity.
| To declare war is an announcement of hostilities, typically at the beginning, though sometimes the official declaration is made after hostilities are already in progress.
|
What should I answer to "after you" What is the polite way to show your appreciation when someone waits for you to enter an entrance before they do?They usually say "after you"? What I am supposed to answer? <Q> You basically have two choices <S> Thank you <S> Thank you <S> that's very kind and continue walking in, or saying <S> Protocol dictates that if a person has been holding the door, say for a large party to go through <S> , you would relieve that person of such duty, if you are suitably able, when it becomes your turn to pass. <S> The other person may or may not be travelling in the same direction as you are. <S> Protocol also dictates that the least burdened holds the door, with the exception of Chivalrous custom which dictates Ladies <S> First except when going through revolving doors <A> <A> The correct is to say "thank you" and to go through. <S> Insisting that a woman, older person, etc., go through before you, when they have expressed a preference that you go first, would be less respectful than honoring their preference. <S> I once almost got into a deadlock situation in an elevator with a distinguished computer scientist (Turing Award winner) when I was a graduate student. <S> When the elevator door opened, I automatically paused to let my superior exit first, while he, an older gentleman, waited for me to exit, my being a woman. <S> As soon as I realized what was going on, I exited, thinking that more respectful than insisting on my preferred protocol. <A> If it's a friend and you want to tease them, you can decline their offer, and hold the door for them, by saying something like, <S> "no, no, after you, age before beauty"
| No, please, after you Please, no, after you stopping before entering, extending your arm to hold the door open, and then holding the door while the person previously holding the door for you passes through. "Thank you" is always the polite way to voice your appreciation in English.
|
How to start talking in English in front of non-English speakers I am living in Germany. In the university which I am working, there are some presentation events where people describe what they have done in front of different groups of professors/people. The German colleagues talk in German (I am the only one in our group which cannot talk in German). What is the best way to inform the audience that I am going to change the language from German to English? Before, I was starting with "Let's change the language to English", and then start talking. Is that good? <Q> It would be polite to indicate the reason for presenting in English to your audience. <S> "I am presenting in English as (unfortunately) I do not speak German (sufficiently well)" is far more polite than what you are starting with. " <S> Let's change the language to English" is rather abrupt. <S> The wording in brackets is optional depending on your exact circumstances. <S> You may not feel that it is unfortunate <S> and you may not speak German at all. <A> That seems a bit rude, since you're changing the language to a non native one in a what seems a forceful way. <A> Usually it is a nice gesture to learn how to say in German <S> I apologize my German is not very good. <S> I will be presenting in English. <S> to warn your audience. <S> At least they will know you've made an effort. <S> I'm sure one of your fellow students will be happy to teach you.
| You'd be much better off with something like, "I would like the permission of audience to change the language to English".
|
this trip is overnight? It's grammatically correct to say this overnight trip but is it possible to say This trip is overnight ? And what is the difference between It happened overnight. It happened over the night. <Q> Overnight is an idiom meaning through the night <S> This trip is overnight <S> is correct and understandable, but natives would usually say This is an overnight trip. <S> The train leaving London Euston to Edinburgh Waverly leaving at midnite is the overnight train. <S> Flying New York to London is usually an overnight flight. <S> Travelling all night may be referred to as an overnighter is also correct. <S> If you are on an overnighter and stay awake and can't sleep, you have pulled an allnighter . <S> Your other sentence <S> It happened over the night is not correct since things do not happen over or under (physical placement) <S> a night <S> It happened over the course of the night Over the course of the night the Moon and planets rise and fall in the sky. <S> is correct. <S> This notion is usually expressed simply as during the night the difference being that during the night is a time interval without notion of when exactly . <S> Over the course of the night implies greater awareness about each passing moment <A> The adjective overnight is an attributive adjective. <S> So we can say 'this overnight trip". <S> However, the overnight in the sentencr 'this trip is overnight' isn't an adjective as it cannot be used as a predicative adjective that follows a linking verb. <S> This sentence is grammatically correct; the overnight has been used as an adverb. <S> But we don't hear people use " over the night". <S> However, you can say "It happened for the night or during the night. <A> Overnight can be used as an adjective. <S> We went on the overnight trip. <S> To be and some other verbs can take subject complements instead of objects - and adjectives can be subject complements. <S> This trip is overnight. <S> Overnight can also be an adverb and directly modify a verb. <S> It happened overnight.
| As for the sentence "it happened overnight", the sentence is correct; the overnight has been used as an adverb.
|
"But he would have no way of knowing if the answer he received were true" - Is it a subjunctive? Here is a quote from a book: But he would have no way of knowing if the answer he received were true. Why is there were instead of was in the above sentence? The only answer that comes to my mind is that this is a subjunctive. The topic of the subjunctive was covered in the following question very well: Why is it 'come' and not 'comes' in 'it is important that he come...'? However, my sentence doesn't belong to any of the four categories mentioned by M.A.R. in his answer to this question, so I don't think this the subjunctive. Then what is it? I get that this is an imaginary situation ( would have no way ) and the second conditional. But this is all I can think of. <Q> Yes, "were" is functioning as a subjunctive in that sentence. <S> I believe it would be more correct with an indicative verb: <S> But he would have no way of knowing if the answer he received was true. <S> I believe this is an example of error through over-correction: <S> we're taught in school to say "if he were", and we wind up applying the rule even where it isn't appropriate. <A> This does use a subjunctive but it is not correct. <S> The correct subjunctive for the sentence would be "were to be" instead of "were". <S> It could also work with either the insertion of "had" after the "have" or change "were" to "was". <S> That would of course either not use the subjunctive(was) or change the tense(had). <S> You could also use the subjunctive of receive, "were to receive" followed by "was true". <S> The short answer is that yes this is a subjunctive, but it is still incorrect. <A> I think the sentence is gramaticaly incorrect. <S> The problem is the use of "would" and "received". <S> But he would have no way of knowing if the answer he received were true. <S> "would" is hypothetical, which matches with the subjective use of "were", but it clashes with "received", which is real past-tense. <S> Better would have been: <S> But he has no way of knowing if the answer he received is (or was ) true. <S> or, keeping it hypothetical (has not yet received the answer) <S> : <S> But he would have no way of knowing if the answer he receives were true.
| The problem is that, as you seem to be suggesting, the sentence isn't really correct: this is not a proper usage of the subjunctive, because the truth of the proposition (i.e., "the answer is true") is undetermined.
|
Adjective Used as an Adverb? That cake looks good. In formal proper grammar, may good (adjective) get used as an adverb? Or, may you read it as, That cake (noun phrase, nominal[?], argument[?]), looks (verb, predicate[?]), good (subject compliment[?].? How may I discern this, grammatically? <Q> There are a couple verbs in English that are allowed to take adjectives in some circumstances . <S> These are called copulae : words that link a subject to the predicate. <S> (Though in a linguistic context it often means some word corresponding to English "be".) <S> These include: "be" a couple verbs relating to what we sense (look, feel, smell, taste, sound) "seem" words (seem, appear, act,) "become" words (become, get, come, grow) "remain" words (remain, keep, stay) "turn out" words ("prove", "end up", but not "turn out" ) <S> Beware <S> that copulae are <S> lots of times used non-copulatively, and often cannot take adjectives elsewhere. <S> I slowly turned the wheel. <S> but I got angry . <S> and Carefully prove this theorem. <S> but Lawrence's jargon proved incomprehensible to outsiders. <S> and The puppet came alive! <S> but He came into the room. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_copulae <A> That cake looks good. <S> The word good in the sentence presented by the OP is an adjective, not an adverb. <S> The adjective good can be used in an attributive or predicative position. <S> In attributive position, it's followed by a noun/noun phrase it modifies, for examples, he has a good car, you have done good work. <S> In predicative position, it modifies the subject and comes after a linking/copular verb (be, seem, look, etc.) <S> In the sentence, the adjective good is linked with the subject 'that cake' by the linking verb look. <S> You do so where the verb it follows isn't a linking/popular verb as follows: <S> The business is doing good. <S> Listen to me good! <A> I believe Nihilist_Frost's answer is correct, but I'm not sure it's clear. <S> Let me word it another way. <S> You can say [subject] [verb] [adjective] <S> when the verb is a word that means something is, becomes, appears to be, or similar meanings. <S> That is, verbs that indicate a state of being. <S> Sally is happy. <S> Sally became happy. <S> Sally looked happy. <S> Sally smelled delightful. <S> Some of these examples can be tricky because the verb can have a very different meaning if used without an adjective. <S> "Sally looked happy" means that Sally appeared to be happy. <S> Someone else looking at Sally would conclude she was happy. <S> But "Sally looked carefully" means that Sally examined something with great care. <S> Or simply, "Sally looked", means that Sally directed her attention to something. <S> Simililary: "I got angry" means that I became angry. <S> But "I got a pencil" means that I obtained a pencil. <S> If you think of it in a certain way the meanings of "got" are related: "I got angry": I acquired the attribute of anger. <S> "I got a pencil": I acquired the object of a pencil. <S> But if that doesn't help you understand it, just think of it as two different meanings of "got". <A> The verb group see,sound,smell,taste,feel + adjective is treated as variants of to be. <S> That's why these verbs are followed by an adjective. <S> If you say of some song "That sounds good" you mean the sound is good, not the way of sounding.
| However, the 'good' is used in very informal English as an adverb.
|
What is the difference between "flabbergast" and "taken aback"? Flabbergast and taken aback , what is the difference? She was flabbergasted when the nurse came in and gave spinal injection. She was taken aback when the nurse came in and gave spinal injection. As a N-NS, I understand them as the same tones used to express that someone is being surprised. Do they have any difference? <Q> MW refers to "flabbergasted" as "too astounded to respond" and "taken aback" in my thesaurus is closer to startled and is not as strong. <S> I'm not sure why getting a spinal tap would cause this reaction. <S> Being told I was getting one might do it though. <A> However, the former is more informal. <A> "Taken aback" is more a momentary thing, where for an instant one's brain seems to stop because the situation is so unexpected (like getting a spinal injection without prior warning!). <S> Being "flabbergasted" is usually longer in duration. <S> The person is first taken aback , but the strangeness seems so big and spread-out that they can't "regain their balance" for awhile. <S> Everything seems to be "at sixes and sevens", and they can't make sense of anything (such as why they're getting a spinal injection without prior warning!). <S> ["Taken aback" is a term from the days of sail, when the wind might completely shift to blow from the front for a moment, which would cause the sails to fill the wrong way and the ship to be "taken aback", i.e. stopped abruptly, with an effect similar to a small earthquake.]
| You can use "be flabbergasted" and "be taken aback" interchangeably.
|
In American English, is it okay to pronounce the /v/ sound as the /f/ sound at the end of a word? I've notice that when I speak, it is really hard to pronounce the /v/ at the end of a word when it is followed by another consonant, so I really want to know how native speakers pronounce it. For example: have got, have had, have gone, etc. <Q> It's not really good to mispronounce words, it may lead to misunderstanding <S> For example, have would be heard as half <S> I have <S> gone is very different to <S> I <S> half gone which a native speaker might interpret to be <S> I'm half gone meaning you are half-way drunk instead of you <S> went somewhere . <A> In each case you have the V preceded by a vowel. <S> A vowel is voiced and so it seems to me it would be easier to produce the voiced v instead of the unvoiced f , especially when it is followed by a voiced consonant such as the g in got ; and <S> this is what English speakers do . <A> In the specific phrase "have to [do something]" in the sense of "be obligated," many American speakers do indeed devoice the /v/, presumably in anticipation of the t. Similarly in the third person "has to" the /z/ of "has" is often devoiced. <S> Otherwise, as the other answers say, devoicing does not occur in any register, as far as I know.
| Native speakers tend to have a distinct "v" sound when it is called for
|
Go for/on a trip Is it preferable to say "go for a trip" or "go on a trip"? Is there a difference in meaning? My textbook says "for", but "on" seems to be more common online. Oxford Collocation Dictionary also says "on". <Q> Americans would say... <S> "go on a trip. <S> " <S> For example.. "Let's go on a trip. <S> " <S> We would say... <S> "go for <S> a drive" or "go for a walk" but not "go for a trip." <A> I believe that saying 'Go for' something implies that you are more in control of it, while 'go on' is more passive. <S> You can 'go for a bike ride', but you would 'go on a rollercoaster ride'. <S> Unless you are the one driving or flying for your trip, I would use 'go on' as you are just a 'passive' passenger on the trip. <A> Going on a trip sounds better to me. <S> But I would imagine some dialects could use going for a trip. <S> It sounds a little more British to say the latter. <S> Here's the pattern that I see: <S> Going "for a walk": <S> Sounds pretty relaxed. <S> Going on "a walk": <S> Almost certainly sounds more organized and less relaxed. <S> Like a walk to raise money for a charity. <S> "Going for" generally means "I'm having", and having something generally could be optional or at least configurable. <S> Going for ice cream Going for surgery <S> Going for a ride Going for fun <S> "Going on" generally means "I'm definitely doing something." <S> I.e. <S> "I'm going to do something", so it's more serious. <S> Going on a rampage <S> Going on tour Going on T.V. <S> The show must go on!! <S> "Going on" can literally mean "sitting on" which confuses things. <S> So throw these ones out for the sake of this argument: <S> Going on a ride. <S> Going on a train. <A> 'Go for' implies future reference such as planning for a trip and go on implies that you are on the trip right now
| "Going for" seems to be more relaxed. I think "going on" implies some level of organization and commitment.
|
The meaning of neighborhood I am struggling with the term neighborhood . I realize that it could be too general for what I want to express. I want to focus on the actual neighbors and not to the vicinity or residential area. Just the persons. Is neighborhood the proper term to describe/express that? Or should I switch to another word, like neighborship ? Or something else? Edit: Due to the comments, I assume I am right, that neighborhood is a more general term. So I also assume that saying "There is a good community in the neighborhood." it is clear that I mean the people in the neighborhood, who are the community. But when saying: "The neighborhood changed over the last decades" it is not clear, that I meant the people in the neighborhood. Is that correct? <Q> In your context, "The neighborhood changed over the last decades", I would take it to mean that both the people and the physical/geographical area has changed. <S> And typically, I would assume that a change in people had led to a change in the area. <S> Of course that could mean that the same set of people is in the area and has undergone a change (such as aging or impoverishment or even enrichment) or that there are different neighbors. <S> To answer your specific question, you can say "the neighbors" - altho that's usually taken to mean the small set of people in properties immediately adjoining yours - or "the people in the neighborhood". <A> I think you should definitely define your terms or use ones that are usually used in such papers, as relaxing commented . <S> This is because both neighborhood and community are ambiguous. <S> Both can refer to either the people of a certain geographic region or to the region and the people living there, and the former word can also refer to only the region. <S> I do not suggest using neighborship as (a) <S> it is not apparent what that means, and (b) the suffix <S> -ship is outdated and its use in such words as township does not provide an unambiguous meaning. <S> As a native speaker of American English, when I hear the word neighborhood <S> I think of a an inhabited region or subregion that includes its structures (buildings, houses) and the people who live there, including their pets and possessions; and basically anything else found in it, for instance, noise, crime, trash cans and even the trash itself. <S> It can also include things such as the neighborhood watch, the neighborhood association, the management company that runs the neighborhood association, apartment owners, managers and agents. <S> For me, I also think of its geographical characteristics (hills, rivers, mountains, etc), <S> I would not think of neighborhood as meaning only the people who live in such a region. <S> However, the Oxford English Dictionary gives such a meaning as its first definition of the word: The people living near to a certain place or within a certain range; neighbours collectively. <S> I am surprised at this, because, again, this is not how I use the word. <S> But I also do not say near to and generally advise non-native speakers not to do so (we say close to but near ; I live near the river .) <S> Given that neighborhood can mean 1 a populated geographic region 2 the people who inhabit such a region 3 the region but not the people <S> it is highly ambiguous. <S> Community can mean 1 a group of people 2 a group of people and the place where they live <S> See Oxford Dictionary online: <S> A particular area or place considered together with its inhabitants <S> I recommend that you define your terms and/or use the terms as they are normally used in your academic field. <A> Its a scientific paper you can and should use whichever term(s) express your information in the clearest way. <S> You should explicitly define exactly what you mean by any terms in your introduction. <S> As long as you have done that, I would suggest that you could use terms such as neighborhood, immediate neighbors, close neighbors, local community and so on. <S> Maybe you could ask the editors or reviewers of your paper for comment, <S> if they are experts in the field they will know if there are any terms already accepted for those meanings in that field
| The "neighborhood" can mean the geographical area or the combination of the area and its people.
|
How to pronounce "That's the thing"? It seems difficult to pronounce the th sound from "the" after the s sound from "that's" So my question is: Is it ok to omit the s sound? (see below) "That the thing" <Q> Not really, no. <S> A native speaker wouldn't drop the 's', and it would sound wrong. <S> If you have trouble pronouncing the sounds together, I suggest slowing down and leaving a little bit of space between "that's" and "the" to give yourself a chance to get things right. <A> A lot of non-native speakers have trouble pronouncing th . <S> If it comes out sounding more like a d , it will probably be OK <S> — you'll just sound like you have a foreign accent. <S> If you have difficulty with the consonant cluster, perhaps you would be better off not using the contraction, and saying "That is the thing" instead. <A> All the sounds in <S> That's the thing <S> are mandatory. <S> In IPA <S> the sounds are written like this: /ðæts.ðə.θɪŋ/. The hardest part is the bold in tha t's th e thing : /ðæ ts.ð ə.θɪŋ/. <S> This is because there is no vowel sound between /s/ and /ð/. <S> The tongue touches the gum just behind the top teeth and blocks the airflow <S> The tongue moves just enough to make a gap, releasing the air without using the vocal cords and /t/ <S> is sounded <S> The tongue stays where it is and makes a hissing sound as more air passes through the gap without using the vocal cords to make <S> the /s/ <S> sound <S> The tongue slides down the back of the teeth, blocking the airflow until it slightly protrudes past the teeth (1 or 2 mm) <S> The air can flow again, and another hissing sound is produced using the vocal cords, this time /ð/ because the tongue is in a different position When I do this extremely slowly there is a gap between /s/ and /ð/. <S> However, when speaking at a natural speed I don't notice any gap, although there probably is one. <S> The two th sounds, /ð/ <S> and /θ/, in English are not often found in other languages. <S> They will take practice to a) sound correct and b) feel natural to you. <S> By repeating the correct motions slowly at first you can gradually get used to how it feels, and get your muscles used to moving that way too. <A> Hobbs' answer is very good but consider why you do not drop the 's': <S> Grammatically, the apostrophe ( ' ) tells you the word is a composite statement. <S> For Proper English would read " That is the thing! ", which is why English speakers say "That's..." at all. <S> So when people say it is mandatory, that's because (see what I did there?) <S> it helps make the sentence understandable with a verb ( that cannot be used as a verb ). <S> Remember, English may be weird, but we do have our rules. :D <S> ' That ' is a pronoun describing the main object ('thing'), ' is ' the verb, and ' thing ' the subject of the sentence. <S> Lastly, keep trying!
| However, if you omit the 's sound, then you will effectively have dropped the verb from the sentence, and it's going to sound like pidgin or broken English .
|
"Further" in terms of destination point Here is the situation, two men in the train, one asks another if the current station is the one he needs. It's not the one. The first man wants to say that the station the second guy needs is gonna be one of next stations without explicitly telling which one exactly. Can he say "Your station is further", if not, what's the proper way of saying that? <Q> Your option is fine. <S> Also acceptable: <S> Your station is down the line or <S> Your station is farther down the line or even Your station is in a few more stops <A> "Your station is further" is not to my ear at all idiomatic. <S> I'd be wondering "further what ?" <S> I would use either "further on" or "further along" if I absolutely had to use the word "further", but I'd much more likely say something like <S> No, <S> but it's coming up soon. <S> or No, not for a while. <S> I would not reply in the negative without using the word "no" first, especially in a loud environment like a train. <A> Further is used for metaphorical or figurative expressions. <S> For example, do you understand the math problem now, or should I explain further? <S> Farther is used for physical distances. <S> An easy way to remember the difference is that "farther" contains "far" as in a far away place.
| While "your station is further down the line" is common and most people won't have any problem with it, it is technically wrong.
|
Is there a way to avoid saying 'that that'? I know that in many cases, a double ' that ' is grammatically acceptable, but I still feel it is distracting for readers to see a ' that that ' pop up in the middle of a text. Is it acceptable to simply remove the second ' that '? Can I say The fact that was the only evidence available was shocking. instead of The fact that that was the only evidence available was shocking. If not, how else can I avoid the double ' that '? <Q> ... <S> how else can I avoid the double that? <S> No need for "the fact that". <S> That it was <S> the only evidence was shocking. <S> or you could say <S> It was shocking that it was the only evidence. <S> or even this ellipsis is possible: <S> Shocking, that it was the only evidence. <A> The reason that you can't technically just skip the second 'that' is because they're two different words <S> - the first is a subordinating conjunction, the second is a demonstrative pronoun. <S> In speech it'd be separated by a different pronunciation for each (For me, at least [South-east England] it would sound like "thut that") <S> One way to avoid it could be to try to reframe the prior sentence (without seeing it I can't give concrete suggestions) to allow you to use "this" as an alternative pronoun ("the fact that this was the only evidence available") - but the double "that" is perfectly grammatically acceptable and doesn't necessarily need to be avoided. <A> You have the ability to omit the first "that" that functions as a conjuction. <S> This is a very common practice where I am from (Northeast United States). <S> For example: Original <S> I am surprised that that dog jumped on the boy; he is usually very behaved. <S> Without the first "that" I am surprised that dog jumped on the boy; he is usually very behaved. <S> You can use this practice, but you should also know that a "double that" in writing or in speech sounds perfectly fine. <S> In speech around where I live, however, almost everyone always uses a single "that."
| You can always make the that-clause itself the subject of the verb:
|
the bird got hit by an arrow or the arrow hit it The bird dropped because it got hit by an arrow. The bird dropped because the arrow hit it. I'd like to know if both the sentences are grammatical. <Q> it got hit by an arrow. <S> the arrow hit it. <S> The first sentence is a get- passive <S> where get=be , whereas the second sentence is active. <S> Both are grammatical. <A> The difference between them ( the versus an aside) is one of style. <S> The bird dropped because it got hit by an arrow. <S> This is in the passive voice. <S> This conveys a simple statement of fact, explaining why the bird dropped. <S> Passive voice is generally used for descriptions or statements, and can come across as dry. <S> The bird dropped because the arrow hit it. <S> Using the active voice better conveys a sequence of events and shifts focus to the action. <S> What happened? <S> Someone shot the bird, dropping it! <S> Use active voice to engage the reader/listener and draw them in. <A> It got hit by an arrow. <S> The arrow hit it. <S> The sentences, though grammatically correct, are different in meaning. <S> First off, the use of the indefinite article "an" in front of arrow in the first sentence indicates a non-specific arrow, whereas the definite article "the" before arrow in the second sentence indicates a specific arrow. <S> Second, the first sentence is in the get passive. <S> You use the verb "get" instead of "be" to form the passive in spoken and informal writing. <S> On the other hand, the second sentence is in the active voice. <S> If you want to form these sentences to convey the same meaning, you should use either "an" or "the" in both sentences. <A> Both are grammatical, but... <S> From Strunk's Elements of Style , which was a required reference when I was in school <S> (guess that dates me): Use the active voice. <S> The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive:
| Both sentences are grammatical, but this begs the question of why you would choose one construction over the other.
