source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
How should I read these numerical phrases? How should I read these sentences that contain numerical (?) phrases? A: "I have gone there 3-4 times. " 1- I have gone there three, four times. 2- I have gone there three to four times. 3- I have gone there three or four times. 4-? B: "Bring me 10-15 apples" . 1- Bring me ten, fifteen apples. 2- Bring me ten to fifteen apples. 3- Bring me ten or fifteen apples. 4-? <Q> The hyphen indicates a range which is verbally expressed using to . <S> In some cases <S> this is synonymous with the or form, but 3-4 literally means "three to four". <S> If you're reading the sentence out loud, say to . <S> The form with a comma is an informal version of the or form. <S> The distinction matters because or can also mean either ten or fifteen. <S> I.e.: "ten to fifteen"={10,11,12,13,14,15}; "ten or fifteen"={10,15}. <A> Usually (but not necessarily always depending on context) <S> a dash between numbers indicates a range: if you said those sentences to me, I would interpret A as meaning I have gone there three or four times. <S> (it's technically three to four, but when there are no numbers between the upper and lower limits of the range you can say "or" since there are only two possibilities). <S> For B, I would interpret that as Bring me between ten and fifteen apples. <S> (in other words, your option 2) <A> The correct interpretation of the dash is 'to' and means that acceptable numbers are the first, the second or anything in between. <S> When this situation arises, "or" is the preferred option. <S> The valid ways of expressing these two statements in full are therefore <S> I have been there three to four times. <S> which suggests an exact or literal interpretation: in most contexts, this would seem over-precise and finicky. <S> I have been there three or four times which suggests that an approximate interpretation. <S> Bring me ten to fifteen apples. <S> "or" is not valid in this case, because it excludes 11, 12, 13 and 14.
| In example A, three and four are consecutive numbers, and the number of times must be a whole number (an integer), so "three or four" means exactly the same as "three to four".
|
An employer tried to tell me that it is wrong to say, "someone was dead" During a job interview, I was asked why I quit my last job. I told the prospective employer that my grandfather passed away in China all of a sudden. Because he was dead in China, I must go to China for the funeral arrangements according to the ancestor veneration practices of my birthplace's custom. I know what I said might be confusing him, but I could not figure out what was wrong with it when I said, "my grandfather was dead", I could feel that he wanted to laugh on hearing what I told him, but he just tried not to do it. I was not happy with him because he interrupted to ask, "so how is he now? ha ?" I am not a native English speaker. I don't understand why he was teasing about my grammar but isn't the sentence, "my grandfather was dead" grammatically correct? Did the employer tease me because he wanted to correct the sentence that it should be, "my grandfather is dead"? <Q> Grammatically it is fine to say "My grandfather was dead", but there are two odd things about <S> My grandfather was dead in China . <S> It is odd to say that your grandfather was dead in China. <S> His body is in China, but he is just dead. <S> For example, if I say "My hair was brown in Texas. <S> " it makes you wonder if it changes color when I leave Texas and visit China. <S> Also the past tense makes it odd, because you think "You hair was brown, but it's still brown right now, so why did you use the past tense?" <S> If I was explaining something that happened in the past, I might have said The reason why I wasn't at work for a month in that year was because my grandfather had died and I needed to travel to China to make the funeral arrangements. <S> I think that the interviewer may have been uncomfortable talking with you about the loss of your grandfather and the odd addition of "in China" <S> made him laugh out of nervousness. <S> He tried to cover up his nervousness/discomfort with a bad joke. <S> It was insensitive, but I don't think it was intended to be mean. <A> When you talk about an event that occurred you normally want to use a phrase that describes an action, rather than describing a condition. <S> The speaker probably would expect you to say "my grandfather had died" or simply "my grandfather died". <S> To die: the act of going from living to dead. <S> To be dead: the condition of not being alive. <S> I'm sorry about your grandfather. <A> The sentence "X was Y", in common English use, usually means <S> both <S> that some time in the past X had the property Y, and <S> that X no longer has the property Y. <S> For example, if I said "the tea was hot", I often am implying that it is no longer hot. <S> Because of this, "My grandfather was dead" is very infrequently used. <S> It is much more often "My grandfather is dead", "My grandfather died", "My grandfather has died", "My grandfather passed away", or something similar. <A> I don't understand why he was teasing about my grammar but isn't the sentence, "my grandfather was dead" grammatically correct? <S> Did the employer tease me because he wanted to correct the sentence that it should be, "my grandfather is dead"? <S> However, 'death' is a state and therefore implies that by stating 'death' in the past tense, the 'state' of being dead is now over (or is not the present state - interpreted as if the dead person resurrected or something equivalent. <S> Of course, reality tells us that resurrection isn't 'natural'.) <S> This is explained in Lacklub's answer (+1). <S> Quoting: <S> "The sentence "X was Y", in common English use, usually means both that some time in the past X had the property Y, and that X no longer has the property Y. <S> For example, if I said "the tea was hot", I often am implying that it is no longer hot." <S> PS. <S> I don't think your employer should've laughed about it, but that's another story. <S> I'd like to express my condolences. <A> There was nothing wrong with your choice of words. <S> Yes, "dead" is a state of being, and presumably if your father was dead in the past, he's still dead now. <S> But we routinely use the past tense to describe a state of being that existed at a specific time in the past that we are talking about, even if that state still exists. <S> Like, "I ran into my old friend Jack last year. <S> He saw my car in the parking lot. <S> My car was purple, so he recognized it easily. <S> " Is the car still purple? <S> Probably. <S> You certainly could say, "My car is purple" if it still is. <S> Either way is correct. <S> It occurs to me that a novel by one of the most famous writers in the English language, "A Christmas Carol", by Charles Dickens, begins with the sentence, "Marley was dead. <S> " <S> Not, "Marley is dead", but "was dead". <S> He says "was dead" five times in the first four paragraphs. <S> So if it's wrong, you're in good company. <A> There is nothing wrong with the grammar of saying that someone was dead. <S> The statement could seem funny if something suggested that the person is no longer dead. <S> That could be as easy to do as saying the word "was" with an unexpectedly strong emphasis. <S> The humorous is caused by the aspect of something (dead people staying dead) not happening as expected. <S> Although there are historical references of that happening found in religious texts, this is not believed to be a common thing. <S> It is a statement that can be quite sensible to say. <S> For instance, if I talk to someone who is unfamiliar with United States history, such as a child, and the person asks about George Washington's involvement during America's Great Depression, I might say, "George Washington was dead in the 1920s". <S> (His entire life was within the 1700s.) <S> If someone asked what George Washington was doing during World War 2 (which was mostly during the 1940s), I might say, "George Washington was dead". <S> Since the discussed time period is a past time, using past tense is quite sensible. <A> "George Washington was dead in the 1920s" just sounds wrong. <S> It sort of creates an expectation that he may have made a recovery in the 1930s. <S> "George Washington was already dead in the 1920s" is better, and "George Washington died before the 1920s" is better still. <S> But it would be correct to say "Despite their efforts, when they arrived at the hospital he was dead". <S> The correct way to phrase the original statement would be "Because he [had] died in China..."
| "My grandfather was dead" means that he was in the condition of being dead, and perhaps had been dead for some time (or, and this is presumably the joke, might stop being dead). There is nothing wrong with the grammar.
|
What does it mean "a fork stuck in the road"? The first sentence from Green Day's "Good Riddance" song: Another turning point, a fork stuck in the road It's been baffling me for more than ten years, first I thought maybe I was so not good at English to figure out its meaning, and now I've finished my masters degree taught in English and I find myself still not able to understand it. Why there's a fork stuck in the road? is it some metaphor? I know a fork can also mean the point where something, especially a road or (North American) river, divides into two parts. Is that the right interpretation? I've looked up the Urban Dictionary and found Any exceptionally stupid or illiterate phrase found in a pop song. It says the right phrase to use is "a fork in the road", and it also makes reference to the "Good Is Good" song to show it is just another mistake made by the songwriter. "Hey, somebody should tell Alanis that every time you hear the rolling thunder, it means the lightning already missed you. And read her a definition of ironic." It makes sense to me, but it got three times more down votes than up votes. So what does it mean "a fork stuck in the road"? <Q> "Stick your fork in it and see if it's done." To stick a fork into something can have a negative meaning, along the lines of 'I don't like it, it's terrible, it's not good', or, per definition 2 of the link, 'To be completely destroyed or defeated'. <S> Or as in The Urban Dictionary (TUD) entry 3 'Indicating a losing or lost cause'. <S> So, being music and song, when lines can have many meanings, it seems a play on words of both "a fork in the road" as a decision or "another turning point" and to just stick a fork in the road, because I think the situation (or my life) is terrible or even a lost cause, <S> and/or it shows that my attitude toward the turning point in life, or all of life, is negative. <S> But, as always, poetry and song lyrics are open to multiple interpretations, some of which may be unintended or even unknown to the writer(s). <A> It's important to remember that an awful lot of modern music was written while people were under the influence of various substances that could well be illegal in various jurisdictions. <S> It can't necessarily be taken literally. <S> To "stick" something somewhere just means to put it there. <S> It's a regional colloquialism. <S> A "fork in the road" is a junction in the road where both options follow initially similar directions as you're already aware. <S> However this is a metaphorical fork in the road of life. <S> It's a time in life when you have to make a decision. <S> The implication is that this decision will have lasting effects, it's not something you can go back on. <S> Since the fork has been stuck there, it could be a forced decision that he didn't yet want to make. <S> Taken in the context of the rest of the song, it looks like the decision to end a relationship. <S> Or he could just be high: <A> You understand the idiom correctly. <S> Surely you can see the potential for a joke. <S> Comedian Johnny Carson made this jokerepeatedly in the 1970s and 1980s;see, for example, this video . <S> (Warning: it is slightly crude.) <S> You can tell that the audience has heard it <S> so many times alreadythat they say it along with him. <S> So this joke has been around for more than 30 years;I suspect that it predates Carson. <S> And, as long as there are seven-year-olds in the world,it will continue to be reinvented. <S> Here’s another recent depiction of it: Original image source: https://ramblingrhinos.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/fork-in-the-road.jpg <A> The fork's position on the road is that point <S> where our road splits in two different directions and 'stuck' indicates that the fork cannot be undone, that this split on the road is outside of the person's ability to wish it away. <S> He is thrown into the situation and has no choice but to consider the two directions suddenly laid out before him and it is a reluctant point in his journey. <S> What is really stuck is the person in the situation who is stuck in that situation and has to try to make the most of it. <S> The songwriter wrote the song when his girlfriend of a few years decided to break up with him and move to South America and it had a big impact on him that he felt lost and didn't know how to handle the break-up or go back out into life again. <S> Their break-up was a turning point for him as things would not be the same for him and he had the challenge of figuring out how to get over the break-up and where to go from that point. <S> We all have that moment in our lives when the direction of our lives is abruptly disrupted by an event or circumstance that forces us to have to take a new direction. <S> That juncture of our lives is terrifying because we are suddenly faced with a situation we hadn't prepared ourselves for and have no choice but to take a new direction which we don't know the outcome of. <A> For what it’s worth — without knowing the song in question [but probably informed somewhat by the comments of “Separatrix”] <S> — I took it to be poetic, and I took it as follows. <S> A fork in the road is a point at which one has to make a decision — left or right, so to speak. <S> If the fork is “stuck in the road”, then that means that one cannot get away from this decision point. <S> That could just mean that one is haunted by the effects of one’s decision, but that is not saying anything surprising… and the fork is behind. <S> I took it, rather, to mean perhaps that the (forced) decision is ever-present. <S> A relationship example could be if someone was thinking of getting a divorce, but had not (yet); the idea would there, nagging continually… and possibly there would be some reason why divorce was not possible. <A> Also there's the interpretation of 'stick a fork in it, we're done' which is one of the ways the you can test to see if food is done- <S> you stick a fork in it <S> (turkey's juices run clear, it's done. <S> The fork slides easily in and out of boiled potato, it's done). <S> Which is also a turning point. <S> The cooking is done. <S> Now it's time to begin the enjoyment of eating.
| The 'a fork stuck in the road' verse is a metaphor to indicate the juncture in our lives where the road we have been comfortably travelling on the journey of life abruptly splits in two different directions and the traveller is now forced to make a fateful decision on which of the two directions to take, not knowing where each of the two roads might take him. So, in short, the answer is that the song lyrics are just an old, childish joke,with some cultural history behind it.
|
Should there be a preposition before a day (e.g. Monday)? When I'm talking about habit or custom, can I say: "The king comes on Sunday and goes Monday." without using the preposition "on" before "Monday"? <Q> Both Riley Francisco and HostileFork have given you different answers. <S> In my opinion, I feel leaves on Monday sounds more correct than leaves Monday. <S> Similarly, arrives on Sunday sounds better than arrives Sunday. <S> This does not mean that people will still omit the word on. <S> I believe people will understand the meaning you are trying to say without using the preposition. <S> However, a preposition simply enforces the meaning you are trying to convey. <A> Omitting <S> it is common for American English speakers. <S> As everybody else says, your sentence doesn't read very well because it's not consistent: the two days should be treated the same. <S> Speaking on behalf of British English speakers, I think that with a preposition is clearer. <A> "The king comes on Sunday and goes Monday." <S> The main problem with this sentence is "goes" without saying where. <S> Changing it to say "and goes on Monday" doesn't help it very much. <S> Being more specific helps: <S> The king comes to town on Sunday and goes home Monday. <S> That would be fine, as would: <S> The king comes to town on Sunday and goes home on Monday. <S> As I mentioned in a comment, it's fine as <S> "The king arrives Sunday and leaves Monday" or " <S> The king arrives on Sunday and leaves on Monday" . <S> I can't speak to whether there is a bias in British or Australian English to think the first sounds strange, but the second normal. <S> You'd very commonly hear someone say either "Why don't you come over Sunday? <S> " <S> or "Why don't you come over on Sunday?" <S> But one exception I can think of would be if a specific time were named, you'd need the "on" before the day. <S> This would not sound normal: <S> Why don't you come over at 12:00 Sunday. <S> You'd need to say "at 12:00 on Sunday" .
| Using a preposition before a day of the week is grammatically correct.
|
What is the history behind "Blonde moment"? Why when someone does something stupid they use "blonde moment"? Isn't it racist or sexist? I am not blond, but to me it is not polite to say such a thing. <Q> These jokes about people, generally women, who have blonde hair serve as a form of blonde versus brunette rivalry. <S> There is no law that is violated when you use "blonde jokes". <S> However, they are considered to be very rude and <S> blondes actually get very offended by this. <S> I guess I've been a dumb blond about it. <S> These were used extensively until people started realizing that not all blondes are dumb. <S> A few very dumb people happened to be blondes and that must be the start of that stereotype. <S> But since "Dumb Blonde" refers to a woman, and not a blonde man, it can be considered as a sexist statement too, which is a punishable offense. <A> The expression having a blonde moment can and is used by both blondes and brunettes, usually women, with the meaning of forgetfulness, silliness, being distracted, or slow. <S> It can be used jokingly in a self-deprecating way <S> Sorry, I just had a blonde moment . <S> A funny blonde moment for Reese Witherspoon can bee seen here <S> The expression is not necessarily offensive and should not be confused with dumb blonde which is considered derogatory. <S> The origin of blonde moment is cited as late 20th century here and may possibly have been used to counter the long held belief that blondes are more desirable as evidenced by more brunettes colouring their hair blonde than vice versa. <S> There was a famous campaign for Clairol hair colouring which asked: Do blondes have more fun ? <S> The origin of dumb blonde goes back further <S> The roots of this notion may be traced to Europe, with the "dumb blonde" in question being a French courtesan named Rosalie Duthé, satirised in a 1775 play Les curiosites de la Foire for her habit of pausing a long time before speaking, appearing not only stupid but literally dumb (in the sense of mute). <S> Blonde Stereotype Wiki <A> Yes it is sexist. <S> It refers to the cliché of the "Dumb Blonde" (examples all over the Internet). <S> It is not political correct and can be quite offensive - and false, obviously. <S> As I fall roughly into the optical category, I have received my fair share of these "jokes" and typically answer by pointing out that "I'm proud to be a member of a small exclusive genetic minority which is luckily entirely unrelated to my intellectual capabilities or academic success" .
| The first thing you get when you Google " what are blonde jokes " is: Blonde jokes are a class of jokes based on a stereotype of dumb blonde women. This is more of an offensive stereotype than a sexist or racism statement.
|
"I am wanting food"; Does it sound strange or not? I am wanting food. OR I want food. If I really want food right now, should I use present continuous or present simple tense ? <Q> Since want is a stative verb <S> (BBC Learning English website), in American and British English one would use the present simple tense. <S> Stative verbs describe states or conditions which continue over a period of time, so like, love, hate, want, need, hear and see would all be examples of stative verbs. <S> These verbs are not normally used in the progressive form. <S> The present continuous would sound strange. <S> I highly recommend the above link to BBC Learning English page on the topic. <S> To emphasize your state, you can say such things as <S> I really want food right now (as you wrote), or, more typically: <S> I'm really hungry. <S> I'm starving. <S> I'm famished. <S> I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. <S> (American English) <S> I'm dying of hunger. <S> I'm very hungry. <S> Speakers of Indian English may use the present continuous, as they seem to use it with stative verbs more often. <A> I want food. <S> But all of them can be used in the continuous when there is a special emphasis on the immediacy: <S> I'll talk to you later, but right now I'm wanting food. <S> Compare: <S> I'm watching him on video; I'm seeing him open the door; I'm hearing the sounds inside ... <S> I don't think you ever have to use this form: it is optional, to express this immediacy, this "right now"-ness. <A> I am wanting food right now. <S> I want food right now. <S> As commonly used, the stative verb want should be in the present simple. <S> According to Cambridge English Grammar Today, you can use the want in the progressive for indirectness or politeness. <S> You can also do so to emphasize an ongoing or repeated process. <S> So you can say either I want food right now <S> or I am wanting food right now. <S> However, the former sentence in the present simple is preferable and more common. <S> The Free Dictionary also states the use of 'want' in informal English. <S> It also states the use of want in the future progressive, the present progressive, and the past progressive in informal and formal English.
| It sounds strange to use it in the progressive, but it's not incorrect grammatically. Like other verbs of internal sensation or perception (eg think, feel, see) "want" is normally used in the simple present:
|
The use of "for" in the sense of "in honor of" The 17th entry for "for" in thefreedictionary: in honor of: to give a dinner for a person. A little search in Google Books gave some examples: Mr. and Mrs. R. Hall McCormick and Miss Elizabeth McCormick will give a dinner for eighty , January 9, the night of the Artists' Fete for the benefit of the Chicago Lying-In Hospital and Dispensary. But he said to his father, "For years I have worked for you like a slave and have always obeyed you. But you have never even given me a little goat, so that I could give a dinner for my friends . This other son of yours wasted your money on prostitutes." During the fall he had called Kirk into his office and stated that the State Department had asked him to give a dinner for the Shah . If she had gone to Malaysia, when the prime minister came to town, she'd give a dinner for him . The ambassador would look up what they did last time and there was always a meal at Mrs. Graham's house. I think the first example is different from the others in that "for eighty" modifies "a dinner". The dinner is intended for eighty people. I'm not sure if the other three examples could reasonably be rephrased as "give a dinner to". I think the meaning would stay the same, but "give a dinner for" adds a connotation of "in honor of". Semantically, do those referents of "for" have to be present in the dinner? And when could "for" be used in the sense of "in honor of"? The following examples are also taken from Google Books. Could they be substituted with "for him" without much change in meaning? It was a beautiful May morning, and Aleksi felt that the eiders made their low formation flights just centimeters above the water surface in honor of him . It is reported of Stilpo the philosopher, that he thought he saw Neptune in his sleep, and that he seemed very much displeased with him, because he had not (as was usual with his priests) sacrificed an ox in honor of him . A pervasive silence ruled that Monday after Mike's murder, with gathering groups hoping to hear more information. The Cadmus employees had a moment of silence in honor of him . <Q> To give a dinner for implies it is an honorary dinner, even in your first example. <S> ... <S> gave a dinner for the Shah ( in honour of ) ... <S> gave a dinner in honour of the Shah ( obvious meaning ) ... <S> had dinner with the Shah <S> ( maybe just grabbed a bite to eat ) <S> Doing something in honour of someone , is to do something for <S> someone with a feeling of respect. <S> To do something for <S> someone does not necessarily mean the feeling of respect is involved. <S> In your example, giving a dinner to someone is to physically hand dinner over to them. <S> Giving a dinner for <S> someone means you are celebrating something and allows you to participate with them. <A> Give a dinner to my friends and Give a dinner for my friends imply two very different ideas. <S> The first one, using to implies that you are going to prepare some food, give it to your friends, and not necessarily join them in eating. <S> Compare the words respect , honor and reverence . <S> When discussing someone you hold in regard, you would say: I do this out of respect for him <S> I do this in honor of him <S> So if you wanted to use for , you could not use honor - you cannot have honor for someone, but you can have respect . <A> "For" is a word with many meanings: "in honour of" is one of them. <S> You can replace "for" with "in honour of" in examples 3 and 4 and it clarifies the meaning. <S> If, on the other hand, you replace "in honour of" by "for" in the passages from books that you quoted, it is syntactically correct but you are removing meaning: the reader has to work out which of the (at least) 17 meanings of 'for' you intended. <S> It's not semantically necessary for somebody to be present at a dinner in honour of somebody: the Scots have an annual dinner in honour of Robert Burns (b. 1759), even though, as he has been dead for a while, he cannot be present.
| Using for implies more that you are going to have them come to you for some sort of party, so yes, those referents would most likely be present for the dinner.
|
The collocations of "leave" with preposition phrases The 12th entry for "leave" in OAAD : -- to allow somebody to take care of something leave somebody/something + adv./prep. You can leave the cooking to me. She left her assistant in charge. Leave it with me — I'm sure I can sort it out. ‘Where shall we eat?’ ‘I’ll leave it entirely (up) to you (= you can decide).’ They left me with all the clearing up. leave somebody/something to do something I was left to cope on my own. Does "leave sth to sb" have the same connotation as "leave sth with sb"? We can see that the collocations of "leave" with preposition phrases are highly flexible. I reword these examples as: You can leave me with the cooking. You can leave the cooking with me. Leave it to me — I'm sure I can sort it out. Leave me with it — I'm sure I can sort it out. They left all the clearing up with/to me. Do they sound equally natural? <Q> 1 <S> : Leave it to me 2: <S> Leave it with me 3: <S> Leave me with it (not idiomatically common/valid for OP's context) Both <S> the above (valid) forms can be approximately paraphrased as <S> I'm sure I can sort it out, in that they both carry the strong implication <S> You don't need to deal with this, because I [can and] will. <S> But in practice, #1 is usually used in contexts where the speaker is declaring that [perhaps only ] <S> he has the skill <S> and/or right to deal with "it" (some problem, or decision). <S> Context dictates whether he's warning the other person not to get involved, or reassuring them that they don't need to bother, etc. <S> Context also dictates whether you'll be dealing with it immediately , or at some future time. <S> On the other hand, #2 is almost never used with that warning sense, or in contexts where you're just about to deal with the matter. <S> It's almost exclusively used in contexts where you're telling the other person you will get around to resolving the issue, but not right now . <S> That's to say, the problem is now "with" you <S> - you've taken "ownership" of it, and will make sure it's resolved (in a timely manner). <S> Note that #3 above isn't "ungrammatical". <S> It can be used in certain circumstances, but it doesn't really mean <S> I take responsibility for this issue . <S> It occurs in contexts where there was never any doubt that the speaker is responsible for dealing with whatever is under discussion - he just needs more time <S> (leave me alone with the problem; don't distract me by asking about it again until I've sorted it out). <A> A variant on the sense of reassurance that FumbleFingers mentions. <S> Leave it to {name}! <S> is also an exclamation which can be paraphrased, " <S> It's just like {name} to do something like that. <S> Few, if any, people would do that. <S> But he always does. " <S> Leave it to Joe to point out the risk of catastrophe here! <S> It'll never happen, not in a million years. <S> In other words, Joe always worries about things that are extremely unlikely. <S> Leave it to Mike to point out the sexual double-entendre! <S> Mike is forever pointing out how what someone has said can be taken in another way. <S> We can trust that {name} will act in this way. <S> It's not behavior we wish for, but we can trust that it will happen. <A> Do they mean the same thing? <S> Yes and no. <S> They can mean the same thing, or they can mean different things. <S> Leave it to me almost always means "I will handle the problem." <S> For example, "This customer is very angry, and I don't know what to tell him." <S> "Don't worry! <S> Leave it to me." <S> Leave it with me can imply the same thing, but it can also mean more literally leaving an item with someone. <S> For example, The neighbors are on vacation, so they left their dog with me. <S> In a usage like this, I am taking care of the dog, but it also literally means that the neighbors have left their dog at my house. <S> "Leave it with me" does not imply that as strongly; use "with" when you literally mean leaving an object with you. <S> ps. <S> One alternate meaning of "leave it to me" is "Write in your will that I get it when you die", but I think this sense is usually obvious from context.