|
"My hand breaks" or "My hand is broken" Can you guys help me with my problem here. I"m confused between these two sentences: My hand breaks and My hand is broken As far as I'm concerned, for the first sentence "breaks" is a verb. Conversely, for the second sentence "broken" is an adjective. But is the first sentence grammatically correct? If it is, do both sentences indicate the same meaning? <Q> breaks can be both a transitive and an intransitive verb. <S> Transitive A stone broke the window. <S> "Window" is the direct object. <S> Intransitive <S> A pane of glass breaks when struck sharply with a hard object. <S> If you say "My hand breaks" without a direct object, your hand becomes analogous to the "pane of glass" in the second sentence, the example of the intransitive use. <S> That is probably not what you mean to say. <S> You probably mean to say that at this moment, your hand is injured. <S> Your hand is broken. <S> Broken is the past participle of the verb <S> break used adjectivally. <S> To express that something is currently in a particular state, we use "is" plus the past participle: <S> The glass is shattered. <S> The chair is painted. <S> The table is varnished. <S> The potato is peeled. <S> The past participle of many verbs is formed by adding -ed to the verb's bare infinitive: heat, heated cook, cooked paint, painted But some verbs are irregular and their past participles are formed in another way. <S> For example sing, sung break, broken bring, brought <S> think, thought <A> It's also important to recognize that the verb "breaks" is in present simple. <S> This verb tense is used to show actions that are habitual or facts. <S> e.g. <S> She is a girl. <S> They eat breakfast at 8:00. <S> Therefore, your sentence "My hand breaks" shows that your hand breaks frequently or habitually. <S> Grammatically, it's fine, but the reader will wonder why your hand breaks so often. <A> My hand breaksMy hand is broken <S> You may use the first sentence when you want to indicate that you are using your hands to break something or you may also use it to tell that your hand will break when you do something. <S> Example: <S> My hand breaks a piece of wood with ease. <S> My hand breaks if I place it under a rock. <S> While the other sentence, "My hand is broken" is in past tense. <S> It tells us that your hand is already broken. <S> And it is definite. <A> You are correct in thinking that the first sentence is using break as a verb whilst broken is an adjective. <S> As such, the first example lacks an object. <S> That is, "My hand breaks (something)". <S> An egg for example. <S> "My hand is broken. <S> " means as you would expect that your hand has broken bones. <S> I believe the first sentence to be grammatically incorrect. <A> "As far as I'm concerned, for the first sentence "breaks" is a verb. <S> Conversely, for the second sentence "broken" is an adjective. <S> But is the first sentence grammatically correct? <S> If it is, do both sentences indicate the same meaning?" <S> Both are grammatically correct. <S> Both mean different things. <S> You would correctly say "my hand breaks" just at the time when your hand breaks. <S> In practice, you wouldn't say "my hand breaks", you would say "oh my god, that hurts". <S> One second later, saying "my hand breaks" would be incorrect. <S> If an accident broke your hand, you can say "my hand was broken in an accident" (passive form). <S> You can say "my hand was broken", and nobody can say for sure if it is the passive form or an adjective. <S> The passive form would only apply to a short time. <S> For example "a month ago, my hand was broken by a heavy weight falling on it (passive form). <S> It stayed broken for two weeks (adjective). "
| "Broken" is both an adjective, and it is also the passive form of "break". They don't mean the same.
|
What is the difference between giving up and giving in? What is the difference between these two words? It seems the both mean "to surrender". Can anybody explain the difference? <Q> "Giving up" is not fundamentally about an adversary, but about one's own effort or struggle: there may happen to be an adversary, and if there is, giving up might also mean giving in. <S> But there doesn't have to be. <A> In many contexts they both mean 1: to concede defeat, stop making an effort , usually with at least some implication of ... <S> finally, after an extended period of resistance . <S> As a transitive phrasal verb, to give [something] up can also mean either 2: <S> stop doing/having it <S> (as in He gave up smoking five years ago ), or to 3: <S> give something to someone [often reluctantly, under pressure] <S> (as in He gave up his bus seat / <S> He gave his bus seat up to a pregnant woman ). <S> Note that He gave up his bus seat for <S> a pregnant woman also occurs, where the sense is perhaps closer to #2 <S> - he stopped using the seat for the benefit of the woman (so she could sit in it). <A> Though I agree with the other answers, the phrases can represent different nuances. <S> For instance, 'giving up' can refer to resignation, like no longer having a desire to complete something. <S> It can also be a response to someone who is competing with you. <S> Though 'giving in' is more likely to be useful in a case where, say you are playing chess, and you just can't find another move. <S> In this case, you could use either phrase, but 'giving in' would be to accept defeat against what was your ideal desire (to win). <S> In other words, you would have preferred not to 'give up', but you decided to 'give in' anyway. <S> I hope this helps!
| "Giving in" is yielding to an adversary of some kind.
|
Is the greeting, "How do?", a valid sentence and has it ever been used? I've heard people say that greetings from before, and I picked it up from them. I was wondering if it is a legal sentence and its origin. <Q> Whether or not one hears <S> how do commonly may be a matter of locale. <S> English is pronounced, mispronounced, and generally mauled differently in each corner of the world where it is spoken. <S> I have heard the greeting <S> how do? <S> at least three times since yesterday noon in rural NE US. <S> It is, as others have said, a shortening of " How do you do. " <S> Although one can parse the parent phrase into a grammatically complete (if slightly ridiculous) sentence, in which the subject you performs the intensified verb do do which is modified by the adverb <S> how , the exercise in doing so would be purely academic doodoo , as in all probability few if any greeters have truly wished to know how , in fact, someone else does do, did do or has done doing since the 18th century. <S> Instead, the phrase falls into the category of phatic expressions . <S> All hail Wikipedia: <S> In linguistics, a phatic expression is one whose only function is to perform a social task, as opposed to conveying information. <S> The term "phatic communion" was coined by anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski in his essay "The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages," which appeared in 1923 in The Meaning of Meaning by C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards. <S> The term comes from the Greek "phatos" (spoken, that may be spoken), and from "phanai" (to speak, say). <S> Like other phatic expressions <S> (e.g. Hi, <S> Hey, Yo, and Heighdy-Ho ) <S> it neither needs nor wants grammatical analysis. <A> It isn't really a proper sentence or greeting, but someone could have interpreted "Howdy?" as "How do?" or they might have even just created slang for "How do you do?" <S> Personally, I've never heard anyone use it, although I have seen it once in an old book. <A> Gone With the Wind Southern picture. <S> I'm sure I've heard it a few dozen times in old movies. <S> Basically it's a very informal version of "How do you do?" <S> (Imagine the cowboy tipping his dusty hat to the lady as he says it.) <S> I suppose it may still be in use (if it ever was) in the Western US, but it's not a common idiom. <A> Heard people say "How Do" many times in the past in the Midwest. <S> Just heard an older lady say it in the store the other day here in California. <S> It just means Hello!
| It is an old Saturday Western form of greeting, something you might have heard while watching a Roy Rogers western, or perhaps a wannabe
|
When should I use fast, nimble and swift? Looking up in a dictionary, I found as synonyms of nimble, among some words, fast and swift. So, if they're synonyms, is there any rules or some particular situations, should I use one of these words rather than another? Thanks! <Q> Fast is by far the most commonly used of the three. <S> For example, you might be driving a fast car, or driving in the fast lane. <S> If you do a simple job for money, you have made a fast buck. <S> If your waitress returns with your meal sooner than expected, you might say "That was fast!" <S> as a compliment. <S> Choosing to say "swift" instead of "fast" feels florid and poetic, as if you were intentionally trying to call back to an older time. <S> Your car is fast; your horse is swift. <S> Nimble implies a mastery of complicated actions. <S> A gymnast is nimble. <S> A pickpocket is nimble. <S> However, like swift, it is not a frequently used word. <A> They are just variants. <S> Don't try to pull out differences. " <S> Quick" and "fast" are frequently used adjectives and English has a lot of variants. <S> And authors like variation. <S> Already the Romans said Varietas delectat, variety is pleasant. <S> Have a look at the synonyms for fast: <S> http://www.freethesaurus.com/fast <A> Fast should always refer to speed. <S> You have a fast car, for example. <S> Swift refers to time. <S> For example, a swift verdict from a jury -- they didn't talk faster; it just didn't take very long. <S> Quick used to mean alive or lively <S> (e.g., Jack be nimble, Jack be lively). <S> But these days "quick" has come to replace swift in reference to time taken for an activity. <S> Thus, quick should not be used as an alternative to "fast" though they are related.
| Fast is almost always used to mean "quick", or to complete in a short amount of time. Swift means the same thing as fast, but it is not a common word in modern usage. Nimble has a broader meaning in common usage, and has less to do with raw speed than with agility. A car that can make tight turns at high speed is more nimble than another car that could go faster on a straight course.
|
What expression should I use in these situations? I'm studying in America but I'm having a hard time using proper expressions in proper situations..So I'm really nervous when I speak English.. When I order 2 meals and want to tell a staff that I want to put sauce in one and don't want to put sauce in the other, how can I say this shortly? When I pay after having lunch and want to pay separately, is it okay to say 'We're gonna pay separately.' ? Do I have to say 'you're welcome' to every single 'thank you'? Cause I find many Americans say thank you even though I don't really do something helpful for them. For example, teachers say thank you when I hand in my assignment which is so weird for me to hear thank you about it and I don't know what to say after hearing that. <Q> It' s OK. <S> Relax. <S> Remember to breathe. <S> 1) Tell them to "Hold the sauce on the other. <S> " It means I don't want sauce on the other. <S> It's common usage in a restaurant. <S> 2) <S> This is fine. <S> 3) Americans respond a lot to non-verbal language such as nods of the head. <S> Some cultures spend a lot of time in the morning saying "Good Morning.. <S> How are you..blah, blah. <S> " Most Americans are less formal than that. <S> In the morning, "Hi" or "Good morning." If you want to impress your teachers when you hand in an assignment say "Thank you!" <S> right back at them, and meet their eye. <A> For each of your situations in turn: 1) <S> For the same meal being orders twice <S> (pattern) <S> Two somethings , one with sauce and the other without Two hamburgers, one with ketchup and pickles and the other without 2) <S> For splitting the bill <S> We're gonna pay separately <S> (this is fine) <S> We're going to split <S> the bill <S> Can you split this on both cards <S> Could we get separate checks <S> (can be said before ordering) <S> It can be a nice gesture to tell your waiter when you are ordering that it will be two separate checks if you both intend to only pay for what you each order, otherwise you'd both just split the bill 3) <S> After "thank you" There are several things you can say or do after someone says "thank you" to you, it depends on the situation <S> You're welcome <S> (can never go wrong this this one) <S> No problem <S> Don't mention it <S> My pleasure Look forward to the next one (after handing in your assignment) <S> Can't wait for the next one <S> See you soon <S> (in response to "thank you for coming") <S> A simple non-verbal smile goes a long way. <A> You're right about "thank you" – not every "thank you" needs a "you're welcome." <S> Besides "You're welcome," other options (depending on the situation) might included: No problem . <S> ( when you've done something very small to help the other person ) Don't mention it . <S> ( when you've done something helpful, but you don't want the other person to make a big fuss over it ) <S> Thank you! <S> ( when someone else has served you in some way, such as at a store or restaurant ) <S> In the case where you describe – a teacher accepting your assignment – there's really no need to reply. <S> If you really feel like you want to say something, though, you could always say something polite like: <S> I hope I did well! <S> or: That was an interesting assignment. <S> However, I'd recommend avoiding such remarks unless you really mean them. <S> Don't tell a teacher that an assignment was challenging when it was really easy, or interesting if you found it boring. <S> Most people don't appreciate comments like that unless they are sincere.
| A smile is just fine.
|
Is there any difference between 'based on' and 'on the basis of'? Are 'on the basis' and 'based on' exchangeable? For example, can I speak this sentence His article was written on the basis of earlier accounts of reference frames. as the same as another His article was written based on earlier accounts of reference frames. <Q> They mean the same thing but syntactically they're not interchangeable. <S> " <S> Based on" modifies a noun; "on the basis of" modifies a verb: Their conclusions were based on their analysis of three sets of data. <S> We accepted their conclusions on the basis of their research. <A> A basis is reasons or justifications for making a logical argument. <S> On the basis of the General Theory of Relativity, gravity ripples were discovered. <S> Based on is used to refer to an account, description, or experience of something <S> The movie was based on a true story. <A> However, the use of "on the basis of" sounds better in the sentence. <S> You can also say: Based on earlier accounts' reference frames, his article was written.
| On the basis of is used to reference those reasons. There's no difference in meaning: "based on" and "on the basis of" are interchangeable.
|
Better way to say "No bulls--t" I'm the person who like concise, and don't like the literature style stuffing in lots of irrelevant information to distract you from the main idea. So when I saw a book called "No bullshit Java" , I know that's exactly the kind of writing style I prefer, both reading and writing. However, that "No bullshit" is kind of stronger than my tolerance. Is there a better phrase that can convey the idea that I don't like those "bullshit", but not as strong? Example usage: I read a very useful blog, but there are so many distraction there that it is very easy to miss a step. So I'm documenting it again in my (no-)____ style. PS. I know I can use the word " concise ", but I do want it to be more vivid than that, but not as colorful as "No bullshit". :-) <Q> Phrases which you might be interested in are to the point style <S> no frills <S> style <S> no nonsense <S> style <S> no sugar <S> style <S> ( sugar these days has a computer technical meaning of frivolous ) <S> unsweetened style ( a play on sugar ) <S> Concise only means <S> short or compact and could still have sugar <A> Two common ways of communicating the same meaning in politer terms could be: <S> No nonsense <S> style... <S> No fuss <S> style .... <S> You could (at a pinch) say: <S> I'm documenting again without so much bull . <S> The latter leaves the listener/reader to mentally add the missing expletive. <A> direct straight plain compact . <S> Essential is actually not uncommon in computer literature titles ("Essential Java"), but it goes beyond style; while one would certainly expect no poetry in such a book, it is additionally a statement about the (limited) scope. <S> I'm not sure whether straight may make some silly highschool students think of sexual orientation: " Straight Java as opposed to what? <S> Queer Java?" <S> I find plain pretty nice because of the usual context in which it is used (plain talk, plain truth) but it may be too much of an understatement. <S> J.R.'s comment distilled is also interesting (and O'Reilly's famous "in a Nutshell" series means basically that, even though "in a Shot Glass" would fit "distilled" better). <S> Compact was inspired by J.R.'s distilled. <S> Short form usually implies "no frills". <S> Another line of thought focuses on the dishonesty implied when calling something "bullshit". <S> Often a user (let alone buyer) feels betrayed. <S> There are words which focus on that aspect: honest genuine <S> Yet another aspect of bullshit is the lack in usability, leading to a few other options: high-impact valuable , high-value , value-generating etc. <S> indispensible <S> These focus more on contents than on style or intent, but in order to be important the amount of irrelevant or wrong information must be pretty limited. <A> There are many synonyms <S> you could use, but I would suggest: no baloney <S> no hot air - this ons is more colourful, and might fit because it means: <S> Empty talk <S> that is intended to impress (from ODO, emph. <S> mine). <S> Since you are trying to convey that there are no unnecessary words that serve no real purpose (i.e. empty talk) <S> I would go for this one. <S> Aside: you might find this ELU post interesting: <S> What is the source of the phrase “phony baloney”? <A> "Forthright" seems to fit in your sample sentence. <S> partial def - adjective1.(of a person or their manner or speech) <S> direct and outspoken; straightforward and honest. <A> If you are looking for something that is still informal but not as crude, I would go with Straight Dope - n. <S> the plain, unvarnished truth <A> First, what does "no bullshit" mean? <S> No nonsense seems good, but doesn't really convey the lack of deception. <S> No bull is a great version, because it can be short for euphemisms like "bulldust". <S> Depending on whether the phrase needs to fit into the same sentence, "____ Java", then these might work: <S> No kidding <S> No mucking around No joke <S> Straight up <A> Not a native speaker, but perhaps: down to the nitty-gritty - reduced to the max, essentials only <A> For some reason, the answer with "short and sweet" got deleted. <S> That might not be the "best" option, but it certainly works: From the FreeDictionary : <S> Adj. <S> 1. <S> short and sweet - dealt with very quickly; to the point; "the conference was short and sweet"; "make your statement short and sweet" <A> Brief, clear writing can be called succinct ( OED ). <S> It's a particularly good choice here because it's especially applicable to writing. <S> You might even say it's the most... <S> succinct ... answer.
| Honest and direct . In addition to the very good suggestions from the earlier answers ( no nonsense being my favorite), I'd suggest the simple essential
|
What "Mechanics can pull codes for many of these sensors" can exactly mean? If any of these sensors are malfunctioning, the "Check Engine" light may come on inside the car, or the engine may run roughly. Mechanics can pull codes for many of these sensors to help solve the problem. A. What is " pull codes "?B. Mechanics here is a single noun or working people? <Q> to pull codes means to download error codes from the computer memory. <S> mechanics refer to those working people that repair mechanical devices. <A> A. "pull" = transitive verb, meaning "get information from" (the car's computer) "codes" = <S> plural noun, meaning "error codes" (such as numbers, that can be used to look up error descriptions in a table.) <S> B. "Mechanics" = <S> plural noun, meaning "people who build and/or fix machines". <A> I'm guessing the context here is a car or other motor vehicle. <S> Modern cars have a lot of sensors throughout the engine and associated systems. <S> These are designed to detect faults with the engine, and to feed information to the engine management computer to allow the engine to adjust itself to operate at peak efficiency in all conditions. <S> If a fault condition is detected, a fault code is stored in the memory of the engine management computer, and this is generally indicated by the "check engine" light being illuminated. <S> The codes are sometimes very helpful in identifying what is wrong with the car. <S> Actually, the codes for most cars can be read using a smart phone and a cheap OBD2 Bluetooth adapter, but for information on that sort of thing you'll be better off on the motor vehicle stack exchange.
| These codes can be read, or "pulled" by a mechanic, being a person who works on cars.
|
Do caves have "alleys" or "paths"? Which one is the appropriate use for caves? The evenness of bat species is influenced by the length of caves path (?) The evenness of bat species is influenced by the length of caves alley (?) <Q> This Wikipedia article uses the term <S> passageways to describe the routes through a cave. <S> One cave tour guide reads: <S> The journey begins in the middle level of the cave. <S> The passageways are generally small and variable in shape. <S> Sometimes the suffix <S> -way is omitted. <S> A National Geographic picture was captioned: A half-mile block of 40-story buildings could fit inside this lit stretch of Hang Son Doong, which may be the world's biggest subterranean passage . <A> Natural caves have neither paths nor alleys , but are a group of interconnected cavities (chambers) through passages <S> The evenness of bat species is influenced by the length of the cave chamber . <S> A chamber is any large cavity within a cave. <S> Paths are created by the spelunkers, the situation is similar to a path in a forest. <S> If a passage is high enough where stooping is not necessary, it is called a walk-through . <S> The closest thing to an alley in a cave is a grike or possibly a hall , but halls can be very wide. <A> The chambers of the caves within the system are similar to rooms in a building, and I think passage could be used for any narrow connector between larger, more open but still enclosed areas. <S> ", so it's not very suitable if you're writing about ways that bats can move in and out of a system of caves. <S> A path has the sense of a way that is marked, and may be easier to move along than other terrain. <S> There may be paths in a system of caves, like those for tourists. <S> An alley is "A narrow passageway between or behind buildings. <S> " It doesn't have the same sense of connecting two areas together. <S> It means, in the most general sense, a long narrow area.
| For a system of caves, we would typically use passage - "A narrow way, typically having walls on either side, allowing access between buildings or to different rooms within a building". A path is "A way or track laid down for walking or made by continual treading.
|
The end of a cave The end of a cave. The entrance of a cave will end to a part. what is this called? Should I just say an 'end'? or is there any specific term? <Q> The "end of a cave" could have two interpretations (depending on whether you are going in, or going out). <S> I'll list both. <S> The rock wall stopping you going any further in. <S> (From the perspective of walking into the cave) <S> You'd call this the back of the cave <S> The point at which you exit the cave. <S> (From the perspective of being inside it) <S> You'd simply refer to this as the entrance, the exit or mouth of thecave . <A> I have a couple of friends whose hobby is potholing. <S> They always refer to the Furthest Reaches of a cave. <S> If you google the phrase <S> Furthest Reaches <S> you get a number of caving websites that use it. <A> terminus <S> - a final point in space or time; an end or extremity.
| I don't know of any particular caving terminology for the end of the cave, but you could call it the terminus of the cave.
|
Is it right to say 'You are friends'? If I want to say to a group of people that they are each other's friends, can I say: You're friends. or should absolutely say: You're each other's friends <Q> I think I got your point, the answer is <S> Yes <S> In standard English, you is both singular and plural ; it always takes a verb form that originally marked the word as plural, (i.e. you are, in common with we are <S> and they are). <S> From Wikipedia That means while using " You ", you are already referring to the group of people, and thus making the " friends " or other adjective/adverb/clauses/etc. <S> pointing to all subjects of " You ". <A> You're friends. <S> (meaning: <S> You are friends.) <S> is fine. <S> But when spoken this might be misunderstood as: <S> Your friends which has a different meaning. <S> I would use one of these: You are friends. <S> You are each other's friends. <S> You are friends with each other. <A> To avoid confusing "your" and "you're," it's important to really pronounce the " you " in " you 're." <S> "Your" sounds more like [yoh-r] in American English. <S> In addition to what user3169 said, you could also say: You're all friends. <S> or You all are friends. <A> Your sentence is grammatically correct, however the context is important. <S> Usually when speaking about a small group of people (say 4 or less), one would could say you're friends <S> Why were you fighting with him? <S> You're friends , aren't you? <S> The three boys are friends of each other <S> Settle down team, no need to argue, we're all friends here. <S> The team are all friends of each other <S> " You're friends " can also work with groups, but all usually gets added to emphasize the whole. <S> " Each other " is implied when speaking about friendship between people, it can be used for emphasis or if there is ambiguity between whether the friendship is between two people, or between the two people and a third person.
| When speaking to or about a group of people, one would usually say you're all friends
|
what is the meaning of "Let me get my ass up. " Today I saw this sentence surfing on the internet. Let me get my ass up and head to the gym. can you explain it with easy sentence or replacement? Plus,which of the followings is the most identical to "Let me get my ass up." ? OMG, I should get up right now. OMG, I should hurry up right now. please anyone gets me up? <Q> When someone is "sitting on his/her ass", or the non-vulgar version "sitting on his/her butt", it is an idiom meaning to be lazy or unmotivated. <S> Related: Someone angry at someone being lazy may then ask them to "move their ass" or "move their butt", or "get your butt moving." <S> So ... <S> Let me get my ass up and head to the gym. <S> This means the speaker is recognizing or acknowledging themselves as being lazy or unmotivated, but is forcing themselves to break free of the laziness or acquire the necessary motivation to proceed. <S> It doesn't mean to hurry. <S> It can imply that the person is in a comfortable state, such as tucked in bed or otherwise relaxing. <A> As far as I know, this sentence is used for if someone decided to go to the gym. <S> People generally struggle with getting their ass to the gym, they hesitate and lazy. <S> So I guess this is <S> why 'Let me get my ass up', like 'let me go a(head) to the gym'. <S> I guess.:) <A> I would use: I need to get off my ass and head to the gym. <S> This can also be used as a exclamation to someone: <S> Get off your ass and go back to work!
| It has to do with not being motivated to go to the gym.
|
How do you say it? "Everything is possible" or "anything is possible"? As you all can easily see I'm not a native speaker. Over the years I was convinced that the correct expression had to be "everything is possible" but now I'm not sure anymore. <Q> Both are correct depending on what you want to say. <S> They don't mean exactly the same thing. <S> "Anything is possible" is very optimistic. <S> One would say this if they were hoping for an extraordinary event to happen. <S> For example, "I would love to learn how to snowboard one day" could be responded with "anything is possible!". <S> In that sense, it's a very hopeful, optimistic phrase. <S> If that makes sense. <S> This phrase might stir up some debate because technically speaking, everything is NOT possible. <S> It's not possible for a human to fly without any sort of assistance (as an example). <S> While this phrase has a very similar meaning to "anything is possible", it could very well lead to people giving you retorts as to what is not possible . <S> I would say that " anything is possible" is far more commonly used than "everything is possible". <S> It also sounds more colloquial for everyday use. <S> I wouldn't blink an eye if someone said "anything is possible", but if they said "everything is possible" that might stir up some debate. <A> It depends a bit on context. <S> It's more common in the US to hear (or say), "Anything is possible". <S> It doesn't really mean that everything is actually possible, of course; it usually is just said as an encouragement or an expression of surprise: <S> You might get hired tomorrow; anything is possible. <S> (encouragement) <S> Well, if he got hired for that job, then surely anything is possible! <S> (surprise) <S> "Everything is possible" is often heard in matters of faith, miracles, etc. <S> Everything is possible for one who believes. <S> Mk 9:23 <A> Put your head down, work hard and anything is possible . <S> Put your head down, work hard and everything is possible . <S> Anything - there are no limits to what is possible. <S> Everything - all known options are possible. <A> Anything = any member of the set All Things Everything = <S> the set of all things <S> The idiomatic saying is "anything is possible". <S> It means we cannot predict with any degree of certainty what will happen. <S> It takes a special context for "Everything is possible". <S> That sounds more philosophical, or as @anongoodnurse says, theological. <S> It is not the typical everyday saying.
| "Everything is possible" means that every single thing is possible. There is a slight difference between "every" and "any"; every typically means ALL THINGS whereas any means any ONE of those things.
|
Use of "up" in "back up", to mean going in reverse Why do we use the term "back up" when we are going in reverse? This is sometimes confusing for young English Language learners. Going backwards is understandable, where does the word "up" fit in? Are we moving in two directions? <Q> Why do we say " back up " when we are going in reverse? <S> The word up has many definitions, but here it means to a source or origin . <S> Thus putting the two together, we get the following statement: Drive in reverse toward your point of origin <S> But that's a mouthful; saying, "Back up," is so much easier. <A> The word up can have literal spatial meaning with respect to a vertical or horizontal axis. <S> To climb up a ladder. <S> To walk up a ramp. <S> To take the elevator or lift up to the 10th floor. <S> We're going up to London (destination). <S> But it also has a more abstract figurative meaning, originating in the semantic realm of motion, specifically as it relates to the commencement or initiation of actions. <S> The actor moves from a state of inaction, understood (at some deep metaphorical level) figuratively as a kind of recumbency, to a state of action. <S> He said, "I told you to back up , motherf_cker !" <S> So I backed down and backed up. <S> P.S. Compare German auf , <S> e.g. <S> Hör auf ! <S> (i.e. "desist!"). <A> Of course, you are right, it is difficult to find the logic behind "up". <S> My guess would be "to back" is derived from "to go back(wards)" and "up" is just an enforcing element as in to finish sth up. <A> As noted "back" in the phrase "back up" or "backing up" as used to describe going in reverse is easy to understand. <S> For me the connection to up was made when I drove a 1960s era column shift vehicle. <S> What is often referred to as a "three on the tree" to describe a three speed manual shift with shifter on the column. <S> To place the car in reverse one had to pull the shift lever back and then push up. <S> Thus "back and up" was the action taken to go in reverse. <S> For me I equate "backing up" to the "back and up" shifter movement. <S> I can't say with any authority if that contributed to the term or if that shifter movement was some automotive engineers idea of a bad pun. <S> Seems reasonable that in future times people may believe up in "backup" as applied to data storage <S> comes from the concept of "the cloud" being up. <A> When it comes to verb-particle phrases, it is often not possible to give a generally applicable rule. <S> It's just important to be aware that English as many of these, and learn them individually. <S> Other "up" verb phrases where the "up" seems arbitrary include "shut up" ( <S> stop talking), "hook up", "look up" [a word in the dictionary], "catch up", "put up" (as in to put someone up at your house = <S> to let someone stay at your house overnight), and "lock up". <A> Yall are focused on the words too much. <S> It comes from the old manual transmissions that had "3 on the tree" or a manual shift lever on the steering column. <S> To put the vehicle in reverse you had to pull the shifter back and up
| The word back here is acting as shorthand for backwards or drive in reverse .
|
What do you call this plastic rope for measuring? I am having difficulty to find the English word for this stuff. It is actually a plastic rope that is usually used to measure. <Q> Most such flexible measuring instruments are called "tape measures" or "measuring tapes". <S> There's a pretty wide variety of them, from the stiffish ones for carpentry or other craftsmanship that use a spring to wind themselves to the more cloth-like kind used for tailoring, which this seems likely to be. <S> Assuming this line has markings on it for distance, that would seem to be the right name for it. <A> It might be difficult to find a word for it because I'd not look at that and think "measurement". <S> As a technique, someone might use a piece of string to see how long something is. <S> Then they might go measure that against something like a ruler or "yardstick" . <S> And as @NathanTuggy points out there are various kinds of measuring tape. <S> (At Ikea, they give out free paper rulers , for measuring furniture in the store.) <S> But there is no special type of unmarked measuring string that I know of with a name in English. <S> Anything without marking would just be plain string or twine, and anything with markings would be a "measuring tape" . <A> Not sure if this answers your question, but the 'stuff' in your picture is frequently used by gardeners and is commonly called "twine"
| I might think "twine" or "strap" or "string" (though one usually wouldn't use the word "string" for plastic).
|
What is the polite way for asking if someone is still alive? I know that "to pass away" is the polite synonym for "to die". What is the polite synonym for "to be alive"? I want to use it for the A's sentence in the following conversation: A: Is your grandfather still alive? B: No, he passed away last year. Update: I'm asking this question because I think if I ask someone this kind of touching question, they might consider it offensive and even reply me:"Did you expect him to be dead?". So I thought maybe there would be a better way for asking such questions on somebody's condition in terms of being alive or dead. In eastern cultures including Iranian culture, there are honorific terms that should be used (as social etiquettes) when we are talking to/ about a person who is above us in terms of his/ her age (like a grandfather/ grandmother) or his/ her social position (a king/ a queen/ a president/ a boss, etc). <Q> I would use "still with us": <S> Is your grandfather still with us? <S> Others may make alternate suggestions. <A> I agree on "still with us". <S> But why broach the subject at all. <S> "How is your grandfather?" is entirely polite, does not raise the possibility of death, and will elicit the same information. <A> What is the polite synonym for "to be alive"?I want to use it for the A's sentence in the following conversation: <S> A: <S> Is your grandfather [still alive?] <S> B: <S> No, he passed away last year. <S> There are many other euphemisms you could use: Still ticking. <S> Hanging on. <S> Still with us. <S> Going strong. <S> Hanging by a thread. <S> Which one you use would depend on particular circumstances, but in the example you gave, I think "still alive" probably works best <S> What if I want to ask "is the king still alive?" ? <S> Pretty much the same answer. <S> "Still alive" is a fairly neutral and polite way of asking the question. <S> "How is the king?" <S> also works.
| "Still alive" is polite.
|
What is the difference between 'should' and 'if'? Should you be lucky to invite the Seoul, If you are lucky to invite the Seoul, What is the difference between the two sentences in meaning?And what is the reason we change the order from 'you should' into 'should you'? <Q> As a former English teacher, I think I may be able to help with the answer. <S> "If" is used when the 2nd part of the sentence is contingent on the first. "Should" means "in the event that". <S> Allow me to illustrate using an example: <S> You are inviting a friend to a play and say: "The play begins at 7. <S> Should you be late, there are ushers to help you find your seat." <S> .... <S> the ushers would be there anyway. <S> Their presence is not contingent on your friend being late. <S> If you were to say: "If you are late, there are ushers to help you find your seat." <S> ....it would mean that ushers would suddenly materialize IF and ONLY IF your friend were to be late. <S> So, a better example for "if" would be: "If you are late, you will miss the welcome speech my sister is giving." .... <S> in the last example, being late = missing the speech. <S> Whereas, being late does not equal the presence of ushers. <S> I hope this helps. <A> Allow me to amend your phrases and then explain the difference (assuming this is addressing someone who may be invited to Seoul): <S> Should you be lucky enough to be invited to Seoul, <S> If you are lucky enough to be invited to Seoul, They both mean the same thing, as they both show that this person may or may not be invited to Seoul. <S> There is very little difference. <A> These are two variants of the first conditional form. <S> There is no practical difference, choosing which one to use is a matter of preference and style. <S> In American English the inverted form is less common in casual speech and can be considered more formal.
| The "Should you" is an inverted form (see Wikipedia ). It's very subtle, but there is a slight difference. Saying 'you should' would suggest that this person should expect to be invited to Seoul, and 'should you' would imply that they may, or may not be invited.
|
What is the difference between 'go camping' and 'go to camp'? I go camping weekends. I go to camp. What is the difference between 'go camping' and 'go to camp'? <Q> To go camping means to go to the wilderness (or semi-wilderness) for a few days or a week or so, alone or in a small group, sleeping under the stars or in a tent. <S> You might cook meals over a fire. <S> To go to camp means to go a compound that has been built in a wilderness area, with cabins, a cafeteria, sports facilities, a pond or lake perhaps with canoes, or a swimming pool. <S> There will be dozens or perhaps hundreds of other campers there. <S> They will usually be grouped by age, and they will typically be children, or young teens, not adults. <S> There will be organized activities in which the campers are expected to participate. <S> There are other kinds of camps that do not involve wilderness, but they would not be relevant here, since you have asked in the context of "go camping". <A> I go to camp <S> explains your reason for going. <S> Why do people go to the park on weekends? <S> Some go to watch birds, others go to fish. <S> I go to camp. <S> I go camping <S> simply tells of an activity you like to do. <S> Jane goes birdwatching most weekends in the summer. <S> John likes to go fishing. <S> Me? <S> I go camping on weekends. <S> Both sentences are grammatical, but they are used in different situations. <S> As a footnote, TRomano has given a different interpretation from mine, but neither answer is wrong. <S> He is using camp as a noun , which is another way your very brief sentence could be interpreted. <A> It may involve actual camping (staying in tents) or there may be some kind of fixed accomodation. <S> "go camping" means to go and perform the activity known as camping (likely in combination with other things). <S> Camping means going to stay in a tent or similar. <S> Possiblly in the wilderness, possiblly on a campsite. <S> Possiblly as part of an organised group, possiblly not. <A> Camping is an activity. <S> Camp is a place. <S> To "go to camp" generally implies going to a particular camp, which encompasses certain types of activities, thus implying that such activities will be engaged in at camp. <S> However; going to camp does not necessarily imply actual camping, in the sense that there are football camps, baseball camps, basketball camps and so on in addition to organized summer camps, and all of which imply something different from going to a campground (or not) for a night or a week, whether in the backcountry or in a paved spot with water, electrical and sewer hookups at your local KOA campground. <A> Activity vs. Intent/Purpose <S> I go camping weekends. <S> I go to camp. <S> What is the difference between 'go camping' and 'go to camp'? <S> From a colloquial standpoint, the first sentence is pretty unambiguous, but is missing some connecting words. <S> It sounds more natural to say "I go camping on weekends", implying that you go every weekend as "on weekends" denotes "on each weekend". <S> In very informal speech you might elide "on", but it sounds sloppy to the native ear. <S> The sentence would be much stronger if you added a descriptive phrase to indicate how often you go, or why you are going. <S> For example: "I go camping each weekend in the summer, and once a month in the winter." <S> On the other hand, "I go to camp" is pretty ambiguous, and depends a great deal on context. <S> For example, it might mean: <S> I go to summer camp. <S> (A place children often go for recreation and supervision in the summer.) <S> I go to base camp after each climb. <S> (Something you might do if you're attempting to scale Mt. Everest.) <S> I go back to the camp after hiking the trail for a few hours. <S> (A reasonable answer to what your activity schedule looks like.) <S> I go to camp. <S> (A potentially reasonable answer to a question like "Why do you go to a national park every other weekend? <S> ") <S> I am going back to camp. <S> (A reasonable answer to "Where are you going now?") <S> Other answers will doubtless address parts of speech and grammatical construction, but idiomatically or colloquially you should generally use the first form unless you're trying to communicate something rather specific about your activities.
| "go to camp" means going to a place called "camp" "camp" generally reffers to a place where someone has set up and organised activity (maybe for pleasure, maybe for training), typically (though not always) involving staying overnight and living in close proximity with the rest of the people doing the activity.
|
Word or expression for a child who looks exactly like a parent What word or expression can I use for a baby who is the exact copy of one of its parents? <Q> One such phrase is the spitting image. <A> Carbon copy <S> is my personal favorite. <S> "He is a carbon copy of his dad!" <S> You could perhaps use duplicate , look-alike , twin or doppelganger depending on what you're going for. <S> Some words would work better for strangers rather than relatives though (ex. <S> "you two could be twins!" <S> or "she's his doppelganger, I swear" or "she's an exact duplicate of him"). <S> Here are some synonyms for spitting image <S> that you might find useful. <A> Maybe this is quite recent, but many people will recognize Mini-Me as an exact (although smaller) copy of someone. <A> While not strictly about appearance, some common phrases having to do with parental similarities are A chip off the old block <S> The apple doesn't fall far from the tree
| Like others have said, the spitting image and dead ringer are good ones to describe family members who look exactly alike.
|
To have different colors or to be different colors? could you please tell me whether the following sentences are both grammatically correct and whether both of them sound natural? These objects (e.g. flowers) can have many different colors. These objects (e.g. flowers) can be many different colors. <Q> Both are correct, but the second one sounds more natural to me. <S> Also, they have slightly different meanings. <S> When I hear "the flowers can be many different colors" <S> I think of a type of flower that can be red OR blue OR any other color (but a solid color, not mixed). <S> A rose can be red OR white OR pink (but entirely red or entirely white, not at the same time). <S> If that makes sense. <S> When I hear "the flowers can have many different colors <S> " I think of flowers that are multi-colored. <S> Like a flower that can have red AND blue AND green, all on one flower. <S> " be " many different colors = <S> red OR blue OR green " have " many different colors = <S> red AND blue AND green <S> This is not always the case but it is the difference I think of. <A> There is a difference between having a color and being a color. <S> To be a color is to be entirely, or predominantly, of that color (e.g. a blue sky ). <S> If more than one color predominates, then an object can be multiple colors (e.g. a red and white striped shirt ). <S> In contrast, to have a color is less exclusive; it suggests that other colors may be present, and those other colors may even be more prominent than the one you are talking about (e.g. the flags of Taiwan, Saudia Arabia, and Slovenia all <S> have white on them ). <S> To offer some real-life examples using Wikimedia Commons images, if you asked the average person what color these tulips are, the response will most likely be yellow , or some variety of yellow : <S> The flower below is trickier. <S> If pressed to name a single color, most people would also say this tulip is yellow, since the overwhelming proportion of the visible parts of the flowers (i.e. the petals) is yellow. <S> From a distance, it will appear entirely yellow. <S> But many will at the same time object that the flower also has red in it— <S> it is yellow with red stripes or is yellow, but has red stripes . <S> In this third case, many may refuse from the outset to identify the flower as being any one color: They will say it is purple, white, and yellow , or that it is white and purple and has yellow (on one petal) . <S> This flower has yellow, but it cannot be said that it is yellow. <S> In practice, to say flowers can be many colors and can have many colors is nearly equivalent. <S> But one could draw a distinction between the two. <S> In contrast, to say flowers can have many colors is to say that many colors can be found among the flowers, even if they all share the same predominant color. <S> Thus, if flowers can be yellow , you can expect flowers looking like the first or second examples. <S> If flowers can have yellow , you can expect flowers looking like any of the three examples. <A> Actually all that has been said does not explain why English prefers to say 1 <S> What colour are his eyes? <S> And not: 2 <S> What colour have his eyes? <S> I think that the variant 1 was originally Of what colour are his eyes? <S> In the course of time "of" was dropped as describing the colour of something is a frequent topic. <S> So we actually have a shortened expression. <S> The drop of "of" is for me the only reason why English says: What colour is her hair? <S> and not: What colour has her hair? <S> as a lot of speakers of other languages would say. <S> It would be fine if I or others could find something that would back up my theory. <S> Added: <S> In this question Link <S> we find "Every ball has a different color" and "All balls are of different color. <A> It's an oddity of English that we refer to things as both having and being colours. <S> Which one you use is simply down to preference.
| To say flowers can be many colors is to say that flowers may reflect a range of predominant colors. They are both true, both are grammatically correct and they both sound natural.
|
Is there a figure of speech for "illlness which passes without a special treatment"? In German we have a figure of speech: "Das geht von selbst vorbei", which normally means that an illness will pass without the need to treat it with medicaments or something special at all.Is there a similar figure of speech known in the English language, too? Edit: Because I'm trying to translate a joke I will share it with you, too. Perhaps you could figure out a better way of translation (I doubt that it would be worth to be a question of its own): Two planets chat:"How are you?""Not so good; feelin' miserable!""Oh? What's up?""I have Homo sapiens...""Nah, don't worry: it will run its course!" <Q> The first option I think of is "run its course" as in "You'll just have to let the flu run its course" See: idioms.thefreedictionary.com/run+its+course <A> Two planets chat:"How are you?""Not so good; feelin' miserable!""Oh? <S> What's up?""I have Homo sapiens... <S> ""Nah, don't worry: it will run its course!" <S> I would suggest "Nah, don't worry, it will take care of itself." <S> For a disease to "take care of itself" is a common phrase--even more common than "will run <S> it's course"--for saying something does not need treatment or intervention. <S> For the purpose of your joke, it has another advantage. <S> Criminals would say "take care of" someone, meaning murdering them (as it would "take care of the problem" of that person being alive/around.) <S> So there would be a suggestion that the reason humans would not be a problem would be because they would be doing themselves in. <S> But this "take care of itself" meaning "will just go away" is contextual. <S> It would be different if the planets were suggesting an actual concern for the humans: <S> Two planets chat:"How are you?""Not so good; I'm worried what to feed my Homo Sapiens!""Nah, don't worry: they will take care of themselves!" <S> Here "will take care of themselves" really means--literally--that they can be self-sufficient and find their own food. <A> A more technical term for such a disease is self-limiting or self-limited . <S> Self-limiting condition . <S> An illness or condition which will either resolve on its own or which has no long-term harmful effect on a person’s health. <S> Source: <S> Segen's Medical Dictionary via thefreedictionary.com. <A> There is a well-known phrase, supposedly oft-quoted by doctors: Take two aspirin and call me in the morning . <S> It's common enough that Google might suggest it after typing in a mere <S> take two as . <S> Though it may have actually been used by physicians at one time, it's usually uttered now rather flippantly. <S> It's not quite the same as what you're asking for, but it's related. <S> I could see it being used in a dialog like this: <S> TED <S> : My head hurts, and I feel all congested. <S> I'm thinking about going to the doctor. <S> NED <S> : Ah, take two aspirin and call me in the morning. <S> Ned's response could be paraphrased: <S> It's probably not anything serious. <S> Just go home and get some rest. <A> Another option:"Hang in there. <S> It'll pass." <A> <A> Two planets chat:"How are you?""Not so good; feelin' miserable!""Oh? <S> What's up?""I have Homo sapiens... <S> ""Probably means you've got man flu!" <S> Here in the UK, man flu is a standing joke and the term is a way of taking the mickey out of someone who is complaining about not feeling well if you do not believe it to be serious.
| If an illness doesn't require any special treatment, you can just say it "goes away on its own".
|
Is studying similar with learning? What is the difference between "studying" and "learning"? What will a student do? What will a learner do? <Q> The difference is subtle. <S> Learning is the actual acquisition of knowledge through some process such as studying, instruction, or experience. <S> So, the desired outcome of studying something is learning (about) that thing. <A> I've got an impression that learning means knowledge, experience or a moral of a story flowing into your mind, as in <S> Here’s what we learned from the South Carolina primary and Nevada caucuses <S> How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb and studying means an act of attending a school or an act of working on an educational material. <S> "Study" also means "doing research," as in More Higgs particles can be found by studying superfluid helium <S> It's not guaranteed that we gain any knowledge about Higgs particles by "studying" superfluid helium. <A> What is the difference between "studying" and "learning"? <S> When you say you are "learning" something, that suggests it's more an ongoing process... <S> it doesn't happen in an instant. <S> When you say "I am studying English" <S> you might be talking about something you are doing right now. <S> You could just have a book open and be in the act of "studying" it. <S> But you could also mean it is an ongoing process... <S> since you haven't really said anything about when your studying will will end. <S> So in the case of these two statements, the meaning might be the same, depending on context: <S> I am studying English. <S> I am learning English. <S> However with these two: <S> I am studying English tonight. <S> I am learning English tonight. <S> Really only the first would make sense (unless you are living in The Matrix and can instantly download English to your brain.) <S> Studying can start and stop. <S> But hopefully, no one ever promises to stop learning things ever again...
| Studying is engaging in a mental process for the purpose of the acquisition of knowledge (such as reading a textbook).
|
Selling of properties has or have increased The selling of properties in the country have increased rapidly. Shoud I use have increased or has increased ? <Q> Has increased, since "selling" is singular. <S> But I suspect you mean "Sales of properties have increased". <S> Alternatively, you might mean "The number of people selling properties has increased." <S> In this case it is "has" because "number" is singular. <S> The important thing to note is that it is not the number of properties involved that determines singular or plural here. <S> It is whether the word that "increased" refers to is singular or plural. <S> Thus: "Robberies have increased." because "robberies" is plural. <S> But "Stealing has increased" because "stealing" is singular. <S> Both say exactly the same thing, but the grammatical structure is different, and thus it is have in one case and has in the other. <A> In this sentence, the gerund selling is the subject, and that is what the verb must agree with, so the correct form would be has increased. <S> The plural noun properties is an object, so even though it is closer to the verb than selling , it is not necessary for the verb to agree with properties . <S> It sometimes helps in making this sort of choice by removing words until the sentence is as simple as possible, then choosing the correct verb. <S> Here the confusion is, I assume, between the singular gerund selling and the plural noun properties . <S> Version 1: <S> The of properties in the country have increased rapidly. <S> This is ungrammatical and lets us know that the noun properties is not the subject. <S> Even if we drop the word of , the meaning of the sentence is altered substantially (though it does become grammatical.) <S> Version 2: <S> The selling has increased rapidly. <S> Removing "of properties in the country" removes some descriptive information from the sentence, but it is still about the same topic, the rate of sales. <S> Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the sentence still makes perfect sense and has good grammar. <S> This is a strong indicator that this was the correct choice. <S> The same strategy can be used in any number of situations when a longer or more complex sentence is giving you difficulties with noun/verb agreement or choosing the correct pronoun. <A> The word 'selling' in the sentence is an uncountable noun that takes a singular verb; it's selling (of properties) that has increased, not properties. <S> You can also use the selling as a gerund as follows: Selling properties in the country has increased rapidly. <S> "Selling properties in the country" is a gerund phrase.
| The selling of properties in the country have/has increased rapidly. In this case it is "have" because "sales" is plural.