| From my perspective as a speaker of American English, I would say use "leave it to me" when you mean "I will handle the problem".
|
Confused about / with? I've encountered this question today, what I actually said was I'm confused with these two questions. Then I thought, "Should I say confused with?" Dictionary says about should follow confused. Can anyone tell me whether both of them are right? <Q> "Confused with", is generally used when you fail to distinguish/ mistake one for an other. <S> For example, 'I always confuse Tanya with her sister'. <S> On the other hand, "Confused about" is used when 'confuse' is given <S> it's literal meaning. <S> For example, "I am confused about what to do with this degree that I've got". <A> In many cases, preposition choice is a matter of opinion and personal preference. <S> With is perfectly acceptable in this case. <S> In fact, according to Dictionary.com, one of the official definitions of with is In regard(s) to <S> You could easily rewrite your example as <S> I am confused in regards to these two questions. <S> However, about is also acceptable, as it can potentially have exactly the same definition as with . <S> In conclusion, in this case, it's simply a matter of preference. <S> Either is correct. <S> Which one sounds better to you? <A> Sam Karem's examples are practical and concise: <S> "I always confuse Tanya with her sister." <S> "I am confused about what to do with this degree that I've got". <S> But in addition to that, it would be better if we note that: The word "confused" is an adjective, as in "be confused about ". <S> The word "confuse" is a verb, as in "people confuse <S> A with B". <S> references: http://www.freecollocation.com/search?word=confuse http://www.freecollocation.com/search?word=confused
| Depending on the context, either could be correct, as they give a different meaning
|
How would you call the act of buying a used product in order to resell it? Say you work in a company that buys and sells mobile phones. Customers bring you used mobile phones so that you buy them, repair them if needed, then resell them with a margin. The act of selling is a "sale", as far as I can tell, no problem there. But what about the act of buying ? Would you just call it a "purchase", or is there a more specific word when you buy a used product ? <Q> I would call this "flipping" : <S> To buy and resell (a house, for example) in a short period of time for a profit. <S> It's commonly, but not exclusively, used when talking about people buying and re-selling houses. <S> You could certainly say, "She's been making money flipping smartphones on eBay." <A> Often companies that sell refurbished items will have a trade-in program where the seller may get cash for their used item, although usually they get store credit like at Amazon or GameStop . <S> These programs are usually for customers of a company that sells both used and new products of the same types. <S> So, a customer who wants a new phone can bring their old one and trade it for some credit toward the new model. <S> Sometimes the customer can get cash they could spend anywhere, like when I trade in books at Half Price Books. <S> The amount of cash is usually less than the amount of credit you could get toward other products that the store sells. <S> This is meant to encourage you to spend the money at the same store you traded in your used item. <S> I realize this isn't exactly what you're asking for, because "trading in" is something the seller of the item does, not the buyer. <S> The buyer would accept a trade-in. <S> There may be special words for how the company finds the used items to buy though. <S> For example, there is a reality TV show called American Pickers that Wikipedia describes as a show that "follows antique and collectible pickers Mike Wolfe and Frank Fritz, who travel around the United States to buy or "pick" various items for resale, for clients, or for their own personal collections." <A> "Reseller" seems to be used relating to this activity: see here and here <A> I guess there is not a single word for this. <S> You could say that you "buy a refurbished product", but I can't think of anything shorter than this.
| If the company just buys used items for cash, the actual transaction doesn't have a special word; it's just buying.
|
Should I hyphenate in this expression? How can I use the hyphen (or something else) to make this sentence less confusing: This algorithm achieves a fraction of 0.5 of the full and instantaneous information system region. Here we have a system for which the information is full and instantaneous. The algorithm achieves a fraction f of the region achieved by this system. <Q> The sentence is worded awkwardly. <S> You don't need to say "a fraction of 0.5"; it is redundant because .5 (a.k.a. 1/2) is a fraction. <S> As for the "full and instantaneous information system", I don't know the context <S> so my placement of that may be a bit off. <A> It is so unclear, what you're trying to say, that it may be worth starting again, to try to say it a different way! <S> The back-end 'instantaneous information system region' - what is that? <S> Even with my background as a consultant in IT - I don't know what that means! <S> I am guessing that you mean 'the region throughout which we have instantaneous communication' which is still, a bit of a mouthful! <S> Though, it sounds like a great system! <S> What is "the region achieved by this system" how can a region be 'achieved' by a system? <S> It can't, in my opinion. <S> Are you perhaps referring to 'the area that the system manages to cover'? <S> In which case it is really the coverage that is being 'achieved' - not 'the region'. <S> And <S> if 'a fraction' is 0.5 - can we perhaps say '50 percent'? <S> Would that be more intelligible? <S> Or can we simply say 'half'? <S> And as others have stated can we just assume that the audience knows what a fraction is? <S> By 'algorithm' do you mean the 'guiding principle' or 'underlying systems code' of the system, or something? <S> I really don't know quite what you are trying to say <S> but here's a guess, how about: <S> Our rapid system algorithm enables us to reach 50 percent of the entire region, in just a nanosecond. <S> (Sorry I added the time element). <S> Or: we can cover half of our global network in a only a moment, using our rapid system algorithm. <S> Although I am left wondering about... <S> the other half! <S> What is that 0.5, actually? <S> Or, does the 0.5 represent 'time'? <S> In which case, could it be something like 'we are able to communicate data throughout our entire global network in less than half a second, ensuring up-to-date information almost instantaneously for all our global users'. <A> "A fraction of .05" is unclear. <S> "Less than 5%", if that works, is more obvious. <S> Avoid referencing fractional values that are undefined, if a simpler statement works; it's an unnecessary cognitive burden on the reader. <S> The word "instantaneous" is best avoided for clear communication. <S> So unless "full and instantaneous information system region" is a known technical term with rigidly defined meaning that all your readers already understand, you should avoid that phrase. <S> It can mean entirely different things to different people.
| Try rephrasing the question: The algorithm is equal to f of the region, where f = 0.5 (this is obtained by a full and instantaneous information system)
|
Word denoting place in a row Which word or words can be used in order to denote the person standing just before the last person in a row? Is the word second last correct in this matter? <Q> You may use the word penultimate adjective last but one in a series of things; second last . <S> "the penultimate chapter of the book" <S> Using 'second last' is not wrong. <S> It'd depend on the reference point to be considered. <A> Second last may be correct in conversational informal English, but the usual phrases both in informal and formal English are: Second to last, next to last, or last but one. <A> Yes, "second last" is correct. <S> It is like saying "second to first" - it has no advantage over saying "second last" <S> If you would also like to shorten "second last" and/or make this concept less complicated, you can use the word penultimate: pe·nul·ti·mate <S> pəˈnəltəmət/ <S> adjective last but one in a series of things; <S> second to the last . <S> "the penultimate chapter of the book" synonyms: next-to-last, second-to-last, second-last
| Although saying "second to last", "next to last", or even "second to the last" is not incorrect , it is redundant.
|
Word for a person sitting next to you I'm looking for a word to name or call a person who's sitting next to me and I mean it in general. <Q> A seatmate . <S> A person who sits next to you on a bus, airplane, etc. <A> You can use the word neighbour to describe somebody sitting next to you on a plane or bus. <S> I chatted with my neighbour on the flight to New York <A> This is a very uncommon word, but it is nonetheless a word in English. <S> By-sitter <S> It is a word that has minimal data on Merriam-Webster , but nonetheless, it has a place in their dictionary. <S> Also, to prove the existance and usage of this word, check out what Google Ngram has to say. <S> It should be a variation of the commonly used word ' Bystander '.
| If you wanted to be completely clear that you were not talking about the man who lives in the house next to yours, you could say: I chatted with the man in the neighbouring seat.
|
Answering questions end with the word "right" If one says You don't know that, do you? I can answer Yes, I do. = Yes, I know. No, I don't. = No, I don't know. But what if that one says You don't know that, right? What should I answer? Right, I don't know. Yes, you're right. Yes, I don't know like you said. No, I don't know. <Q> When using ... <S> right? <S> at the end of a question, the asker is looking for confirmation . <S> You don't know that, right? <S> No, I didn't know that. <S> You know how to do that, right? <S> Yes, I know how to do that. <S> You want vanilla, right? <S> Yes, vanilla is fine, but I'd prefer Rocky Road. <S> In your example <S> Right, I don't know. <S> An AmE answer might be <S> You are right <S> , I didn't know that. <S> In BrE, this use of <S> right at the beginning of a sentence can mean OK (AmE) <S> We'll have to use brute force to get it done. <S> Right, if that's what we have to do, then there's no choice. <A> The word "right" can be appended to a statement to turn it into a question. <S> For example, "You are going" is a declarative statement. <S> But, "You are going, right?" is a question. <S> This is somewhat informal. <S> It indicates that the person asking expects a certain answer. <S> If he had no idea whether you were going or not, he would ask, "Are you going?" <S> Asking, "You are going, right?" indicates that he expects a "yes" answer. <S> What makes the example question in your post difficult is not that it ends with "right", but that it is phrased as a negative. <S> Suppose the question was phrased without "right". <S> Like your first example. <S> "You don't know that, do you? <S> " If you say "Yes", does that mean "yes, you are correct, I don't know", or does it mean, "yes, I do know"? <S> Such negative questions are a classic problem in English. <S> Suppose someone used "right" to a positively-worded question. <S> "You are going, right? <S> " <S> The presence of "right" doesn't change your answer. <S> You would still say "yes" if you are going and "no" if you are not. <A> This kind of confirmation question is different from a yes/no question and does not require a yes/no answer. <S> Answering <S> just yes or no would be incorrect. <S> Other answers may be more suitable. <S> You don't know that, right? <S> To confirm: I don't. <S> (or: "no, I don't" - "no" used as confirmation!) <S> right. <S> To deny: I know that. <S> (Neutral) <S> I do know that. <S> (Stronger denial; emphasis on "do" is required in speech, and common in writing) wrong. <S> (This is an aggressive answer, but it can be usful in debates) <S> All the above are short answers. <S> You can expand each one in several ways as suggested by other answers. <S> There is a similar situation in negative questions: a simple yes/ <S> no answer is ambiguous and should not be used. <S> See this question for a longer discussion.
| For clarity and to avoid misunderstanding it is usually good practice to repeat the main parts of the question in your answer.
|
When to use the phrase " correct me if I am wrong " I recently found out the phrase "correct me if I am wrong" I searched it on internet and I understood it's meaning but I am little confused in its usage . my question is when should one use this phrase .In what situation and with what intention it is usually said. <Q> you are talking to probably have something else to say (or there might be other possible 'facts'/opinions.) <S> e.g. <S> "Correct me if I'm wrong. <S> There are 4 cats in the attic." <S> When you are re-stating the recent message of another person, to confirm if you remember correctly what was said. <S> e.g. <S> "Correct me if I'm wrong, doctor. <S> So, I need to take this medicine twice a day for two weeks?" <S> There might be other usage(s), will update this answer if something comes up (or let's wait for other answers) <A> It can also be used sarcastically: <S> Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm concerned the capital of Germany is still Berlin. <A> I'm non-native <S> but whereever I hear this phrase <S> "Correct me of <S> I'm wrong" <S> it mostly means <S> "Tell me if something that I am saying is incorrect or not true" . <S> Excuse me <S> , correct me if I'm wrong but this book belongs to Michael and not Lily. <S> In some cases it means <S> "I know what I'm telling you (I am sure that it should be true)" <S> Mom, correct me if I'm wrong <S> but Canada is larger than USA.
| Commonly it is used when: You are stating a 'fact' (usually an opinion or a truth that you know/believe in), and you think the listener(s) or the audience or the person/people
|
He carried or delivered me to Peshawar in a BMW? Which of the following sentences is more suitable? He delivered me to Peshawar in a BMW. He carried me to Peshawar in a BMW. Should I use delivered or carried ? <Q> It might be delivered , but that sounds like you were a package. <S> The car carried you not the driver. <S> A better alternative would be <S> He drove me to Peshawar in a BMW. <A> You deliver things- a parcel, some goods, a meal. <S> You do not deliver people. <S> When you carry comething, you move it bodily- <S> in your arms or on your back. <S> You could consider eiher drive or take . <S> both would imply that he is driving the car. <A> "He drove me..." is neutral. <S> " <S> He delivered me..." implies that your presence at Peshawar had been demanded. <S> " <S> The boss sent for me. <S> I was delivered to Peshawar in a BMW." <S> Or there's a (possibly humorous) implication that the passenger(s) were considered as goods. <S> "We called the girls' school for some dancing partners. <S> Several were delivered in a BMW." <A> The sentence is about taking someone to some place in a car, so delivered is more appropriate. <S> Here is a related definition of deliver given by Macmillan: deliver 1b. <S> to take someone to a place where they will be guarded or taken care of deliver someone to: <S> He was safely delivered to his hotel . <S> (i.e., the vehicle is the subject of the sentence), not the driver. <S> For example, carry 1d. <S> if a vehicle carries someone or something somewhere, it takes them there <S> An airplane carrying 120 passengers has crashed in India. <A> According to the current text of the question, it is impossible to answer as there is not enough context. <S> By what means of transport did you get to Peshawar? <S> 'Carried' implies 'carrying by hand', which is normally unlikely. ' <A> I think the best phrase is "He brought me to Peshawar." <S> That leaves any question of vehicle type or reason for going completely out of the phrasing. <A> "Brought" is still the best choice for modern English usage. <S> " <S> Delivered" and "carried" both have a strong connotation of a non-human object; "brought" can be used with human and non-human objects.
| He drove me to Peshawar in a BMW' is probably what you want. Delivered' is normally used for a package, but might be suitable here. ' The other choice, carry , can be used for taking someone (or something) somewhere, too, but if the trip happens in a vehicle, it's used when the vehicle does the action
|
Clash, crash and crush I have never run across all those words. They seem not only close in sound but be used in similar situations (according to my research), that I sometimes become unable to choose which one to use. The Merriam-Webster says (excerpt): Clash intransitive verb to make a clash <cymbals clashed > to come into conflict <where ignorant armies clash by night — Matthew Arnold>; also : to be incompatible <the colors clashed > transitive verb : to cause to clash Crash transitive verb a: to break violently and noisily : SMASH b: to damage (an airplane) in landing a: to cause to make a loud noise < crash the cymbals together> b: to force (as one's way) through with loud crashing noises 4: to move toward aggressively (as in fighting for a rebound) <basketball players crashing the boards> 5: to cause (a computer system, component, or program) to crash intransitive verb a: to break or go to pieces with or as if with violence and noise b: to fall, land, or hit with destructive force c: to decline suddenly and steeply d of a computer system, component, or program : to suffer a sudden major failure usually with attendant loss of data to make a smashing noise <thunder crashing overhead> to move or force one's way with or as if with a crash < crashes into the room> Crush transitive verb 1 a: to squeeze or force by pressure so as to alter or destroy structure < crush grapes> b: to squeeze together into a mass 3: to reduce to particles by pounding or grinding < crush rock> 4 a: to suppress or overwhelm as if by pressure or weight b: to oppress or burden grievously < crushed by debt> c: to subdue completely intransitive verb to become crushed to advance with or as if with crushing From above, many questions arise. For example: clash(intr.) 1 and crash(tr.) 2a (= crash(intr.) 2 ?) shares similar examples but does it mean they're synonymous in this way? Definitions in crash use "break" while crush use "squeeze", and does it mean crush is a subtype of crash , or the two are separate in manner of using forces? Is, perhaps, the choice of crash and crush predictable from the object? Which is more correct to say "His dream was crashed." and "His dream was crushed."? Ultimately, if possible, I want to know whether, for native speakers, these words indeed share some kind of base sense but differ due to external factors, or are essentially different but have many common usages. If the latter, what's the crucial difference between them? <Q> Interesting question. <S> Native speakers would treat the three words as have different and distinct meanings. <S> Only looking at the definitions it can be difficult to see the distinctions. <S> A clash is an argument or confrontation <S> The two teams clashed on the football field. <S> ( AmE use of football ) <S> The clash of the cymbals. <S> ( the hitting together ) not to be confused with The Clash . <S> A crash can mean a "loud sound" or the "forceful coming together" <S> The crashing of helmets could be heard on every play when the teams clashed . <S> The crash of the cymbals. <S> ( the loud sound ) <S> it is also used idiomatically in car crash plane crash meaning an accident since the accident can make a loud sound. <S> Crash can also mean to break into or to sneak into as in gate crasher or Wedding Crasher <S> To crush is to squeeze together <S> The crush of bodies and the crash of helmets typified the annual clash between the two rival football teams. <S> 96 people died in the Hillsborough Disaster which was a human crush Crush also has a more positive connotation meaning having an affection for or fondness for more than "like" but less than "in love" a high school crush and can be found here Crush <A> To crash is to come suddenly into contact with another object with great force. <S> One object can be in motion and the other can be stationary; or both can be in motion. <S> A car can crash into a wall. <S> Two cars, both in motion, can crash. <S> We do not say that the wall crashed into the car (unless the wall topples). <S> Rather, the car crashes into the wall. <S> Similarly, if a car in motion crashes into a parked car, we do not say that "the two cars crashed". <S> The car in motion crashed into the parked car. <S> To crush is to apply force in a manner that causes something to become deformed. <S> The application of force can be sudden or gradual. <S> To clash is when two (or more) things come together, with force. <S> Both must be actively engaged in a course of action. <S> It can be used figuratively with parties (armies, institutions, countries, sports teams, etc). <A> Two things clash if they don't mix or contrast greatly, especially in regards to visuality. <S> Usually these two things are abstract or nonphysical, like colors, or cultures, but things like parts of outfits can also clash. <S> X crashes if it collides with something at a high speed. <S> Crash is involved with a lot of slang use, e.g. it can mean to sleep on someone's couch, and software engineering uses the term to describe a program ending unexpectedly. <S> E.g. you crush autumn leaves (or bugs) with your foot. <S> There's a few slang uses for crush as well <S> , e.g. "a crush" means you have an infatuation with someone.
| Crush means for something to be squeezed to death or to the point of being broken/damaged, typically from a weight at the top.
|
When "all" is used with personal pronouns? What exactly is it? As you know, all can be used with personal pronouns, right? I want to know what exactly it is; an adverb or something else? Two examples: They've eaten it all. All it takes is 5 minutes to rock the cloud. <Q> For each I'll give an example. <S> Determiner: <S> The boys played video games all day. <S> Predeterminer: Have you done all your homework? <S> Pronoun: <S> All you need is a hammer and some nails. <S> Adverb: He got all wet. <S> They've eaten it all. <S> In your first example 'all' is used after the object pronoun for emphasis which is a determiner here the other way of saying this is 'all of it' . <S> I quote this part from Cambridge Dictionaries <S> Online at http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/all <S> When all refers to a personal pronoun which is the object in a clause, we can use pronoun + all or all of + pronoun. <S> The pronoun is in the object form: <S> I used to have three pens <S> but I’ve lost them all. <S> (or … but I’ve lost all of them). <S> Not: … but I lost all them. <S> However, in short responses, all of must be used: <S> A: <S> How many of these boxes are you going to need? <S> B: <S> All of them. <S> Not: Them all. <S> × <S> All it takes is 5 minutes to rock the cloud. <S> In the second example of yours it's a pronoun <S> which means 'everything' or here to customize the definition I'd go with 'the only thing' . <A> "all of you/ you ...all" means the total number of you, without exception. <S> " <S> all of it/it all" as in "The dog has eaten all of the cake/all of it" means the whole cake. <S> This indication of how many/how much is in traditional grammar called an indefinite numeral. <A> After researching more detail, i found what the grammar point in my first example sentence <S> "They've eaten it all" is . <S> It's totally a adverb . <S> Just see this sentence <S> "i eat it quickly " . <S> And "all" in this case is the same .who <S> agree with me ?
| 'All' can be a determiner, a predeterminer, a pronoun or an adverb.
|
Does the word "box" also have a meaning of money? This is not the first time that I see people refer to money as "box" ( see here 0:12 ) I searched in my dictionary and I didn't find a meaning like that, so I think about two options: a) Maybe there's another word which sounds similar but is written differently. b) It's the word and it's not in all the dictionaries <Q> It is not 'box', it is 'bucks', an informal term for USD, Indian Rupee and a few more currencies. <S> I had read somewhere that originally 'buck' referred to deer i.e. money given to buy/exchange deer skin in ancient times. <A> Adding to Maulik V's answer, there's a slight difference between the pronunciations of box /ˈbäks/ and <S> bucks <S> /ˈbəks/ <S> I know it's not easy to differentiate for some (and up to some point), <S> but if you'd try to listen carefully, you'd be able to distinguish properly (also, context clues). <S> (pronunciations were taken from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ ) <A> It should not be confused with a vault which has a different context. <S> An equivalent meaning to box is bank which is when a waiter or waitress carries money on their person without going back to a central register <S> Each wait-staff carries their own bank which is then reconciled at the end of the night. <S> A technical use of the word box is where one keeps their stock (AmE) or share (BrE) holdings <S> When you short against the box <S> you use your holdings (as collateral) to sell against it (self) <S> Also, when security houses used to manually transfer investment certificates, those operations were in an area generically called the box , where security was very high. <A> One use of box to mean money, in the UK at least, is the term Christmas Box. <S> This is a gift of money (a tip if you like) traditionally given to tradespeople on the first working day after Christmas. <S> Hence the term Boxing Day which is now a public holiday. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_Day <S> gives more information. <A> In the danish language, you can use the sentence "Han tjener boksen" to describe that someone earns a lot of money. <S> Directly translated, it means "He earns the box". <S> In danish "boksen" can mean both "the box" (like a cardboard box) and a money deposit vault (the very large kind that banks always seem to have in the basement in robbery movies). <S> Not sure if this helps though. <S> But in danish it does make sense to use the word box as a slang for money.
| When referring to money or equivalents, the box can refer to the cash register (AmE) or till (BrE) or possibly wherever money is stored safe deposit box
|
Meeting with me when I arrive/arrived? Would you like to meet with me when I arrive? Would you like to meet with me when I arrived? I'd like to know if the second verb should be in the past or present tense.Thanks. <Q> "Would you like to meet with me when I arrive?" <- this is the correct usage. <S> However instead of " Would you like to meet with me when I arrived?"You could say "Would you like to meet with me when I have arrived?"or "Would you like to meet with me once I have arrived". <A> When using the phrase "would you like to", you are basically using a slightly more polite form of the phrase "do you want to". <S> This is asking about future plans. <S> The phrase "when I arrive" implies that you have not yet arrived, so it's in the future, and it matches the beginning of the sentence. <A> The Present Simple in the sentence you mentioned refers to the future and has future connotation whereas <S> The Past Simple in your second sentence is about a finished action in the past and bears absolutely no future connotation. <S> Simple Present with <S> when: <S> It's Tuesday 3 o'clock. <S> a woman asking her son to finish his homework while he's going out with his friends: Finish your homework when you get back. <S> Simple Past with when: It's Wednesday. <S> Son telling her mom the day after she asked him to do his homwork: <S> I finished my homework when I got home (yesterday). <S> Time clauses after WHEN, BEFORE, <S> AS SOON AS, very much the same as in the 1st conditional require The Present Simple since their primary time reference is that to the future. <S> About using Present Perfect (i.e. have arrived) <S> We tend to use present simple for things that have become "scheduled" too. <S> Here, I assume the person who's coming is taking a public transport. <S> If that's the case it's better to use Simple Present not Present Perfect.
| The phrase "when I arrived" refers to something that happened in the past, so it doesn't match the tense of the beginning of the sentence.
|
An expression to describe a place that is very accessible and convenient is there a phrase/expressions/idiom that is related to nearby distances and/or easy accessibility? For example, Within reach A stone's throw away At your service I'm creating a title for a property that has an excellent location - it's right smacked in the middle of everywhere, near to public transportation, other shopping malls, offices etc. <Q> One of the options... <S> Located in the heart of the city may work. <S> These days, 'heart' does not mean the exact center of the city. <S> The term is also used for the site located in the area whence malls, transporting stations, etc. are nearby. <A> You could use: <S> as in Great location, in the middle of it all. <S> Stores, museums, restaurants. <A> It's common practice to use the term "within walking distance" as a measure of convenience when describing property location in my home country. <S> For example: Large, two bedroom apartment, in the city centre. <S> Located within walking distance of downtown and XXX metro stop. <S> That's not to say that one must walk to these locations, but rather to highlight that they are close enough for walking to be convenient.
| In the Middle of it All
|
Can "immortal" be used to describe someone that lives forever, yet can be destroyed? I am aware of the dictionary definition of the word "immortal": ( source ) Or in words: living forever; never dying or decaying However, that does not directly imply "can't be destroyed", as far as I can see. My logic (which might be wrong!) tells me that someone might live forever by not aging or ever being sick, i.e. never die of natural cause but still, can be killed by unnatural causes. This logic is supported by numerous mythology related films I've watched over the years, where gods of all kinds (and a God should be immortal, right?) are killed and destroyed, e.g. it's even mentioned in this question on a sister site on SE . So my question is: can the word "immortal" in plain speech or writing, be used to describe something that still can be killed or destroyed? If not, how do you explain this inconsistency, language-wise? <Q> Yes , and that's in fact what "immortal" mostly has meant. <S> The etymology of the word "immortal" reveals late 14c., <S> "deathless," from Latin immortalis "deathless, undying" (of gods), "imperishable, endless" (of fame, love, work, etc.), from assimilated form of in- <S> "not, opposite of" ( . . . <S> ) + mortalis "mortal" ( . . . ). <S> In reference to fame, literature, etc., "unceasing, destined to endure forever, never to be forgotten, lasting a long time," attested from early 15c. <S> (also in classical Latin). <S> As a noun, "an immortal being," from 1680s. <S> The meaning of the word "dead" itself is dead <S> (dĕd) <S> Having lost life; no longer alive. <S> – <S> Free Dictionary <S> When we try to compare the meaning according to the definitions of related words, we deduce that you can't. <S> However, irregardless of antonyms and synonyms, with regards to usage , a word might have a slight meaning difference to what is implied. <S> Many fictitious species are said to be immortal if they cannot die of old age, even though they can be killed through other means, such as injury. <S> – Immortality in fiction, Wikipedia <S> The controversy lies in the fact that being killed also results in someone's death, but someone may die due to senescence , and "not by an external force". <S> Being killed has always been undesirable, but it has not mainly been what humans dreamed of avoiding. <S> Escape from the inevitable death caused by old age, however, has been the subject of much of the fiction in human history. <S> That there are many immortal Greek figures that are kill-able, but do not die of senescence, proves this. <S> When you want to talk about something fictitious, you decide what it means. <S> So you can define immortality the way you want. <S> So you may define your legendary creature as one that doesn't even die due to injuries etc. <S> Or , you could take a look at nature. <S> The closest nature has to immortality is the doesn't-die-by-senescence version: Biological immortality has gained recent interest among researchers. <S> See also a question about Immortal organisms on biology. <S> SE. <S> Bottom line is, you can . <S> The implied meaning has usually been very close to what you think. <S> Vampires have sometimes been absolute im-mortals, sometimes beheading killed them, and sometimes silver bullets. <A> Let's take for example a being in the real world. <S> Image <S> By Coveredinsevindust at English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0 <S> This is the Hydra. <S> It belongs to the Cnidaria phylum and its cells are in constant renewal process, so that it can cure very fastly from injuries (Deadpool-much?) and to reproduce asexually. <S> This also gives it the ability to renew its body time and again, making it biologically immortal. <S> However, if a predator eats it or even if the injury is too serious for it to recompose, it can die, thus, not by natural means. <S> So I guess you can use immortal to talk about beings that can't naturally die, but yet can be destroyed by an enemy. <A> Immortal = lives forever but can be killed. <S> Invincible = cannot be killed. <S> But this is Just my opinion / understanding and not as comprehensive as the main answer. <A> In Wil McCarthy's "Queendom of Sol" series, the term "immorbid" is used to describe people who cannot die from disease or old age, but can be killed.
| To me mortal holds the same meaning as immortal in the sense that it is something that can be killed, but defined by a lifespan, immortal being the opposite, by not having that lifespan.
|
The movement's ideas are not merely absurd; they are __________ dangerous Which option fits best in the following question? The movement's ideas are not merely absurd; they are __________ dangerous. a. formally b. perfectly c. absolutely d. positively Some of the options can have more than one meaning, so I list the most possible meanings below: formally : Officially (= in an official way) perfectly : In a manner or way that could not be better (also: used for emphasis, especially in order to assert something that has been challenged or doubted) absolutely : totally (also: used to emphasize a strong or exaggerated statement) positively : with certainty (also: used to emphasize that something is the case, even though it may seem surprising) The first option, formally , is out of picture because the official opinion doesn't necessarily have any relevance to the nature of the movement's ideas. We have to decide between the remaining three options. There are two sentences: 1 The movement's ideas are not merely absurd; 2 they are __________ dangerous. In the speaker's mind it's not enough to say that the movements ideas are merely absurd . Something stronger is needed. So they continue: they are dangerous , and for emphasis, they add an emphasizing adverb too: they are .... dangerous . You can see from the Oxford Dictionary definitions that all the options b, c, and d can be used for emphasis. My question is: which emphasis fits the context of this question the best? <Q> I suspect this is a case where the common English usage seems very odd to a non-native speaker, and I'm afraid I can't offer a good explanation as to <S> WHY it works the way it does, but: the only form of the above I would expect to hear is 4, <S> The movement's ideas are not merely absurd; they are positively dangerous <S> In this case, positively doesn't mean good as it usually does, instead it means something more like Actively. <S> 1, 2 or 3 would sound odd to me as a native speaker. <A> The distinctions in this question are subtle: "Formally" , as you say, does not fit and is out of the picture. <S> "Absolutely" is an intensifier that emphasizes lack of uncertainty; if something is "absolutely dangerous", there is no doubt about its danger. <S> "Positively" is an intensifier that can compare to an earlier qualification; if something is "positively dangerous", then in being dangerous it goes beyond what was said about it before. <S> Or, as another example, in the exchange Q: Are you hungry? <S> A: I'm positively famished. <S> the response means the same as "I'm famished", but emphasizes that "famished" is more than just "hungry". <S> You write <S> In the speaker's mind it's not enough to say that the movement's ideas are merely absurd . <S> This is the key insight; the speaker is not emphasizing that the danger is maximal, nor that the danger is certain, but that the danger puts the ideas past mere absurdity. <S> Thus, the correct answer is "positively" . <A> Taking by basis the word in the first sentence, absurd , I would say that the author of the sentence wanted to emphasize the insanity of the ideas. <S> Positively gives us the sense of certainty, but absolutely gives us the exaggerated meaning, which is fit for this case.
| "Perfectly" is an intensifier that compares to potential; if something is "perfectly dangerous", it cannot be any more dangerous than it currently is.
|
Why 'pale' yellow instead of 'light' yellow and what are the other colors used with 'pale'? In LDOCE, 'light' is considered a synonym of 'pale' which means having more white in it than usual, and I also thought pale and light are interchangeable when it came to colors. I'm reading 'English Vocabulary in Use', intermediate level by Cambridge University Press which is based on British English, in which there is a note that says, Note : With some colours, we use pale, not light, e.g. pale yellow. Firstly, Is it something exclusive to British English? And secondly, what are the other colours that you refer to as 'pale' and not 'light' . I took a picture of the page in the book. Just click on the picture. You can find the Note on the left. <Q> Technically "pale" refers to the saturation of the color, and "light/dark" refers to luminance , or the perceived brightness. <S> In AmE usage however, light can also mean a color that is not intense. <S> I can't think of an instance where pale could be used for a color that is intense but light (or bright). <S> As I mentioned in my comment, in general conversation, you can use pale or light interchangeably when referring to a color and be understood. <S> If the register is more formal and you're writing for a UK English audience, you should follow the advice in your book just to be certain your phrasing won't seem odd. <S> For each of the examples below, I went to DuckDuckGo.com and searched for images that matched the term. <S> I had success with each color except for pale dark green - <S> I ended up searching for "pale dark green" fabric to find an image where the color filled the frame. <S> I picked from the first few results the ones I felt were distinct enough to show the difference. <S> There is not a definite line where we can say "this green is pale to everyone who looks at it". <S> Click on the image to see the original sized image. <S> This is both a light green and a pale green: <S> This is a light green but not a pale green: <S> This is bright green (both light in luminance and intense in color): <S> This is a pale dark green (might also be called gray-green): <S> This is a dark green (not pale This color is often called emerald or emerald green): <A> According to Google NGram , pale rather than light is the preferred term for most of the colours that I tried. <S> The difference is much greater for yellow than other colours, and for BrE than AmE. Cream and pink are very much more common than pale yellow and pale red, though cream may include the dairy product as well. <S> The only colours I have found where light was the preferred term were brown (AmE and BrE) and grey/gray (AmE only). <S> For yellow, which is perceived as a bright colour, pale is the preferred term, and for brown, which is perceived as a dark colour, light is the preferred term. <A> I'm not completely certain this applies to all the scenarios, but to what it's worth, Pale doesn't necessarily mean addition of white element pigments to the colors. <S> You might want to visit this link to see the difference between the two words. <S> Also, even though they are synonymous, there are many places where you cannot use them interchangeability. <S> For example, Look at her pale skin. <S> You don't say "light skin" . <S> Additionally, consider the following sentence: <S> "Are you okay? <S> You look awfully pale ." <S> This 'pale' refers to the commonly used idiom "turning white in fear".
| Pale means: Lacking color or intensity.
|
Use of "of" without any noun or pronoun before "of" We have a party on Christmas Day, and Scott, his wheel chair decorated with red and green crepe paper, greets everyone at the door. He puts on a laughing red Santa mask and gives fractured ho-ho-hos as we give out the small Christmas ornaments we've made, of twigs wound around glass crystals. These has sentences have been taken from Reader's Digest, January, 2006. The name of the story from which these sentences have been taken is Your son is in a coma . If I say toy of David, books of David, cell-phone of David , all make sense. But in the above sentence no noun or pronoun has been placed before of ( ....., of twigs wound around... ). I failed to understand it. I would appreciate it if experts help me to realize this fact. <Q> "The book of John" expresses ownership, though in most situations we would instead say "John's book". <S> For composition, you might say, for example, "the table is made of wood" ... <S> we give out the small Christmas ornaments we've made, of twigs wound around glass crystals <S> In this sentence, the construction is unusual, but the implication is that the verb just before the comma also applies to the clause after the comma: [made] of twigs around glass crystals "Of" in this sentence indicates composition <A> Of can be " used to indicate what something is made from or includes " (definition #7). <S> Here, the antecedent is small Christmas ornaments we've made : the ornaments are made out of twigs wound around glass crystals. <A> Of all the questions I've ever seen on Stack Exchange, this is the first one for which I could provide a self-referential answer. <S> Of the many ways I might have thought to answer this question, I thought the most amusing would be to simply demonstrate counterexamples. <S> Of the specific example in the OP, it can clearly be seen that the preposition "of" modifies the verb "made", but the more general question needs to be answered as well. <S> Of all of the different ways that the word "of" can be used, having it follow a noun or pronoun is but one. <S> Of course, some people might not feel such an approach provides a fully fleshed-out answer. <A> "ornaments" is the (collective) noun before "of". <S> The comma is not misplaced here. <A> I think the writer was trying (perhaps unskilfully) to avoid using the word "made" twice in one sentence. <S> The sentence is making two different statements about the ornaments: <S> (1) We made the ornaments, and (2) <S> The ornaments were made of twigs, etc. <S> A grammatically "correct" alternative would be ... <S> the small Christmas ornaments [that] we have made, made of twigs wound around glass crystals. <S> If you attempt to separate the two "made"s by changing the order of the phrases and putting the longer phrase first, the reader might ignore the comma after "crystals," which would make the phrase "that we have made" describe the crystals, not the ornaments: ... <S> the small Christmas ornaments, made of twigs wound around glass crystals, that we have made. <S> A neater solution would be to make the phrase "of twigs..." describe the making of the ornaments, not the ornaments themselves, simply by deleting the comma: ... <S> the small Christmas ornaments we've made of twigs wound around glass crystals. <S> or personally, I would prefer "from" not "of": ... <S> the small Christmas ornaments we've made from twigs wound around glass crystals.
| "Of" is used to indicate the genitive , which can be used to express ownership, quantity, composition, properties and a few other things.
|
What's the difference between 'in the distance' and 'from a distance'? I am studying English.Is there any difference in the meaning of these two phrases: ' in the distance ' and ' from a distance '? And the following two sentences sound different? "He looks good in the distance.""He looks good from a distance." Please advise. <Q> The difference is in your starting point; where you measure the distance from. <S> You use in the distance when you start measuring the distance from where you are standing: "I could see him in the distance, 10km away fom me. <S> " You use from a distance when you start measuring from the object you are looing at, in this case where 'he' is standing: "I can see him from a distance - I am 10km away from him." <A> I saw a boat in the distance. <S> (The boat was far away from my location. <S> in the distance is itself almost a "location" that one sees far away. <S> Where was the boat? <S> It was in the distance. <S> I saw a boat from a distance. <S> (I was far away from the boat when I saw it.) <A> From a distance (not near)e.g. <S> From a distance he looks a bit like Johnny Depp. <S> In a distance (far away)On a clear day you can see the temple in the distance. <S> Reference: <S> Cambridge Dictionary <S> I can't clearly tell you the difference, but I can feel the distinction.
| Personally, I think "From a distance" refers to something that is not close to you, while "In a distant" suggests that something is far away from you.
|
"The most rude" or "the rudest"? Rude comparative ruder superlative rudest But the most rude is applied in the following title: The Most Rude, ill-Mannered, and Humiliating Plays in NBA History! Can we use both forms for any circumstance? <Q> The Most Rude, ill-Mannered, and Humiliating Plays in NBA History! <S> If we use rudest here, we would have to still use "most" for the other adjectives: <S> The Rudest, Most ill-Mannered, and Most Humiliating Plays in NBA History! <S> The title uses "most" to apply to all three adjectives, because "ill-Manneredest" is a word I've never seen nor would wish to see in a title, unless written in jest, and there's no "humiliatingest". <S> Hence, the most logical, or logicalest, way is just to attach "most" at the start of the title. <A> You know, I often wonder, as I stare at our recycling bin: <S> Is cold liquid acceptable? <S> This ambiguity could easily have been resolved by printing NO LIQUID OR HOT ASHES . <S> In the example from the question, it could be reworded as: "The Most ill-Mannered, Humiliating and Rudest Plays in NBA History!" <A> To answer your question, yes you can use RUDE <S> (it's a link) in both forms, i.e. rudest and most rude . <S> There are some adjectives that can be used in both forms such as rude, clever, friendly, sure, crazy, likely, simple, common . <S> Apart from what you can find in dictionaries sometimes it gets tricky when people simply use a form that they think is easier or more beautiful to articulate. <S> As CowperKettle well pointed out, most has been elided afterwards to avoid repetition. <A> Ya <S> rude ruder or <S> more rude rudest or most rude <S> In some context rudest may be good and sound natural while in other most rude may be more natural. <S> It's up to you what you want to use.
| There is no problem with using most rude in the first place. I too think it totally depends on the context and how natural you want to sound.
|
past continuous or past simple in this case What were you wearing at the party? (wear) I found this sentence in an exercise (past continuous or past simple) I would like to know why it is not past simple, does it mean that the person wore something special for the party, something he doesn't wear very often other sentence from the same exercise They were not doing much business after lunch (be)Why not past simple ? I don't have a clue <Q> These are both fiendishly complicated sentences to use as an example of past continuous; I understand why you are confused. <S> The first sentence uses past continuous, indicating that you wore the same thing for the duration of the party. <S> What were you wearing at the party? <S> Past simple is also valid, with the same overall meaning, as the party is over (completed action): <S> What did you wear at the party? <S> For the second example, it does make a difference whether you use the PS or PC: <S> They were not doing much business after lunch <S> Past continuous means that, in the period immediately after lunch, they did not do much business. <S> It's not lunch, because it says after lunch, so we must assume that it's the end of the working day. <S> This sentence therefore means that they did not do much business for the rest of the working day. <A> They were not written <S> What did you wear at the party?They did not do much business after lunch. <S> These sentences do use the past simple, but notice the meaning hasn't changed significantly. <S> The difference between the two is one of aspect. <S> In English, the past simple does not indicate whether an action is continuous or not, while the past continuous emphasizes that the action is continuous (hence the name). <S> In both of these sentences, we simply aren't concerned with pinning down the exact amount of time of either activity. <A> At the party and after lunch are considered to be the definite moments in the past like at five o'clock yesterday Past continuous is correct here.
| They did not do much business after lunch Past simple conveys the idea of a completed action in the past. The answer is "past continuous" because that's the form of the verb used in each.
|
"Six women were there" - is six a noun or an adjective? Six women were there. Is the number "six" a noun or an adjective here? Or maybe "six women" is a compound noun? <Q> The six women put on an outstanding performance <S> A six-woman team was set up to deal with the problem <S> Six women were arrested by police <S> When no noun follows, the six is itself a noun or pronoun. <S> He wrote a six on the cover of his book (noun) When he played a six, we knew the game was over (noun- playing cards) <S> The six from Atlanta played well <S> (noun - a hockey team has six players) <S> He hit the ball for a six - (noun - cricket term for a stroke that wins six runs) <S> set the table for six (pronoun representing six people) <A> Six women were there. <S> So what word category does six fall into in this sentence? <S> It's determinative , plain and simple and nothing else in this particular sentence. <S> And this determinative functions as a determiner or, if you prefer, a quantifier here. <S> But the word falls into determinative category. <S> There are three types of determinatives, and this determinative falls into type III category. <S> NP Structure - Determinative <S> ( type I + type II + type III ) + Adjective + head noun <S> Example: <S> Determinative - type <S> I - ALL Determinative - type II - THE Determinative - type <S> III - SIX NP <S> Structure <S> - (ALL THE SIX) selected BOYS <S> But apparently this particular cardinal number in this sentence does look like an adjective. <S> So why did I chose it as a determinative , and not an adjective ? <S> Reasons - <S> Generally an adjective defines the property of the head noun it modifies. <S> Example: a good friend . <S> The adjective - good - actually shows the property of the head noun - friend . <S> How is the friend ? <S> - good . <S> A determinative can be followed by an adjective. <S> Example - a remarkable win . <S> But here six can't be followed by a , for semantic reason. <S> But of course other determinatives can sit before it in NP structure. <S> Example - those six women . <S> The determinative - six - can't be gradable like adjectives. <S> It's not inflectional, nor it can be used like this <S> more six or most six , but adjectives can be used this way. <S> The adjective good has gradable form, like better and best . <S> The adjective beautiful can be gradable, though it's not inflectional - more beautiful and most beautiful . <S> The determinative - six - can take part in partitive constructions like this - six of them . <S> Here it's used as a fused determinative head ( which means that it functions as a determiner and as the head of the noun phrase ). <S> But an adjective can't be used this way. <S> We can't say good of them . <S> To use adjectives this way we have to use the the superlative or comparative form of an adjective <S> - the best of them or the better of them . <S> And a non gradable can't be used this way - (a/the) dead of them . <A> "Six" is a numeral and numerals are special adjectives answering the question how many.
| When six is followed by a noun, it is an adjective.
|
Is "tries it hand" a typo? Excerpt the title from techrepublic.com : Google Deepmind AI tries it hand at creating Hearthstone and Magic: The Gathering cards The only possible way I can interpret this title is to change it to its , is it a typo? <Q> Yes, the sentence is grammatically unacceptable. <A> The OP is right; the use of 'it' is a typo. <S> The correct phrase is "try your hand at (doing) something". ' <S> Your" in the phrase is a possessive adjective. <S> So you should use the possessive adjective 'its' instead of the subject pronoun 'it'. <A> Yes, it's plainly a mistake. <S> Replacing it with its makes the sentence sensical. <S> But is sensical a word? <S> Well, of course it’s a word. <S> What a silly question. <S> They use it, you understand it. <S> No act of parliament or congress is required, nor any lexicographer’s imprimatur. <S> Sesquiotica <A> "Google Deepmind AI tries it hand at creating Hearthstone and Magic: <S> The Gathering cards" The only possible way I can interpret this title is to change it to its, is it a typo? <S> It is possible that it is a typo, but there is no evidence to support that. <S> Throughout the webpage the spelling and usage of "it", "its", and "it's" is correct; if one were to presume that was yet another example of correct spelling and usage <S> then it's a matter of capitalization and not spelling. <S> Compare the other example of the same spelling and usage at the end of the webpage, the author often uses the abbreviation " IT " to refer to Information Technology. <S> The author abbreviated Artificial Intelligence, why not abbreviate Information Technology too? <S> Read the whole article, beginning to end: <S> "Google Deepmind AI tries IT hand at creating Hearthstone and Magic: <S> The Gathering cards ... <S> By Nick Heath <S> Nick Heath is chief reporter for TechRepublic. <S> He writes about the technology that IT decision makers need to know about, and the latest happenings in the European tech scene.". <S> The title reads: Google Deepmind Artificial Intelligence tries Information Technology hand at creating Hearthstone and Magic: <S> The Gathering cards References: <S> CapitalizeMyTitle <S> - Title Capitalization Rules by Style <S> Purdue Online Writing Lab - Associated Press Style 2019 AP <S> Stylebook <S> Terse and abbreviated is a common style for headlines, it would be a great failing to have a spelling error in the title. <S> It's not better to have a capitalization error in the title either, best to have neither problem. <S> Only the author knows for certain <S> but if I had to guess between the two <S> I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and also keep in mind the subject under discussion.
| “It” might be a typo.
|
Is there a significant difference between "rock" and "stone"? I found this pretty good small research, but I am still concerned about "regular usage" in life, say, when I am talking in the office, especially because of this comment: To me: Stone is something you can pick up with one hand (for throwing). A rock takes two hands. http://geologywriter.com/blog/stories-in-stone-blog/rock-or-stone-is-there-a-difference/ <Q> Lots of people talk about "throwing rocks" and also about "throwing stones". <S> A "stone" can be in its natural shape or it can have been cut into a desired shape, while "rock" indicates only the natural shape. <S> That is, you can have a "tombstone" or "paving stones". <S> If you say that you built a wall from "stone blocks", that will normally be understood to mean that they have been cut into a rectangular shape or whatever desired shape. <S> But a wall built of "rocks" means in the shape you found them when you dug them up. <S> Dictionaries <S> I checked listed them as synonyms. <A> See these links: rock and stone rock: a material stone: a material a rock: a big, unshaped piece of material - a small boulder <S> a stone: a small piece of material, or a shaped piece of material. <S> You can see the difference in terminology in the children's game that is called "rock, paper, scissors" in US and "paper, scissors, stone" in the UK. <S> This Ngram indicates that the idea of "a rock" as something that is small enough throw started sometime in the 1860's. <A> In your example, there is is no real distinction <S> I threw a rock <S> I threw a stone and most people will not make an explicit distinction Rocks in His Pockets Stones In His Pockets <S> However, to geologists, a stone is made of rock, but a rock is not made of stone . <S> Rock is considered the material. <S> A stone is usually thought to be smallish and can be handled. <S> To possibly add some confusion to the naming scheme, there is Stone Mountain which certainly won't fit in your hand and is made of rock, and there is also Rock City which is a collection of rock formations. <S> Now, if you were to ask the difference between getting rocked or being stoned ...
| In American English, there is little difference between a rock and a stone, but in British English, there is. I don't think the distinction you make is generally recognized.
|
Are words asterisked because they're vulgar, or because of the concept being referred to? Some words get asterisked. For example, it's not uncommon to see "f***" or "sh*t". But is it because of the vulgar word being used, or is it because of the concept being referred to? For example, would the word "dick" be equally, or more likely, to be asterisked than "penis"? <Q> The asterisks are usually due to the word itself being considered offensive, not the concept since you will see synonyms for the concept which are not asterisked out. <A> I think the answer is both. <S> Other words with the same literal meaning are considered acceptable. <S> Indeed, sometimes the same word will be considered acceptable or unacceptable depending on whether it is being used merely for it's literal meaning - such as the word 'bastard' meaning a child born out of wedlock, or whether it is being used with an additional meaning, that of a person who is considered despicable in some way. <S> Such words are generally considered wrong because of their usage more than their actual meaning - and some words are considered wrong altogether because they are usually used without their literal meaning. <S> To see why, consider that society finds it appropriate to have a discussion about the existence of paedophilia. <S> But most would find it inappropriate to enthusiastically discuss that subject in every conversation. <S> If you were having a casual conversation about football and felt it necessary to work the word 'paedophilia' into every sentence, people would find it disturbing because although they don't mind considering that subject in the proper context, they don't want it constantly brought to their attention. <S> For years, most people felt the same way about faeces, reasonably enough, or sex. <S> So naturally a lot of people find it unpleasant that words with those meanings are, by some people, used constantly and in public, when they aren't even talking about those subjects and have no reason to be mentioning them. <A> Mostly because they are vulgar (the concept can be talked in much more subtle (Parliamentary) language). <S> Also because in some public forums when you use slang /vulgar words in a statement; if caught by the spell checker (read slang checker), it would not let you post. <S> Some years back, in the early 2000s, Orkut had come up with such a technology. <S> Obviously there were other before them as well (but I particularly remember Orkut).