|
the meaning of "secondary to something" The book is not a Sacco-Vanzetti encyclopedia. I touch only in passing on some important subjects that I considered secondary to the book’s main goals. I know that the book could, as Barbara Tuchman said of The Proud Tower, “be written all over again under the same title with entirely other subject matter.” (Source: Susan Tejada: In Search of Sacco and Vanzetti , p. x.) I am not sure what is the meaning of the phrase "secondary to" in my clause. In the case that it has the standard meaning – not so importatnt, not so relevant – the sentence niggles me a little. The book is supposed not to be encyclopedia and the author focuses only on the lives of Sacco and Vanzetti and importatnt subjects are mentioned only briefly. But the reason for their being mentioned should stem from their importance to the book's main goals so the usage of "secondary" seems to be odd to me. <Q> Something that is secondary in importance does not mean that it is not important, it can still be very important, but something else ( primary ) is more relevant for the current discussion. <S> For example <S> In bad weather, having good tires is of secondary importance to driving slowly meaning that it is more important to drive slowly than to have good tires even though having good tires is also very important. <S> In your passage, the author is only "touching" on some subjects she considers <S> secondary since she probably thinks they are also relevant or important, but does not want to distract the reader away from the main point . <S> Primary , secondary , tertiary can be used to express ordering. <A> @Peter's answer is correct in OP's situation. <S> I just want to point out another use. <S> As a medical provider, we use this term a lot in documentations. <S> It means "caused by". <S> For example : "STRAIN OF RIGHT LOWER EXTREMITY SECONDARY TO FALL 12-15 FEET FROM LADDER" <A> "secondary to" means "resulting from" , "characterized by" or "relating to" that is primary... "due to" means "caused by" or "because of" ...
| Secondary to means not of primary or main concern.
|
"we have different rhythms" vs "we have different paces"? I was talking to a friend (who has passed some of his years in Canada), and I said to him It's difficult to meet to discuss about a problem because we have different rhythms. and he agreed by saying ...it is true that we have different paces. Now, since my English level is still not good enough, or at least it isn't as good as I would like, especially in terms of the richness and rightness of my vocabulary and expressions I should use, I'm not sure if I can say what I said and, if I can, are both sentences equivalent? Is one more common than the other? Which one sounds more familiar to native English speakers? I know that this might be different from country to country, but you can simply mention your country, if you wish. To be honest, I used the term rhythm because it's also used in my mother language (of course translated). I didn't even know about pace. <Q> The meanings are actually different, so which one was correct would depend on how it was intended. <S> 'Pace' refers to the speed or tempo of something, while 'rhythm' refers to the beat or pattern, which is independent of tempo. <S> So if it was difficult to meet with him because you always worked days and he worked nights, rhythm would be more appropriate. <S> If it was difficult because he was always busy, and you were not, then it would be pace. <A> Interesting question. <S> Rhythm can refer to the stopping and starting or speeding up and slowing down or ebb and flow of something . <S> For example, if you are awake during the day (which is usual) and your friend is awake during the night (sometimes referred to as "being a night owl ") you both have different personal rhythms (not to be confused with circadian rhythm . <S> Pace is usually used to describe constant speed while travelling, either literally or metaphorically <S> The runners ran at a 4-minute-mile pace The pace of life inside big cities is hectic You two may be missing each other because your rhythm is not at the same pace as your friend, or your friend's pace does not have the same rhythm as yours <A> I would say both are correct <S> but I personally wouldn't say either. <S> I would probably say we have different schedules. <S> I'm in the USA <A> We have different paces is not an idiomatically established usage. <S> Common expressions in this general area are... 1: <S> We're out of step <S> (We're trying to work together, but our efforts are just not fully co-ordinated / synchronised) 2: You march to the beat of a different drum <S> (We're not compatible co-workers, because your aims are completely different to mine) ... <S> where #1 is more likely in contexts where we can make minor adjustments so as to "synchronize" our actions (and quite probably will , since there's usually the implication that this is what we want to happen; perhaps we just weren't paying attention to the precise timing). <S> On the other hand, #2 is more likely in contexts where the different approaches are effectively irreconcilable <S> (you have your way of doing things, I have mine, and there's nothing we can do to change that). <S> This usage is much more "generic" (it's not just about differences in timing ).
| Obviously, pace and rhythm wouldn't match since they mean different things, but by using them you both may be suggesting that you view your daily lives in different ways.
|
What do we say when a person doesn't support someone in need? When a friend doesn't stand by his friend in need, what expression do we use for it?I'm particularly looking for a phrasal verb. The sentence should be in positive form, as I've already written the negative form "not stand by someone". It should be like "run away/turn someone's face away/close the doors". <Q> There are several ways to say support is no longer being given turn their back on <S> turn away (from) <S> disappear ignore <S> neglect <S> (particularly used with children and pets) <S> stopped taking his calls <S> (another way of saying ignore) <S> blanked (can also mean ignore) <S> usage may also depend on context, examples <S> The supporters of the President have turned their backs on the latest proposals When the homeless man asked for money, people just turned away <S> When she needed him the most, he just disappeared <S> All his pleas for help were ignored <S> The starving cat was left at home and neglected for a week. <S> The agent who had been so helpful, recently stopped taking my calls <S> When I asked for help, he blanked as if he didn't know what I was talking about <A> You could also use desert , even though it's not a phrasal verb. <S> (Note that desert is a bit different from ignore . <S> This word may not be the best choice on all occasions; I added this answer because I think desert could fit many instances of such an occasion you described in the question.) <S> From Macmillan: <S> desert [transitive] <S> to leave someone in a situation where they have no help or support a story in which a woman deserts her husband Some examples around the web: He took off on a joint mission with another RAF fighter pilot, but, when he saw a flock of enemy planes nearby, he deserted his friend. <S> -- <S> In the Zone: The Twilight World of Rod Serling by Peter Wolfe, page 143. <S> He left his friend in the water for more than eight hours while he went back to his room. <S> He deserted his friend in time of need. <S> The Milwaukee Sentinel - Aug 13, 1969. <A> "turn a blind eye" See turn a blind eye . <S> Also "left me in a/the lurch". <S> See leave someone in the lurch .
| -- 'Deserted Friend' . The word desert implies "leaving"; with ignore , one might stay but pretend that they do not see or notice the need.
|
Is "walk on" correct? Are these 2 the same? Do you want to walk on Waterfront? Do you want to take a walk on Waterfront? I know 2 is more common, but just curious if I use 1, how that would sound? <Q> Both are correct, depending on context. <S> 2 Implies that you're not yet taking a walk, and suggesting walking on Waterfront as an activity. <S> 1 Implies that you're already out walking, either for leisure or to go somewhere, and you are asking what route you want to take. <A> In the second one, using 'a walk', walk is a noun. <S> They mean the same thing accept that one is a verb and the other is a noun. <S> But they are still the same word. <S> This link has both definitions on it. <S> It's pretty simple though, the first one: <S> Would you like to <S> walk <S> (which is an action a.k.a. <S> a verb) on the Waterfront? <S> The second one: <S> Would you like to take a walk (the " a " causes ' walk ' to be a thing <S> a.k.a. <S> a noun) on the Waterfront? <A> Do you want to take a walk on the Waterfront? <S> is to walk alongside the water <S> Do you want to talk on the Waterfront? <S> only means you are conversing while next to the water, you may be sitting, you may be walking. <S> It is ambiguous what additional actions you both are doing.
| Both are correct but with 'walk on' the "walk" is a verb,
|
Is "a bit more erected" an appropriate way of describing the following posture? I want to explain why the bunny on the right-hand side of the following picture appears to be bigger than the one on the left. Maybe it is really because of the difference in the heights of the two, but let's assume it is just because of their postures. The bunny on the right-hand side appears to be bigger because it is a bit more erected than the left one. How does this sound? Do you know some better expression? <Q> "Erected" sounds odd, yes. <S> And a lot of people will make annoying comments about innuendo they spot in that. <S> Instead, a better phrase would be "sitting straighter". <S> The bunny on the right-hand side appears to be bigger because it is sitting straighter than the left one. <S> When used with sitting, standing, and so forth, "straight" implies not just geometric straightness, but also maximizing that dimension. <S> So "stand [up] straight!" <S> is a way to tell someone to stand as tall as possible. <A> This is a great question! " <S> To stand erect" means to stand straight and tall; I'm not sure there's a comparable for that definition of the word. <S> The dictionary definition seems to support that: erect, adjective upright in position or posture: to stand or sit erect. <S> So I might rewrite your sentence as: <S> There is little room for misinterpretation in your sentence, and "to stand erect" is a perfectly grammatical and correct phrase. <S> It is worth noting, however, the second definition of erect : 2. <S> raised or directed upward: a dog with ears erect. <S> The word <S> erect has a sexual connotation when used in this manner, so you may wish to keep this in mind (depending on your audience). <A> Erected = built: "It was erected in the 17th century". <S> There erected is the past participle. <S> Erect = standing straight, or sitting with one's back straight. <S> The bunny on the right is standing erect. <A> Other than the sexual connotations, the "more" doesn't sound good, and "erected" would sound great for a monument, not for a bunny. <S> Well, "because it is holding its head higher" is a first idea about posture that doesn't mention "posture". <S> Another might be "sitting but more alert". <S> I was going to say "trying to kiss the other bunny", but that takes us back to the beginning :)
| The bunny on the right-hand side appears to be bigger because it is standing erect, while the one on the left is not. I don't think you can say one person stands more erect than another; you're either standing erect or you're not.
|
Should I write "add to the beginning" or I must use "prepend"? I made a comment on this SO question some days ago: Are you trying to just overwrite the data at the beginning of the file or insert new data without losing the data that is already there? Some of the answers had the word prepend (eg: "To prepend data: ..."). Looking for a translation of prepend to Portuguese (pt-BR), I find it as " anteceder " or " preceder ". I think the word " anteceder " in Portuguese, is most related to time (eg: "something will happens before that time"), and "preceder" is most related to a kind of priority or to describe a grammar rule, but not to files (or data in this case) on a computer system. On Babylon , I found the translation of prepend as " acrescentar ao começo ", which sounds like append to the beginning and it also showed me the definition in English: add something at the beginning (slang, the opposite of append) ", which makes sense ("the opposite of append"). In a technical context, must I use the word prepend for a better understanding or if I write "insert in the beginning" or "add new data to the beginning" is it OK for an English reader? <Q> You can use "prepend" in such cases, but it's not usually preferred. <S> It sounds a bit pretentious (except in some technical contexts), and the word is not widely prevalent (same). <S> (It doesn't even show up in Firefox's spell checker.) <S> Your plainer versions are preferable unless you really need to be as brief as possible. <S> A note on prepositions, though: "insert at the beginning" is better than "in", since "at" carries a connotation of a precise spot, rather than "in"'s general area. <S> I couldn't resist the slight alliteration of using "pre-" words…. <A> Prepend refers to "attach/insert before" (at the beginning), while append refers to "attach/insert after" (at the end). <S> The translations you describe seem to be more focussed on time, which sounds more like they are a better fit to the word "precede" (e.g. the main course precedes desert). <S> Whether you choose to use the single word or the phrase, it is a decision you must make while balancing being concise/precise with your language at the risk of miscommunicating (not everyone will fully understand the term), versus being more verbose but more easily understood. <S> As noted in other answers/comments, append/prepend are commonly used within computer science/software development (common in code libraries) but not necessarily in everyday speech, indicating that your audience will influence your decision too. <A> In a technical context, I must use the word prepend for a better understand or if I write "insert in the beginning" or "add new data to the beginning" is ok for an English reader? <S> (Note: "I must use the word prepend for a better understand?" = <S> > <S> "Must I use the word prepend to be better understood?") <S> Since the file system has no concept of "prepending" at a mechanical level (the way a linked list in memory might), it isn't a complete fit. <S> But it could certainly work. <S> To avoid using it, then beginning is a somewhat vague word. <S> "The beginning of a file" could refer to an entire header section--not necessarily before the very first byte. <S> The term "head" is used to precisely mean the very absolute front of something. <S> So you'd likely hear "insert data at the head of the file" over "insert data at the beginning of the file", because it is less ambiguous. <A> It's pretty well known what they do, and it's much shorter/clearer to read. <S> Actually, most programming libraries have append/prepend functions. <S> See for example: http://api.jquery.com/prepend/
| In a technical context, I'd definitely go with append/prepend. Maybe in a learning-to-code or beginner type of text it might be easier for the reader to understand "add to the beginning", but in an advanced computer science text definitely would sound unnecessarily "dumb down", and in my opinion, weird.
|
Why is »is« used here instead of »has«? I've been watching a TV show that its story line goes back to the sixties, and I encountered a weird sentence being spoken in the TV show. The court magistrate is determined that you will live out your remaining days in here. The problem with aforementioned sentence is that it lacks the required 3rd person auxiliary verb, Has, and instead it is filled with a non-sense 3rd singular verb, is. Is it a legit sentence? If so why is it used like so? UPDATE: Both of the answers are great and if the system allowed me, I would pick both of them as the best answer. I have chosen the first answer because it was published earlier than the second one and it includes more information. I appreciate both of you, well done! <Q> Without context, it's difficult to say; but the sentence may be parsed as grammatically acceptable in two different ways: <S> The past participle determined here may be employed not as a verb meaning <S> made the determination, decided but as an adjective meaning "unwavering, insistent, adamant* — <S> "The magistrate wants you to live out your days here and cannot be persuaded otherwise." <S> You may have heard The magistrate's determined and interpreted the 's as is <S> when in fact it represented has . <S> In any case, this is an unusual sentence. <S> Even given a mildly literary tone and a 50-year-old setting I can't imagine a contemporary US writer employing the expression "court magistrate". <S> Modern US English doesn't use magistrate for any sort of officer outside a court of law, and the title usually designates the officer who presides over a minor court, not a court competent to impose life sentences. <A> Yes, the sentence is sensical and logical. <S> When the auxiliary verb "to be" is conjugated and followed by what looks like a past participle, in this case "determined," it is not forming the present perfect tense (which seems like what you are expecting). <S> This sentence actually just uses "to be" normally. <S> It is describing the magistrate as determined , which means "having made a firm decision and being resolved not to change it." <A> " Is determined" and " has determined" give it two similar but different meanings, both of which could possibly be valid. <S> But "[He/she] is determined that ..." would mean he is in a state of being determined; "determined" meaning "having made a firm decision and being resolved not to change it." <S> It's saying "He/she = determined ..." <S> , determined being an adjectival (or participle), form of the verb. <S> "[He/she] has determined that ..." is using the past tense of the verb "to determine", as in to decide, or ascertain. <S> So basically, "[he/she] decided". <S> Note: for simplicity I am abbreviating "the court magistrate" as "he", but take it to mean either pronoun, "he" or "she".
| As others have answered, it's hard to determine out of context, and it could possibly be a misreading for has .
|
Why is Zika capitalized and chikungunya and yellow fever are not? I noticed the usage on the CDC website. I don't understand why Zika is capitalized while the other two were in lower cases. There is no vaccine to prevent or medicine to treat chikungunya virus infection. There is no specific treatment for yellow fever; care is based on symptoms. Zika virus disease (Zika) is a disease caused by Zika virus that is spread to people primarily through the bite of an infected Aedes species mosquito. <Q> "chikungunya" and "yellow" are, respectively, <S> a common Makonde word meaning "something bending up", and a color name. <S> Therefore, neither is capitalized. <S> However, "Zika" is a proper noun, named after a forest in Africa ; therefore, it's capitalized. <A> Capitalization is stylistic choice, and people may choose to capitalize things that you don't normally see capitalized. <S> There are a couple of guidelines that come up in a simple search, and this is one of them. <S> There's no unilateral consensus, but there are conventions. <S> Chicago Manual of Style is another eminent manual that is both loathed and loved at the same time. <S> Back to your question, just like most of the words in this sentence, words in text and descriptions shouldn't be capitalized by default. <S> That explains the yellow fever's case. <S> In the other two cases, the origins of the words are helpful: History of "Zika virus" <S> The virus was first isolated in April 1947 from a rhesus macaque monkey that had been placed in a cage in the Zika Forest of Uganda , near Lake Victoria, by the scientists of the Yellow Fever Research Institute. <S> A second isolation from the mosquito A. africanus followed at the same site in January 1948. <S> When the monkey developed a fever, researchers isolated from its serum a "filterable transmissible agent" that was named Zika virus in 1948. <S> emphasis mine <S> Thus, "Zika" is the name of a forest, and generally proper nouns, including the names of places, get capitalized. <S> History of "chikungunya" The word 'chikungunya' is believed to have been derived from a description in the Makonde language, meaning "that which bends up", of the contorted posture of people affected with the severe joint pain and arthritic symptoms associated with this disease. <S> There is a related question on this on ELU. <A> The Zika virus is named for the Zika Forest in Uganda. <S> Given that Zika is a proper noun, it is capitalized. <A> Since Chikungunya and Yellow Fever are names of diseases, they are Proper Nouns, regardless of their origin. <S> So is Zika. <S> Hence they must be capitalized. <S> You can also capitalize on occasion to emphasize something, as I have in the first sentence.
| Often terms that enter English from foreign languages don't get capitalized.
|
Using tag question with one One should study hard. What is the question tag for the sentence? Should I use they , he , or one ? <Q> One should study hard is antiquated (old-fashioned) <S> but the grammar is good. <S> Depending on the context you are writing in, you could say any of the options you suggested. <S> if you are addressing one person in particular. <S> Use ' He should study hard. ' <S> if you are talking about one person to another. <S> Use ' One should study hard. ' <S> if you are being formal. <S> Be aware that some people would view the use of 'One' as too formal, and it is often associated with Upper Class Britain, and the Royal Family! <A> "Shouldn't they?" <S> "one" is treated as an indefinate pronoun in the question tag <A> One should study hard, shouldn't one? <S> One can be used as a subject of question tag because it is a personal pronoun and can refer to the subject one. <S> One should do one's duty.
| Use ' You should study hard. '
|
I got a stomach flu or I got the stomach flu or I got stomach flu? When I googled stomach flu, there were many questions and statements like How do you get the stomach flu? Or Difference between a stomach flu and food poisoning Or Six facts about stomach flu When do you use the, a or nothing? And which should I use for a sentence like "I got a stomach flu from someone" ? <Q> Firstly, 'Stomach flu' is not an official medical term - 'Stomach flu' is probably referring to something like gastroenteritis. <S> The poster asking 'How do you get the stomach flu' is probably saying it that way because that is how you refer to the flu, which is a contraction of 'Influenza' . <S> It's common to refer to other illnesses this way, but colloquially (not officially), such as 'The Bends' (pressure sickness) or ' <S> The Clap' (venereal disease). <S> Technically, there are many different strains of flu, such as H1N1, H1N2 etc. <S> So if you don't know the type, you can refer to it non-specifically as 'a type of flu' or 'a flu' . <S> Whereas if you specify that it is stomach flu, you don't need to prefix it with 'the' or 'a', because you have said what type it is. <S> Examples of how it might be phrased: I've got the flu. <S> I've got stomach flu. <S> I feel unwell. <S> It might be stomach flu. <S> I've caught the flu from someone. <S> I've caught stomach flu from someone. <S> I've got gastroenteritis - it's like a stomach flu. <S> Hope this helps! <A> Short answer: <S> "The flu" is probably the one you want. <S> Long answer: <S> When your affliction is a specific named one, you often omit the article altogether. <S> All of these would be acceptable: I have rickets. <S> I have measles. <S> I have AIDS. <S> I have cystic fibrosis. <S> I have Zika. <S> I have canine distemper. <S> * <S> Rough day for me. <S> When you are referring to symptoms of a disease, you sometimes use the indefinite article, "a." <S> I have a cough. <S> I have a rash. <S> I have a cyst. <S> I have a headache. <S> I have a fever. <S> ....and sometimes use no article: <S> I have nauseau. <S> I have diarrhea. <S> I have dizziness. <S> A cold is a collection of symptoms, and usually takes the indefinite article. <S> I have a cold. <S> But if you know exactly which type of cold you have, you might switch to the definite article: <S> I have the common cold. <S> Flu is somewhat like cold in this respect. <S> In the past, all flus were thought to be the same malady. <S> Now we differentiate between avian flu, swine flu, Spanish flu and others. <S> (See ngrams ) <S> If you just want to say that you have some type of flu-like illness, you might say _"a flu. <S> " If you are referring to the same flu that everyone else seems to be getting this year, you probably want to say "the flu." <S> If you aren't sure, use "the." <A> Since stomach flu is an informal term anyway (not medically specific or used in a setting where you might say gastroenteritis or something like that), you can use either the definite or the indefinite article and people will understand just what you mean. <S> The subtlety is that when you use "the" you are implying that there is one particular virus* circulating, and your audience probably knows others who have gotten sick with the same symptoms, so your use of "the" intends to tap into the listener's knowledge of what (they or) others have experienced recently. <S> By contrast, "a" implies that you have acquired some virus* which affects your stomach <S> but there are multiple such illnesses out there <S> and you are not being specific about exactly <S> which one you have. <S> In "Six facts about stomach flu" there is no article because "stomach flu" is being discussed as a general concept. <S> When you have a/the stomach flu, you have one specific illness , and the difference between definite and indefinite article is the implication about how many such illnesses are out there within the relevant range of consideration . <S> The article title ("six facts about...") does not imply that the author is sick at all or that the advice contained in that article is limited to any specific strain of virus*. <S> The bold words in the last paragraph can be read as more general guidance for when trying to decide between definite articles ("the") and indefinite articles ("a/an"). <S> *: (or bacteria or other cause of disease). <A> The simple answer to your last question is, <S> "I got the stomach flu from someone." <S> But the larger question of when to use an article ("a" or "the") or not before "stomach flu" is more difficult and depends on the context, as you've found in your research. <S> Strictly speaking, "stomach flu" does not require an article in most cases. <S> It would be just as valid to say, <S> "I got stomach flu from someone." <S> "How do you get stomach flu?" <S> "What is the difference between stomach flu and food poisoning?" <S> "A stomach flu" would only be used if there is more than one strain of the virus under consideration. <S> This use is relatively rare. <S> The major pandemics of influenza that definitely affected the stomach (all of which I experienced) were in 1957, 1968 and 1978. <S> I fortunately did not contract the so-called "swine flu" of 2009, so I don't know whether it was a "stomach flu" or not. <S> (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic ) <S> Most "stomach flu" is actually a norovirus infection, caused by contact with tainted produce or other food. <S> (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norovirus ) <S> I hope this helps!
| So in most cases, it is correct to say "the stomach flu" or simply "stomach flu," unless you are speaking of multiple strains of the virus.