| Vulgar words do get censored because of the concepts they refer to, but the concepts they refer to are not limited to their literal meaning.
|
Can you use present perfect "have been here" if you are still here? If I go to a bar and say: "I have been here many times" is it correct? I know we use 'have been' for past experience when we are no longer at that place now. <Q> I have been here many times. <S> You can use the verb 'be' to mean to go or to come in perfect tenses (look at the entry #8 under be, Wester's Dictionary). <S> For Examples: <S> Have you ever been (gone) there? <S> I have been there many times. <S> Have you ever been (come) here? <S> I have been here many times. <S> As an alternative, you can say 'I have come here many times', but according to Ngram, 'I have been here many times' is more common. <A> Using the Present Perfect to talk about several actions which have occurred at different unspecified times in the past is one of the usage of Present Perfect. <S> Here, Present Perfect suggests the process is not complete and more actions are possible as in <S> I've been to Florida ten times since my new girl friend lives there. <S> In my example <S> and yours it's possible that we do these in the future, too. <S> However, generally speaking, this falls under the general usage of Present Perfect which is to say that an action happened at an unspecified time before now. <S> Your sentence simply mean <S> I have had the experience of being here in other words you've been in this place before. <S> If you were outside somewhere else <S> and you wanted to talk about your experience of being in this bar, you'd say I've been there many times . <S> Here/there are simply adverbs of place and doesn't affect the meaning of Present Perfect. <S> It depends on the experience that you had and, in your case, the immediate context that you're in which helps you to decide on using either there or here . <S> So to put it in a nutshell, <S> yes it's cotrect to say I have been here many times. <S> You can also listen to Sia Furler's Breathe me to make sure if your sentence is correct. <S> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1VcMh5gj6Y4 <A> Your understanding of "have been" is not correct. <S> For instance, "I have been waiting for four hours" implies that you are still waiting. <S> In saying "I have been here before", the use of "here" establishes that you are, in fact, "here", just as you were in the past. <S> On the other hand, "I have been there before" indicates a past experience, since "I am there" is only used in rare circumstances. <S> "I have been a liar" would ordinarily be used under the assumption that the speaker is no longer a liar. <S> "I have been wrong before" would usually include at least the possibility that the speaker might (or might not) be wrong at present. <S> You may be confusing " <S> I have been" with "I had been", which is definitely used to refer to a past event. <S> Except, of course in some cases. <S> For instance, you might say, "I have been waiting for four hours. <S> I had been waiting for 2 hours when an ambulance passed by with its siren wailing. <S> " In this case, "had been waiting" says nothing about whether the condition of waiting applies at present, but common usage runs that way.
| The sentence is perfectly OK and idiomatic; Needless to say, it can be used when you are still in the bar as the word here as an adverb in the sentence means 'in or to the place where you are'.
|
Upon their visit or on their visit In the report, the police have said the menu was neither displayed nor shared with the police by the canteen Staff upon their visit 1-upon 2-on I read this sentence from a Indian news paper "the Hindu" and I am confused whether to use on or upon, in sentence they used "upon" as shown above in sentence. <Q> The subtle difference is that upon denotes moment in time <S> whereas on denotes both moment in time and during . <S> On our arrival.. . <S> (the moment of our arrival) or "during" On our journey... <S> Locative uses aside, we use "upon" nowadays mainly to refer to moments in time upon our arrival ... <S> we set out upon our journey upon seeing it for the first time... upon being informed that not to duration: <S> archaism <S> We met him while we were upon our journey. <A> "Upon" is less used now but remains common in formal writing. "On" is deemed an acceptable substitution nowadays. <S> They are interchangeable in cases like that. <S> In some special cases only "upon" may be used. " <S> Once upon a time... <S> " and "Breakfast-time is upon us" are examples. <S> These are special , less common, or more formal cases that emphasise the connection "upon" has with time and place in contrast to "on" being simply proximity. <A> See McMillan for details. <S> One of these cases is when one thing happens immediately after another. <S> Look at the following sentences: <S> Please report to the reception desk on/upon your arrival. <S> Upon/ <S> On arriving home <S> I discovered that he had gone. <S> She was joyful upon/on seeing her child. <S> Similarly, you can say 'on/upon their visit' in the sentence presented by the OP, without any difference in meaning. <S> However. <A> In the report, the police have said the menu was neither displayed nor shared with the police by the canteen Staff during their visit. <S> In your example I would use during , since the "display or sharing" could have occurred anytime during their "visit". <S> Upon would be better if you were referring to their arrival (upon being a moment in time). <S> I would not use "on" here, but it is not specifically wrong.
| We can use "on" to mean "at a moment in time" the use of 'upon' is much more formal than 'on'. But you look up the prepositions on and upon in McMillan, Oxford, Longman, Cambridge, or The Free Dictionary, you will know that these prepositions can be used interchangeably in many cases.
|
Starting a sentence with "as" intended as a synonym for "Because", "Due to..." I've noticed that my group-members (Dutch) start a lot of their written sentences with "As" when they are giving an explanation or a reason. Example: As the library exists has existed for several years now, it should be obvious that a lot has changed. Is this usage of "As" here correct? To me it seems using "Because" or "Due to the fact that ..." would be a lot better. <Q> It is fine to use "As" here, and it is fairly common. <S> As the library has existed for several years now, it should be obvious that alot has changed. <S> I am not going to play, as my leg hurts. <S> Synonyms: <S> Because Since Seeing as Considering that It can also be used to used to indicate that something happens during the time when something else is taking place. <S> I turned on the TV as he walked out. <S> Synonyms: <S> While Just as Seeing as Considering that It can also be used for emphasis. <S> As fast as a cheetah. <A> In your example, as is used in place of <S> As is the case <S> Because <S> Since <S> Due to the fact They are all interchangeable, it is a better of style and expression, but using any of the alternatives doesn't change the meaning. <A> As is a rather overworked word: check this freedictionary definition. <S> Yes, it can be used in place of "because", but you have to be very careful to avoid confusion in a particular context. <S> Some people worry about starting a sentence with "because" - here's why - but in this case "because" would be fine.
| In this context, it's fine.
|
usage of themselves and reflexive pronouns How are these sentences different in meaning ? Please explain me.I am very confused with it. They themselves cooked a meal. They cooked themselves a meal. They cooked a meal themselves. <Q> If a group of people got together, decided to have a meal, prepared and ate it, you would say They cooked a meal. <S> - they is the subject, a meal is the (direct) object. <S> If somebody asked you who they cooked the meal for, you would say They cooked a meal for themselves. <S> You simply are reporting an event, without making any comment about it. <S> Moving on to your sentences: They themselves cooked a meal. <S> This is not simply reporting an event, it is very emphatic: it would make it absolutely clear, for example, that nobody else was involved in preparing the meal, but it does not specify who the meal was for. <S> They cooked themselves a meal. <S> This is neutral- <S> the same as the "for themselves" sentence, but "themselves" has become an indirect object : it has lost the preposition (for), and moved in front of the object- "a meal". <S> They cooked a meal themselves . <S> This makes the point that nobody else was involved in the cooking, but it is not as emphatic as the "they themselves" sentence. <S> It does not specify who the meal was cooekd for. <S> This would be a suitable response if somebody asked "what did the kids eat?". <S> Another possible situation might be if somebody else had cooked first, then this group took their turn, for example: <S> the teacher demonstrated the recipes to the students, then they cooked a meal themselves <A> This is an interesting one! <S> I will try to answer them in order in a way that I think makes the most sense. <S> In your first example, They themselves cooked a meal <S> You are saying that the people cooking a meal, "they," cooked a meal. <S> The "themselves" in this sentence is not necessary, but is also not incorrect. <S> It is essentially repeating that the people, "they," cooked a meal. <S> You would not be incorrect in saying this, but the "themselves" is not necessary for the meaning to be clear. <S> In your second example, They cooked themselves a meal The "themselves" becomes the object of the sentence; in this case, "themselves" are the people who the meal is being cooked for. <S> "They," the people cooking a meal, were cooking the meal for themselves to eat. <S> In your last example, They cooked a meal themselves <S> The meaning is essentially the same as in the first example! <S> This is where I think English trips a lot of people up, because you can move words around in a sentence, and the sentence's meaning can either stay exactly the same with the moved word, or it can take on a completely different meaning. <S> I don't know the best way to practice understanding and speaking these sentences, but eventually the rules will become clear when you are trying to get a meaning across in a sentence. <S> In this sentence, the "themselves" adds a bit of specification to the sentence; you are saying that the people cooking the meal, "they," cooked the meal by themselves. <S> It is almost implied that they cooked the meal without the help of other people. <S> In this example, the "themselves" is again not necessary, but does change the meaning of the sentence a bit. <S> Saying "they cooked a meal" makes the same amount of sense, but adding "themselves" to the end adds the fact that they cooked the meal on their own, without aide. <S> I would be happy to give more meaning to my explanation if it is needed! <A> In the first and third cases use themselves as an intensive pronoun . <S> It merely adds emphasis that they were the people who cooked the meal and not someone else. <S> The first form is stronger and more poetic than the third form. <S> In the second case, themselves is a reflexive pronoun . <S> The sentence really means, "They cooked a meal for themselves," because "cooked" can take an indirect object . <S> The reflexive pronoun shows that the recipients of the meal and makers of the people were the same group of people. <S> (If we had said, "They cooked them a meal," it means that one group is making a meal for a different group.)
| By saying "they cooked a meal themselves," you are saying that the people cooking the meal completed the task by themselves, and nobody else was cooking with them.
|
How to answer the apology Imagine a situation where you clash someone on a footpath, and that person apologizes. Now how should you answer when such a trivial mistake has happened? The only thing that comes to my mind is "no problem" , but, I guess that's not good enough (it doesn't seem rude but it's not that much polite). Is it right to just say "my fault" ?! <Q> Usually, when we bump into people or tread on each others toes or something like that, both people tend to say sorry. <S> A normal exchange would be like this: a: <S> Sorry! <S> b: <S> Sorry! <S> Don't say No problem or <S> never mind or anything like that. <S> The person is saying sorry to be polite. <S> They probably don't feel that they have done anything wrong. <S> They just want to be friendly and polite. <S> Saying sorry is just a way to show that we are friendly. <S> If you say never mind or no worries <S> then there's a chance that you will annoy the other person. <S> This is because you may sound as if you feel they should be sorry. <S> They may not feel that they should be for such a trivial thing. <S> And smile. <S> This is definitely the situation in the UK. <S> I believe it is similar in the US. <A> I would say "No worries" or "No problem." <S> or "No problem. <S> Don't worry." <A> It's ok/ <S> all right Don't worry about it. <S> No harm done If you don't want to simply say everything is fine and want to show what the person did <S> actually hurt alittle bit <S> but still you want to be polite <S> , I think you can go like this <S> I appreciate your apology. <S> I hear you. <S> I accept your apology. <S> ' <S> I hear you' can be used especially when you're in no mood to discuss it probably because what happened really was a bummer.
| So, just say: Sorry!
|
What does "move on" mean in this song? What does "move on" mean and who "moves on" I thought that I've been hurt before But no one's ever left me quite this sore Your words cut deeper than a knife Now I need someone to breathe me back to life Got a feeling that I'm going under But I know that I'll make it out alive If I quit calling you my lover Move on <Q> "move on" is defined here as move on To concentrate one's attention or emotions on other matters in recovering from a setback or difficulty: After he was laid off, he moved on and started looking for another job. <S> In other words, if he stops dwelling on her he will be better off, and can recover from his heartbreak. <A> Stiches by Shawn Mendes? <S> Fantastic song taste by the way <S> ;) <S> The way I interpreted is that they both need some time apart, because even though he's in love with her, he knows he's going to get hurt again ("I'll be needing stitches") <A> In Shawn Mendes' song Stitches , his use of the phrase Move on <S> But I know that I'll make it out alive <S> If I quit calling you my lover <S> Move on is slightly ambiguous. <S> He may be using it as a general exclamation to say he is getting over or getting past his bad relationship, as in "I'm moving on". <S> However, given the cadence when he sings it, also it sounds like he could be telling the person who hurt him to "go away" <S> Move on <S> You watch me bleed until I can't breathe <S> Either way, the idea is that he is "moving past" that relationship. <A> Other answers explain what is meant by the phrase move on . <S> While poetry can be ambiguous, in this context, and since the poem is written in a way that the author is addressing his lover, it is most likely that he/she is using the imperative, and telling the lover to "move on".
| In the context of the song, the speaker/singer is saying that he will be able to "make it out alive" if he quits calling her his lover and moves on.
|
...who/whom you can count on? She is not a person who you can count on. or She is not a person whom you can count on. Which one is correct and sounds more native ? Please give an explanation for your answer <Q> Since the person you are counting on is the object of the sentence, "whom" is technically correct. <S> However, very few native speakers would say "whom" in normal speech, since few native English speakers understand when to use it. <A> "Who/whom" is a relative pronoun- it "relates" the second clause to the first clause, and acts as either subject (who) or object (whom) in the second clause. <S> Look at these two sentences, and see what the second clause looks like on its own: <S> She is a person who gets things done she gets things done <S> - subject <S> She is not a person whom you can count on <S> You cannot count on her - object <S> English speakers usually avoid this issue altogether. <S> There are two ways that you can do this: <S> She is not a person <S> that you can count on that is also a relative pronoun, but it does not change depending on whether it's a subject or object <S> She is not a person you can count on You can often omit the relative pronoun: in this case it is allowed. <S> You will find the rules here . <A> In this case, "who/whom" is the object of the preposition "on", so you should use the objective case of whom . <S> If you were speaking very formally, you might say She is not a person on whom you can count. <S> That is probably how you would hear it on Downton Abbey , and there are people that tell you never to end a sentence with a preposition, but it happens all the time in spoken language. <S> In American English, I think you are more likely to hear it said as you had it in your first example (technically incorrect, but much more common) <S> She is not a person who you can count on. <S> Or, as @JavaLatte suggested, it would probably just be omitted entirely. <S> She is not a person you can count on. <A> Think of it this way: you would say You can count on her , not <S> You can count on she . <S> That of course is because on is a preposition which is followed by its object, her . <S> In your sentence, who/whom is still an object of on and therefore should take that form: whom . <S> Actually, to be technically correct, that sentence should be written as <S> She is not a person on whom you can count. <S> Whenever you are wondering if you should use <S> who or whom , you can usually say, Would I use he or him? <S> Of course he translates to who and him translates to whom . <S> Thus, I will follow him. <S> would become <S> I will follow whom? <S> or Whom will I follow?
| It is "whom" when used as the object of the sentence, and "who" when used as the subject.
|
How do you describe when you say good bye to your friends at the station? I met with three friends and had dinner together and went to the station together. But each of us had to take a train in a different line. 1) We split up at the station. 2) We parted from each other at the station. 3) We left each other at the station. Which sentence is the most appropriate here? Or is there any good sentence to describe this situation? <Q> All of your example sentences are OK, but some are better. <S> The biggest difference is how formal the words sound. <S> We split up at the station. <S> This is probably the most natural. <S> We parted from each other at the station. <S> This is not wrong, but the word "parted" is more likely to appear in formal speech. <S> If you do use the word "parted", the construction "We parted ways at the station" might be a better choice. <S> We left each other at the station. <S> The verb "left" appears in formal and informal speech, but is has a connotation that isn't quite right for your situation. <S> Usually, "A left B" means that A moved and B did not move -- for example, "I left my book at the station." <S> As always, context matters. <S> All of these sentences could be used to describe the end of a romantic relationship between two people. <S> However, if you have set the context (a group of friends after dinner), there is no ambiguity. <S> There are some other choices available. <S> Here are a couple: <S> We parted company at the station. <A> I'd use the verb in number 2. <S> "We parted." <S> or "We parted at the train station." <S> or "We parted after dinner. <S> " <S> Per definition: <S> Part <S> /pɑːt/ <S> verb past tense: parted; past participle: parted 1. <S> (of two things) move away from each other. <S> "His lips parted in a smile." <S> 2. leave someone's company. <S> "There was a good deal of kissing before we parted." <S> synonyms: <S> leave, take one's leave, say goodbye/farewell/adieu, say one's goodbyes, say/make one's farewells <S> , separate, break up, go <S> one's (separate) ways, take oneself off, set off, be on one's way, go, go away, get going, depart, be off. <S> 'We split up' is commonly used for relationships that ended. <S> 'We left each other' is vague. <S> If there are three people at the train station, then the two boarded and the third didn't, the third person may say that the other two 'left' and he/she was 'left behind'. <A> As you can see from the other answers, there is no clear winner amongst the sentences you suggested. <S> Your title refers to saying goodbye. <S> If you want to enphasise this, or make it clear that you parted on good terms, you could say We said our farewells at the station
| We went our separate ways at the station. The phrase "split up" is suitable for many situations, but is more likely to occur in informal speech than formal speech.
|
What's the difference? I thought I would ... and I though I was going to I thought I'd try eating Japanese food today. I thought I was going to eat Japanese food today. The second sentence implies that I didn't eat it actually, but how about the first sentence? What happened eventually? Does it imply the same as the second sentence? "I asked because I thought you would know." -Does it mean that this person actually didn't know? The more I think, the more I get confused. Could you help me? <Q> Would has two possible meanings in this context: as the past of 'will', (something expected to happen) expressed from the viewpoint of the past to express a wish going to expresses something already planned <S> I thought I would try eating Japanese food today. <S> As the past of "will", it means that I expected to eat Japanese food. <S> Adding I thought indicates that the plan was frustrated: I did not, and probably will not eat Japanese food today. <S> If not already mentioned, the speaker would normally go on to explain why the plan was frustrated. <S> As a wish, it means that, earlier today, I decided that it would be nice to eat Japanese food. <S> If the speaker does not go on to describe the meal, the listener will assume that the person has not yet eaten Japanese food, but still has that wish- <S> maybe will do later today. <S> The listener might even regard it as an informal invitation to join the speaker for Japanese food. <S> I thought I was going to eat Japanese food today. <S> With something already planned, I thought implies that the plan was frustrated. <S> This means that I decided earlier today, but my plan was frustrated and I have not yet, and probably will not. <S> With either frustrated plan, the speaker would emphasize the word thought . <A> I thought I'd try eating Japanese food today <S> One might hear someone say this while eating at a Japanese restaurant: <S> A: <S> "What are you doing here?" <S> B: <S> "I thought I'd try eating Japanese food today." <S> But one might also hear this if the attempt failed: <S> A: " <S> Why are you back so early?" <S> B: <S> "I thought I'd try eating Japanese food today, but it didn't work out." <S> I thought I was going to eat Japanese food today <S> (but I did not). <S> I thought I was going to eat Japanese food today ( <S> but you seem to have other plans). <S> The final sentence seems, at least to me, to carry an implication that the speaker suspects that the other person does not know: <S> A: <S> "Why did you ask me?" <S> B: <S> "I asked because I thought you would know" <S> (but I am not sure now). <A> The first sentence could be interpreted two ways: either I decided to try eating Japanese food today, or I was under the impression that eating Japanese food would be an occurrence of the day. <S> The second sentence, while not as pleasant to the ears, is unambiguous: I thought that I would. <S> It can have an implication of not actually happening, but really it just depends on the context. <S> In <S> "I asked because I thought you would know" <S> , the speaker does not imply anything about what actually happened; he is simply stating what was passing through his mind at the time of his question.
| This sentence is agnostic with regard to the outcome of trying to eat Japanese food. You are correct about the second sentence: the implication is clearly that it did not work out, or perhaps that some unforeseen complication has arisen.
|
"[I]t literally scared her to death" - Why is "I" in brackets? Quoting a phrase from an article: Grubb’s first overdose was on Aug. 15, 2015. Her mother found her blue on her bedroom floor, a tourniquet around her arm and a needle next to her. Paramedics revived her. “[I]t literally scared her to death,” David Grubb said of his daughter. “I mean, she knew that it happened to other people, but I don’t think she really thought it could happen to her, that she could control it.” Why is "I" in brackets? <Q> Style guides advise us to use square brackets when we have to change something about a quotation to make it fit grammatically with the sentence where we're using the quotation. <S> Usually, in a case like this, it just means that the capitalization is being changed. <S> For example, David Grubb might have literally said When she overdosed, it literally scared her to death. <S> But the author didn't want to include the "When she overdosed" part, because we already know that's what we're talking about, and repeating it would be redundant. <S> So the author just includes the "it literally scared her to death" part. <S> But the beginning of a sentence should begin with a capital letter! <S> What should we do? <S> Use brackets to indicate you've changed something , making it "[I]t literally scared her to death." <S> Reference: The Bracket <A> Brackets appear in quotes whenever the author changed the text of the original quote. <S> Sometimes the author will put "[...] <S> " in brackets to indicate that some text has been removed, for example. <S> Here, the author has changed the letter "I" in the quote, probably from a lowercase "i" so that the beginning of the sentence was capitalized. <S> The original quote could have been something like this: When the paramedics rescued her, it literally scared her to death! <S> The author removed the first part, and made the second part its own sentence: it literally scared her to death! <S> But then had to change the first letter to a capital <S> , so he/she put it in brackets <S> [I]t literally scared her to death! <A> In this case, in the original quote "it" was not the first word of the sentence and so would not be capitalized. <S> But they left something off at the beginning, and so they had to capitalize the "i". <S> To show that this is not quite an exact quote, they put brackets around it. <S> You may see a name or other identification in brackets if the part of the original statement that identified the person or thing is not included in the quote. <S> Like suppose someone said, "Al is an honest man. <S> Bob doesn't trust him, but he wouldn't lie. <S> " You want to quote this, but for the sake of brevity you want to leave off the first sentence. <S> Without that, the reader has no idea who "him" and "he" are. <S> So you can write, "Bob doesn't trust [Al], but <S> [Al] wouldn't lie." <S> Finally, you may see a whole word in brackets when the writer had to change the tense of a verb or some such to fit the sentence. <S> Like someone says, "I frequently post on Stack Exchange. <S> " You want to quote this, but you want to shift the "I" to the name of the person who made the statement. <S> You could write, "Bob said that he 'frequently post[s] on Stack Exchange'. <S> " <S> Of course you should only do this if it doesn't change the meaning of the quote. <S> Quoting <S> "I will do X" as "I will [not] do X" is not acceptable! <S> Subtler changes could be misleading. <S> That's why we use the brackets: to warn the reader that you've made a subtle change that you think does not alter the meaning, but that the reader should be on guard about.
| Brackets are used to indicated text that has been added or modified in a quote, usually to make it fit the grammar in a sentence.
|
Michael is a New Zealander or Michael is New Zealander? Article before nationalities? Do I have to say "Michael is a New Zealander" or can I leave out the indefinite article "a"? <Q> No, you can't, because you have two nouns on the both sides of " is ", and because "New Zealander" is a single countable noun. <S> If you had an adjective, you would have used no article: <S> Michael is tall. <S> If the word "New Zealander" had been in the plural form, you would have also used no article: <S> Michael's classmates are New Zealanders. <S> Some nationality words, like "Russian", can be used either as a noun or as an adjective: <S> She is Russian. <S> (adjective) <S> She is a Russian. <S> (noun) <S> They are Russian. <S> (adjective) <S> They are Russian s . <S> (noun) <A> You could say " Michael is German ", however "German" in this sentence is interpreted as an adjective, not a noun. <S> It would also be correct grammatically to say "Michael is a German", although this is less common, and in this sentence "German" is a noun. <S> You can see the difference for nationalities where the noun of nationality is not the same as the adjective: " Michel is French " vs. " <S> Michel is a Frenchman ". <S> However, for nearly all countries, the noun and the adjective are the same. <S> However the term "New Zealander" is a noun and not an adjective. <S> In spoken English, this can commonly be abbreviated to "Michael's a New Zealander". <A> I'm happy to accept that Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull speaks perfectly good English, and is familiar with antipodean usage. <S> In that link, he's reported as saying... ... <S> the law applies to you whether you are New Zealander or Greek or Romanian or American or whatever you may be. <S> People who claim New Zealander can only be a noun usage simply don't use/hear the term often enough to realize that since there's only one form (unlike, say, French / a Frenchman, British / a Briton ), it has to be available for both contexts. <S> HOWEVER - noting the current upvotes (for what I see as a misguided position), and <S> the fact that two answers endorsing my perspective here have been deleted after hostile reaction, you can assume that even though it's "correct" to use New Zealander adjectivally, quite a few people will be unfamiliar with this. <S> So if you're not New Zealander yourself (in which case they might allow that you know how to refer to yourself), they may dismiss your usage as "incorrect" (especially if they know you're not even a native Anglophone).
| So you must say " Michael is a New Zealander ".