|
What does he say ? Why there is a "Does"? "What does he say ?" My question seems not relevent to grammar, I am not sure, but I am in wonder. In the question "What does he say ?" the word "does" seems redundant to me, as the question is fine without it. I cannot find a suitable translation for it when I translate the above question to my language. I do not understand what is going in minds of native speakers when they say it. I wonder how they utter words have not specific meaning in their questions. ... maybe it has a meaning for them but what it is? <Q> The usage of "do" for questions (and negatives) is a relatively recent addition to the language. <S> I suspect that its usage has something to do with its function as an affirmative, like "I do" in response to the marriage vows. <S> In medieval English, questions were asked by word inversion, as they still are with "be" and "have". <S> The transition was in progress in Shakespeare's time. <S> Here are two verses from 1 Corinthians 6 (King James Bible, published 1611). <S> Note that verse 2 uses "Do", and the very next verse uses word inversion. <S> 2 <S> Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? ... <S> 3 Know ye not <S> that we shall judge angels? ... <A> The way to ask most wh- questions in English is to start with the wh-word ( what, where, when, who , and also how ) and follow with an inverted-order sentence, where the auxiliary verb ("do" or "be") comes before the subject. <S> The same inverted order is also used in yes-no questions, so this is a common structure for questions: is he going? <S> where is he going? <S> does he go? <S> where does he go? <S> is he your friend? <S> who is he? <S> Note that there are also questions without this inversion like "who is going? <S> " <S> - there's more complexity in English than a set of simple rules can cover. <S> But I hope the answer helps you understand what is going in people's minds. <S> Since the order is not inverted, this does not sound like a question. <S> English speakers may understand it as a question from context or voice pitch, but it is less natural, and might mark the speaker as foreign. <A> You should study the grammar point "questions and negations" http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/clause-phrase-and-sentence/verb-patterns/verbs-questions-and-negatives <S> In a nutshell: 1 "Normal verbs" need a form of to do (do, does did - don't, doesn't, didn't) in questions and negations. <S> 2 <S> All verbs are "normal verbs", except some "particular verbs". <S> Particular verbs are 2.1 <S> The verb to be 2.2 Auxiliary verbs used for the formation of tenses (will for future, would for conditional tense/mood, have/has/had for the perfect tenses). <S> 2.3 Modal verbs: <S> can/could, may/might, must/---, shall/should, <S> will/would 2.4 "to have" is a special case. <S> It is a particular verb when used for the perfect tenses, and a normal verb when meaning to possess and similar ideas. <S> There is one special rule: questions with who/what/which+noun, subject case, never use to do for questions or negations. <S> I have given the essentials of this grammar point. <S> For details see a grammar. <S> As to your question why English uses to do in questions and negations, though most languages don't need such a special marker, that is a question about which I have never read anything though the question is a good one. <S> I have a personal theory and I have presented it here somewhere on stackechange. <S> When I find it I'll add the link. <S> Added: <S> What have native speakers in their mind when they use "to do"? <S> @GamalThomas <S> - Good question, but not so easy to answer if you don't have such a verb. <S> Have a look at various online dictionaries such as Oald, The Free Dictionary, Collins, MacMillan, and look up the word in dictionaries of your own tongue. <S> It would be good to know your mother tongue. <S> If you do the cooking or shopping you perform the necessary actions for this job. <S> It is a general verb; I call such words chewing gum words, you can use them for a lot of things. <S> To do can be placed before a verb for an emphasizing effect, eg I do hate this teacher. <S> And as we have seen it is a marker for questions and negations. <S> Don't know whether all this helps you much. <A> What does he say <S> What does he write <S> What does he think Are all asking about what someone is doing, it has the same meaning as <S> What is he saying <S> What is he writing <S> What is he thinking <S> What does he say should not be confused with What he says What he said which refers to whatever someone has said (P1 looking at P2 and P3 suspiciously) <S> P1 : (P1 looks at P2) <S> What are you two up to? <S> P2 : <S> Oh nothing, we're just out here minding our own business, not really interested in anything <S> P1 : (looking at P3) <S> And you? <S> P3 : <S> What he said (looking at P2)
| If you remove "does" you are left with "what he say" and correcting to "What he says" may look ok, but in English this is not a question - it is equivalent to "the thing that he says".
|
Difference between Formal and informal question? There are two questions: A- How come you're a reporter? B- How is it that you're a reporter? Why A is informal and B is formal? And I found that difficult to know that making the Informal question into formal question especially there are no rules. <Q> These are not formal and informal questions. <S> A- <S> How come you're a reporter? <S> This is asking how it came about that you are reporter? <S> The speaker wants to know how, or maybe why, you became a reporter. <S> B- <S> How is it that you're a reporter? <S> This is asking how it is possible that you can be a reporter. <S> The speaker cannot understand how a person like you can be a reporter- suggesting maybe that you are incompetent, or that there are aspects of the job that you might not be able to deal with. <A> The second question is not formal; I don't think a native speaker would use it at all, it seems awkward. <S> In general, though, formal language does not use contractions. <S> However, even if we expand the contractions to get "How it is that you are a reporter? <S> " that does not sound natural. <S> You might mean "How is it that you are a reporter?" <A> direct and indirect are same as formal and informal question <S> Direct questions are the “normal” questions that we can ask to friends, family members, and people who we know well. <S> Example of a direct question:“Where’s the bathroom?” <S> Indirect questions are a little more formal and polite. <S> We use them when talking to a person we don’t know very well, or in professional situations, and their form is a little different. <S> Example of an indirect question:“Could you tell me where the bathroom is?”Phrases for Indirect Questions <S> Could you tell me… <S> Do you know… <S> I was wondering… <S> Do you have any idea… <S> I’d like to know <S> …Would it be possible…Is there any chance… <A> "How come" seems to be a contraction -- shortening ' <S> How has it come to be that...you are a reporter?' <S> Few people really talk like this latter statement; and few people would write 'how come' other than in a casual way. <S> 'How come' can often be replace by 'why' for a simpler sentence. <S> Although 'why' feels to inquire more about about logic <S> (Why did you choose reporting as your career when other fields are so much more lucrative?) <S> rather than passage <S> (How is it that you came to be a reporter despite having studied biology in school?).
| So, like many contractions, yes -- 'how come' is considered colloquial or less formal than the full statement.
|
Word/phrasal verb/expression for a man who has no religious values? What is the word for the person whose values doesn't confine to that don't comport with those of his religion? Because he drinks, lies and is morally corrupt. <Q> The two definitions nicely sum up what you're describing: <S> A person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion. <S> A person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. <S> You could also call that person "fake", "a faker", or "a pretender". <S> If you want a more neutral way to say it, you could also go with "inconsistent", which is a less judgmental way of describing the same thing: that this person says one thing but acts another way. <A> Reading your title ("a word/expression for a man who has no religious values"), I first thought of amoral , immoral , unprincipled , depraved ; but after reading the body of your question, which is a word/expression for "a person whose values doesn't confine to don't comport with that those of his religion", I believe that you're looking for something else, and maybe this phrase fits better. <S> in name only something that exists in name only has an official name, but has none of the qualities that you think of when you hear that name <S> Theirs was a marriage in name only. <S> For example, if X claims that their religion is Y (so X is a Yian), but always lies, cheats, and so on, you may say: X is Yian in name only . <A> Hypocrite is perfect for the case where the man openly accepts his religion but still behave against it's values.
| I would call that person a hypocrite .
|
What is the right word to describe something more than "great" I need to write short email that will state something like: ..that will turn a good company into a ... company. What would be a proper word that I can use? <Q> Consider excellent very good of its kind, eminently good or outstanding . <S> extremely good or excellent note that these words start with vowels, so <S> the 'a' turns into 'an' <A> Hrm, just a few observations on some of the answers here, from an American English speaker: Many English versions of the word you're looking for were historically used to refer to things that are large in size, and can sometimes cause confusion on whether it's exceptionally good, or exceptionally large. <S> In context the difference is often clear, but when describing a company (which could be made larger) <S> the meaning may not be so clear. <S> Be careful when using words like "tremendous" or even "great" / "grand". <S> Similarly, many English words come from descriptions of things that are so exceptional that they are better than real life. <S> "Fantastic" can frequently be used to describe something that has an element of fantasy, which it's unlikely that your company would have. <S> "Legendary" and "epic" can suffer from the same. <S> Additionally, due to its (over)use in modern informal speech I think "epic" has lost much of its weight and may also appear informal, as user13267 mentioned. <S> "Marvelous" and "phenomenal" aren't bad suggestions at all, but CAN have an air of supernatural greatness (i.e. more "great" than something can ever be in real life) similar to the previous bunch. <S> Personally, I think these would probably work in the given context. <S> "Exemplary" isn't bad, but may sometimes imply something that sets an example for others to follow. <S> This might fit your case, however. <S> I like Thomas Mario Adams III's suggestion of "outstanding", particularly because this company would literally "stand out" from among other merely "great" companies. <S> It's also term that is very familiar to corporate readers. <S> You may want to add emphasis by saying the company will become "truly outstanding". <A> You may consider Exceptional From the online dictionary , definition 2: unusually excellent; superior: an exceptional violinist. <A> Phenomenal adjective highly extraordinary or prodigious <S> ; exceptional: Source astounding, exceptional Source <S> Usage example: ...will turn a good company into a phenomenal success! <A> Consider an exemplary company as a way to express that this company will be turned into "something more than great" <A> The best is fine. <A> In addition to the others I would like to add Superb, Epic, Legendary <S> This answer over on English. <S> SE has a good amount of information on intensifiers like this that is worth a read. <A> Many companies today are referred to as "great" companies. <S> But great has become cliche. <S> What I'm saying is even better than great, it's an "outstanding" company. <S> An outlier to the great ones. <A> I would suggest the word remarkable <S> Remarkable: <S> 1.notably or conspicuously unusual; extraordinary:a remarkable change. <S> 2.worthy of notice or attention.
| Think of marvelous, fantastic, the best .
|
Is "illusionally" an English word? I'm writing answers to an assignment of a certain course that I have, and I wrote the following: This is possible because in this environment multiple programs of different users can run illusionally at the same time. What I want to say is that the programs do not actually run at the same time, but there's the illusion that they run at the same time. Yes, this is related to multiprogramming and multitasking for those of you curious :) Is there an adverb in English which allows me to express that? <Q> I think the word you are looking for is illusory <S> This is illusory because parts of programs by different users can run very quickly at almost the same time to appear contemporaneous or simultaneous. <A> Illusionally , if it were a real word, would mean in an illusion-ish manner which is not equivalent to saying X has the illusion of Y . <S> Illusion can't really be changed into a word that answers the question <S> how? <S> so this doesn't really work. <S> Has the illusion of is the normal way <S> illusion is used: <S> This is possible because in this environment different users have the illusion of running multiple programs at the same time. <A> Here are three suitable options, at different positions within the sentence. <S> This is possible because in this environment multiple programs of different users can run as if at the same time. <S> This is possible because in this environment multiple programs of different users can, in effect , run at the same time. <S> This is possible because in this environment multiple programs of different users effectively can run at the same time. <S> Unfortunately, the word effectively can be ambiguous. <S> Placing effectively before the word can , as in the example,reduces this ambiguity but does not eliminate it. <S> effectively <S> – wiktionary.org 1. <S> In an efficient or effective manner; with powerful effect. <S> 2. <S> Essentially, in effect, for all practical purposes. <A> I think the word you are looking for is "virtually". <S> Merriam Webster Online defines it as almost entirely ; nearly ; for all practical purposes And <S> a probable usage in your scenario could be: <S> This is possible because in this environment multiple programs of different users can run virtually at the same time.
| True, illusionally is not an English word even though illusional is.
|
Is it correct to use the expression "I have also attached..." in an e-mail? Is it grammatical to use the expression "I have also attached ..." in an email? For example: "I have also attached the screenshot of the faculty list at University which I was on." Should I use a comma before the word "which"? <Q> "I have also attached the screenshot of the faculty list at University which I was on." <S> It took me a while to figure out the meaning of the sentence (maybe because of prejudice, expecting badly mangled English, but maybe because it is unusual). <S> I think it would be much clearer if you said <S> "I have also attached the screenshot of the faculty list at University, which contains my name and photo." <S> Or I misunderstood the sentence completely and <S> you would write something like <S> "I have also attached the screenshot of the faculty list at University, where I studied philosophy for two years." " <S> which I was on" is so unspecific that it's hard to figure out what it refers to. <A> Yes, you can use the expression “I have also attached…” in your email. <S> Most prefer the abbr. <S> PFA (Please find attached). <S> There's no harm in using it. <S> Besides, some mail applications validate the mail before sending and notify you if you have used the word 'attached' but not attached anything. <A> Question 1: <S> I would prefer "Enclosure:" for a more formal email though. <S> Question 2: <S> You do not need to put a comma before "which" because it is one of those "necessary" phrases that is not a "sidenote".
| It is grammatical to use in an email and just tells the recipient what you have attached to the email.
|
I rounded all the numbers vs. I rounded all numbers Which of these two is correct?"I rounded all the numbers for my calculations" or "I rounded all numbers for my calculations". Or is there a better way to say that I rounded the results of my calculations. <Q> To say that the results of your calculation were rounded All my calculations were rounded (to the nearest 10) <S> All my results were rounded without ambiguity. <S> In your examples <S> I rounded all the numbers for <S> my calculations can be understood to mean the inputs were rounded, not necessarily the results (even though there is an implied significance level for the result depending on the number of rounded digits) <A> Using "the numbers," suggests that you rounded a specific set of numbers that encompasses any numbers used in your calculation. <S> Omitting the "the," suggests that you first rounded all numbers, into infinity (or the assumed feasible maximum/minimum necessary for the calculation) <S> then did you calculation with whichever numbers you needed from that pre-rounded set. <S> Obviously omitting the "the," results in an implication that is unlikely to be true, and would actually be a pretty massive waste of effort on the part of the person performing the calculation. <S> If you rounded the result of the calculation, and not the numbers used to find that result, you would say something entirely different. " <S> The result of the calculation was then rounded to the nearest hundred," would be ideal if you rounded to the nearest hundred. <A> I believe that "I rounded all the numbers" sounds better, as in here "the numbers" seems to directly refer to "the calculations" done later. "Numbers" alone, as the people have noted above, implies the set of all numbers and does not strictly refer to what is mentioned. <S> However I can see both as valid in everyday usage. <S> (Not a linguist, but I hope it helps!)
| I rounded all numbers for my calculations all numbers for my calculations were rounded can be understood to mean the inputs and the results were rounded.
|
Difference between "center" and "middle" What is the difference between center and middle ?Which sentence is correct: The book in the center of the table. Or The book is in the middle of the table. <Q> Middle and center often have the same meaning, especially to the general public. <S> However, if you work in a more technical profession, such as Engineering or Architecture (and others), we tend to use the word center when we want to be more technical - for example - "the center of a circle" or "the center of the diagram." <S> These are examples when we need the exact coordinates of the geometric center. <S> Middle is more general. <S> We don't care if the book is in the exact geometric center of the table, as long as it looks like it is in the middle. <S> You will find that outside of these technical professions, English speakers use the two words in the same way, with the same meaning. <S> Hope this helps! <A> However, centre is the specific geometrical (or geographical or whatever one works on) middle. <A> The simple answer I got is: <S> Center is between Right and Left and Middle is between Top and Bottom Middle can be center but center can't be middle. <S> this is my own research, I hope this can help others.
| Middle just means intermediate, and isn't specific.
|
The leak is located in/on/at the pipe I have to describe a technical system with several pipes. If I want to describe the location of leak, do I say: The leak is located in/on/at pipe number one? Which preposition is correct? There is this ELL question: "on", "at", "in" as preposition of location Maybe "in line number one" ("in line" is given there) is similar to "in pipe number one", but I am not completely sure. Is there any native speaker who can help? <Q> It's nearly always a leak in the pipe ... ... <S> but native speakers wouldn't necessarily object to at - particularly in contexts where "the pipe" is one of several discrete sections within a delivery system that can be conceptualized as single points chained together (which perspective would also permit on , though this is somewhat less likely). <S> But the notion of "correct" doesn't really apply here, since referents like pipes, wires, lines don't actually have specific "pinpoint locations". <S> So you can talk about a break in the earth wire or <S> a short-circuit on <S> the live wire <S> when you mean "somewhere along the length of the wire", but it's more likely to be <S> a blockage at <S> the waste pipe <S> if what you mean is the blockage becomes apparent where the waste pipe starts (even though the blockage may actually be much further along - possibly somewhere beyond the other end of the waste pipe). <S> And native speakers won't always be sure of the "best" choice of preposition. <A> The leak is in pipe number one, at machine number three, on the second floor. <S> In implies that the something you're referring to (in this case, the leak) is integral to or part of the structure of the pipe. <S> Since leaks are usually caused by the pipe wall (which is a structural, integral part) having a hole in it, you use in . <S> That's why I used a machine as an example: if each machine is fed by several pipes, and pipe number one is one of those, then pipe number one is in the vicinity of machine number three, and you can say it's at machine 3. <S> On implies a spatial relationship: you can have on the side, on the top, or on the bottom. <S> Without any specification, it's often taken to mean on the top or on top of . <S> Assuming that machine number three isn't flying, it's probably sitting on the floor. <S> If that floor is the second floor, you can say that machine number three is on the second floor. <A> The fact that you are referring to multiple, numbered pipes makes this an interesting question, with little precedent to build off of. <S> As FumbleFingers said, the usual preposition for leaky pipes is in , but we don't usually talk about numbered pipes in the context of diagnostic systems, so you have a bit more wiggle room. <S> The leak is located in Pipe #1. <S> You can't go wrong with that one. <S> The leak is located on Pipe #1. <S> In my mind, that could work. <S> One meaning of on is on the surface of (which is why we hang pictures on the wall, or have lacerations on our arm). <S> It's not a conventional way to say it, but given a diagnostic system with several possible locations for a leak, I think at could be used – particularly if the leak could appear in several different location types and you wanted to use the same preposition in each message: <S> The leak is located at Pipe #23. <S> The leak is located at Connector D6. <S> The leak is located at Valve V-16
| The leak is located at Pipe #1. At implies somewhere around or in the vicinity of .
|
What does "you've seen yesterday" mean? I'd like to know what"you've seen yesterday" means in this context: If you can talk with your friend who you haven't seen for a long time as if you've seen her/him yesterday, you're best friends. I thought we can't use "have seen" with "yesterday" because this "have" means experience. <Q> Short answer: Native usage on this point (at least in the US) is quite a bit looser than what prescriptive grammar books teach you. <S> In this particular case, the emphasis is on the fact that (hypothetically) you've seen your friend, that such an action has occurred. <S> But, because the proximity is important, the completed task is not "seeing your friend" but "seeing your friend yesterday." <S> The specific point in time is secondary; we don't really care that it was at 9:00 or 17:00 or whenever yesterday. <S> And, if you can think about it figuratively, it doesn't matter that it was specifically yesterday versus last Friday or a week ago or whenever. <S> Yesterday here isn't to designate a specific time, just to imply proximity, almost like a synonym for recently . <S> This usage largely results from the fact that the example is hypothetical--it's the hypothetical nature that leads the speaker to not think of yesterday as a specific point in time. <S> The indicative version, You've seen your friend yesterday sounds fairly unnatural, albeit not totally ungrammatical. <S> It places the emphasis on the accomplishment of having seen your friend, and again, mentions yesterday almost as an afterthought. <S> That's the best explanation I can give as a native speaker--the given example doesn't sound odd to me at all. <S> I know blaming prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar is a not very satisfying answer, but it's my best attempt to explain the psychology going on in this choice of tense. <A> This explanation is from the link attached below.. <S> For example, saying “I have seen the movie yesterday” would be incorrect. <S> So from above,I think you should be using had instead of <S> have or replace the word yesterday with before . <S> You have seen them before or You had seen them yesterday, both would be correct. <S> Read more here. <A> Present Perfect is a present tense - it describes the present state of something, as being connected to something completed (perfect). <S> Think about "your friend who(m) <S> you haven't seen for a long time" as a description of present state of things. <S> In this sentence, you could think of "you've seen her/him yesterday" as an alternative state of things. <S> " <S> As if" connects these two alternatives. <S> This sentence can also be regarded as an idiom that would be weakened if the second part used past simple instead. <S> "You've seen her/him yesterday", by itself, does not clearly describe a present state, since it mainly indicates the time of the past "seeing". <S> If that time is the focus of the sentence, then past simple should be used. <A> The difference between I saw (Past Simple) and I have seen (Present perfect simple) is that for present perfect simple there has to be some lasting effect. <S> I saw James in the park - no lasting effect <S> Have you seen John? <S> - lasting effect if true... after seeing him, you would know that he is around <S> I have seen a doctor, and he told me... - lasting effect- <S> the doctor told you something. <S> In your sentence, the point you are making is that talking to your best friend is like talking to somebody else (not your best friend) that you had seen yesterday. <S> Seeing the not-best-friend yesterday would make it easier to talk to then today- <S> it would have had some lasting effect, so it's appropriate to use Present Perfect Simple- "as if I had seen him yesterday". <S> Note that as if is a hypothetical situation <S> , so you should really say "you had seen". <S> See here for a discussion of this point. <A> -Have <S> you been to the market yet? <S> -Yes, I have. <S> – When did you go there? <S> – Yesterday. <S> When recent news is introduced we use present perfect. <S> For details we use past simple. <S> They say it's unusual to have present perfect with expressions of finished time. <S> It is unusual but not impossible. <S> They often occur in news items (announcing the news and giving details in th same clause ). <S> A 24-year-old soldier has been killed in a road accident last night. <S> The second version is: " <S> In spoken and written journalistic styles, the present perfect is sometimes used to stress the current relevance of events , even though definite past time adjuncts may be present. <S> "(Cambridge <S> Grammar of English).
| The verb form is being used correctly (“have seen”), but the word “yesterday” refers to a specific moment in the past–it does not connect the past to the present..
|
Is the preposition necessary in this sentence? What is the reason why we should use preposition? When we make passive voice of 'I gave him an apple.', should we use preposition 'to' like 'an apple was given to him by me.'If we should, why? <Q> Short answer <S> The other version isn't wrong, though. <S> Long answer <S> There are two ways to say the basic sentence: <S> I gave an apple to him . <S> I gave him an apple. <S> And as a result, there are two passive sentences, too: <S> An apple was given to him (by me). <S> An apple was given him (by me). <S> The name for this pattern is the Dative Alternation , and you can read more about it in this answer . <S> Even though both of these sentences are grammatical, the version with to is much more common, especially in spontaneous speech. <S> Why? <S> Well, in the answer I linked above <S> , I talked briefly about Rohdenburg's Complexity Principle, "explicitly marked phrases are preferred over zero-marked counterparts in cognitively complex environments". <S> That answer was about questions, but it applies to passives, too. <S> Put more simply, we use to there because it helps us understand what role <S> him plays in the sentence. <S> In fact, some speakers have such a strong preference for to here that they believe the other version is ungrammatical! <S> But don't believe them; it's too well <S> attested in Standard English writing for us to call it anything but grammatical. <S> Here are some examples from the Corpus of Contemporary American English : <S> He struggled to kindle a spark of rebellion, to resist this fate, but fatigue and whatever narcotic had been given him for the pain muffled his fire. <S> He just wanted to sleep. <S> Howard hands <S> Curtin a gold nugget that has been given him by his Indian hosts and tells him to drop it into the village well. <S> When he finished dressing he washed his face and hands in the bowl and dried himself with the towel that had been given him at his bath a few days before. <S> He took his toothbrush from his vest pocket and lathered some soap on it. <S> There were also two stuffed bears, which she'd named Alphonse and Gaston, and a frayed quilt, which had been given her when she was born. <S> All of these examples sound formal or bookish. <S> In spontaneous speech, you're unlikely to hear this sort of example. <S> My recommendation? <S> You should you get in the habit of using the to version, but make sure you can understand the version without to . <A> Even though there is the word "past" in "past participle" , it's by itself un-tensed. <S> And hence it needs an auxiliary verb to express "tense" , so that a complete standalone sentence forms. <S> We can't say - <S> The apple given Because it's not a standalone sentence. <S> Of course it can be taken as a fragment of another sentence. <S> To make it a standalone sentence we need to provide "tense" . <S> And therefore we need an auxiliary verb. <S> The apple was given. <S> Now this is a standalone complete sentence. <S> This is a passive form. <S> Now we need to provide two important information - one, who gave the apple and two, who received it. <S> Both can be done using two Preposition Phrase (PP). <S> The information - who gave the apple - can be achieved by the PP - by me . <S> The information - who received the information - can be achieved by another PP - to him . <S> So it becomes - <S> The apple was given to him by me. <S> Now the active form is <S> I gave the apple to him. <S> The preposition to is obligatory. <S> Consider also the following sentences - <S> I gave him the apple. <S> He was given the apple by me. <S> Here to is not needed. <S> And using it is wrong. <A> Let's start by looking at the first sentence <S> I gave him an apple <S> Strictly speaking, the sentence should be <S> I gave an apple to him <S> The subject is I , the object is apple and him <S> is an indirect object linked by a preposition. <S> It is normal, with to to swap the order of the direct and indirect objects and to drop the preposition. <S> Thus: I wrote a letter to him <S> Becomes <S> I wrote him a letter <S> So, when we switch to passive voice, we are not adding a preposition: we are choosing not to omit it, because the sentence structure is more complex. <S> It is still acceptable to say An apple was given him by me <S> But it is less common. <A> I gave him an apple. <S> I gave an apple to him. <S> He was given an apple by me. <S> An apple was given to him by me. <S> An apple was given him by me. <S> When can usually say either "give him|her|me|them something" or "give something to him|her|me|them". <S> Although the passive forms above are grammatical, they are very unlikely to pass the lips of a native speaker. <S> In normal conversation, most native speakers do not go out of their way to use the passive, as student textbooks might lead you to believe we do. <S> If an exercise textbook were to be written by me, many exercises would be presented in which passive constructions must be rephrased by the student as active constructions. <S> If I were to write an exercise textbook, it would present many exercises in which the student must rephrase passive constructions as active constructions.