|
meaning of "soul congealed" I'm reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick. The following paragraph is decribing a woman who's just woken up all cranky and doesn't want to get up: "I just want to sit here on the bed and stare at the floor." Her voice had become sharp with overtones of bleakness as her soul congealed and she ceased to move, as the instinctive, omnipresent film of great weight, of an almost absolute inertia, settled over her. I'm confused about what "soul congealed" means here. The dictionary says "to congeal" means "to solidify or coagulate". But I don't understand how a person's soul can be solidified or coagulated. Does "soul congealed" mean that she's got low in mood? Can anbody explain the idea for me? <Q> Congeal in this sense is often evokes the idea of blood, because it is often used to describe a fluid becoming semi-solid from cooling. <S> As blood becomes more solid, it flows slower and slower, and it becomes more lifeless. <S> Contrast that with hot blooded or passionate/easily excited or angered. <S> She may not even have the energy to feel angry or sad. <S> She's frozen under the weight of some feeling <S> so heavy she can barely breathe. <A> I believe this is largely a question of artistic interpretation, of poetry. <S> Perhaps some inquiry into the meaning and context of "soul" would be helpful. <S> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soul#English <S> The spirit or essence of a person usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality... <S> The spirit or essence of anything. <S> Life, energy, vigor. <S> Spirit also conveys the meaning of enthusiasm, energy, ardour. <S> From context we can tell the congealed soul rendered the person unmoving. <S> Would a moving person's soul then be the opposite of congealed? <S> The antonyms of congeal are to soften or liquify. <S> Is a liquid soul more conducive to movement than a solid soul? <S> Matter tends to solidify as a process of cooling, as liquid grease produced from cooking meat congeals into solid fat. <S> If a person's energy or enthusiasm cooled, would that render them motionless? <S> You might also inquire into how the author viewed the concept of the human soul, a complicated matter which he frequently concerned himself with. <S> https://scifi.stackexchange.com/ perhaps? <A> "Soul" likely refers to inner person, including feelings. <S> So "her soul congealed" would mean that she gradually froze internally: she stopped thinking and feeling.
| In this context, her soul, or what animates her, is slowly becoming cooler, more solid, and less active. You correctly understand the word meaning of congealed.
|
Plural form of tardy What is the plural form use of "tardy" such as: number of tardy arrivals to school, work, etc.? Word spell check does not have any suggested words in this instance. <Q> tardy noun an occasion when you are late for a class, or a record that a teacher keeps of this MacMillan <S> The plural is tardies . <S> See also Wiktionary : tardy (plural tardies) (US) <S> A piece of paper given to students who are late to class. <S> The teacher gave her a tardy because she did not come into the classroom until after the bell. <S> Before turning to the dictionary I had posted the following: <S> As to saying that tardy is an adjective, well it is also used as a noun. <S> Someone can have one absence and one tardy this week. <S> Or someone could have two or more tardies . <S> We can indeed convert adjectives to nouns by using only the first part of an "adjective-noun" combination. <S> Consider smiley face . <S> That became smiley . <S> Oh, my gosh this girl likes to use smileys in her texts. <S> If a word is used as a noun, it's a noun. <A> Tardy is an adjective. <S> There is no plural. <S> Your sentence ("number of tardy arrivals to school") is correct. <A> Your tardiness is becoming a problem. <S> Please show up to meetings on time. <S> In the US, tardy is most commonly associated with grade school students. <S> There are some instances of turning "tardy" into a noun, such as: At Casey County Middle School in rural Liberty, Kentucky, Principal Terry Price says, “We had as many as 40 tardies per class period in the morning." <S> Source <S> In this sense, I think the principal was shortening 'tardy students' to 'tardies' <S> but it could also be 'tardy slips', or notices that a student was late to class. <S> In contexts other than talking about students, some explanation of tardies might be necessary, because it is not standard English. <S> I would be reluctant to talk about a group of adult coworkers as tardies - it seems a little bit disrespectful to talk about them like they are children.
| While tardy as an adjective can't be made plural, you can use tardiness to talk about more than once instance of being late.
|
Is "Estimated number of people who start going home" appropriate for the caption of a figure? I'm writing a technical report and need to add a line chart to show how many people start going home during each hour (e.g. between 14:00 and 15:00). The numbers of people are counted (estimated) by some technical method. The line chart looks like the following. My question is whether a caption below is correct or not. Figure1. Estimated number of people who start going home during an hour or Figure1. Estimated number of people starting to go home during an hour I'm sorry for not mentioning very detail context. If you suggest a lack of information, I'll add it. Thank you. <Q> I think that Figure 1. <S> Approximate number of people who head home during a given hour <S> OR Figure 1. <S> Estimated number of people that leave for home in a given hour are probably more in-line with what you're trying to convey. <S> Of course use estimated or approximate as necessary.(From a scientific background I would, personally, say use approximate if only rounding was included, whereas estimated would be more appropriate if educated guesses or specific assumptions were made. <S> As far as I know that's not a hard rule though.) <A> I would suggest "Estimated number of people leaving for home". <S> The axis label shows that it is for a given hour, so I do not think the "during an hour" (or in a given period) is necessary. <S> Estimated is not counted, as estimation is usually based upon sampling or statistics. <S> If it is directly counted or even close, I would suggest "Approximate" instead of estimated. <A> "During an hour" just doesn't sound quite right. <S> I also think it's good to reference the time period, since it is important to emphasise the units (in general).
| I think "Estimated number of people who start going home" is fine, however you should replace the end of the sentence with "in an hour" or "each hour".
|
Meaning of "you don't owe me anything" What is the meaning of the sentences You don't owe me anything. I don't owe you anything. we don't owe each other anything. Is there any other way of saying the same thing in English, but in a more native manner (way)? If yes, then please let me know. <Q> It's hard to see what find difficult about these, unless they are being used metaphorically, in which case you need to give us some context. <S> Literally, they mean that you/ <S> I/ <S> we have no debt: there is nothing (no money or services) which are owed. <S> I suspect that the use you are asking about is where there is not a formal debt but a possible social obligation, and they mean either "there is nothing I/ <S> you <S> /we have done which incurs an obligation on you/me/us" or <S> "There is such an obligation, but I am/ <S> you are/we are/ choosing to cancel that obligation" <S> In any case, these are perfectly idiomatic. <A> The three examples that you quote can be used literally about money or favours: they can also be used about relationships . <S> A very idiomatic expression for the literal meaning "neither of us owes anything to the other" is <S> We're quits <S> Here is a reference <A> I think this phrasing could be used in a legal document to express what you would like to say. <S> If you want, you can also add "we, hereby, state that"
| "There is not any amount unpaid or any obligation or promise withstanding and unfulfilled between us/ the parties"
|
What does "he is said to be polite" mean? Does He is said to be polite. mean: People say that he is polite. or People say him to be polite. ? <Q> It means People say that he is a polite person. <S> I guess that in order to say that he is routinely asked to be polite, we would say just that, He is always asked to be polite. <S> Or even, in a stricter manner, He is constantly told to be polite (by his parents). <A> In my personal opinion, the first assumption is close to what it actually means. <S> " <S> He is said to be polite." <S> This means that 'he' is rather polite to others and other acknowledge the fact that he is, indeed, polite. <S> This can be translated as: <S> Consider the sentence: "Norway is said to be very beautiful." <S> This means that the general opinion about Norway is that the country is very beautiful. <S> Similarly, you could interpret what your sentence means. <A> He is said to be polite <S> This could have two meanings: <S> you have met him and think that he is quite rude, but you are too polite to say so you have not met him, and are reporting what other people say: "other people say that he is polite". <S> Here is another example of the first usage. <S> A man is sitting opposite two Norwegians at a dinner party. <S> They ask him what he thinks of Norway: he went there once and detested it, but he is too polite to say so. <S> Instead, he says "Norway is said to be very beautiful". <S> The Norwegians are happy, and the man has not compromised his integrity by lying.
| He is known to be polite.
|
How you felt when you got this toy? The moment or when I had it? Explain how you felt when you got this toy? This could be a question in an English oral test. Is it asking how I felt in the first few days after I got the toy or in the period of time when I had the toy? Thank you! <Q> It is asking how receiving the toy made you feel. <A> So yes, it could be referring to the first few days, or even the first few minutes. <S> The fact that it is asking for "how you felt" is why I think it's asking for your initial reaction. <A> When means at the time at which , so the question is asking how you felt at the moment you received the toy. <S> You could get the same meaning using on : <S> Explain how you felt on getting this toy <S> If you wanted to ask about somebody's feelings in the period after the event, you would change the conjunction to after . <S> Explain how you felt after you got this toy <S> If you wanted to restrict the time, you could say immediately after or in the days after . <S> If you were interested in long-term or permanent changes in feelings, you would use since or ever since . <S> Note that explain is not a question-word <S> : it's an instruction, so the sentence does not need a question mark.
| I believe the question is asking for your "first reaction" at the moment you took possession of the toy (the use of "got" here could mean either a gift or a purchase).
|
Is "... to bring to your attention ..." a typo? I'm writing to bring to your attention the unprofessional attitude of one of your staff member. (From a book and some online resources) I feel like it should be: I'm writing to bring your attention to the unprofessional attitude of one of your staff member. Is it a typo or not? Thank you! <Q> The image is that you are carrying something which needs attention and putting it in front of the listener. <S> So you bring the thing to the listener - or to the listener's attention. <S> In this image, you don't bring the attention to the thing. <S> The sentence is a bit more difficult to understand because the long noun phrase the unprofessional attitude of one of your staff members has moved from the normal Direct Object position. <S> Because it is very long, the speaker has moved it to the end of the sentence (this is known as heavy noun phrase shift ). <S> If we put the phrases in the normal order, the sentence looks like this: I'm writing to bring [the unprofessional attitude of one of your staff members] to your attention. <S> This last clause has the same structure as: ... bring a friend to the party. <A> Perhaps the best way to analyze this is to determine what is being "brought." <S> In this case unprofessionalism is being brought to someone's attention. <S> However, you can't bring someone's attention to anything. <S> So the better choice would be "I would like to bring to your attention the unprofessional..." <S> Also, it should be the plural "staff members" not the singular. <A> Bring someone or something to someone's attention means to make someone aware of someone or something as in Thank you for bringing this to my attention. <S> I am grateful for your bringing her to my attention. <S> Also see draw someone's attention to someone or something & <S> call someone's attention to something <A> I am writing to bring to your attention the unprofessional attitude of one of your staff members. <S> It's not a typo; the sentence is correct grammatically. <S> However, your sentence "I am writing to bring your attention to ...." is not correct grammatically. <S> You can bring something to someone's attention, but you cannot bring someone's attention to something. <S> However, you can call/draw someone's attention to something. <S> So you can say: "I am writing to draw/call your attention to the unprofessional attitude of ...........". <A> In fact, this is a very widely used idiom. <S> 'To point out something to someone' simply means: to make someone aware of something; to mention or show something to someone <S> You can read more about it here . <A> Both the original and your version are fine. <S> I wouldn't say one is particularly better or worse than the other. <S> The to bring to one's attention idiom is commonly used, and not a problem here, but there's also no reason you couldn't avoid it and just use to bring one's attention to . <S> Grammatically, some things have changed, but the meaning of the phrase has not.
| No, this is not a typo.
|
"A halved Pinang"; What is the equivalent expression in English? "Like a halved Pinang " is an expression in my native language to compare the appearance of two persons who are alike/very similar/like a twin. Note: Pinang (lat. Area catechu ) is a species of palm which grows in much of the tropical Pacific, Asia, and parts of east Africa. What is the equal English expression for Like a halved Pinang ? Note: Thanks for your responses. I should really be careful to use the expressions suggested that fit my native culture. For instance: doppleganger , I think I can't equally use it as the translation of a halved Pinang . cut from the same cloth doesn't ring the bell either, because my native expression refers to a case that may include non-relative persons, although it is usually applied for a twin. long-lost brother/sister/sibling/twin , I sense that it explains the situation that you haven't met someone for a long time. Anymore input please? :) Pics of Pinang : <Q> The phrase I would use is 'like two peas in a pod'. <S> It's used in both British and American English, and keeps the plant theme. <A> If two people whose physical appearance, particularly the face, there's an expression, "long-lost brother/sister/sibling/twin" i.e., Person A looks like Emma Stone, we could comment by saying, "Hey, you might be Emma Stone's long-lost sister!" <A> <A> I've heard the word doppelganger used to describe an uncanny resemblance, but learners might want to be careful with that word. <S> As the Wikipedia page says, sometimes a doppleganger is considered to be an evil twin, or an ill omen. <S> However, the article goes on to say: <S> The word doppelgänger is often used in a more general sense to describe any person who physically or behaviorally resembles another person. <S> Though I might be careful about using this word when talking with a stranger, I think it's worth mentioning for the sake of completeness. <A> "Dead Ringer" implies more of an exact duplicate (or rendering) rather than two halves -- but it does seem to be often used to express that two people look like twins. <S> Urban Dictionary's example use of the phrase is, "Wow, that guy's a dead ringer for Elvis Presley, I thought he was back from the dead!" <A> There are many idioms that convey the same meaning as "Like a halved Pinang" . <S> I'm guessing it means that the fruit, when cut into two pieces, looks exactly the same. <S> Thereby highlighting the similarity between the two halves, which can be used metaphorically. <S> This is just one among many, but the only one that comes to mind right now: cut from the same cloth. <S> Two pieces of cloth, that are cut from the same material will look exactly the same (provided they are cut identically). <S> They will have the same features, like texture, which, again can be used metaphorically. <S> Read more about ' cut from the same cloth '. <S> Also, you could simply replace the fruit from your region, with a universal fruit, say, an Apple? <S> "Two halves of an Apple" . <S> Make sure the fruit is symmetrical when cut. <S> You could use Oranges, Mangoes also. <A> The first thing that comes to mind is "separated at birth" which as mentioned above is a variant of the metaphor in shin's "long-lost X" answer. <S> The second thing I haven't seen anyone else mention, is "cast from the same mold", which is another crafting metaphor like "cut from the same cloth". <S> It also relates to the phrase "when they made you, they broke the mold", which is a way of saying someone is unique, often with a slightly demeaning tone. <A> Look-alike <S> Someone who looks just like you is your look-alike. <S> Warren Zevon - "Poisonous Look-alike. <S> Doppelganger <S> Historically, it carried sinister undertones. <S> In the U.S. at least, doppelganger is now used for any stranger who looks just like you. <S> (An older brother is not your doppelganger, but could be your look-alike.) <S> Spitting image <S> Someone who looks just like someone else may be said to be the "spitting image" of that person. <S> Especially common across generational divides. <S> He is the spitting image of his grandfather. <A> If you are referring specifically to appearance, a very common phrase in British English would be 'the spitting image'. <S> I have no idea where it comes from, but most British people would know what you mean if you said; "These two people look alike, in fact they are the spitting image of each other!" <S> or "She is the spitting image of her mother" etc. <S> I don't know <S> but I suspect that it isn't very common in American English though. <S> Also worth noting there was a British sitcom 'Spitting Image' in the 80s, famous for impersonating famous figures with puppets - probably where the show got it's name. <A> To my understanding, the expression 'a halved pinang', in the Malay Language context actually means a couple that looks great together as they are both good-looking. <S> We usually say this to newly married couples to celebrate and congratulate them. " <S> Bagai pinang dibelah dua." <S> Hence, in this context I would say that the equivalent to the expression bagai pinang dibelah dua (A halved pinang) is a match made in heaven.
| I say a closer phrase would be that the two people are the spitting image of each other.
|
What is the acceptable verb to say that your battery has no energy? What is the acceptable verb to say that your battery has no energy (and I need to charge it)? I though on saying "My battery is finished" (and I need to charge it). This option is Ok? I've never saw English speakers in such situation so I didn't study from them about it. <Q> It is usual to say "The battery died ." <S> or "The battery is dead ." <S> You could also say, the battery drained , but that is usually used when it is caused by something using a lot of its power. <S> For example, "I used the flashlight on my phone, and it drained the battery." <A> In the UK, flat - (of a battery) fully discharged; dead . <S> For mobile phones, etc, dead is becoming more widely used. <A> If I hear that the battery is finished, I think that it has been charged and drained (or discharged ) so many times that it can no longer hold a charge, and is destined for the recycling heap. <A> Depending on the exact circumstances, your battery could be <S> (completely) drained dead discharged <S> For a rechargeable battery as in a cell phone, you probably want (completely) drained . <S> Smartphone battery draining too fast? <S> For a rechargeable battery, I would not call it dead if it was still capable of being recharged.
| In the U.S., we usually say that the battery has died, or has "gone dead."
|
Neither Nor with belong Neither I belong to "classA" nor I belong to "classB". Neither I belong to "classA" nor I do to "classB". I neither belong to "classA" nor "classB". I want to know which one of the above three sentences conforms to correctness. And if there's a better way to form the above sentence so that it might sound good and become grammatically correct then suggest that please. <Q> Out of the three provided, the last one is most correct: <S> I neither belong to "classA" nor "classB". <S> " <S> Neither" and "nor" are normally used in the pattern, "neither <S> 'A' nor 'B'". <S> The subject, "I", comes before "neither". <S> I think the most correct way to say this is: I belong to neither "classA" nor "classB". <A> If somebody says "I do not smoke", you might reply " <S> Neither do I" or "nor do I". <S> Note that we add <S> do when we are expressing negatives, and the word order changes next to "Neither" or "nor". <S> I don't know why we change the word order- <S> it sounds very old-fashioned- <S> but we still do. <S> Here is an NGram that shows that "Neither do I" is the only form in common use. <S> With <S> neither and nor <S> you must have exactly the same stuff in both parts: you can do it the long way and have a complete phrase, or the short way and have just one word. <S> Here is the long way, with a complete phrase in both parts: <S> Neither do <S> I belong to "classA" nor do <S> I belong to "classB". <S> And here is the short way, with just a single word in both parts: <S> I belong to neither "classA" nor "classB". <S> Note that there is no do : this is because "belong" is outside the neither/ <S> nor, so it's not negative. <S> If we moved the negative to the start of the sentence, it would be required: <A> I only want to enlarge the explanation when a negative adverb starts a sentence (ex: rarely, seldom, never, neither..nor, not only... but also... etc., etc. <S> To be more emphatic, you can start the sentence with the negative adverb, what forces inversion and this may happen in any tense, not only simple present as in the given example. <S> I seldom saw him last month. <S> (seldom did I see him last week) <S> I will never see him again. <S> (Never will I see him again)
| I do not belong to either "classA" or "classB".
|
I belong to Swat vs I hail from Swat I know that most of the people use "I belong to ABC" but I have seen "He is hailing from Mardan". So, Is there any difference? Also, can I say "I belong to Swat" or "I belong to Mingora"? Swat is the name of my district while Mingora is the city where I live. <Q> You do not "belong to" a country. <S> It is possible to say: "I belong here", meaning: I feel at home here <S> and I will always live here. <S> "Hailing from" is formal and also a little bit old-fashioned. <S> "I am from" remains the best option, and also "I am originally from..." if you want to give the idea of origins/ roots. <A> I hail from Swat <S> vs <S> I belong to Swat <S> For example: I come from Swat. <S> You can also use the phrasal verb "hail from" instead, <S> but it's usually used in formal English. <S> It's true that we usually use this phrase in this sense in Pakistan. <A> In American English, one would usually just say 1 <S> I am from Mingora, Swat. <S> 2 <S> I am from Swat. <S> I am from the Switzerland of the East. <S> I am from Pakistan. <S> We don't usually say ? <S> 3 <S> I come from somewhere. <S> But we can say that to stress that we are not from the place that we are currently in. <S> 4 <S> I come from Mingora, remember, and people from Mingora have different customs than the people here do. <S> In American English we rarely say ? <S> 5 <S> I belong to a place or to a company. <S> I do know where you heard <S> I belong to ABC , but this is not the normal way in American English to say 6 <S> I work for ABC. <S> Hail from indicates origin, as in 7 <S> She hails from Mingora, Swat Two answers here have labelled hail from as 'formal'. <S> However most dictionaries of American English do not indicate this. <S> And as a native speaker of American English, I would not call hail from 'formal'. <S> See also my question on ELU: Is hail from necessarily formal? . <S> I have included links in that question to dictionaries which say hail from is formal. <S> (Thanks to Khan for those links.) <S> To me, hail from sounds colloquial, something that Mark Twain, in informal usage, might say. <S> But many newspapers and magazines use it today.
| As for the use of the phrase 'belong to' in this sense, it's correct grammatically, though old-fashioned. If you want to say that some place is your place of birth, or the place where you live, you usually use the phrasal verb "come from'.
|
Term for a small businessman who is exempt from paying VAT In Israel there is a special term "Osek Patur" for a business-owner who is exempt from paying taxes because his annual income is small. What is a parallel term in English? "Exempt businessman"? "Exempt businessowner"? Some other term? <Q> The term you refer to is specific to Israel based on the local tax laws. <S> A rough equivalent is tax exempt organization , or perhaps more specifically tax exempt business or person , but these refer to exemption in general; it may be due to reasons othen than small income. <A> This depends on local tax-code. <S> In the US there is no such thing as "exempt business-owner". <S> VAT and income-tax are two different things. <S> Businesses do not pay sales tax, and therefore all businesses are tax-exempt, when it comes to VAT or sales-tax. <S> In the US sales-tax is only collected once, on the end user. <A> For example, a window cleaning business consisting of one man, one ladder, and one bucket, may be VAT exempt. <S> In practice more important is whether the business is VAT registered or not. <S> A VAT exempt business can choose to register for VAT or not (which has its advantages and disadvantages) , a non-exempt business has no choice but must register. <S> I have never seen a word for "not VAT registered". <S> Being exempt from paying taxes is something entirely different. <S> The threshold for not having to file your taxes is so low, you wouldn't call it a business. <S> Don't hold me to the number, but it's less than £2,000 revenue (not profit) a year.
| In the UK, "VAT exempt" is the term for a business that is so small that it doesn't have to register for VAT, currently that is the case if the business has an annual revenue of less than £82,000.
|
A single-word noun for a piece of cake which has no toppings on it? What is a one-word noun that represents "an empty thing"? I looked at synonyms of "empty" but they seem to be all adjectives. I need a noun. The intended usage is to describe a piece of cake which has no toppings on it. I could say "empty piece", but I am looking for a single-word noun. The closest words that I found so far are "hole" or "hollow", but they do not exactly match the intended meaning. <Q> You've edited the question to be specific to cake: A plain cake is a cake without any toppings. <S> A blank cake as suggested in the comments is one which is topped and ready for a message to be written on it. <S> In the UK, I've never heard 'blank' used for pieces of cake, only for whole cakes - if you were going to write on it, then you wouldn't already have cut it up. <S> If you really wanted to say 'here is a an iced piece of cake for you to write a message on', then you might say 'blank piece of cake'; for every other use it would be 'piece of plain cake' if not topped or 'piece of cake'. <A> It can be used both as an adjective and as a noun. <S> Could you elaborate more on the context in which you are looking to use the word? <A> vacuum noun <S> 1. <S> a space entirely devoid of matter. <S> synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity, vacancy; rarevoidness, nihility <S> "the experiment has to be conducted in a vacuum" <A> 'Null' is a common synonym for 'empty'. <S> In fact, in mathematics, these are both used to describe the set with no elements. <S> 'Null and void' <S> (Note: I got 'void' from Ankit's answer) <S> is actually a very common idiom, meaning: without legal force or effect; not valid. <S> Source: <S> Dictionary.com <S> e.g. <S> This contract is null and void. <S> Note however, that null and void are actually both synonyms of each other (and empty). <S> Apart from that, looking up the synonyms of 'void' will generate a lot of viable alternatives. <A> If you know what the "thing" is and it's a container, then empty X is the usual way to express it. <S> English doesn't have a general single word for empty container . <S> If you really don't know what X is, and you don't care, then say anything/something that's empty or <S> anything/something empty . <S> Spot refers to a place in a line, grid, or other physical arrangement. <S> If nothing is in such a place, you can use spot to refer to that empty place. <A> Cake <S> The word ' cake ' by itself does not connote the presence of frosting. <S> From Merriam-Webster: <S> cake : 1a : <S> a breadlike food made from a dough or batter that is usually fried or baked in small flat shapes and is often unleavened To your first question, shell or husk would be something that was empty, but is not useful in the example usage you asked for subsequently. <S> From Merriam-Webster: <S> shell : <S> 4c : a casing without substance mere effigies and shells of men — <S> Thomas Carlyle and husk : 2b : an emptied shell
| 'Void' seems to be my understanding of your word.