| You should use to .
|
My favorite drink or my best drink? I know that we say 'My best friend'. What is the difference between: My favorite drink My best drink <Q> Their lobster bisque is my favorite. <S> Their lobster bisque is the best! <S> When it comes to superlatives and people, though, employing a possessive pronoun is quite normal and idiomatic, particularly when describing some kind of personal relationship: <S> Brian has been my best friend since childhood. <S> Michelle is my closest confidant at work. <S> David and Juanita are their closest neighbors. <S> Linda is our favorite stylist. <S> Ted is his biggest ally. <A> Favorite usually means "the one that I like most", as in "Clam chowder is my favorite soup." <S> (That is, Clam chowder is the soup that I like most. ) <S> Best usually means "highest in quality", as in "The French onion soup is their best." <S> (That is, the French onion is their highest quality soup. ) <S> So my favorite drink is the drink that I like most. <S> My best drink is the highest-quality drink that I have. <S> You're right that best friend looks confusing in this context, but it's idiomatic. <A> I think I will say "My favorite drink" if I am telling someone about it. <S> I think I will say "My best drink" if I made the drink myself and that's the one I can make very delicious <S> or I am best at.
| When it comes to food and drink, we typically say my favorite , but the best :
|
"What a beautiful are your works" vs "How beautiful are your works" What is the difference in the meaning in the two following sentences? a) " What a beautiful are your works!" b) " How beautiful are your works!" The context: I see my friend in his exposition of his paintings and I want to compliment him. <Q> Sentence (a) isn't grammatically correct because "beautiful" is not a noun. <S> Compare that to "What a piece of work is man" or "What fools these mortals be. <S> " <S> In this type of construction, "What a" must be followed by a singular noun with or without modifiers (or you can use "what" with no "a" followed by a plural noun) <S> . <S> This is the adjective sense of "what". <S> Here's the definition from Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged: <S> how remarkable for good or bad qualities : <S> how surprising : how great : <S> how small — used especially in exclamatory utterances and in dependent clauses of like nature <S> Sentence (b) is fine. <S> You could also say "Your paintings are beautiful" or "Your paintings are so beautiful. <S> " Those are simpler ways of saying the same thing. <A> Exclamations are sentences spoken with emphasis. <S> How and what are often used to form them. <S> Compare these patterns : <S> How beautiful are your works? <S> (A question ) <S> How beautiful your works are! <S> (An exclamation ) <S> Another pattern uses <S> what What beautiful pictures (works of art)! <S> Or just Lovely! <S> Aren't they beautiful! <A> What is the difference in the meaning in the two following sentences? <S> The words order isn't quite correct but both are saying the same thing. <S> If want to use the "what" pronoun for emphasis, as much as you could say: "What big ears you have, Grandma," said Little Red Riding Hood. <S> "What a great dinner you've made, John!" <S> What a long trip! <S> What interesting news! <S> What interesting questions you've asked! <S> What little time she has she doesn't spend on shopping! <S> You could say: What beautiful your works are!" <S> Same with the <S> "how" adverb. <S> How difficult these questions are! <S> How small she is! <S> How beautifully he dances! <S> How big his ayes are! <S> I can't believe how fast they got here! <S> You could say: How beautiful your works are! <S> That said, probably neither of those sentences sound quite natural for the context you present. <S> Maybe something like: <S> Wow! <S> Your work is really beautiful! <S> Note that there's no need for pluralising the work.
| It says that his works are beautiful, and beautiful is intensified by the use of the construction "how beautiful."
|
Analyzed by or analyzed with? The data were analyzed by the ANOVA method. The data were analyzed with the ANOVA method. Which one is more appropriate? <Q> Using "analyzed by " is a little off here, since it implies that the ANOVA method has agency, that is, is capable of doing things on its own. <S> So if you have a computer program that runs more or less independently to analyze data, this would make sense, but otherwise it's not quite right. <S> Using "analyzed with ", though, is fine. <S> The method is a large part of the process, but the one doing the analysis is really the person (or people) who apply the method. <A> The data were analyzed by the ANOVA method. <S> This uses the passive to show that ANOVA method is the agent of the action. <S> (We can think in this case that the ANOVA method is a computer software.) <S> The data were analyzed with the ANOVA method. <S> This also uses the passive, but it doesn't mention who or what thing did the action, the only thing you know is with the help of the ANOVA method , the data was analyzed. <A> The prepositions by and with can be used to talk about the method that's used to do something. <S> So you can say "analyzed by the ANOVA method or analyzed with the ANOVA method", without any difference in meaning. <S> Look at the following sentence listed under 'by' in McMillan Dictionary: <S> Reading is taught by traditional methods here. <S> I think you can replace "by" with "with" in the sentence.
| You could also say "analyzed using " for essentially the same meaning.
|
This week with simple past? I was reading a textbook (Connect 3: it's a student book) in which there are some time expressions for simple past among which I found 'this week'. I always thought 'this week' must be used with present perfect and avoided making a sentence or question like 'What did you do this week?' Now I'm confused by 'this week' as a time expression for simple past and unfortunately there is no example provided. Does this sentence sound OK with a native speaker? I finished my homework this week. Can we use 'this week' with simple past? <Q> Yes, these can make sense. <S> What did you do this week? <S> You wouldn't generally expect people to say <S> "What did you do this week?" <S> on a Monday morning. <S> But if you are speaking with someone on a Friday night--or a Saturday or Sunday--the mention of "this week" in the past generally refers to the "work week" (Monday thru Friday). <S> But it could also be used with something recurring, where the recurring thing being discussed <S> has finished... <S> but you are still "in the same week" to refer to it as "this week". <S> Imagine <S> you are taking a class that has a session every Wednesday. <S> You could say "I just finished class" and someone could ask "What did you do this week?" <S> --meaning <S> "What happened during your class in this week's session?" <S> I finished my homework this week. <S> Imagine that you had not finished your homework for one of those classes you have sessions for once a week. <S> Now it is the next class. <S> As you hand your homework in, you might tell the teacher " <S> I finished my homework this week!" <S> (to say you did a better job... <S> this time). <A> If you intend to use the past simple in this case, as said, it works, but you're considering that a part of the week is clearly over. <S> The present perfect is more natural when you talk of the whole period up to the present and the past simple if you're refering to a finished time of that period. <S> Compare: — <S> I finished my work this week. <S> (Earlier this week.) <S> — <S> I've finished my work this week. <S> (The whole week up to now.) <S> However, you can turn an unfinished time expression into a finished one. <S> For instance: I didn't see X today . <S> (There's no more possibility to see X this day, hence today turns into a finished time expression.) <A> Both of these sentences can be acceptable: <S> I finished my homework this week. <S> I've finished my homework this week. <S> This seems rather confusing, but the subtle differences of the present perfect and the simple past can be seen by where each one can't be used: <S> As both HostileFork and Ustanak stated, the present perfect is used when referring to a time period which includes the present <S> whereas the simple past is used when referring to a time period which is "over" . <S> Therefore, notice: <S> I went to Bangalore in 2009. <S> *I've gone to Bangalore in 2009. <S> The second example above is unacceptable because, even though 2009 refers to a long stretch of time, it is still a single reference point in time which is now "over". <S> Notice the differences in these examples: <S> I went camping this week. <S> I've gone camping this week. <S> Here, both are again acceptable, but the meaning is very different: In the first example, the speaker went camping and is now done with camping (They're "back" from camping); In the second, however, the speaker is actually still camping, e.g. they're telling someone on the phone that they're currently camping (and so e.g. they aren't available to go to the movies). <S> Notice, again, that e.g. *I've gone camping last week is wrong for the same reasons that the example with 2009 is. <S> Likewise, notice where the simple past can't be used: I've played the saxophone for a year now. <S> * <S> I played the saxophone for a year now. <S> The second example here is unacceptable because the word now means that the time being referred to is ongoing and so, as explained above, the simple past should be used instead, as in the first example. <A> Yes. <S> That sentence is okay. <S> It might only be considered strange in that it is rather vague for something that has a short time frame. <S> Homework is normally done over-night, or over the weekend. <S> A longer term thing, set by a teacher, would more likely be called an "assignment".
| It doesn't sound strange.
|
What are the differences between "I'm broke" and "I don't have money" I want know differences between: I'm broke. and: I don't have money. Are they different expressions? For example, if I say: I don’t have money. can I also say: I'm broke. Any ideas or insight would be greatly appreciated. <Q> Taking the phrases exactly as you have supplied them... <S> I don't have money = <S> I am not a rich man. <S> Money is something I do not have. <S> I am broke = <S> At present, I have no money. <S> We can make a small change: <S> I don't have money on me = <S> I have no money in my wallet or on my person at this moment (but I do have money in a bank account or at home) <S> I don't have the money = <S> I cannot afford it; it is too expensive for me <S> I would like to take a vacation <S> but I don't have the money. <S> Could you pay for lunch? <S> I'll pay you back tonight. <S> I left my wallet back in the hotel room and don't have any money on me. <S> After paying for food and rent and the train to work, by the end of the month I'm broke. <S> My family lived on a very small farm. <S> I left our small village to find work in the city, where I drive a taxi. <S> I don't have money. <S> My friend at school inherited a fortune from his grandfather. <S> But my grandparents worked every day of their lives, and just managed to scrape by. <S> They didn't have money and my parents didn't have money <S> and I don't have money. <A> @TRomano answer, it feels like the definitions should be swapped. <S> 'I am' refers to a state, often an immutable one. <S> E.g. "You can't change who you are, so be yourself.". <S> Relating to oneself: "I am so stupid.." or "Being rich is just not me; I am broke". <S> 'I have' refers to a relationship to the environment. <S> E.g. "I did not pick up the ball; I don't have it.". <S> Relating to oneself: "I don't have skills" or "I don't have money". <S> It's a more psychologically mutable state, it does not require to challenge the perceived identity of oneself. <A> The usage I'm familiar with is this: <S> I'm broke <S> Definition <S> : I have absolutely no funds available to me in any reasonable amount -- no available credit, no cash, no bitcoins, no gold bars, nothing. <S> If there's a bill then I will not be able to pay it. <S> I don't have any money <S> Definition : I do not have cash in any reasonable amount. <S> I may have credit available or other securities, but my cash balance is zero or near-zero. <A> It's a matter of speech level. <S> "I'm broke" is very informal. <S> I guess it is mostly the language of teenagers. <S> "I don't have any money" is neutral style. <A> 'broke' - Without money; Penniless. <S> - Bankrupt http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/broke?s=t <S> This is a literal meaning of the word 'broke' in a dictionary. <S> It means a person has absolutely no money. <S> But people use the word colloquially(slang) to exaggerate(make it sound worse). <S> ' <S> I don't have money' - this literally means they have no money, none. <S> But people use this phrase contextually. <S> Sometimes people just mean 'I don't have any money in my wallet right now' when they would have some at home or in their bank account. <S> People also use it to exaggerate that they have only a little money. <S> Both phrases ' <S> I'm broke' and 'I don't have money' literally mean the same thing but people use them improperly to exaggerate.
| A person might say they are broke just to exaggerate that they have only a little money.
|
"Another" and other adjectives Let me show you an example of this: blah blah Here is another subtle example: blah blah Is it technically strange to combine "another" and "subtle" (or whatever adjectives) here, when the first "example" is not "subtle" ? Do I have to say like this? Here is another example which is subtle: blah blah Compare it with these sentences which I think are perfectly valid: Let me show you a subtle example of this: blah blah Here is another subtle example: blah blah because both "examples" are "subtle". <Q> You could, however, specify that the second example is more subtle than the former. <S> This would maintain readability and provide the intended differentiation from the previous sentence. <S> Let me show you an example of this: blah blah <S> Here is another, more subtle example: blah blah blah Or <S> Let me show you an example of this: blah blah <S> Here is a more subtle example of this: blah blah <A> Let me show you an example of the mesomeric effect: ... <S> Here is another interesting example: ... <S> Adding an adjective this way is perfectly okay. <S> The implication is that the previous example was also interesting. <S> If you want to make it clear that it is only the second example that seems particularly interesting to you, you might put it thus: <S> Let me show you an example of the mesomeric effect: ... <S> Here is another example, and it's interesting: ... P.S. User83984's example <S> Here is a more subtle example of this: <S> blah blah is great, it looks very natural. <A> It just makes it unclear whether you are suggesting the first example is subtle, or just the second - and thus probably poor style. <S> The problem arises because "another subtle" can either be interpreted as one descriptive idea (implying the first example is subtle) or as separate ideas (with no such implication). <S> I think a good way of getting around the problem and minimising additional words is to use commas to separate the second adjective. <S> This "de-links" the two adjectives, showing that you mean that both apply separately and removing any suggestion of describing the first example. <S> Viz: <S> Here is another, subtle, example: blah blah
| As pointed out, adding subtle to the second sentence makes the sentence seem out of place due to a lack of parallelism. I don't think the use of the adjectives "another" and "subtle" together is wrong per se .
|
Correct use of simple past and past perfect I received a call which was for my colleague. he was not at his seat at that time hence I told caller I will inform him about his call once he returned to his seat. How should I inform to my colleague? Xyz had called you, Please call him Or Xyz called you, Please call him I know there is one more way to say this Xyz's call for you Please call him According to me simple past is enough here because I want to refer only one past event. Please help <Q> Of your examples, 1) and 3) are incorrect. <S> 1) would be ok if you changed it to Xyz <S> has called you: please call him. <S> ... <S> but 2) is the best. <A> Your second example is closest. <S> or Xyz called you, please return his call. <S> Simple present is correct in this example, since Xyz's call is now entirely in the past. <A> Idiomatic would be <S> You received a call from XYZ. <S> or XYZ phoned while you were away from your desk. <S> P.S. <S> When explaining the situation to us, you should say I told the caller <S> I would inform him once he returned to his seat. <S> When explaining to us what you said, you are not directly quoting yourself ("will" is what you actually said) but reporting indirectly what you said, and so we backshift will to would to reflect that nuance.
| I would say: Xyz called you, please call him back .
|
When there are some words between 'a' and the corresponding noun, do I use 'an'? Which sentence is correct? I performed a reliability analysis. or I performed an reliability analysis. <Q> Your first sentence is correct: <S> I performed a reliability analysis. <S> The choice between a and an has nothing to do with the noun. <S> It is entirely dependent on the sound that comes after the indefinite article. <S> a whole hour. <S> a tropical island. <S> an honourable solider. <S> If the next word after the indefinite article starts with a consonant sound, the indefinite article needs to be a . <S> If the next word after the indefinite article starts with a vowel sound, the indefinite article needs to be an . <A> Whether or not use use "an" depends on the word that directly follows the article. <S> If the initial sound of that word is a vowel sound, we use "an. <S> " Otherwise, we use "a." For your sentence, it would be <S> I performed a reliability test. <S> because "reliability" does not start with a vowel sound. <A> An analysis <S> A reliability analysis <S> An accurate reliability analysis etc.
| Whether you use a or an entirely depends on the word directly after the a/an.
|
What does “stop by my desk later” mean? What does the phrase stop by my desk later mean? For example: I can email you the link. Or stop by my desk later, and I can show you some photos. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. <Q> So stop by my desk means come over to my workplace. <S> The term <S> stop by has an undertone of "when you are passing place X, stop for a moment". <S> So it typically refers to a casual visit or meeting as opposed to a fixed date or pre-arranged meeting. <A> Cambridge dictionary gives the best and, to me, most precise definition of stop by : to visit someone for a short time, usually on the way to another place <S> So to stop by <S> someone's desk has the idea of make a stop at my desk on your way to the exit, break room, restroom, etc. <A> "Stop by" simply means while on your way to your destination, to briefly drop in for a casual short visit, whether it be business or to just have a casual conversation <A> So, come by in an hour or so to see if it's then a good time to see me. <S> If it's not a good time then, be sure to leave me a note indicating that you came and then keep coming back until it is (and continue to leave notes). <S> Be sure not to stop checking in. <S> Be persistent. <S> It's up to you to make sure this meeting takes place." <S> Now, that's what it really means if your boss says it to you...
| stop by to visit someone briefly If your supervisor tells you to "stop by my desk later", that means "I can't talk to you right now, but I want to in a relatively short time.
|
Skipping 's' ending in 3rd person Does it sound unnatural to you (natives) when people skip 's' ending of the verb in 3rd person? Heard it many times (e.g. in 50 cent songs - she go, she have, etc.) and always wondered how much it sounds ok. <Q> That's a common detail in the variety of English where they do that, e.g. one that 50 Cent and many rappers use, namely AAVE . <S> In AAVE, in particular, in the present tense you don't inflect for number or person (which is a long fancy way of saying that the one item you do inflect in standard English, present 3rd person singular, you don't in AAVE) <S> It is not common for a newscaster to speak that way, but is perfectly natural sounding informally (if you're speaking AAVE). <S> But if you just drop that one thing into your speech (making sure you're following the rules the right way) it'll still sound weird if you don't have the accent and the other aspects. <S> If you are a language learner, you will want to avoid this, because presumably you will want to simplify your learning of English and only learn one variety, most likely the standard general American variety. <S> But if you find that you are speaking with others frequently who speak this variety AAVE or nearby AAVE, then try to learn all their slightly different rules. <A> This is a grammatical characteristic of African American Vernacular English (AAVE): <S> Present-tense verbs are uninflected for number/person: there is no -s ending in the present-tense third-person singular. <S> Example: She write poetry ("She writes poetry"). <S> Similarly, was is used for what in standard English are contexts for both was and were. <A> <A> I'd ground my kids for talking that way. <S> No, it's not proper English. <S> Yes, it is a part of hip-hop society and so is wearing your pants half down the crack of your butt. <S> It's a rebellious sounding way to talk. <S> Please don't talk like that in a job interview or anytime you want to impress someone. <A> From the King James Bible: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: [...]". <S> It would have been similarly possible to say "Cast he the first stone who is without sin." <S> though not even the KJV version does it like that. <S> Bible aside, there are subjunctive mode uses of the third person which are correct (though a bit quaint these days) without "s" (or without the Early Modern English equivalent "th"). <S> That is, however, not the usual grammatical construct employed by rappers.
| It sounds perfectly natural to me when spoken by those speakers of a particular dialect in which the third person singular does not use "s." If Queen Elizabeth were to speak that way, it would sound decidedly unnatural.
|
A word for swings, slides, seats, seesaws, etc I'm looking for a word for the things at a place where children play on Swings, Slides, Seesaws, Climbing Frames, etc. Is there a common word in English for these in general? Like in Indian languages, we say, "jhoolay झूले (plural)". After googling for a while, I could only get the phrase "outdoor toys". I don't think it's that suitable word which I'm looking for or it may be. The word referring to those things in general should be able to be used in such sentences: Our children are playing on/at/with the _____ (plural noun). There are ____ (plural noun) in that park. <Q> I would refer to that as "playground equipment". <S> In regards to your example sentences: For the first, I would just specify what specific piece of equipment ("Our children are playing on the slide") or just speak in a generalization ("Our children are playing at the playground"). <S> For the second, I would say "There is a lot of playground equipment at that park". <A> In American English, there is a swing set , which is the frame with several swings and can include an attached seesaw and/or slide. <S> Families might have one in their back yard. <S> And a park might have a larger version. <S> But a park might also have several stand alone seesaws, slides, etc., which I would just call playground equipment . <S> But both adults and kids will talk about playgrounds (the 'ground' at a park on which kids play), and it is assumed that a playground includes such equipment. <S> Do you wanna <S> go play on the playground? <S> No, that playground is stupid. <S> All the swings are broken. <S> Okay, then let's go to the other park <S> —it has a great playground! <S> (Meaning: the 'play equipment' and 'play structures' at this second park are outstanding and fun.) <S> Other words besides playground equipment include park and play structures and park and play systems . <S> These are mostly technical words. <S> Your average American will just say playground . <S> They might mention specific things, such as the swings, slides, seesaws, humongous outdoor play house, which certain parks and/or playgrounds may have. <A> I take it that you want a hypernym of "the things at a place where children play on Swings, Slides, Seesaws, Climbing Frames, etc." <S> I'd like to add another alternative: recreational equipment . <S> Wikipedia uses this term on the page Playground : Modern playgrounds often have recreational equipment such as the seesaw, merry-go-round, swingset, slide, jungle gym, chin-up bars, sandbox, spring rider, trapeze rings, playhouses, and mazes, many of which help children develop physical coordination, strength, and flexibility, as well as providing recreation and enjoyment. <S> Common in modern playgrounds are play structures that link many different pieces of equipment. <S> Note that equipment , like furniture , is normally used as an uncountable noun. <A> English has no exact translation or hypernym for جھولے , so I suggest we use "rides" Like the Entry in Oxford Dictionary ( https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ride ) ( 2A roller coaster, roundabout, or other amusement ridden at a fair or amusement park. ) <S> ( Example from the same source: ‘When I was a kid I loved the rides at amusements parks - the Zipper, the Swings, the Polar Express and even those cheesy haunted houses.’)
| As mentioned in other answers, you can use playground equipment .
|
"on opposite sides of" vs. "on the opposite sides of" From Chemguide : The most likely example of geometric isomerism you will meet at an introductory level is but-2-ene. In one case, the CH3 groups are on opposite sides of the double bond, and in the other case they are on the same side. Would it seem strange to a native speaker of English if I used the there: The most likely example of geometric isomerism you will meet at an introductory level is but-2-ene. In one case, the CH3 groups are on the opposite sides of the double bond, and in the other case they are on the same side. .. or would it still be okay? According to this Ngram, the use of "on the opposite sides of" has been on a decline relative to "on opposite sides of": An example of "on the opposite sides": Even at present, by comparing the differences of the inhabitants of the sea on the opposite sides of a continent, and the nature of the various inhabitants of that continent in relation to their apparent means of immigration, some light can be thrown on ancient geography. (Darwin, The Origin of Species , Chapter 14) <Q> The two lovers lived on opposite sides of the U.S. <S> Here what we have is vague. <S> It is not clear where they live, we only know that they live far apart from each other, and this is the focus in this sentence, the distance, and not the location. <S> The two lovers lived on the opposite sides of the U.S. <S> In this sentence the focus changes. <S> Now we're interested in where they live (even though it is not yet clear!), making it a more definite and clear construction. <S> In your case you need to verify what you want to focus <S> (I'm no good at chemistry <S> so I cannot help you with this pal), but if you want to emphasize in the distance of the CH3 groups you omit the "the". <S> If you want to emphasize the location of the CH3 groups, you write "the". <A> You use the definite article before an adjective to use the adjective in a qualifying sense. <S> ie to specify which item(s) out of a larger set you are talking about. <S> Without the definite article, the adjective is used in a descriptive sense. <S> If you are talking about all of the items, you can use the adjective in either a qualifying or a descriptive sense- ie with our without the the . <S> The double bond has two sides: if you are talking about both of them then "opposite sides" or "the opposite sides" are valid. <S> If you want to talk about just one side, you must add the definite article "the opposite side". <A> Gramatically, both "opposite sides" and "the opposite sides" are correct, but may have a slightly different meaning depending on context. <S> since with a double bond there are only two sides on which the ch3 groups can be placed. <S> Contrast this with Two opposite sides of a trapezoid are parallel - in this case there are two pairs of opposite sides, so using "the" leaves ambiguity in what pair is reffered to (and in fact only one pair is parallel!). <S> Consequently, adding "the" to this sentence would be incorrect (though gramatically it has the same structure).