|
jots and tittles -- what does that actually mean? Source: C For Dummies, 2nd Edition Example: In addition to grammar, languages require rules, exceptions, jots and tittles , and all sorts of fun and havoc. Programming languages are similar to spoken language in that they have various parts and lots of rules. Looking up jot gives "not a jot or tittle = not a bit" and "the least part of something". Looking up tittle gives "superscript dot" and "The word tittle is rarely used." citing the Christian Bible. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean in the passage. What's the actual meaning? <Q> These are terms from orthography referring to the letter -i- and any small meaningful pen mark above a character or elsewhere on the line, respectively. <S> Figuratively they refer to minutiae or trivia. <A> The use of the meaning of jots and tittles is kind of the same as in the dictionary, but different. <S> As @TRomano has pointed out it can mean markings for typesetting, however C is notorious for using what the author in your excerpt is terming small symbols that have very significant meanings. <S> The same would be true for punctuation in writing. <S> Commas (','), periods ('.'), question marks ('?'), exclamation points ('!') <S> all convey different meanings. <S> Consider the differences between <S> Hello. <S> Hello! <S> Hello? <S> The so called "jots and tittles" referred to by the author of your passage <S> can be thought of as (a kind of) punctuation for the C language. <S> For example . <S> (period character) is used to reference part of a data structure something_struct .name <S> a = something_struct .name <S> ; however, if one only has a pointer to the structure and not the actual structure one would use a <S> = pointer_to <S> _ something_struct -> name; <S> (spaces added for clarity) To define a block { ... } (curly brackets/braces) if (my_condition) <S> { do something ; } else { otherwise do something else ; } other languages like Python implicitly use indentation instead. <S> For conditional compilation ( C is a compiled language ) <S> # (hash character) # include # ifdef <S> # ifndef <S> Each "line" of code ends with ; <S> (semicolon) <S> One of the intentions of the curtness of the syntax was to avoid keystrokes <S> and it's low-levelness <S> was a result of basically being a step up from assembly language (as low as you can go). <S> It also borrows concepts from Unix. <S> Most of the more "modern" languages are built on C (probably since C was there first): Python and Ruby are examples of this. <S> C is a great language, however, it is very low level and if you want an abstraction, you have to make it yourself(!) <S> It is therefore very pedantic, which might not be to everyone's taste. <S> With all due respect for the series of books, C is not for dummies, and the reference to jots and tittles is as appropriate or inappropriate as if it was used to refer to punctuation in grammar. <A> The phrase 'jot and tittles'/'jot or tittle' was introduced into English through a particular translation of the Bible in Matthew 5:18 <S> For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. . <A> Referring to printed lower-case "i" and "j", the jot is the body of the letter and the tittle is the dot above. <S> These are details, but more specifically they are details that require special consideration. <S> In the bad old days of writing in a cursive hand, jots and tittles required making a second pass over the written word -- details that are essential but easily omitted in haste. <S> On the one hand, the words "jot" and "iota" have both come to mean "the smallest discernible part" because they are the smallest letter bodies in their respective alphabets. <S> On the other, "jots and tittles" refer to the details that make something complete. <S> As a mention of the strokes and dots so employed, it is a reference to the necessity of crossing any t's and dotting any <S> i's. <S> In addition to grammar, languages require rules, exceptions, tiny bits that require separate attention, and all sorts of fun and havoc.
| As TRomano has already stated, the terms are related to small diacritical marks and together it means minor details . Jots and tittles are the things used to cross t's and dot i's.
|
SB and STH in dictionaries tell sb to do sth (Cambridge Learner's Dictionary) When I look in dictionaries, I often see the words sb and sth . Are these proper words? What do they mean? Can I use these words in my essays, for example? Can I use these words in my posts on Stack Exchange? <Q> sth is an abbreviation for something . <S> The sentence means tell somebody to do something . <S> In real life, any person and any thing can be included in the sentence, for example, tell [your student] to [complete their homework] . <S> A dictionary should explain this. <S> Can you use these words in your essays? <S> No. <S> They are not real English words. <S> Can you use these words in your posts on Stack Exchange? <S> Maybe. <S> Until you are very certain how to use them, use the words in full. <A> Dictionaries traditionally use a lot of abbreviations . <S> This is because, like everything else, they used to just be printed volumes, not online resources, and they were trying to cram as much information into a small a space as possible. <S> Thus, they developed abbreviations for parts of speech, like v. for verb, for characteristics of different words, like trans. <S> for transitive. <S> They also had abbreviations for placeholders that would be needed when describing different uses or senses of words, like sb for <S> somebody and sth for something , so you can give definitions related to specific usages like "to give sb five" for the now rather dated gesture of slapping palms with someone. <S> There was, as I mentioned, a good reason for dictionaries to use these. <S> Sure, use them yourself in your own notes for brevity - or because you don't want to write things out in full if abbreviations are good enough for you to understand your own notes; everyone should make notes however works best for them. <S> They are, I understand, used other than in dictionaries just as a way to save space and effort. <S> But if you're communicating with other people, people with whom you do not have a shared vocabulary of abbreviations that includes these, the risks of not being understood (and just seeming weird) are far greater than any possible benefit. <A> I do not have printed (paper) dictionaries, so I use the on-line versions of the dictionaries. <S> sb in the Cambridge Dictionary : <S> sb <S> = written abbreviation for somebody or someone <S> sth in the Cambridge Dictionary <S> sth <S> = written abbreviation for <S> something <S> Of course, several words / expressions can be abbreviated as sb or sth . <S> E.g.: <S> Sb = stibium (antimonium) <S> SB = <S> Sound Blaster <S> other uses for <S> sb <S> other uses of sth <S> I found all that with a simple Google search. <S> All information was on the first page of results. <S> I will not copy / paste all definitions from all dictionaries, as it is not the point. <S> Are these proper words? <S> Hell, no! :) <S> I already asked a specific question here . <S> Can I use these words in my essays, for example? <S> As far as I know, academic papers, like any formal communication, should use the minimum amount of abbreviation. <S> Of course, some "famous" abbreviations are allowed (etc., e.g., i.e., names of institutions...), but other than that, not really. <S> Can I use these words in my posts on Stack Exchange? <S> Stack Exchange is a (mostly) informal place of communication, so abbreviations are not forbidden. <S> However, their use can be ambiguous, and they should either be avoided, or disambiguated (defined). <S> Example: one question was about PC. <S> The first words that popped into my head when I saw that, were "Personal Computer". <S> However, OP meant "Politically Correct".
| There isn't a good reason to use them generally. They are abbreviations, of course (I hope). sb is an abbreviation for somebody .
|
What should I use, "in her stead" or "instead of her"? Which phrase should I use,"in her stead" or "instead of her"? I encounterted the both. Is there any difference in meaning? <Q> Instead of her" can refer to a single other person, or multiple other people. <S> "I'd rather spend a weekend with anybody, instead of her" or "I gave it to Lucy, instead of her. <S> " <S> "In her stead" has a different connotation, more legal. <S> For the definition of stead , Random House gives us: the place of a person or thing as occupied by a successor or substitute <S> While "instead" does loop back to this definition, because it's derived from the same sources, "a stead" is something that a person can have. <S> If you have proxy power for somebody, say as a shareholder in a company, you can "vote in her stead" while also casting your own vote. <S> You're not "voting instead of her", because you're voting, too. <S> It's inclusive - A happens, and B happens, just not by the person who is usually entitled to do B . <A> "In her stead" is very literary - I don't think anybody would use it in ordinary conversation, and not many people would use it in writing. " <S> Instead of her" is normal. <A> "In her stead" may imply you are acting in her behalf or with her consent. <S> It may imply the substitution is being done in a formal or official context. <S> "Instead of her" makes no such implications. <S> It means only that it's you, not her.
| "Instead of her" is the more common phrase , but it's also a matter of context. " In either use, it has an implied exclusion - something happens to B , but not A .
|
The significance of the preposition "From" in the given sentence, and the difference between the given sentences Where did you get that chipset/ (anything you want IT to be) from ? Where did you get that chipset/ (anything you want IT to be)? What's the difference in the two sentences?What's the significance of the preposition "From" in the first sentence? <Q> I will address this question putting aside the debate whether to end a sentence with a preposition or not. <S> It's an old debate, and pretty much everybody have a perception as to what is correct, and what is incorrect. <S> But this question has more to it than just the issue of ending a sentence with a preposition. <S> 1.(a) <S> Where did you get ABC from? <S> This is a perfect grammatical sentence. <S> Now the question might arise whether from is mandatory, especially when there is <S> a where in this sentence. <S> No, at least in this case. <S> It's not mandatory here. <S> Removing it doesn't change the meaning or acceptability at all. <S> So the sentence below is also a valid grammatical sentence - 1.(b) <S> Where did you get ABC? <S> Suppose the answer to both the questions is - a shop . <S> Now it depends on the speaker <S> how he/she will see the situation. <S> He might think that you got it in the shop or you might got it from the shop . <S> See, there is not much difference in meaning here - in the shop vs from the shop . <S> The difference is in perception. <S> So if you are with in the shop , you might prefer sentence #1.(b), and if you are with from the shop , you might prefer sentence #1.(a). <S> This note from American Heritage Dictionary is helpful - Now <S> , collecting the data from various CORPUS, it's evident that here the version without from is much more common. <A> They mean essentially the same thing. <S> There is a lot of debate over ending sentences with prepositions. <S> There are a lot of people who hate it, and a lot who don't care. <S> It's really common in my dialect (midwestern US), but less so in other places. <S> The "from" doesn't add any meaning, but to my ear it sounds more complete, just like to me "Where is the book? <S> " does not sound as good as "Where is the book at? <S> " even though they mean the same thing. <S> If ending sentences with prepositions isn't a habit you already have, however, I'd say continue to not do it, just because there are so many people who dislike it. <A> A lot of it relates to the (somewhat dated) grammatical rule that sentences shouldn't end with a preposition. <S> This is quickly becoming less of an issue, particularly in spoken English. <S> There are two classifications of ending prepositions... necessary ones and unnecessary ones. <S> If you omit a necessary ending preposition, the sentence doesn't make sense and if you attempt to incorporate it elsewhere in the sentence, it can sound a bit odd. <S> As an example: What did you step on. <S> * <S> What did you step. <S> (makes no sense) <S> On what did you step. <S> (acceptable but odd-sounding) <S> In the other case, you have unnecessary or extraneous prepositions. <S> These can (and to some grammarians should ) be omitted. <S> Where are you at? <S> (OK-ish but unnecessary) <S> Where are you? <S> (better) <S> So, in the case of your example, it's a matter of determining how necessary the preposition is to your sentence. <S> I would argue that it's extraneous and that makes it optional. <S> It's not as horrible as the example above, so I wouldn't strenuously recommend that you omit it <S> but it's definitely not required. <S> Including it does not significantly alter the interpretation of the sentence. <S> There's some additional information about this here . <A> There are different viewpoints about this question. <S> and they both inquire the location of purchase <S> and as a result don't have any serious differences. <S> However,for those who always try to split hairs and make petty distinctions,it does make a difference and the difference is as follows: <S> Where did you get it? <S> Omitting "from" from the question, does not change the question. <S> Where did you get it from? <S> Addition of "from" - should be to indicate "asking about a specified place".
| Some people think they are both correct and have a similar if not identical meaning
|
what is difference between weather and climate? Weather is the state of the atmosphere, to the degree that it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy ( Wikipedia ) Climate is the statistics (usually, mean or variability) of weather, usually over a 30-year interval. ( Wikipedia ) still I didn't find any difference? <Q> If I step outside and it rains on me, that's the weather . <S> If I expect frost and snow in winter, a lot of dry heat in summer and a certain distribution of rainfall over the average year, that's the climate . <S> The weather leads me to choosing between a t-shirt or a winter coat today, the local climate makes me buy a winter coat (living in Alaska) or not (living in southern India). <A> The weather is what's happening at a given moment (raining, snowing, hot and sunny, etc.) <S> The climate refers to the average or expected weather -- a hot, dry climate; a rainy climate, etc. <S> The climate tells you what the weather will typically be like in a particular season. <A> Meteorologically, commonly used words with either weather and climate are the current weather the general climate <S> The weather is something that happens now, climate is the general trends in the weather. <S> Global warming creates climate change which will effect the weather . <S> An exception to this <S> The climate in the office was tense today. <S> meaning the people or situation in the office was tense. <A> Weather is on a day to day basis, like sunny, raining, snowing, cold or warm. <S> Climate is the typical weather over a long period of time, usually many years.
| In short, the combination of temperature, wind, precipitation, ... at one point in time , e.g. right now , that's the weather, climate is the average statistical distribution of these over a year.
|
Not a bit of free time! My intention is to say that "I have no free time in the present project". But I always say "I am totally packed in the present project". Not sure packed is correct word. Could you guys please tell me what all the other ways I could say I am full busy, in the above scenario. <Q> You could use idioms for this. <S> I'll give you a few suggestions you could use to give the listener an impression that you are extremely busy and cannot spare a second. <S> "I'm slammed with work now. <S> " <S> "I'm upto my ears with tasks to complete." <S> “I’m feeling a little overwhelmed at present." <S> "I'm sweating blood to finish this project on time." <S> Also, you could use an element of humor to convey that you are busy, thereby keeping things pleasant with a mild comedy, say for example, "I'm running around like Santa on Christmas eve." <S> You could really mix things up and use metaphors that depicts an action or activity that involves being very busy also. <A> If you want to say that you are busy working on the project, you can say ' I am too engrossed in the current project '. <S> If you mean to say that you are busy on some other work and do not have time to work on the project, you can say ' I am too busy for this project '. <A> I am working flat-out on the current project or <A> The phrases you are using to describe being busy do not sound correct to me. <S> Let me suggest some alternatives. <S> I have no free time in the present project -> <S> I have no free time to work on this project <S> I am totally packed in the present project - <S> > <S> I am totally slammed by this project right now <S> I am full busy -> <S> I am very busy or I am completely busy <S> I am not familiar with the term flat out . <S> Personally I would say all out .
| I am very busy on the current project There are other words you can use to describe how busy you are, like 'occupied', 'engaged', etc. You could use flat-out :
|
What's the key to/for success? What's the key to success? What's the key for success? Which one of the 2 sentences above is correct, and why? <Q> Which one of the 2 sentences above is correct, and why? <S> Both are correct. <S> How? <S> I would try to explain with a brief example for both: <S> What's the key for success? <S> This specifies success as a door. <S> So, this question/statement asks for a key to that door. <S> What's the key to success? <S> This specifies success as something on the other side of the door. <S> So, this asks for a key of that door to get to the other side, which is success . <S> So, both makes equal sense. <S> However, the latter one: <S> What's the key to success? <S> is used more often. <A> The first one is correct and what you are looking to say. <S> What's the key to success? <S> Meaning what is the one thing that is crucial to success. <S> This is what you should use. <S> However... <S> What's the key for success? <S> While is sort of scans <S> it's poor English. <S> A more commonly used phrase would be to say What's the recipe for success? . <S> Which has a different meaning because it implies there's more than one thing needed for success. <A> According to Ngram "the key to success" is preferred, "the key for success" is hardly used. <S> Link
| I would say "the key to success" is analogue to "the key to the door".
|
Using 'directly' in a sense 'just a moment' or 'right away' Short version of my question: Can we use a word 'directly' when want to say 'just a moment' or 'I'll be ready right away'? And, if yes, do native speakers often do it? Long version: I've been reading Resurrection, a novel by Leo Tolstoy, and encountered an unfamiliar to me use of a word 'directly'. There's an episode when a protagonist guides an englishman to Russian prison. When the protagonist stops to talk to a prisoner and takes too long, the englishman asks 'Are you ready?'. The protagonist answers 'Directly', which is translated into russian by the author in brackets like 'just a moment'. I never encountered this usage of the word 'directly'. May it be some kind of old English since the novel is written in 19th century? It could be lack of knowledge of English language by the author but Leo Tolstoy was known to be a good English speaker. Anyway, the phrase is too simple to make a mistake in it unintentionally. Same thing about the character - it is told that he knows English well: The fact of his speaking English, French, and German with a good accent, and of his wearing the best linen, clothes, ties, and studs, bought from the most expensive dealers in these goods, he quite knew would not serve as a reason for claiming superiority. Here's the quote from the novel in Russian: Какая вы хорошая женщина! - сказал он. Я-то хорошая? - сказала она сквозь слезы, и жалостная улыбка осветила ее лицо. Are you ready? [Вы готовы? (англ., перевод Л. Н. Толстого)] - спросил между тем англичанин. Directly, [Сейчас (англ., перевод Л. Н. Толстого)] - ответил Нехлюдов и спросил ее о Крыльцове. Она оправилась от волнения и спокойно рассказала, что знала: Крыльцов очень ослабел дорогой <...> And here's the quote from the translation by Louise Maude: “What a good woman you are,” he said. “I good?” she said through her tears, and a pathetic smile lit up her face. “Are you ready?” the Englishman asked. “Directly,” replied Nekhludoff and asked her about Kryltzoff. She got over her emotion and quietly told him all she knew. Kryltzoff was very weak and <...> <Q> Two dictionaries suggest that you indeed can use "directly" in such sense. <S> Use 3 in this one. <S> Use 2. <S> b in this one EDIT: To respond to your additional question that you added: I don't often notice people using directly with that meaning, in fact I've just found out that is a possible way to use it. <S> So, I would guess that it's not very often used by native speakers, though I don't really know an efficient way to check that. <A> It sounds old-fashioned or British. <S> Not sure what modern British usage might be. <A> The American English speakers I know don't use directly , they use words that do not have ambiguity, such as right away and shortly . <S> I see nine uses of directly in the Project Gutenberg e-text of the novel , and it is not immediately obvious to tell which meaning is intended in each case. <S> Probably immediately since this is Tolstoy's usage here. <S> (A more American-friendly translator might use different words.) <S> But it might be interesting for you to find out the Russian word used for these occasions for which Tolstoy does not use an English word. <S> The use of directly on the Monopoly game card Go directly to jail. <S> Do not pass go... <S> can mean Go in "a direct line, way, or manner; <S> straight" (across the board) to jail. <S> Do not pass GO. <S> But this linear usage of directly is also not that common among American English speakers when the word is used by itself as a direction. <S> Once a speaker of South African English was in a car with me and was telling me whether to go straight, left or right, and he kept saying "directly" and I had no idea what he meant. <S> I didn't know whether he meant go <S> straight or go [directly] right or [directly] left . <S> We Yanks finally figured out he meant straight . <S> We do say Directly across the street . <S> Another word that causes problems is presently , which can mean soon, shortly , or (in Shakespeare) immediately . <S> So many Americans who read Shakespeare have a wrong notion of that word. <S> So, in sum, in my experience, both directly <S> and presently are BrE words that still have some ambiguity for me. <S> There's a park directly across the street from our house.
| Like I said, we Americans do use directly in phrases to mean straight , as in As a native American English speaker, I never use "directly" that way and never hear anyone else use it like that in real life.
|
Instruction while drinking milk - Don't spill the milk; what about solid food? I instruct my daughter when she's drinking milk Take care; don't spill it. How do we do the same for food i.e. solid food? Take care; don't _______ it. To my mind comes the only option - drop . But I also feel that 'dropping' suits more when the bowl is broken. Say - She dropped the bowl and broke it. The problem further grows when we have 'specific' food For french fries... Take care; don't _____ the fries For steak... Take care; don't _____ the steak For popcorn... Take care; don't _____ popcorn For burger... Take care; don't _____ burger (I mean some pieces or inner content of it...maybe, some onion or sauce or anything that is 'inside' it). Do we have different words for different 'shapes' of food? Say little pieces (popcorn), steak (one large piece), fries (long pieces)...and so on? I'd like to have more options, if any. spill is also used for solid food. For instance, spill the beans. But I feel it's especially for liquid. The beauty is in my mother tongue, we have a common term used for everything! <Q> "Spill" is not limited to liquids. <S> It's quite common to say, for example, "The peanuts spilled out of the bowl". <S> A fluent speaker would readily say both "The milk spilled out of the glass" and "the corn spilled off [or "from"] my plate". <S> But I think he'd be unlikely to say, "The steak spilled off my plate. <S> " <S> He'd be more likely to say, "The steak slid off ..." or "... fell off ...". <S> For a plate we'd say "off", like "The steak slid off my plate." <S> For a bowl it's generally "out of", like "butter fell out of the bowl". <S> But you'd rarely have a single large item in a bowl. <S> If you make it generic, like "When the airplane hit turbulence, the food spilled from my plate", I think it's perfectly good. <S> You might say, "I dropped my plate", but you wouldn't be likely to say, "I dropped my steak" if what happened was that you tilted the plate and the steak slid off. <S> "Dropped" is appropriate for food held in the hand without a plate or bowl, like, "I dropped my ice cream cone". <A> "Spill" is also used for solid foods. <S> In some circumstances, "drop" seems to be a better choice. <S> For example: Oops! <S> I dropped my hamburger. <S> Dude, why are you so clumsy? <S> You spilled all your food on my notebook. <S> From Cambridge Dictionary Spill: <S> to (cause to) flow, move, fall, or spread over the edge or outside the limits of something <S> : I spilled coffee on my silk shirt. <S> You've spilled something down your tie. <S> Let's see <S> if I can pour the juice into the glass without spilling it. <S> He dropped a bag of sugar <S> and it spilled all over the floor. <S> Crowds of fans spilled onto the field at the end of the game. <S> From thefreedictionary : To cause or allow (a substance) to run or fall out of a container. <S> You can also say: Be careful, don't spill your food. <S> EDIT: <S> Spill is more like an after-effect. <S> When you drop something from your hand or accidentally tumble a sitting container and the contents pour out of the container or from your hand. <S> Suppose you are holding a basket full of popcorn. <S> Now you drop it and what happens? <S> The content, popcorn or the kernels, flows from the basket and are spilled across the floor. <S> Mess is made when you spill something. <S> Take care <S> ; don't spill/drop the fries. <S> Take care; don't drop/spill the popcorn <S> Take care; don't drop the burger (burger is burger, it includes all the contents: patty, buns, sauce, tomato, onion, cheese, etc..) <S> Take care; don't let the burger fall apart.(I <S> mean some pieces or inner content of it... <S> maybe, some onion or sauce or anything that is 'inside' it). <S> From Telegraph <S> : <S> ... <S> how to eat a burger without spilling the contents all over the table or down themselves. <S> I don't think any answer here would give a definite answer. <S> But "drop" and "spill" are the most common verbs to define what you are looking for. <S> Like I said in my comment: <S> the beauty of the English language is that you are not restricted to use only one word or one type of sentence to form your sentences. <S> Link to check: Drop and Spill <A> Don't spill your milk. <S> There is probably more emphasis on milk than other liquids due to the old saying <S> There's no use crying over spilt milk. <S> As for food (solids), children are sometimes admonished with (in the same vain as spilt milk) <S> Eat nicely and don't make a mess! <S> Keep the food on the plate! <S> Don't play with your food! <S> ( for children at a certain stage ) <S> If your food drops on the floor, the dog will eat it and you won't have any.
| Don't throw your food! Maybe, possibly, "spill" is thought of more for liquids or collections of small items. Drop is when you are holding something in your hand and lose the grip, intentionally or unintentionally, and make the container or the contents to fall on the ground.
|
Meaning and usage of the phrase "in the first place " What is the meaning of the phrase "in the first place" and how to use it in a sentence. I have heard this phrase couple of times in the debates on the news channels and also in some other programs. I tried to find out the meaning of this phrase on the Internet but Internet was not of much help so I want a deep explanation on the meaning of this phrase and also on the usage of this phrase. <Q> In most contexts, in the first place [assertion A ] is a somewhat metaphoric usage where first doesn't really have anything to do with the temporal sense of A being in some way earliest in time . <S> But assertion A is the most important one (and/or the one from which further supporting assertions logically follow, and the speaker intends to go on and make those further assertions). <S> In short, it's sense 2 in oxforddictionaries : <S> first - Foremost in position, rank, or importance. <S> USAGE NOTE: <S> The metaphorical usage referred to above <S> almost always occurs before the relevant assertion. <S> Consider... <S> 1 <S> : <S> In the first place John was there. <S> (The fact that John was there is central to the points I'm about to make.) <S> 2: <S> John was there in the first place. <S> (John was already there before whatever happened next that I'm going to tell you about.) <S> It's also worth noting that usage #1 generally occurs in contexts where the speaker is refuting, or disagreeing with <S> someone else's prior assertion <S> (you wouldn't be so likely to use it as the opening line to start a conversation or make a point). <A> The definition from dictionary.com : From the beginning, at the outset, before anything else. <S> For example, Why didn't you tell me in the first place that you've decided to leave? <S> or He could have bought a new one in the first place. <S> As the first of several items in order of importance. <S> This phrase is usually accompanied by in the second place , third place , and so on, as in I'm not joining the health club because, in the first place, I don't like their hours, and in the second place, I can't afford the dues. <S> [ First half of 1600s ] <S> It is often used in debates if you have several things you are about to cover. <S> For example: A: Mr. B has repeatedly beaten his wife with a poker. <S> B: <S> In the first place, I don't have a wife. <S> In the second place my poker hasn't left the hearth in 30 years. <A> In the first/second place : used to separate and emphasize reasons or opinions: <S> I don't want to go yet <S> - in the first place I'm not ready, and in the second place it's raining. <S> Cambridge Dictionaries Online <S> "In the first place" basically means "as the first point of consideration" and is often used when chastising someone for not following advice: <S> We wouldn't have gotten so soaked if you'd thought to buy an umbrella in the first place! <S> The implication here is that at some point the person being chastised had an opportunity to buy an umbrella, but declined to do so.