| Taking the chemistry context into account, it is appropriate in this case to use "the opposite sides",
|
Can "Nightmare" be seen? I know what nightmare means,it is bad dream during sleeping.I would like know how we experience it. Do we see it, my sentence make sense? Last night I've seen very bad nightmare. <Q> It may sound boring, but the verb we most often associate with nightmare is simply have . <S> Last night I had a nightmare. <S> You can see the prevalence of this usage in this Ngram . <S> This other Ngram shows the most common words that are put in front of "a nightmare. <S> " Most are prepositions; the top verbs are had and was . <S> I'm guessing most of those uses of was <S> are probably more figurative usages of the word, such as: <S> My relationship with Chuck was a nightmare. <S> I can't believe it took me so long to dump him. <S> or: <S> That project was a nightmare! <S> We were over a year late and a million dollars over budget. <A> Last night I've seen very bad nightmare. <S> But when speaking about just generally experiencing it, you would say you "had a bad dream" or "had a nightmare" . <S> You would not say "Last night I saw a bad dream", nor "Last night I saw a nightmare" when referring to the experience of dreaming. <S> The only way you would say "Last night I saw a nightmare" would be if you were speaking figuratively--that while awake, you'd seen something that was very bad--as if it were from a nightmare. <A> You 'see' nightmares and dreams because a dream (or a nightmare) is like a movie, played by our sub-conscience. <S> So yes, we "see" dreams and nightmares. <S> I'm not an expert on that, however, I can help you with the sentence construction. <S> I'm afraid your sentence is incorrect, try: <S> Last night I saw a bad dream. <S> Also, 'nightmares' are negative dreams. <S> So you don't have to mention 'bad' along with it. <S> It becomes redundant. <S> Optionally, you could also say: <S> Last night I saw a nightmare. <S> But when we talk about dreams and nightmares, you generally use "had" . <S> I had a dream. <S> As Martin Luther Kings said: "I have a dream.. <S> " <S> and not "I see a dream.." <A> One thing missing from the answers is the point that "seeing" implies perception with one's eyes. <S> Since phenomena such as dreams, visions, hallucinations and nightmares are perceived with the mind's "eye" (a misleadingly corporealized abstraction), "seeing" does not apply. <S> That said, a sentence like <S> "I see nightmares in my waking life. <S> " is perfectly valid (syntactically and semantically), however, as someone above mentioned, that usage of "nightmare" is figurative and the implication is that you see (with your eyes) <S> material things/scenes that have a nightmarish quality. <S> So the rule still holds. <S> On rereading the above answers, I realize that Varun KN was alluding to this point but didn't quite get there. <A> You can't say you saw a dream or a nightmare but could suggest that the dream had a visual element by saying I had a very vivid dream last night <S> Here is the definition I am thinking of: vivid: producing powerful feelings or strong, clear images in the mind. <A> A nightmare is more than visuals. <S> It's an experience, as you say. <S> Therefore, besides the already mentioned I had a nightmare, <S> you can also say I experienced a nightmare. <S> A number of words fit in this category <S> , e.g. endure can also be used here. <A> I know what nightmare means,it is bad dream during sleeping. <S> I would like know how we experience it. <S> Do we see it, my sentence make sense? <S> In proper English: <S> I know what the word "nightmare" means ... <S> it is a bad dream. <S> [Dreams occur while sleeping, so there's no need to mention that.] <S> I would like to know how to refer to the experience <S> : Do we see it? <S> Does that sentence make sense? <S> Answer: <S> In English, we talk about having experiences. <S> we have dreams and nightmares, accidents, lucky breaks, epiphanies, realizations, etc. <S> We talk about seeing the content of dreams and nightmares, e.g., "I had a nightmare in which I saw monsters eating people alive."
| You might say you "saw something in a dream" , or a nightmare.
|
Better at English than I am at Spanish vs better at English than at Spanish I'd like to know whether the following sentences are interchangeable. 1)I am better at English than I am at Spanish 2)I am better at English than at Spanish 3)I am better at English than Spanish Is it grammatically okay to omit the "I am" that comes after "than" from sentence 1 ? <Q> All three sentences mean the same thing. <S> You are correct that the third sounds informal, but that is not a correctness issue. <S> And your second sentence does sound a little strange because most people would leave out at if they're already leaving out I am . <S> The reason for your concern is that shortening some sentences can allow ambiguity (which is not the case in your examples). <S> Consider the following sentence: <S> I like Jane more than Mary. <S> Does that sentence mean <S> I like Jane more than I like Mary ? <S> Or does it mean <S> I like Jane more than Mary likes Jane ? <S> It is unclear without the additional words. <S> Now, consider the following: <S> I like peas more than carrots. <S> In this sentence, it is clear that I prefer peas to carrots. <S> It is impossible for the sentence to mean <S> I like peas more than carrots like peas , because it is well-known that carrots are incapable of liking peas. <S> Your example is more like the peas and carrots sentence than the Jane and Mary one. <S> After all, Spanish is not capable of being better at English than you are. <A> Two "I am"s in a sentence is redundancy, where one can be omited. <S> Since the sentence requires one subject, the only omitable one is the second one. <S> The first two sentences are thus interchangable. <S> The third one is somewhat unclear in meaning: Getting better at is a common idiom, which always uses an at in these cases - violates the requirement of the idiom's second at, but is valid nonetheless. <S> I, personally, would avoid the third one, just in case. <A> Sentence 2 sounds awkward to me. <S> I think "at Spanish" needs a subject and a verb in front of it to be grammatically correct... <S> I think . <S> Eek. <S> (Sentence 3, however, is okay without "I am" because "at" has also been omitted.)
| But yes, all three sentences are interchangeable!
|
The difference between "as" "when" and "while" What's the difference between "as", "when" and "while"? The doorbell rang as/when/while Anna was asleep. Which is right and why? <Q> While is used only about a continuous state, and another event or state that happens during that time. <S> It does not imply or refute causality. <S> The doorbell rang while I was making dinner. <S> - single <S> I listened to the radio while i was making dinner. <S> Continuous <S> When implies a causal relationship between two things: when X happens Y happens. <S> It can be used about a single event, an intermittent state or a continuous state <S> Please come and see me when you are free. <S> - single <S> When the red light is showing, you can't cross the road. <S> - intermittent (whenever) <S> When we were young, life was simpler. <S> - continuous <S> When as is used about time, it implies two events or states happening by chance at the same time <S> I saw her as I was leaving. <S> - event <S> The doorbell rang as she slept. <S> - event/state <S> The sun was setting as the boat sailed away. <S> - state/state <S> As @Peter pointed out, as can also mean because. <S> The phone rang as she was sleeping. <S> (time) <S> She didn't answer the phone, as she was sleeping. <S> (because) <S> The best word to use in your example is while . <S> When is not suitable because there is no causality. <S> As is possible and clear in this case, but may be ambiguous in similar situations. <A> In your examples The door bell rang when Anna was asleep. <S> The door bell range while Anna was asleep. <S> both are understandable as the door bell rang during the time Anna was in a state of sleeping. <S> A better second sentence might be <S> The door bell rang while Anna slept . <S> A bit more problematic is using as <S> The door bell range as Anna was asleep. <S> As can be used to either show causality or simultaneity. <S> The door bell range as Anna fell asleep. <S> would mean the bell rang just as she started to drift off to slumber land <S> As Anna was asleep, the door bell rang. <S> because Anna was asleep, the door bell rang <S> would mean Anna's being asleep caused the bell to ring, which would be odd, but possible if it was one of those nights where she was interrupted by people constantly ringing the door bell at the most inopportune times. <A> No, "As Anna was asleep, the door bell rang. <S> " In this case her being asleep is the reason for the doorbell being rung. <S> It's not people constantly ringing the bell, as then her being asleep would not have made a difference. <S> Let's say Anna wanted to see the Perseids, but wasn't sure she could stay awake long enough. <S> Her neighbour offered to check every hour if someone was still moving in her apartment, and to ring the bell if everything was quiet. <S> This went well for the first few hours into the night, with Anna waving at the neighbour every time he checked. <S> But then the neighbour couldn't see her anymore. <S> As Anna was asleep, the door bell rang. <S> OK, not quite: To get the bell as a seemingly independent entity, you'd need an independent observer. <S> Maybe we're seeing this from Bella's point of view, who lives in the same appartment and has been dozing all this time. <S> She's vaguely aware of the proceedings, including the point where Anna was too tired and had decided to take a nap. <S> Now the neighbour was trying to raise all the star-gazers. <S> but ss Anna was asleep, the door bell rang. <S> Something like that, at any rate. <A> The correct one would be while Anna was sleeping. <S> It is not when because sleeping is an ongoing action, not a completed action (a word with -ing at the end in this situation would be while because it is still happening). <S> As only works if it is the first word in the sentence for a single, instantaneous action. <S> (Example: "As Anna woke up, the doorbell rang.")
| When refers to a time that a single action happened, but while refers to things that are occurring at the same time.
|
What does "Honeykins" mean? I've heard someone, a native speaker, called his girl friend by "honeykins". Does it the same as "honey" or "darling"? Does it have special meaning other than those expressions? <Q> The word "honeykins" uses two suffixes to make it more endearing: "-kin" and "-s". <S> -kin <S> is an English suffix that was used in the olden days to form diminutive forms of nouns. <S> There are still several dozen words in the language that were formed using this suffix. <S> The more known are pumpkin, catkin, napkin, the less known are ladykin, pannikin . <S> It has a curious etymology, let me quote from Wiktionary: <S> See - it's Germanic in origin: compare with German " Mädchen ", "a girl". <S> It is composed of the root "Magd"/"Maid", "female servant", and the diminutive suffix "-chen". <S> Another interesting bit, from "A History of British Surnames" by Richard McKinley, page 100 : <S> It turns out Richard Daw kin s has this suffix too! <S> Live and learn. <S> (Wikipedia): <S> A hypocorism (/haɪˈpɒkərɪzəm/; from Greek ὑποκορίζεσθαι hypokorizesthai, "to use child-talk"), also known as a pet name or calling name, is a shorter or diminutive form of a word or given name, for example, when used in more intimate situations as a nickname or term of endearment. <S> However, shortening of names is certainly not exclusive to terms of affection; indeed, in many cases, a shortened name can also be used to intimidate or humiliate. <S> The ambiguity would need to be clarified by context. <S> According to Wiktionary, the suffix <S> -s <S> has 5 meanings , and one of them is hypocoristic: <S> Diminutive suffix: Babs; moms; pops ; homes; Toots <S> It is considered to be a shortened form of the hypocoristic diminutive suffix -sy . <S> In the "Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" by Huddleston and Pullum, both "-kin" and "-s" are mentioned briefly in Unit 5.2.1 <S> "Evaluative morphology: Diminutives": <S> The suffix <S> -s <S> also occurs after diminutive -ie in such playground words as onesies, twosies, widesies : it is doubtful whether it is here marking plural number. <S> In addition it is found in various terms of address, such as ducks or Pops . <A> It is an alternative way of saying honey or darling. <S> The addition of kins makes honey sound even more loving. <S> For instance, cutie and cutie pie function the same way. <S> In the Urdu language, we add the suffix "jaan" to convey a more lovable tone to a precious person. <A> It's one of the variations used for endearment - I believe there's no significant difference. <S> (Preferences regarding words of endearment/pet name vary from person to person/couple to couple)
| The linguistic term for a diminutive, endearing calling name is hypocorism
|
what is the difference between 'approve' and 'approbate'? Could you explain difference between them such as usage?In my dictionary, both have almost the same meaning.I cannot understand exactly. <Q> Approbate means "to officially authorize" <S> Approbate is very formal and rather uncommon, and is usually used in official contexts such as political proceedings. <S> Additionally, approbate refers more to the action of approving whereas approve <S> connotes an attitude or sentiment , especially a moral judgment. <S> Approve can also be used in context to mean "officially approve". <S> Examples: <S> "I don't approve of such revealing clothing." <S> "The chairman approbated our request." <S> "This order needs to be approved by a judge before it can be carried out." <A> In addition, its definition is more specific, describing an official approval. <A> I'm not very familiar with the word "approbate" <S> so I might be missing some of the nuances. <S> As far as I can tell, they mean the same thing, but approbate is far more formal. <S> For example, I might approve of a new law, but that doesn't mean it is any more or less likely to become a law. <S> But if the government "approbates" a new law, this new law is now legally and formally approved and is the law. <S> As for usage, I would recommend almost always using approve. <S> You can use "approve" anywhere you could use "approbate" but definitely not the other way around. <S> For example: I'm DJMcMayhem, and I approbate this message. <S> Sounds very strange. <S> I would also recommend "approve" since it's a much more common word. <A> As you say, they both have pretty much the same meaning. <S> They have come, via different routes, from the latin word probere, meaning to test. <S> Approbate is slightly more official in meaning, and many english speakers would have to look it up in the dictionary to be sure of the meaning. <S> Firefox spell checker isn't to sure about it either :-). <S> If you want to be understood, I would stick to approve. <S> It's worth noting that the expression "approve of" has a slightly different meaning. <S> Here are some examples: <S> The government approved the new construction project. <S> The government approbated the new visa requirements. <S> Governments are involved, they have made a decision: something very important is about to happen. <S> My boss approved my expenses <S> This is only a small decision, but something is still going to happen as a result of it. <S> He approved of her taste in music. <S> He has no control over her taste in music, nothing will happen as a result of his approval, but he likes the kind of music she likes.
| while approve means "agree or accept". Approbate is more formal than approve .
|
What does having a "tremendous personality" mean? Here I'll use it in a sentence: "It took people a while to get used to his tremendous personality" What does that mean? <Q> The use of tremendous personality is slightly ambiguous. <S> It could mean the person is very outgoing, gregarious, loud, and will speak to or socialise with anyone. <S> He's a great guy, really tremendous . <S> Though in the case of charity, it might usually be characterised as having a tremendous heart . <A> Well the definition of 'tremendous' is: Very great in amount, scale, or intensity. <S> So they probably mean he has a very extreme personality. <S> (Not calm, talks and acts in extremes, often times reckless.) <S> Or they could also mean that he has a large personality, which has a very similar meaning. <A> remarkable, considerable, excellent <S> So the expression "tremendous personality" could mean (informally) that he is a great guy, or it could be a euphemism meaning that he is very strong-willed. <S> I doubt that it would "take people a while to get used to" a great guy, so I suspect that the latter might be the intended meaning.
| It can also mean they have a really, really, nice character with a big heart, very generous, very considerate, always helpful: an exceptional personality . The definition in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is Awe-inspiring, fearful, overpowering, (colloq.)
|
I want to know how I can change this sentence to question I had a situation of being asked to bring the lastest mail that I got. But then I wanted to ask how old it can be to be accepted. So I tried to think how I can ask my wonder. Here is the my thought. It should be the mail that you got at least before 3 months from the day you ask for one. At least before how many months should the mail that I got be? <Q> You can just ask directly which mail the person wants. <S> Which mail do you want? <S> and ask until you know which one to bring. <A> Should I submit the mail for the last three months? <S> The last three months means nearest to the present time . <A> Are you living in the United States? <S> Are you required to prove that you live at a particular address? <S> Perhaps you are registering your children for school. <S> If so, some possible forms of the question could be: <S> How recent does the piece of mail have to be? <S> How old can the piece of mail be? <S> Some possible answers: <S> It must be from within the last month. <S> It must be no more than two months old.
| It must be something which you received within the last three months.
|
Put your hands "in" or "into" your pockets? Which of the following sentences is correct, and why? "Put your hands in your pockets." "Put your hands into your pockets." <Q> As per this Cambridge Dictionaries page , We use in to talk about where something is in relation to a larger area around it: <S> A: <S> Where’s Jane? <S> B: <S> She’s in the garden. <S> I’ve left my keys in the car. <S> We use into to talk about the movement of something, usually with a verb that expresses movement (e.g. go, come). <S> It shows where something is or was going: <S> A: <S> Where’s Jane? <S> B: <S> She’s gone into the house. <S> Helen came into the room. <S> Compare: <S> She’s gone for a walk in the garden. <S> (She is in the garden walking.) <S> She walked into the garden. <S> (She entered the garden.) <S> With some verbs (e.g. put , fall, jump, dive) we can use either in or into with no difference in meaning: <S> Can you put the milk in/into the fridge? <S> Her keys fell in/into the canal. <S> However, even with a verb like put, some additional context can favor the use of one preposition over the other: <S> I put my hands in/into my pockets to keep them warm. <S> Slowly, he put his hand into his pocket and snuck out a folding knife. <S> In the second example, we're placing emphasis on the movement of the hand, so into appears to be more appropriate than just in . <A> Which of these sentences is correct? <S> "Put your hands in your pockets." <S> "Put your hands into your pockets." <S> Answer: <S> Both sentences are acceptable and correct. <S> Why? <S> Because prepositions are flexible words with multiple meanings. <S> Also, there are many cases where more than one preposition will work just fine. <S> Check out the Ngram . <S> You'll see that both phrases are in use. <S> Here's another example: <S> He pulled a coin from his pocket. <S> He pulled a coin out of his pocket. <A> He jumped into the river. <S> He jumped in the river. <S> The first one is correct because the stress is on the movement and on the change of position from outside to inside, as we cannot say that he is swimming into the river, we will use ' in' instead. <S> So the sentence " He put hands into his pockets" will be markedly correct. <A> Put your hands in your pockets = <S> Put your hands into your pockets Your hands are now in your pockets = <S> Your hands are now inside your pockets <S> So both of your sentences are correct and mean the same thing, but using "in" here is more common.
| Both are acceptable, both mean the same thing, and both are in use . The word "in" can mean: "inside" (unchanging position) "into" (changing position from outside to inside)
|
Is there any word for discount on next bought item(s)? How to say in English (is there single word) for selling program: you buy an item and then you can have some discount on next one (the same or of another kind)? <Q> The single word you may be looking for might either be sale or promotion . <S> it is usually sold at a discounted price to the regular price. <S> When a product has a promotion <S> it will usually have offers of multiple buys at a discounted price or some connection with other products in the same promotion. <S> In BrE when a product is on sale or being promoted it is referred to as begin on offer . <A> As has been mentioned in the comments, usually the name of the sale is a shortened form of the terms of the promotion, like "Buy one, get one" or "Buy one, get one half off". <S> Sometimes "Buy one, get one" is referred to as a BOGO sale and "Buy one, get one half off" is BOGOHO because they are both well-known types of promotions. <S> Another example is a " one cent sale " where if you meet some requirements, you may buy something for a penny. <S> There are additional terms, for example, not everything in the store is eligible to be bought with a penny, but most people understand that even thought the description doesn't explain that. <A> Us Brits find this amusing, because it sounds like 'bog off', a rather rude way to tell someone to go away. <S> Supermarkets will often refer to these kind of discounts as 'multibuy' offers.
| When a product is on sale In the UK, the 'buy one get one free' offer is sometimes abbreviated to BOGOF.
|
The word for "make (a plane) take off" A pilot can land an airplane and an airplane can land. 'Land' is both transitive and intransitive. What about 'take off'? I looked it up but there is just one example as an intransitive verb. 'The plane took off from Heathrow.' A pilot can (make a plane take off). What is the one word to replace what's in bracket? Thanks <Q> So the sentence in your comment would work as <S> He took off, but couldn't fly the plane for a long time and had to land it a minute later. <S> As you said, take off is definitely intransitive, so you cannot say something like <S> Have you ever taken off an Airbus 380? <S> You would have to say Have you ever piloted an Airbus 380 at take off? <A> Usually in AmE, the pilot of a vehicle is doing whatever the vehicle is doing. <S> " <S> The driver stopped the car at the red light." <S> and "The driver stopped at the red light." <S> both say the same thing. <S> So in your specific example, we would say <S> "The pilot took off" as JavaLatte mentioned already. <S> We can also say things like "The pilot climbed at maximum speed during takeoff." even though it was the plane that was climbing, because it was the pilot that was causing the plane to climb. <S> We use different language if we are riding a horse or other animal where the animal can choose to do things without the rider's intervention. <S> If she's riding a bicycle, the rider stops. <S> If she's riding a horse, the rider stops the horse. <A> There's no specific grammatical rule saying the phrasal verb to take off can't be used transitively - it's just that native speakers don't normally use it that way. <S> This example... <S> Mr. Waicott did not have that authority, that permission, from the duty officer to take off his plane . <S> ... <S> is from an Indian Parliament debate transcript, so it might be from a non-native speaker. <S> But the surrounding text is impeccable English, and I personally wouldn't assume "non-native speaker!" <S> just because he made the best of bad situation. <S> That's to say we don't have a well-known alternative verb that can be used instead. <S> Here are a couple more written instances, more obviously from native speakers... <S> Given a long enough runway, it would be possible to take off our plane [loaded up to 10 tons]. <S> [the way to do it is for you] ... <S> to take off your plane , and land it at Washington National Airport. <S> In short, I suggest you copy native speakers - <S> where possible, rephrase <S> so you don't need a transitive verb; if you can't do that, just bulldoze through and use take off anyway. <S> You'll always be understood. <S> There are probably other even less idiomatic terms than to make a plane airborne (perhaps relevant in specific technical contexts), but you'd probably not want to use them in more general contexts.
| According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, you can use take off about either a plane or a pilot: in other words, it is correct to say The pilot took off.
|
Confused by "come" vs "go" Shall I come over to your place? Why is it "come" rather than "go" ? <Q> Let's see if we can confuse things even more... <S> Come and go <S> are deictic when they refer to travel or walking, and usually they express the point of view of the speaker. <S> come {here} go {there} <S> But when you are speaking with someone, if you use the word go , you are referring to a place that is not where you are and also not where the person is. <S> With go , you are referring to a third place where neither of you are. <S> Imagine a phone call: <S> Hi, Jane. <S> I am going to the library. <S> (The speaker believes Jane is not at the library now). <S> Hi, Jane. <S> I am coming to the library. <S> (The speaker believes Jane is at the library now). <A> This is a bit tricky! <S> The word 'come' is taken in the context of 'who is listening to you'. <S> If that 'listener' is with you, both work -'come', and 'go'. <S> For instance... if Mike and Tina both are in the same room, and Mike is going somewhere. <S> Tina can say - I am coming with you <S> OR <S> I am going with you. <S> But then, if someone is at some other place, 'come' is more convincing. <S> For example, if Mike is at his place and Tina is at hers, and Tina wants to go to Mike, she'd say... <S> Mike, I'm going coming (over) to your place. <S> Here 'go' won't work. <S> However, 'go' is possible <S> but then it suggests that Mike is not at his place. <S> For example Mike and Tina both are at railway station, and Mike forgot his keys at his apartment. <S> Mike has some wound in his legs. <S> Tina can then say... <S> Hey, don't bother yourself. <S> I'll go to your apartment to get the keys. <A> You should consider the situation before using come or go . <S> Come is used for movements to the place where the speaker or hearer is ( see your example) <S> whereas go is used for movements to other places. <S> Let's go and see Peter. <S> Sometimes a third person becomes the centre of our attention. <S> We use come for movements to the place where he or she is (was,will be). <S> He waited till two o'clock, but she didn't come. <S> Come over has one of the meanings to visit you at your house . <A> Shall <S> I come to your place? <S> Shall I go to your place? <S> Both the sentences are correct grammatically; the use of these verbs depends on the context. <S> Look at the following sentence. <S> A to B: <S> Shall <S> I come to you or to your place? <S> It's the place where the listener is. <S> A to B <S> : I want you to come to me or to my place. <S> It's the place where the speaker is. <S> A to B: I am going now to the post office to send a parcel. <S> Do you want me to come to you from there? <S> You usually use go to refer to movement from where the speaker or listener is to another place. <S> A to B <S> : I want you to go to Adam's house right now. <S> I'll meet you there. <S> As for the sentences presented by the OP, you can use come if the listener is at their place (say their home). <S> However, you can use go if they aren't at their place (say they are in the market at the time of speaking to them). <A> Coming results in closure of a gap between a stationary thing and the thing that moves towards it. <S> Going describes movement to another location.
| You use "come" to describe movement between the speaker and listener, and movement from another place to the place where the speaker or listener is.
|
Formal explanation vs daily use and context: "Jack .................. in New York for ten years. Now he lives here" Murphy's Intermediate Grammar test: Jack ____ in New York for ten years. Now he lives here. lived has lived has been living Use of "has" and "has been" in English is pretty similar to Spanish, where you could use any of the three answers. And even though I know the rule is "if the action has already passed use simple past" the last two sound right to me too. I would use the second specially if I want to convey the idea that he was leaving there until now, until recently or that it wasn't long ago. I might even want to emphasize that it has been a period of time, a long period, and for that I could also use the third option... Murphy's book only accepts A as correct. It might be the most frequent use, but isn't it too strict to be the only one? If I'm totally or mostly wrong, what am I missing? <Q> Yes, only A is correct. <S> B and C imply that the action (living in New York) is ongoing, so they only make sense if Jack is currently living in New York. <S> The context is important here. <S> Adding "for 10 years" means that the action ongoing. <A> I can see why the sentences seem to be confusing. <S> The author mentions the period of time here. <S> But the second sentence is more important in the situation ( Now he lives here ). <S> It proves that the action in the first sentence is not going on any more. <S> You shoud use past simple. <A> It would be easier to read the sentence pair if 'here' was unambiguously differentiated from 'New York'—for example by saying 'in Chicago' instead of 'here'. <S> Having said that, all three (A, B, and C) can be correct. <S> A Jack lived in New York for ten years. <S> Now he lives here (in Chicago). <S> 'Lived' seems and is obviously correct, as we are talking about a completed past action that took place entirely in the past (even if it lasted ten years) and cannot include present time . <S> Here the ten years and now are mutually exclusive times. <S> B Jack has lived in New York for ten years. <S> Now he lives here (in Chicago). <S> Jack has at some point in his life lived in New York for a total of ten years in the past, either all at once or over several periods . <S> And now he lives in Chicago. <S> The ten years is all in the past and excludes now . <S> These two statements are just two statements, and aren't necessarily connected other than by topic matter. <S> Jack could also have lived in Sao Paolo immediately before moving to Chicago. <S> C Jack has been living in New York for ten years. <S> Now he lives here (in Chicago). <S> The present perfect continuous or progressive can refer to recently completed actions that one is no longer doing. <S> Example: <S> I've been out running for an hour; now I'm home. <S> Thus, the present perfect continuous can refer to the most recent ten years prior to moving to Chicago.
| It would be OK to say "Jack has lived in New York" (without "for 10 years"), which just means that Jack lived in New York at some time or times in the past.
|
What is the meaning of 'cogs and cogitations' here? To be sure, $2.4 billion is a lot of money. You could cancel a lot of gas plants for $2.4 billion. And all of this was for nothing. Do you think there might be something wrong with a “process” that takes eight years and sucks up the energy and hopes of hundreds or thousands of people, in order to reach a purely negative conclusion? Does it occur to anyone that something that sounds so clinical and neutral as an “environmental review process” is actually neither clinical nor neutral? Do people realize that behind the cogs and cogitations , it is just a political stage show, an act during which politicians can temporize and equivocate? An environmental review process is an organized procrastination Does the'cog' here mean 'one of a series of teeth' or 'cogwheel'? What about the 'cogitation'? Does it mean 'pondering' here? Then how should I deduce the meaning from the combination of the 'cogs and cogitations' here? <Q> Cogs are parts of a machinery which are interlocked and turn, causing other cogs to turn which at some point produces an output. <S> The gears in an analog watch would be considered cogs. <S> So the author is not referring to the teeth in the cogs, but the turning of the cogs themselves, which can turn slowly. <S> The wheels of justice turn slowly. <S> The author may be using cogitations since it is reflective of the word cogs <S> (both start with "cog"). <S> The pondering, the thinking, and the to-ing and fro-ing would all be part of the machinations of the cogs (decision making process) which turned while the Keystone Pipeline was under consideration. <A> The author is very poetic and "cogs and cogitations" is used because the words start and end the same. <S> "Cog" is a "cogwheel", the machine will have many of these. <S> "Cogitation" means "deep thinking" which will also take a long time. <A> Cogitation is a process whereby electricity is sucked in through the ears and discharged back to the atmosphere by the hair follicles.
| "cogs" is a reference to "the perpetual motion machine of the review process" in the previous paragraph.
|
"Ice cold" vs. "___ hot" in a professional context? Suppose I just had Iced Coffee with hot chocolate cake and I want to describe it to others. I can use "I had an ice cold coffee" but then I'm stuck with the second part. None of the things I can think of really fits, e.g. "steam hot", "sun hot", "oven hot", etc. Is there any noun I can use in this context to describe something hot? <Q> If you're describing liquids that are too hot for you , use scalding : very hot; burning. <S> e.g. Watch out, the tea is still scaldingly hot! <S> For food or liquids that are a pleasant temperature, use piping : (of food or water) <S> very hot. <S> e.g. <S> "The food's piping hot!" <A> Since you yourself suggested 'steam hot' - the correct version would be steaming hot , so hot that steam is rising from it: <S> adverb (as submodifier steaming hot) <S> Extremely hot: a steaming hot night <S> [...] <S> He thinks, too, of pumpkin pie and fresh harvested honey and steaming hot cocoa. <S> according to the OED . <S> "I just had an ice cold coffee with some steaming hot chocolate cake". <A> With a certain amount of hyperbole at play, you might refer to something as being red hot . <S> My coffee machine only makes drinks that are ice cold or red hot. <A> I'm surprised that no one has suggested boiling hot. <S> Maybe it is a British English idiom: <S> Be careful with that cup of tea, it's boiling hot... <S> I've only just poured it. <S> Also, as an example Can you open the window? <S> It's boiling hot in here! <S> or Can you open the window? <S> I'm boiling hot! <S> It can also be used for objects that do not actually physically boil, for example: <S> Be careful of those sausages, they are boiling hot and you will burn your mouth. <S> They have just come off the barbecue. <S> I would add that, in British English at least, scalding hot sounds a little too old fashioned, and something that you might read in a old (30's-60's) children's story book, or your grandmother (or someone born in the 20's) might say (at least that's what springs to my mind). <S> However, having re-read your question, for a professional context, John's answer could be more appropriate, as boiling is somewhat colloquial. <A> Fiery hot or flaming hot work. <S> "Flaming hot" best if there's actual fire involved, e.g. "a flaming hot skillet of fajita toppings". <S> While "fiery hot" might describe the extra spicy sauce for said fajitas. <S> Not sure I'd use either of them for a cake though. <A> It suggests an exceptional amount of heat. <S> In a more formal context, I'd go with "steaming hot" or "piping hot". <S> If you want to imply that it was too hot to safely eat, "scalding hot" could work nicely. <S> "Ice-cold" does refer to a noun. <S> The term is used a lot in reference to beverages that have been chilled by adding ice, or have been chilled nearly to the freezing point of water. <S> Ice is probably the coldest thing we normally encounter. <S> On the other hand there are many levels of heat. <S> " <S> Hot" could refer to a shower, coffee, boiling water, a heating element that's started glowing, fire, and so on. <S> Any of these could be encountered between waking up and eating breakfast, so there's not one that seems to stand out as an ideal reference point. <S> It's more about what you can observe; something could be releasing steam, hot enough to burn your mouth, hot enough to emit smoke, or actually on fire. <A> Blazing Hot From reverso <S> it says Blazing sun or blazing hot weather is very hot. <A> The most common adjective I've seen is "searing" hot: marked by extreme intensity, harshness, or emotional power <A> Corresponds quite nicely to the <S> "This drink is ice cold ." <S> Perhaps generally used for describing liquid. <S> (Other than this, I would say CompuChip's answer: "steaming hot" is the other option that seems to be most directly similar to " ice cold " if you're trying to describe a drink. <S> Many of the other answers, like " blazing hot ", are also good for describing hotness, and might even be better in some other contexts. <S> For instance, a Fudgsicle (a Popsicle made of chocolate/fudge) might be quite literally " ice cold ", but super-spicy food might be described as " blazing hot ", possibly trying to reference the flames on a grill). <A> A way to compare to the illustration created by ice cold, could be to go for another natural hot liquid. <S> Consider "lava" hot. <S> This term is used in foods like "lava cake" which is a chocolate cake that has hot chocolate syrup in it. <S> This "equates" better if you are trying to create a mental picture using natural forces.
| This doesn't fit the noun requirement, but "smoking hot" came to mind for general informal use. "boiling hot" "This drink is boiling hot ."
|
Two usages of the preposition "for" I'm not sure about These are two usages of the preposition for for which I couldn't find a suitable definition. Maybe I should ask two separate questions, but since they are about two senses of the same word, I figured asking them in one post might be acceptable. So, what does for mean in the sentences below? Are these standard usages of for ? 1- I finally saw him for what he was and broke up with him. I know I have flaws, but why don't you accept me for what I am? The only way I could make sense of them was by replacing " for what " with " as " ( saw him as he (really) was -- accept me as I (actually) am ). But what about " for " alone? 2- It's too late to melt all this fat now. I've got a sagging bag for a belly, and I always will. After I told her everything I realized I had a cheat for a friend. My guess is, here " for " means " instead of " or " as ". Am I right? Is this sense always used for complaining? <Q> "as" has many meanings: you could reasonably use it in all of these sentences, but because it has such varied meanings it's not very useful for clarifying the meaning of other words. <S> For the first two examples, you have to replace "for what" because "for" is a preposition and requires a relative pronoun ("what") to connect a clause, whereas "as" in this context is already a relative pronoun. <S> The first two examples are concerned about actual behaviour or characteristics. <S> The best way to explain this meaning in other words (though less elegantly) would be to use the expression "as is" I finally saw him as is and broke up with him. <S> I know I have flaws, but why don't you accept me as is ? <S> "As I am" is certainly a more natural expression, but "as" is overloaded with meanings, whereas "as is" has a unique, precise meaning (see here , which is particularly appropriate for the this sentence. <S> In the third sentence, "for" is used in a figurative sense. <S> You could use the word "like" but you have to change the word order. <S> It's too late to melt all this fat now. <S> I've got a belly like a sagging bag, and I always will. <S> bag of bones is an example demonstrating that bag has a figurative meaning in a similar context. <S> In the final sentence the meaning is "in the role of", in the same way as you might say "Bernie Sanders for President". <S> After I told her everything I realized <S> I had a cheat in the role of a friend. <A> to see sth for what it is See DCE, to see, no. <S> 21. <S> Link <A> I finally saw him for what he was and broke up with him. <S> I know I have flaws, but why don't you accept me for what I am? <S> In these uses, "for" here means " just as " or " as ". <S> Yes, this is one of many standard ways to use "for". <S> I've got a sagging bag for a belly.... <S> I realized I had a cheat for a friend. <S> In these uses, "for" here means " in place of " or " as ". <S> Yes, you are right, and this is one of many standard ways to use "for". <S> As for its use for (non)complaining, I can say "I have a best friend for <S> a wife"-- and this meaning is still totally clear-- <S> but if I want to tell you this it may feel a little more natural to say "I have a best friend as a wife"
| Yes, these are all standard usages of "for" and there are many many more!
|
It is better to~ vs It is better off~ When I use the word better I've always used like it's better (for someone) to ~(Infinitive verb) I recently found out better off ~(verb+ing) is also commonly used in conversation and I can't tell the difference between those two even after reading the explanation about them saying better off is more like a better situation. For example It's better to take a bus at night. It's better off taking a bus at night. It's better for the school to offer more courses. It's better off offering more courses. ( I'm even confused about where and how to put the school in this sentence..) <Q> A quick look at MiCase shows a difference in usage. <S> Better + infinitive follows the impersonal it: It is better to take a bus at night. <S> It is better for the school to offer more courses. <S> Better + off + <S> gerund is used after nouns and personal pronouns <S> : I am better off taking a bus at night. <S> The school is better off offering more courses. <A> The adjective/idiom better before the -ing form of a verb is used to mean "in a more useful/suitable condition/situation". <S> This adjective is also used to express that you have more money than you had before or someone else has, for example, I am better off now that I have been promoted. <S> I think you can use either better or better off in the first sense, without any significant difference in meaning. <A> When you say It's better to take a bus at night. <S> you mean that the idea of taking a bus is better than the idea of using any other means of transportation whereas when you say It's better off taking a bus at night. <S> you mean the situations/circumstances that would arise after taking the bus at night would be better. <S> Same goes for the later example. <S> When you say It's better for the school to offer more courses. <S> you mean that the idea of offering more courses seems better at the time of speaking( but you're not sure whether or not it'd create better circumstances later). <S> But when you say It's better off offering more courses. <S> you're sure that it'd create better circumstances for school in future <S> ,however the idea itself may not seem so good at the time of speaking(as <S> it may require a lot of investment for the school). <S> I concluded these results after reading Gary Botnovcan's and SlugFiller's answers here . <A> If you're using 'better off' then you would be referring to an object or person, for example: <S> 'I'm better off taking the bus at night.' <S> 'The school would be better off if it offered more courses.' <S> This implies that the object, person etc. would gain from the situation. <S> Otherwise you're much 'better off' <S> using: <S> 'It's better to take a bus at night' <A> Better off typically means "Those who are more wealthy". <S> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/better-off <S> However, in British English, it can be used to indicate the preferable course; <S> "You're better off doing it that way" , <S> "I'm better off since I dropped that course" , usually indicating a financial or time benefit. <S> They are always used to directly refer to a human (I/You/He/She/They) as the object of the sentence and a action/path. <S> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/better+off
| The adjective better in the sentence means more useful or suitable.
|
I'd like to know the difference between "a memory" and "a keepsake" When I go travelling, I always buy something small to remember those places such as a keyholder, pottery or little something. When I want to refer to them, which word is appropriate? Can I say, "I bought this as my memory." or "I bought this as a keepsake."? What is the common expression for this? <Q> A keepsake is a physical object that is used to help you remember. <S> A memory is typically a mental process, not a physical object. <S> (Admittedly, M-W's second definition seems like it's referring to a physical object, but my very subjective impression is that it is not a common usage, at least not anymore.) <A> A common expression is souvenir . <S> You might say I bought this as a souvenir of my trip <S> I bought this as a memory of my trip. <S> I bought this as a keepsake from my trip. <S> I bought this as a memento of my trip. <S> All meaning you have something to remind you of your trip. <S> They all have the same meaning as 買物 (kaimono), something bought for oneself. <S> お土産 (omiyage) translates to souvenir, but English does not make this subtle distinction of a souvenir for oneself as opposed to for others. <S> Having something as a memory can be anything. <S> Having something as a keepsake usually has some personal and/or emotional connection. <S> A keepsake is a memory, but a memory is not necessarily a keepsake. <A> A keepsake is kept because of a remembrance. <S> The significance and efficacy of the remembrances are of course symbolic. <S> For the holder the keepsake's function bears more vivid and clear recollection. <S> What is recalled is often their experiences with a person, the meaning those experiences carry. <S> The keepsake could possibly evoke experiences, and the influences of those experiences, with a group of people, an event or a place of significance that carries elements of their own identity and personal recollections' importance. <S> A keepsake brings to mind circumstances, sentiments, eras, passages of life, concepts, and often characterizations, perceptions, ways of thinking or being, struggles, victories and or moments in some way. <S> In our minds a keepsake can have the effect of drawing our conscience more clearly and vividly to people, times, places, events, and life passages better than a video tape or recording since we can re-experience to some extent the things we recall. <S> Humans associate objects to feelings events and other objects. <S> This in part defines what it is like to be an alive, thinking and sentient being. <S> The skeletal remains of progenitors represent the living being, the spirit, they once were. <S> Some such objects are keepsakes but only so much as they are of the personal significance. <S> Even the smallest keepsake can carry a very powerful influence for some but little for others depending on its efficacy or rather strength and clarity of connection they help to be remembered. <S> A memento may be thought of as a keepsake but is generally more intended to evoke the recollection. <S> For example a plaque or trophy versus a photo of the beach your family visited often throughout your youth.
| A keepsake is a physical token that represents to the holder something of meaning to them.
|
How many stops is it/are there to the park? I just read a question in Oxford Word Skills about bus routes: 'How many stops is it to the park?' Although I feel "how many stops are they..." sounds awkward, "how many stops are there..." sounds normal to me. In many examples that I've seen with how many or how much, if the main verb is 'be', it agrees with the noun after how many or how much. E.g. 'how many apples are in the fridge?' Why doesn't the verb 'be', here 'is', agree with 'stops'? What kind of grammar is "how many stops is it..."?! By the same analogy, can I say "how many apples is it in the fridge?" If yes, how is it different from "how many apples are there in the fridge?"? <Q> I'll give you two other sentences with "is it" and "are there": "How many miles is it to London" <S> (I'm asking about the distance). <S> "How many pubs are there on the way to the park" (I am asking you to count the pubs). <S> When I say "how many stops is it to the park", I am asking about the distance. <S> It's not a distance in miles, but if you are used to taking the bus, you have a feel for you long <S> it is from one stop to the next, so <S> this is a good way to estimate the distance. <S> On the motorway I could ask "how many exits to our destination", same thing, it is equivalent to the distance. <S> I could ask "how many road signs are there to the park", or any other thing I would like to count. <A> In your question it refers to your destination, a single geographic point. <S> Stops is used as a unit of measure for distance, other measures may also be used (below). <S> How many stops is it ( from here ) ? <S> How many stops is my destination <S> How far is it to the park ? <S> How far is my destination <S> It can be substituted with the park without loss of understanding <S> It's five stops to the park . <S> ( the park is five stops away ) . <S> It's four traffic lights to the park . <S> ( the park is four traffic lights away ) <S> It's twelve blocks to the park . <S> ( the park is twelve blocks away ) <S> Some other examples Q <S> : How many stops is it to the park? <S> A: <S> It is five stops to the park. <S> Q: How many stops are there until the park? <S> A: <S> There are five stops. <S> In your apple example <S> Q: How many apples are there in the fridge? <S> A: <S> There are twenty apples in the fridge. <S> " How many apples is it in the fridge? <S> " is awkward at best. <A> If you ask - 'How many stops is it to the park?' <S> It can be answered with - ' <S> It is 10 stops to the park.' <S> So, the subject here is 'it' and not 'stops' as you <S> and I think. <S> Thus, it takes a singular verb. <A> Why doesn't the verb 'be', here 'is', agree with 'stops'? <S> What kind of grammar is "how many stops is it..."?! <S> By the same analogy, can I say "how many apples is it in the fridge?" <S> If yes, how is it different from "how many apples are there in the fridge?"? <S> Consider this imaginary conversation: <S> How many apples are there in the fridge? <S> -- There are more than you would expect. <S> You will never guess how many there are! <S> Six? <S> -- <S> No. <S> Eleven? <S> -- <S> No. <S> How many apples is it , then??? <S> Just tell me! <S> I don't like this guessing game. <S> This idiomatic example shows that, semantically, "are there" asks for the number of something, whereas "is it" presents the answer to the question as being in a different category from "number", that is, as being in the category of "what-I-don't-know" or "information-I-need". <S> The difference between dummy "there" and dummy "it" is in the degree of abstraction. <S> The locative dummy is the more tangible of the two. <S> So, the idiomatic question "How many stops is it before we get off?" is projecting to the listener the idea that the questioner would like to know a particular fact. <S> Agreement in number is not relevant to this form of dummy "it". <S> The locative dummy being the more tangible, number agreement is more relevant, and therefore "How many stops is there? <S> " raises grammatical red flags whereas "How many stops is it?" <S> does not.
| When I say "how many stops are there to the park", I am asking about the number of stops.
|
Write plural of/to the following words Write plural of the following words. Write plural to the following words. Which one is the correct answer, and why? <Q> Neither of them are correct, really. <S> The first is closest but is missing an article: <S> "Write the plural of the following words:" <S> The reason it sounds off without the article is that you're referring to a specific property of the words (their plural in this case) so the definite article is appropriate. <S> You could , however, also write " <S> Write plurals of the following words" <S> But in terms of asking a non-native speaker to do this, you risk introducing some ambiguity in that it's possible to interpret that as meaning some words have more than one plural (which they do, but I don't imagine that's an English 101 topic). <A> Write the plural of the following words. <S> You need to use <S> the to define the form you need - 'flowers' <S> is the plural of 'flower'. <A> To indicates an object of a verb, a direction (e.g. where is X pointed) or motion. <S> So write to X <S> is possible if X is someone that is going to receive what you wrote, e.g. I'm writing a letter to my mother. <S> Write to X can also mean to physically direct your writing to a specific location X, or stop writing when you reach X <S> , e.g. Write to the top of the page. <S> It's not common (or very correct, probably), but the above meaning can be used more abstractly to mean "direct your writing <S> so it has the consideration of or impression of X" - e.g. <S> Write to your emotions, not logic. <S> Plural is a word that describes the form of a single word, so it doesn't make sense to be the target of write , and it's not a location or something that would influence a text. <S> So this is one reason why of is preferred. <S> However, there is another way of thinking about it which is at least somewhat valid. <S> Take this sentence, for example: <S> The counterpart to yin is yang. <S> There are only two possibilities here, yin and yang and the above sentence is saying yin is the opposite or complement of yang. <S> If the speaker is considering for the time being that there are only two forms of a word, plural and non-plural , then the above works with the word plural. <S> The plural to brick is bricks . <S> or Write the plural to brick. <S> However, this requires a context to be established where we only care about two things that are complements. <S> Again, generally you want to use of . <A> In your examples Write plural of the following words. <S> Write plural to the following words. <S> Of is a better choice since it is possessive, the singular's plural . <S> However a native speaker would more probably say <S> Write <S> the plural of the following words. <S> Write <S> the plural for the following words. <S> The latter being used more often in AmE.
| Of is far more common and the one you should use. To is not correct since you're not asking to transform the word as in Change these words to their plurals
|
Minimum of a negative value What is the best way to call the smallest value (absolute value, |x|) of x if all x are negative? If we call it minimum, then it could be meaning the biggest absolute value... Addendum: I am looking for a suitable name for my variable in the code I am writing. <Q> In a formal mathematics setting, you would say you want the number with the smallest magnitude . <S> For real numbers, magnitude is the number's distance from zero on the number line. <S> You could also say you want the number with the smallest absolute value , but that's slightly longer to say. <S> Other notes: <S> Using "minimum" is incorrect, since for real numbers, "minimum" means "leftmost on the number line" -- so, in your case, the negative number with the largest magnitude is the minimum. <S> (i.e., leftmost on the number line). <A> I'd call it the closest value to zero . <S> Its meaning is clear and unambiguous, and it's less likely to scare off non-technical people than words like 'magnitude'. <A> -1, -2, -3, <S> -4 <S> In technical terms, -4 is the most negative number, and -1 is the least negative among these numbers. <S> [ most negative in google books, and least negative has max value ] for the sake of completion, -1 is less negative than -3, and -4 is more negative than -2. <S> [ See the answer to 1.G , and this in google book ] Specifically, to answer your question, if all x are negative then the x with min(abs(x)) is the least negative .
| Using "smallest" for negative numbers causes ambiguity about whether you mean "smallest magnitude" or "lowest value"
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.