| It's usually used in contexts where there are several relevant factors that might be mentioned by the speaker.
|
What is the difference between "find out" and "discover"? I do not know how to use the expression find out , I had read that I need to use instead discover , but it does not mean always. For example, what is the best example? I found out that she is single or I discovered that she is single <Q> In your example, you can use either. <S> I would say find out is a bit less formal. <S> There is a difference in meaning though, and in some cases the words are not interchangeable. <S> For example: I found out that I'm pregnant. <S> Did you find out whether it's going to rain tomorrow? <S> I discovered a $20 bill under a rock. <S> I discovered confidence in myself that I never thought I had. <S> There is a slightly different usage in to be found out , an idiomatic expression meaning to be exposed or caught . <A> Find derives from proto-Germanic languages, and its original form was finthan , which means "to come upon, discover". <S> Find out is an expression that came from Middle English outfinden which means "to discover by scrutiny" (discover by deep analysis). <S> ( source ) <S> Discover is a word derived from Latin dis - "opposite of" + cooperire "to cover up". <S> Once it had a sense of betrayal or malicious exposure, but nowadays, since the 1550s, it means "to obtain knowledge or sight of what was not known". <S> ( source ) <A> Find out implies what you were looking for already is known or exists. <S> Discover implies finding something new. <S> You can find out about things that have been already discovered . <S> Once you discover something , you can find out more about it through research.
| You can only find out a fact, but you can discover anything that can be perceived. Both words/expressions are equivalent in meaning, but in a casual speech, it's much more likely to hear find out than discover , since the latter has Latin origins, which can be classified as "fancy word", used mainly in Courts of Justice or in formal conversations with authorities.
|
What is the difference among "shriek", "scream", and "shrill" as a verb? I wonder what is the difference between the three similar words which seems to me expressing the same meaning: shriek , scream , and shrill . How can I tell them apart? I want to express the unpleasant high-pitch cry issued by a child. UPDATE Sorry for the confusion but one, I meant the usage in verb. And two, I want to express what the child in this video does in around 27 seconds or later. The video uses scream , but I only talk about what he does in 27 seconds or later and NOT talk about his shout which occurred before the point of 27 seconds, which I think is classified to scream . <Q> A scream is always loud and may or may not be sudden. <S> They screamed in terror. <S> A shriek is always loud, high in pitch, and is usually sudden. <S> She shrieked in horror. <S> Shrill is high in pitch. <S> She had a high, shrill sounding voice. <S> Women's voices, not men's, are more usually characterised using shrill or shriek . <S> Both men and women scream . <S> shriek = <S> scream + shrill <A> "Shriek" usually refers to a high-pitched sound. <S> A "scream" is just a loud piercing cry. <S> "Shrill" is an adjective that can describe "shriek" or "scream". <S> It usually indicates a high-pitched, piercing sound. <S> The type of sound you want for the child would depend on the circumstances. <S> Babies and children often "wail" or "cry" when upset. <S> If they are scared or surprised, they will "shriek" or "squeal." <S> Does that help? <A> Firstly, shrill is an adjective, whereas the others are verbs, which means that a shriek or a scream can be shrill. <S> Whereas, shriek and scream are very similar to each other. <S> So, one difference between them would be: shriek can be used for things and mechanisms too. <S> Like: <S> The car breaks shrieked to a halt as the congressman pulled over . <S> However, scream is used for living beings, mostly for a high pitch sound. <S> On a simple google search, I got this answer which complements mine: <S> Scream is used to describe loud cry of a person as a rule. <S> She screamed with a horror when saw what she did. <S> Screech is likely to relate to any mechanisms. <S> The car' brakes screeched terribly from huge strain but that saved driver's life. <S> I guess shriek is similar to word scream and could be used either person or any tools and apparatuses. <S> The shriek of a cargo ship reminds us with which aim we're waiting for him. <A> A shriek is a sharp, high-pitched and loud sound coming from the mouth. <S> A stereotypical example is an "eek!" <S> sound coming from someone who is scared or startled. <S> Shrieks are short sounds. <S> Screams on the other hand are not automatically high-pitched and may last a second or two - typically longer than a shriek . <S> Someone might scream for help but wouldn't shriek for help. <S> Shrill is usually an adjective that means something high-pitched and loud. <S> It's not typically used as a noun, but can be used to describe a scream, e.g. "a shrill scream."
| If a scream is high in pitch it turns into a shriek .
|
Using "native" as a noun to refer to native speakers Is using "native" as a noun to refer to native speakers of a language (as opposed to people native to an area ) incorrect, potentially offensive, or both? For example: It's ok to start speaking in [Hindi/Maori/Mongolian/English/Japanese] with the natives from day one. <Q> I don't recommend you speak this way. <S> I can't say it's "incorrect", but it's certainly a poor choice. <S> There are, for example, native speakers of Japanese who were born outside Japan, and thus are not "Japanese natives" by the usual definition of the word native . <S> If you say you're a "Japanese native", are you talking about the place you're from or the language you speak? <S> It's unclear. <S> Worse, if someone interprets it as referring to nationality, ethnicity, or heritage, it's possible they may take offense. <S> This depends on the person, the social context, and how they expect to be addressed. <S> I don't think it's likely to be offensive in most contexts to most speakers, but it does have that potential, and that's another reason to avoid it. <S> I recommend always using the phrase native speaker , and if you want to specify what language, writing out native speaker of English . <S> This avoids any possible ambiguity or offense. <A> I'd agree with the other answers that using native isn't the best choice. <S> But how about locals ? <S> It's ok to start speaking English with the locals from day one. <S> Locals just means the people that live there, they could originally be from anywhere. <A> The basic definition of native that applies here would be: 3) related to one as, or in connection with, the place of one's birth or origin" ⇒ one's native land, one's native language " <S> So as I was born in America, I could say I am a "native American". <S> As for language, for example my parents were German immigrants, but being in America only speaking English in our house was allowed. <S> As children, even when all the relatives got together for some holiday, us kids had to sit at the kids table, so the adults could discuss stuff away from us (in German). <S> So I am a "native speaker of the English language". <S> My parents would be "native speakers of the German language". <S> It does not address where we are. <S> As for your example: It's ok to start speaking in [Hindi/Maori/Mongolian/English/Japanese] with the natives from day one. <S> Here native means persons born in the country you are referring to (you could substitute local people for natives without changing the meaning). <S> Unless you are on an Pacific Island where nobody ever arrives or leaves, native location and language may not be the same. <S> Also the word natives (used by itself) has been used a lot (especially by Hollywood) to describe primitive peoples in a fictional setting (such as a jungle), who are usually cast as inferior to the (usually white) educated protagonists. <A> I think it's generally OK to speak of "a native of ", however the phrase "the natives" can sometimes carry overtones of colonialism and looking down on native populations. <S> Because phrases like "the natives are restless" remain in common (although jocose) usage, these overtones are somewhat closer to hand than they might otherwise be. <S> The same thing works in the opposite direction. <S> "Native speaker" is very much part of modern English, and if you're talking about "speaking like a native" this will be the context that's closest to hand. <S> Sometimes the fact that you're using a word correctly won't be a defence against someone taking offence. <S> For example, many people will take offence if you use 'aborigine' to describe someone whose people lived somewhere "from the beginning". <S> It's perfectly correct, but it carries baggage. <S> In the case of 'native', the defence of being correct is even thinner. <S> A colonist who was born in the colony wouldn't usually be described as a native, so it ends up being a proxy for the local race. <S> So use 'native' when appropriate, but be careful. <A> Natives means two things - person born in a particular place or country and someone having mother tongue of some language (precisely, the native speakers ). <S> So, it is all about... <S> Context! <S> If you mention 'speaking' and <S> some 'languages' followed by the word 'native', it is understood that you are talking about 'native speakers' of that language. <S> Compare: <S> Though she's French, she speaks English like natives <S> But mentioning no language to speak gives us an idea of talking about 'native to a specific area. <S> She was amazed by the art of the natives
| It is possible some people might be offended. Calling someone "a native" can be interpreted as conflating the place you were born with the language you spoke from birth.
|
What is the difference between "to cook something" and "to make something"? When do you use "cook" and when do you use "make" while you are talking about preparing food? In other words: Which (type of) food are cooked which (type of) food are made? According to dictionary : Cook means: To prepare (food) for eating by applying heat . Make means: to produce something, often using a particular substance or material. So I can see that the main element in cooking is using the "heat", but there are some food that can be "made" using "heat" (in the oven or on the stove) and I have problem in using the correct verb while I'm talking about preparing such food. For example; shall I say "to cook a cake" or " to make a cake"? "to cook a pizza" or "to make a pizza"? "to cook omelette" or " to make omelette"? "to cook stew" or "to make stew"? "to cook steak" or "to make steak"? Are there any general rules for using these two verbs? <Q> " Cook " focuses more narrowly on the act of applying heat and the transformation that the food undergoes because of the heat. <S> Commenters on the question have properly noted that the more specific " bake " should be used instead of "cook" when the heat is applied in an oven (especially when the transformation is more than just increasing the temperature of the food). <S> For example, you "make" a salad <S> but you don't "cook" a salad, because there's no heat (usually). <S> You might cook chicken as part of making a salad. <S> You "bake" a cake by putting it in the oven, and it is implied by context that you took other steps as well (such as mixing the ingredients, greasing the pan, frosting it, etc.) <S> but if you "make" a cake those other steps are more explicitly stated and more emphasized. <S> In your examples, I would tend to use "make" more often unless "cooking" was about the only step in food preparation (e.g. "cook a steak" for some preparations). <S> I would also use "cook" or "bake" if the heat component was the focus of my narrative (e.g. "I went to cook the pasta and discovered that my stove didn't work" or "I feel hot and tired because I've been baking bread all day"). <S> One also hears people talking about how "accurately measuring ingredients tends to be more important in baking than in general cooking ," because the ratios of one ingredient to another are important for the chemical reactions that take place while baking. <S> If you use "cook/bake" interchangeably with "make" when referring to food preparation with heat, or if you always use "make" for food preparation, the meaning will be quite clear*, and you don't need to worry about using the wrong one. <S> The StackExchange Q&A site for chefs is even " cooking.stackexchange.com ." <S> However, if you want to understand the subtle distinction a bit more, I hope the answer above has helped. <S> (*) <S> with very few exceptions, such as if you're a known sushi lover talking about "making fish for dinner" with an intended meal partner who strongly prefers that the fish be cooked; this is someone who might seek clarification. <A> To supplement WBT's answer, I would also say that there are dialectal differences. <S> My fiancée is American and I am Irish. <S> I would say “I am going to cook an egg” (or, more likely, something more specific like “boil”, “fry” or “scramble”) <S> whereas she tends to say “I am going to make eggs”, which sounds to me like she is going to squat down on the kitchen floor and lay an egg like a hen <S> (I sometimes make clucking sounds when she says this :). <S> To me “make”, as it relates to food, involves some kind of assembly of ingredients, whereas to her it really doesn't. <A> I think the problem with your examples is that "cook" and "make" are both very general-purpose words. <S> Usually it is more idiomatic to use a more specific verb. <S> You don't "cook a potato", you boil, bake, fry, or roast it (and the four different methods of cooking it produce very different results). <S> Similarly you don't "cook a steak", you fry, grill, or braise it. <S> You can use "cook" or "make" in situations where you would typically be using several different methods to prepare the food, and the details are not significant or interesting. <S> For example you can "cook dinner", "make dinner," or "make a salad". <S> You could also you the generic verb "prepare", which seems to be appropriate for every possible method of turning a collection of ingredients into "food". <A> If 'cook' is making food using 'heat/fire', then 'making' in the reference of making food is when you don't use heat/fire. <S> She's cooking rice (fire/heat needed) <S> But... <S> She's making a vegetable sandwich for me (no fire/heat needed). <S> So, in your all examples, if heat/fire needed, use 'cook' or else 'make' should go fine , I think! <S> Note that it is not a strict rule. <S> She makes delicious dishes Best oil for making french fries is okay! <S> With these examples, I conclude that when 'heat/fire' is used, both the terms 'cook' and 'make' would go unnoticed. <S> But when you don't require heat/fire, 'make' seems to be better choice. <S> Check - <S> I'm cooking <S> a sandwich - does not sound right unless it is a grill sandwich or something else for what you require heat. <S> That's the reason, 'cooking' <S> is not possible when it comes to 'juices/shakes'. <S> She's cooking making an orange juice. <A> I was just talking to a Japanese teacher of English about this. <S> You can use "make" generally. <S> Ex: I'm going to make a sandwich. <S> I'm going to make curry and rice. <S> I'm going to make an omelet. <S> I'm going to make some chicken tonight. <S> However, with this sentence, you'd have to specify how are you going to prepare it;e.g. <S> , bake, fry, broil... <S> I'm going to make steaks tonight. <S> Again, with this sentence, you'd specify how are you going to make the steaks. <S> Then again. <S> It's a regional thing! <S> Me, being from New York City, I rarely heard anyone say cook a sandwich when talking about making a grilled cheese sandwich. <S> You don't cook grilled cheese sandwiches. <S> You make them over a flame.
| " Make " is more general and covers other aspects of food preparation that do not necessarily involve the application of heat.
|
" get dressed" and "put on clothes" I'm wondering if there's any difference between "get dressed" and "put on clothes". For example, I'm getting dressed right now. I'm putting on my clothes right now. Which one is better?Are they used in different situations? Also, when I use "get dressed", How can I say what I'm getting dressed?Is it " I'm getting dressed in a shirt." or "I'm getting dressed a shirt" or something else? <Q> I'm getting dressed right now. <S> You would say this when you are putting on or changing clothes. <S> It describes the whole activity, not what is happening with the specific clothing items. <S> Since I just said it, these mean the same thing: <S> I'm putting on my clothes right now. <S> I'm changing my clothes right now. <S> As for mentioning specific clothing items, you wouldn't use getting dressed <S> but the last two are OK. <S> I'm putting on my shirt. <S> I'm changing my shirt. <A> There's no difference. <S> get dressed <S> means putting on the clothes . <S> Say - I get dressed after taking a shower When you are talking about an individual clothe, you use put on... i.e. start wearing something <S> I'm putting on my pants. <S> The answer ends here. <S> A common mistake is using get dressed and dress up ! <S> The latter means put on a costume or some special clothing for some occasion. <S> Say - Yay! <S> I dressed up for the party! <A> There is a slight difference in usage, especially if you compare "putting on clothes", "putting on my clothes", and "getting dressed". <S> "Putting on clothes" is what you do if all you want is not to be naked. <S> "Getting dressed" is what you do if you want to wear clothes and meet some standard doing so. <S> For example, I would put on clothes at 6am in the morning to feed the dog. <S> My wife would put on her clothes - I don't care what I look like feeding the dog, my wife does. <S> Neither of us would get dressed to feed the dog, but we would get dressed to go to work. <S> Except if you are a builder or a painter and decorator; for that kind of job you don't get dressed but put on your work clothes.
| "Putting on my clothes" indicates at least some minimum care about the actual clothes.
|
English word for "repetitive, boring work"? Is there an English word for "work which is repetitive (and often boring), but which must be done"? <Q> Drudgery is routine or dull work like domestic drudgery . <S> Donkey work is an informal (British) synonym. <S> " <S> The donkey work had been done - the intricate brushing away of thousands of years of dust and soil was a task undertaken by the steady handed experts." <A> There are several possibilities, depending on the occasion and nuance. <S> Here is its definition in Macmillan Dictionary: <S> chore an ordinary job that must be done regularly <S> You can go play after you’ve done your chores. <S> The word is generally used for household chores , but it does get used in a variety of contexts – like in this news story about a retiring judge: <S> At first, the job was a chore, but as he saw how his work could help people caught in terrible situations, it became a mission . <S> The word chore is also ideal for describing "repetitive" tasks. <S> Chores are by nature things that need to be done on a regular basis, whether it's referring to chores on the farm, or chores around the house. <A> To emphasise that the work is boring and without reward, consider one of: Grunt work: <S> work that is menial and thankless. <S> During the summer, I earned money doing grunt work. <S> I did all of the grunt work on the project, but my boss got all of the credit. <S> The Free Dictionary Grind: to do tedious, laborious, and sometimes menial work. <S> The Free Dictionary <S> The latter has some nice idioms: back to the grind (going back to work after a break or vacation), daily grind (a tedious daily routine/job), <S> grind away [at a job] (e.g. "he had to grind away for years at redecorating the old mansion"). <S> You sometimes also see grind work and on your grind . <S> If you want to emphasise the ongoing physical difficulty of the work, and the exhaustion it can cause, toil (which can be used both as noun and verb) would be a good choice. <S> The fact the work is mundane is often implied, but it isn't so explicit. <S> Toil: hard and continuous work; exhausting labor or effort. <S> Dictionary.com <S> To emphasise that the work is continuous and unrelenting, consider working like a dog or (a common metaphor) <S> being on the treadmill (which particularly hints at how one feels little sense of progress or having "got anywhere"). <S> Work like a dog <S> (UK also work like a Trojan ): to work very hard. <S> You can work like a dog and still not make ends meet. <S> Cambridge <S> Online <S> Treadmill : a monotonous routine or set of tasks. <S> The Free Dictionary
| My favorite basic one for a thing that is "a) repetitive, b) relatively boring, and c) has to be done" is chore .
|
What does "by" mean if we are talking about a date? ... Must be uploaded by 11:59 p.m. (GMT) on April 12, 2016. What does "by" mean in this context? Does that mean "before"? So the deadline is on April 12 at 11.59 p.m. GMT? And 11:59 p.m. = 23:59 (24h), right? <Q> For example, if you say "have it on my desk by Friday", some English speakers will interpret that as including Friday, and some (like me) will not. <S> That's one reason why people often try to make it more specific, as they have done here, so that the ambiguity is not as important. <S> Judging by the very specific time, I'd interpret this as an attempt to make clear that the data must be uploaded before <S> April 13 2016 starts. <S> 11:59pm <S> is 23:59 on a 24 hour clock. <A> Personally, when I hear or read 'by' used in a similar context (in the question), my interpretation is that the person who delivered the message means: <S> "Do this, because by that specified time, I am expecting that it is done." <S> (Of course the person won't tell you whether or not that task would be checked by that time) <S> In this case, uploading, make it sure that if there's a lag in the system, the file must be 'visible' and 'accessible' when the person checks it during the specified time. <S> Regarding your interpretation on 11:59 PM - it is correct. <S> The deadline is on April 12, at 23:59:XX. <A> 'By' means any time <S> but before the specified time. <S> So, if the deadline is April 12 11:59 pm (i.e. 2349 hr), 'by' would be any time before it. <S> If you upload it exactly at 2349 hr, it'll be 'at' . <S> must be uploaded at 11:59 p.m. (GMT) on April 12, 2016. <S> This means at dot 11:59 pm.
| Even to native English speakers, "by" is ambiguously either inclusive, or not inclusive of the date/time being mentioned.
|
"Of" being used instead of "have" Recently I've seen many people on Twitter use "of" instead of "have".Eg. Ben Stokes tweeted after the world cup final, " So proud to of represented my country in a world cup final" I don't want to generalise, but I think I've seen this used by primarily British people. Is it slang or are my basics weak? <Q> It is wrong to use "of" there. <S> It is used because it's hard to <S> say "have" there without spluttering over our words. <S> Therefore, we tend to pronounce it just like "of" and then start writing it as "of". <S> Further reading: Would have vs. <S> Would of | e Learn English language <S> Have and of - Commonly Confused Words <A> The contraction of "could have" is "could've" and sounds very much like "could of". <S> I suppose over time "have" got replaced by "of" since it seems to require less physical effort to pronounce. <A> I don't want to generalise, but I think I've seen this used by primarily British people. <S> Is it slang or are my basics weak? <S> People started shortening have to 'ave , then finally to of , so that they can get rid of those extra two letters .
| It is simply internet slang, and a scramble for words to fit into the 140 limit.
|
When and why do we use the word "both" in the phrase "to make (both) ends meet" When and why do we use the word "both" in the phrase "to make ends meet" and is this phrase(to make ends meet) common in spoken English <Q> Two key facts: <S> The version with both is still sometimes used in Indian English. <S> We can confirm this by searching the Corpus of Global Web-based English (GloWbE) : US GB IN make ends meet 1.88 <S> 1.74 <S> 1.06 <S> make both ends meet 0.02 0.02 <S> 0.25 <S> US = <S> United States <S> GB = <S> Great Britain <S> IN = <S> India <S> For these searches, I set GloWbE to "per mil". <S> That means the numbers above are how often each phrase occurs per million words. <S> If you use GloWbE for this kind of search, I suggest you pick the same setting. <S> As you can see, make ends meet is overwhelmingly more common in American and British English today. <S> The numbers also tell us that the version with both is used significantly more often in Indian English today than in American or British English. <S> There's no difference in meaning between the two versions of this phrase, and you can feel free to use this phrase in spoken English. <A> As far as I know, it means to have enough money to reach the end of the month! <S> Thus the first and the last day of the month meet happily, saving us some worry about what to eat ... <A> The full expression is "to make both ends meet", but the shortened form "to make ends meet" is used as well. <S> There is no difference. <S> You get your salary at the end of a month. <S> If you have already spent all your money some days before the end of the next month you have a problem und <S> you didn't manage to make both ends meet.
| Most American and British speakers today say make ends meet without both . If you still have some money left shortly before the end of the next month you make both ends meet.
|
The usage of the word over Can we use the word over ( I think as adjective) to mean that something, which can be refilled or re-bought, is finished or depleted. For example: 1.This battery/power unit is over. We need to plug it in. 2.The cherry juice in the bottle is over. 3.The water in the tank is almost over. We need to refill it. 4.The gas in the car is over. We need to buy gas. <Q> "empty" is the word you would use here. <S> Our work is over. <S> So for quantity, use empty. <S> For time, use over. <A> We can use the preposition out in a different construction, to indicate that something we often replenish has finished. <S> In this construction we we say: <S> X is out of Y. <S> In this construction, X is either the owner or the container: <S> We're almost out of cherry juice. <S> We're almost out of water. <S> The tank is out of water. <S> We're out of gas. <S> The car's out of gas. <S> The battery is out/dead. <S> If you want to use an adjective instead of a preposition, you could use the word empty . <S> This doesn't always imply that the thing is refillable or reusable though: <S> The tin's empty. <A> The word you want in most of these cases is "empty". <S> No, you can't use "over". <S> No one will understand what you mean if you do. <S> There are lots of definitions of "over" but none of them are the equivalent of "empty". <S> For batteries, we usually say that they're "dead" or (more formally) "depleted". <S> This battery is dead; we need to plug it in. <S> The cherry juice bottle is empty. <S> The water in the tank is almost gone. <S> We need to refill it. <S> For sentence 4, it's a really odd phrasing. <S> The normal way of saying it would be something like. <S> We need to buy some. <S> The gas tank in the car is [on] empty. <S> We need to get some gas soon. <A> I believe that finished would fit.
| We sometimes say that a battery is out , but the more usual expression is that the battery is dead . "Over" is more used to define the end or finishing point of something based on time e.g: The concert is almost over. The car is out of gas. We can't use the preposition over like this.
|
Synonym of "classy" with a negative connotation Depending on your point of view, we can take some charactristics as negative or positive e.g. determined -> stubborn, innocent -> naive . My friends and I are looking for a disapproving word being used by people from low-class in society (probably a slang word) to describe a person who is classy . For example, you go shopping with your friend and your friend suggests a design shirt and you say humorously , I'm not (a) [classy] (person). (Needless to say, classy is a positive word and I want a negative equivalent mostly used by people who lead a hard life) Or someone asks a poor or a homeless guy if he uses dental floss. He answers, We're not [classy]. In my native language we use a word which almost means "an obssessive princess" by which we mean you're rich and really careful about your clothes or unimportant things. Is there any adjective, noun, or even a verb phrase to describe such a person? (Informal/slang words are really appreciated since we use this word informally in our language.) <Q> In the UK, posh is used primarily by working class people. <S> It is used by aspirational ones in a positive way, "we got dressed up all posh, like", but it can also have a derogatory meaning. <S> If you offered a napkin to a proud-to-be-working-class man, he might reply Naa, I'm not posh, mate. <S> ladida is a mild expression of disapproval of somebody's affectations. <S> poncy is a working class way of saying "pretentious", and it's definitely derogatory. <S> This might be used about the shirt: <S> You won't catch me wearing a poncy shirt like that! <A> I think the term hoity-toity might work for you here: <S> No, thanks; I'm no hoity-toity person with fancy designer clothes. <S> According to the Wordnik page, this reduplicative 1 term can be defined as: hoity-toity ( adj. ) <S> Pretentiously self-important; pompous, self-important and snobbish. <S> A 2011 television show review used the term this way: <S> In the case of Roddy, it's discovered that he's an outcast. <S> He's a troubled kid at a fancy, hoity-toity high school. <S> I've usually heard this term use pejoratively, which is what you're after, but it's not considered vulgar or profane. <S> I think it would work well in light-hearted contexts. <S> 1 <S> For more on reduplication, see this ELL answer . <A> Arty-farty is pretentious <S> but it is derogatory.
| Lardy-dardy meaning excessively elegant , pretentious can be used in some context.
|
What do you call the text before and after a message? I'm writing a small program to send e-mails on behalf of users. Users will write a message, and I will add some text before and after their message. What do I call the text before and after the user typed text? My first idea was Header and Footer , but it doesn't feel right because I'm adding a lot more than a title and page number. Then I thought of Prologue and Epilogue , but that feels awkward. Is there a better name? Edit: it doesn't have to be one word. It can be a short title, e.g. first paragraph / last paragraph . <Q> Text content that is automatically added after the main body of an e-mail is usually called a signature, even if it contains more than just a name. <S> Text content appended to the beginning of a message is usually called a header, but <S> e-mail headers are usually in a "Field-Name: Value" format and not displayed as part of a message body. <S> (Choose View Source on some e-mail you've received to see examples.) <S> This is usually used for context information like date, time, sender's identity information, etc. <S> so it might fit what you're trying to do. <S> More generally, salutation , greeting , or introduction might work depending on the communicative function of the text. <S> I also sometimes use the terms :before and :after , including the colons, but only when speaking to a computer. <A> I'm not familiar with words that describe exactly what you need. <S> But here are a few suggestions, that can be used (although, not always and not everywhere) for the text before and after a note/ message. <S> Text before the actual message Introduction Prologue Preface <S> Forward <S> Text after the actual message Postscript Epilogue Supplement Conclusion NOTE : <S> Most of these don't qualify because they are usually used in books or letters. <S> Also, do not use 'prescript' as the opposite to 'postscript' as it has an entirely different meaning, as in a "prescription from a doctor" . <A> You could use leader for the text before and trailer for the text after. <S> It would be a somewhat specialized usage of those two words, but I think it could work for this specialized context. <A> 'Intro' and 'Outro' <S> In the context you describe, intro and outro would fit quite nicely and be easily understood as the components to which you refer. <S> 'Intro' is short for 'introduction.' <S> 'Introduction' is something that introduces something else. <S> From Merriam-Webster: <S> Intro : 1: INTRODUCTION and <S> Introduction : <S> 1 : something that introduces: such as a (1) : a part of a book or treatise preliminary to the main portion <S> Whereas 'outro' is often used to describe the end of a work such as a piece of music, a performance, or a news report. <S> Outro : <S> 1: a short, distinct closing section at the end of something (such as a piece of music, a performance, or a news report) <S> "My favorite part is the sax outro; it reminds me of something from the '70s <S> I can't place." <S> — Ryan Adams <S> "The film ends with a colossal but semi-serious bang, an extravagant visual flourish and a cheeky musical outro over the closing credits to leave you laughing in spite of yourself …" — Peter Bradshaw "When a story comes in from a Bay News 9 reporter, Ruechel will simply record his intro, main segment and outro." <S> — Jay Handelman
| You might also consider addendum for the text at the end.
|
Which is correct, "he was already dead" or "he already was dead"? How should I say, "he was already dead" or "he already was dead"? The second way does not sound entirely correct to me, but I couldn't find a rule stating that it is wrong. <Q> This link offers some useful guidelines on adverb positioning. <S> Other possibilities exist, but you might strain to justify using them. <S> It has two suggestions for already . <S> These are (in no particular order): <S> he was dead already - at the end of the clause or sentence <S> He was already dead - between a 'be' word and the main verb <A> Both are grammatically correct. <S> However their common usage differs. <S> For example if you're telling a story about someone who was walking up to a body hoping to revive him, you'd say "he was already dead". <S> The other expression is used to emphasize "already". <S> Imagine one doctor saying to another "you only do that if they're dead!" <S> and another replying " <S> but he already was dead." <A> For this discussion "already" is superfluous. <S> Write or read the two sentences without it. <S> He is dead. <S> He was dead. <S> You can only use the second sentence if the person is no longer dead. <S> Therefore, unless they have risen from the dead, he already was dead is grammatically incorrect.
| He is already dead means he is still dead.
|
One word synonym for "this element is going to be deleted" I have a form. This form has an element.So element can have states: normal, ready to be deleted (prepared for deletion), deleted. I'm trying to find good one-word synonym for this intermediate state (some sort of "hammer cocked"). This intermediate state when you still able to decide are you going to delete it forever or cancel deletion. For example, email almost deleted: What do you think about state names like: valuation, evaluation? <Q> If it's likely that any element that enters this state will eventually be deleted, you could use "condemned", by analogy with buildings scheduled for demolition and criminals slated for punishment. <S> If instead you want to emphasize the chance to remove this status, "probationary" carries the connotation of a risk of some more serious state, but an expectation of eventual restoration to normalcy. <A> Too bad you don't explain why this "element" would transition from the first state to the second state – that information might help. <S> Since that isn't specified, however, I'm going to make an assumption: that the "element" goes into this middle state after some period of inactivity. <S> If that were the case, you could use: Active Inactive <S> Deleted <S> If instead the element goes into this state when, say, a balance goes to zero, you could use: Funded <S> Depleted <S> Deleted <S> I think part of your problem stems from your choice of words for the first state: <S> Normal . <S> The opposite of normal is abnormal – but that's not a very good name for this state. <S> (I suggest trying to find a more descriptive name for the first state, and seeing if that leads to a better name for the second state.) <S> As a footnote, if you don't mind using a little irreverent humor, you could try: Normal Purgatorial <S> Deleted <S> Collins defines that word as: purgatorial ( adj. ) <S> a place or condition of suffering or torment, esp one that is temporary (Emphasis added) <S> I'm assuming this middle state is temporary; that the element's state will revert back to normal or to deleted within a relatively short time. <S> Wiktionary defines purgatorial as “Of, pertaining to, or resembling purgatory”, and purgatory is defined in one dictionary as: <S> purgatorial ( n. ) <S> Any place or state of temporary suffering or oblivion. <S> By the way, this suggestion probably wouldn't be appropriate if the user would ever see the name of the state in a notification. <S> However, if it was only used as a state name inside the software, it might work. <S> (Presumably, the user would see Pending Deletion , or something like that.) <S> It's not an ideal candidate by any means, but you've given us a very tall order with: One-word synonym for “this is going to be deleted” . <S> In the absence of such a word, please don't be offended by a stretch. <S> Though "temporary oblivion" might never make it into your code, I still thought it was an interesting concept to explore. <A> You could use an active participle to indicate that it is a transient state: deleting, recycling, Or say 'trashcan', indicating that it has been discarded but hasn't gone permanently yet. <A> You are wanting to mark items that are able to be deleted, but not yet actually deleted. <S> The term deleteable will work. <S> So normal , <S> deleteable , deleted . <S> Of course, this term would not be appropriate for the end user, but OK to describe the internal code. <A> I would use: Normal <S> Deleted <S> Permanently Deleted <S> (sorry it is two words...) <S> This is similar to many OS and also email systems where "deleted" goes to the trash directory/folder, and "permanently deleted" meaning no longer accessible.
| For the end user you should just use a short phrase like " Will Be Deleted " or something implying an action in progress, such as " Deleting... "
|
Differences between pronouncing the 'G' and 'J' in US/British English I'm currently pronouncing: g as / dgi / j as / djay / I'm not sure if this is the American or Britisch way to pronounce it. If it depends on the choice of words, I was just singing the alphabet. Question : I was wondering what is the correct way of pronouncing these letters in American English and British English? EDIT : I don't need to know the difference in a context of a sentence or a word. Just the difference while singing the alphabet in American English and British English. <Q> The letter G is called /dʒi:/ in both British and American English. <S> It rhymes with see . <S> It rhymes with say . <A> In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of The English Language, David Crystal notes 'no important regional variation' in the pronunciation of 'j' (dz) as a consonant. <S> But there are regional variations in the 'ee' and especially in the 'ay'. <S> (I am Australian and might say (but not sing) closer to 'jay-ee'.) <A> There is no difference in the names or pronounciations of the letters G and J in any English dialect. <S> They are called "Jee" and "Jay" respectively (with the consonant pronounced like a combination of "d" and the French "j"). <S> There are notable differences in other letters: Z is called "Zed" in most of the English-speaking countries, but "Zee" in the US; and the name of the letter H is usually pronounced "Eitch", but in some UK regions it is distinctly pronounced "Heitch". <A> Many Scottish people pronounce j 'jye' (to rhyme with eye, fly, sigh etc). <S> Can make a telephone conversation tricky if they are spelling something. <A> there is a rule: <S> It states any "g" followed by i,e,or y might say 'j' eg: gym. <S> gel, giant. <S> Although the stated rule holds good in most cases, there are a lot of exceptions and unfortunately some of those exceptions happen to be common words; "get" and "give" are two examples. <S> "Margarine", "gaol" and "gynaecologist" also break the rule. <S> Sometimes, if we don't want "g" to say "j", we add a "u". <S> We don't usually pronounce it, it's just there to keep the "g" hard: "disguise", "guest" and "vague" are examples of this. <A> But is there a difference in pronouncing it in US or Britisch <S> english when singing the alphabet? <S> I didn't ask about how to pronounce it in a context ( of a word), only purely in the alphabet and if there is a difference between US or Britisch pronuciation. <S> There is no difference. <S> When you say 'singing' the alphabet, do you mean you sing it like a song? <S> To a tune? <S> If you just say the letters, as most people do, then you are reciting the alphabet.
| The letter J is called /dʒeɪ/ in in both British and American English.
|
Subject-verb agreement with genre and novels Which is correct: The most popular genre is romantic novels or The most popular genre are romantic novels? <Q> Technically neither, as is highlighted by the problem that prompted this question: "genre" is singular but <S> "romantic novels" is plural. <S> (I don't know if that statement is factually true, but that would be the grammatically correct way to say it.) <S> The books that make up this genre are romance novels, but it's not quite correct to say that romance novels ARE the genre. <S> In informal speech we often use words loosely like this. <S> For example, we might confuse a place with the inhabitants of the place, e.g. "Europe is mostly white people". <S> Of course what we really mean is "Most European people are white" or <S> "The population of Europe is made up mostly of white people." <S> Or we might just lose track of number in a long or complex sentence. " <S> Since its invention, the airplane has proven to be a fast and conventient method of travel, linking distant parts of the globe, and they are becoming increasingly affordable." <S> (Note I shifted from "airplane", singular, to "they", plural.) <S> It's rarely a problem in informal speech, but should be avoided in more formal settings. <A> Genre is singular. <S> You are only talking about one genre. <S> Moreover, romantic novel is no genre. <S> The correct sentence would be The most popular genre is romance. <S> The most popular genre are romantic novels is wrong. <S> It would be correct when you are talking about more than one genre and also mentioning more than one genre. <S> Like, The most popular genres of the 21st century <S> are romance, sci-fi, thriller. <A> The most popular genre is the romance novel .
| The correct wording is, "The most popular genre is romance."
|
Meaning of get into Reading the article , I didn't understand the meaning of "break into" and "get into" It's very difficult to break into journalism, meaning it is very difficult to get into a career in journalism. Consulting with a few dictionaries: macmillan , cambridge I still don't understand. Break into (and get into) in this context states that it's very difficult to start enjoying journalism when you're attempting to make a career in it. Correct? <Q> Usernew's answer is correct about the meaning of break into . <S> The subsequent phrase get into is merely clarifying the meaning of break into , and is not itself idiomatic (the comments are correct). <S> The purpose of the sentence is explaining an idiomatic expression using a non-idiomatic expression that means the same thing. <S> Neither phrase has anything to do with enjoying journalism in this context. <S> They both refer to entering the field of journalism, and it is in that sense that you get into (the field of) journalism. <A> To answer your question: not quite. <S> For example: If my novel is as good as I think it is, I should be able to break into writing as a career. <S> It's harder for a woman to break into the executive level of a corporation than it is for a man. <S> Get into doesn't have that same sense of difficulty: <S> I'm going to get into writing. <S> I'm going to get into Sunday School teaching. <S> Now, another meaning of break into is burgle, as in break into a house. <A> Break into 1 is a phrasal verb which also means to successfully start a business or get into a profession. <S> dictionary.com gives the following meaning: to be admitted into; enter, as a business or profession: Also, here is an excerpt from a book: 1. <S> myenglishpages.com
| Additionally, both break into and get into in this case have the meaning of becoming a part of something, typically some sort of group. They are simply saying that it is difficult to start a career in journalism. However, break into also has the implication that the accomplishment is difficult, without actually having to say so.
|
What do we call the gesture of hitting each other's fists gently? We all know shaking hands or a handshake. There, we 'shake hands'. There's one more gesture I do. I gently punch other's fist. Something like this - What do we call this gesture as a noun ? They close the deal with a handshake The close the deal with (a?) ____________ Also, as a verb? Whenever we meet, we shake hands Whenever we meet, we ___________ If there's no single word, a couple would do. <Q> It's also known as pound or dap . <A> I agree with the dominant answer, but to be a tad more pedantic: <S> We call this gesture, as a noun: <S> They close the deal with a handshake . <S> The close the deal with a fist-bump . <S> As a verb: Whenever we meet, we shake hands . <S> Whenever we meet, we bump fists . <S> QED. <S> ps: A fist-bump is demonstrably cleaner than a handshake, epidemiologically . <A> Aside from the more formal "fist bump", a more slang term is brofist . <S> this term is quite popular online, to the point that major Youtube celebrity Pewdiepie made it part of the title of his videogame. <A> If your business is with a male fan of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, then it is customary to seal the deal with a "brohoof" - again, this is just for brony business. <S> Urban Dictionary: <S> brohoof: Friendly gesture between one brony and another in the form of connecting knuckles together (or hoofs). <A> They closed the deal with a handshake. <S> The closed the deal with (a) fistbump . <S> Whenever we meet, we shake hands. <S> Whenever we meet, we fistbump . <S> This is a really informal gesture, so I don't think it could be used to close deals. <S> Since it's informal, I don't think there's any proper conjugation for it either, but it would probably follow the conjugation of the word bump .
| It's called a fist bump .
|
schwa in a single syllable word In a sister site I saw the word sir written in IPA as /sər/ and not /sɜ:r/ as it was in my OALD. So I looked it up at Oxford Dictionary on-line and sure enough, they had it as /sər/ . The same at MW. The same pronunciation is given for words like purr and bird where my OALD shows /ɜ:r/ I thought the schwa was used to indicate a reduced vowel in an unstressed syllable. I am also seeing the same in the word cut . Although my 30 year-old copy of OALD shows /kʌt/ , I am seeing /kət/ in MW. Is schwa now being used to indicate a vowel sound in a single syllable word? When did this change? <Q> First of all, let's figure out the case of the word sir . <S> According to Oxford Learners' Dictionary , both /sɜːr/ and /sər/ are correct pronunciations of the word. <S> I have seen both pronunciation in OLD only (However I didn't look in a lot of dictionaries). <S> Next, keep in mind that, according to some native speakers , /ɜ:/ and /ə/ sound similar, except that (according to other speakers) /ɜ:/ is elongated. /ɜ:/ <S> occurs before the consonant r only. <S> It makes sense why dictionaries would choose to just use a schwa instead. <S> For the example of cut, this is a practice that infuriates me a lot, since Cut doesn't sound at all like the first syllable in a word like Qatar . <S> However, according to my Accent Reduction teacher, /ʌ/ is just a stressed schwa, and that's why you see some dictionaries using a schwa instead. <S> I don't understand why some dictionaries practice this. <S> A wedge might be a stressed schwa, but at least for me they don't sound alike. <S> My advice: <S> Merriam-Webster and the normal Oxford dictionary are designed for native speakers in mind. <S> I assume that normal dictionaries don't pay much attention to transcription as they'd expect people to just hear the word being spoken rather than read the actual transcript. <S> A native speaker can distinguish between all the different phonemes in his language, making it ideal to just listen instead of reading. <A> I've no idea when the change that you ask about occurred. <S> The definition below from the OED has not been updated since 1982, indicating that back then it did not consider the schwa to be exclusively reserved for unstressed syllables. <S> A Dictionary of Psychology <S> (4th edition, Oxford U Press) says: <S> The neutral and central mid vowel...that occurs in the words <S> the and fern , at the beginning of about , and at the end of sofa , and the symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) that represents it, namely an inverted e. <S> Statistically, it is the most frequently occurring English vowel (over ten per cent of all vowel sounds), yet it has no corresponding single letter in the standard alphabet. <S> See also central vowel, formant, mid vowel. <S> [From Hebrew shewa a mark indicating the absence of a vowel sound][ my emphasis in bold] <S> The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines schwa as <S> The central vowel sound /ə/ , typically occurring in weakly stressed syllables, as in the final syllable of ‘sofa’ and the first syllable of ‘along’; = sheva n. 2. <S> Occas. <S> , the symbol of an inverted ‘e’ used to represent this sound. <S> It gives a schwa in the pronunciation of such single syllable words as sir, purr, bird and the stressed syllable of birdbath . <S> The aptly named Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics says The mid-central vowel of e.g. the second syllable of matter: in phonetic notation [ə] ([matə]). <S> Also spelled ‘shwa’. <S> Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (4 ed.) <S> : <S> /ʃwɑː/ <S> (shwah). <S> In the phrase ‘ a moment a go’ in unemphatic BrE speech, the two unstressed vowels in italics are pronounced identically. <S> The technical name for this sound is schwa, and its symbol is /ə/ in the International Phonetic Alphabet. <S> Not only letter <S> a can be pronounced /ə/ <S> : the italicized letters in the following show it represented by other written vowels: number, th e , o bey, c o mmit, s u ccess, pict u re. <S> The fact that letters a, e, o, and u can all be pronounced as a schwa explains many widespread spelling mistakes, such as *relevent. <S> I'll add <S> that's <S> it's too bad <S> the sound of schwa is not also schwa. <A> Although for someone learning English, prescription is pedagogically appropriate (tell them what they should do) <S> I remind everyone that a dictionary's PURPOSE is to describe NOT to prescribe. <S> (It says how things are, NOT how they should be). <S> Language (pronunciation, usage, grammar, and meaning) all vary by location and change over time (as well as differing by generation of the speaker) as we all know. <S> Dialect matters. <S> Oxford, England is not Springfield Massachusetts. <S> (although I didn't remember that Encyclopedia Britannica owned MW).From Wikipedia I also note:The Merriam-Webster company once used a unique set of phonetic symbols in their dictionaries—intended to help people from different parts of the United States learn how to pronounce words the same way as others who spoke with the same accent or dialect did. <S> Unicode accommodated IPA symbols, but did not specify room for Merriam-Webster phonetics.[So MW had to revise their on-line material...]
| I'd recommend, as an ESL speaker, to use Learner's Dictionary (By Merriam Webster) and Oxford Learner's Dictionary .
|
Is "He told me he will come here." redundant? I feel the sentence, "He told me he will come here." is redundant and bit wired because "he" appears twice. I'm writing the sentence in a message to my close friend. So, I can say it with casual manner. I guess "He told me to come here." is wrong sentence. How do I rewrite that sentence to be more simple and casual? <Q> That sentence isn't wrong at all. <S> Moreover, it isn't really very redundant. <S> If you want something more colloquial that is shorter, you could say <S> He said he'd come here. <S> But what you have is entirely fine (in terms of redundancy). <A> When you say a sentence is redundant , it means it has unnecessary words or phrases. <S> In other words, those unnecessary words or phrases could be omitted, which will not change its meaning. <S> For example, when you say "I met her at 5 p.m. in the afternoon," you would notice that either "p.m." or "in the afternoon" is redundant as both basically mean the same thing. <S> However, in your example, the personal pronoun he has an important role in the sentence which can't be omitted. <S> The first he is the speaker of the sentence and the second is the performer of the action "coming". <S> If you change or elide either of them, the sentence will not have the same meaning which proves that repeating <S> he twice is not redundant. <S> A side note: You should use an indefinite article before "stupid" and "wrong". <S> Also, you have to use "weird" in place of "wired" and "in" should be used before manner and more idiomatic expression will be "in a casual manner", not "with casual manner". <A> When writing a sentence like this you could replace the first He with the proper name. <S> What I mean:Original - "He told me he will come here"Modification - "Bob told me he will come here" Based on the sentence <S> I expect this is a brief statement in a text or instant message type format. <S> While the modification does not change the sentence's structure, it does identify the subject. <S> The identification does two things: establishes who "he" is, and removes the feeling of redundancy.
| The "he" part may sound redundant to you as a non-English speaker, but it is really quite natural.
|
Should I use "as yours" or "your"? I just want to ask my friend to send me his phone number once again. Two weeks ago I reset my smartphone. Thus, I lost some important numbers [ as yours -or- your ]. Therefore, it would be great if you wrote me by whatsapp to get your number again. <Q> It all depends on which order you choose. <S> I lost your number along with some other important numbers. <S> or I lost some important numbers (including yours). <A> The second sentence is awkward as well. <S> I would rewrite both as: <S> I reset my smart phone a couple of weeks ago and lost a bunch of important numbers, including yours. <S> Could you send me your number on whatsapp? <A> As others have noted, "numbers as yours" is not correct here. <S> You may have been thinking of "numbers such as yours", which could work, although in my opinion "numbers including yours" or even (especially in informal usage) "numbers like yours" would be more natural and idiomatic here. <S> As for "your" vs. "yours", the rule is that your is a determiner that must always be followed by a noun phrase (e.g. "number"), while yours is a stand-alone pronoun that doesn't need (and can't take) <S> a noun after it. <S> Thus: "What is your number ?" <S> " Your number looks similar to mine." <S> but: "This is my number, what's yours ?" <S> "My number looks similar to yours ." <S> (And yes, the exact same distinction as between "your" / "yours" also exists between "my" / "mine", "her" / "hers", "our" / "ours" and "their" / "theirs". <S> For "his", "its" and "whose", however, the determiner and stand-alone forms look identical.) <A> Let me suggest something possibly simpler: <S> Two weeks ago, I reset my smartphone, and lost your number. <S> Could you please re-send it? <S> The real problem with the sentence(s) in question isn't the 'yours/your' issue, it's the extraneous information that's being included about other numbers being lost. <S> The fact that other numbers were lost isn't really relevant to the particular person being contacted. <S> Removing that portion of the sentence makes the other issue less critical. <S> As is often the case, an apparent issue with a single word is actually a symptom of a bigger issue with the sentence itself. <S> Respectfully submitted... <A> The grammatically correct sentence <S> would be- <S> Two weeks ago I had reset my smartphone. <S> Thus, I lost some important numbers including yours. <S> Hence, it would be great if you could write me by Whatsapp, to attain your number again. <A> Two weeks ago I reset my smartphone. <S> Thus, I lost some important numbers [such as yours]. <S> Therefore, it would be great if you wrote me by whatsapp to get your number again. <S> This is the closest way to say it to yours while being fluent and polite. <S> Reference: <S> Myself, native English speaker.
| A number can be "yours", but it would be "your" number.
|
Something is wrong with my computer. It won't work Why is the future tense modal will used when mentioned broken machines like cars, computers, phones. For example : Something is wrong with my computer. It won't work. My PC won't boot: Expert tips for fixing a PC that won't start up ( from a computer magazine) Well actually using modal will makes a sense too to some extent but it would be better if present simple continuous tense or simple present tense is used because we already know that the machine is broken, yes it will not work or it is not going to work but simple continuous tense also is used at around the time of speaking as well as referring to future.So the machine is not working now and it is not working when I push the its start button. So I would like to ask.. 1.Is using "will" in similar scenarios accepted by everyone in the UK and the US. 2.Does it sound unnatural when I say : My car/computer is broken and it is not working/ it doesn't work. Can I use this tenses also? <Q> There is nothing wrong with saying things like "My car doesn't work." <S> "Will" is a modal, and just like all other modals it has a lot of meanings. <S> From <S> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ will modal verb (ABLE/WILLING) <S> A1 (also 'll) used to talk about what someone or something is able or willing to do: <S> The car won't start. <S> As you can see, one of the meanings of "will" is to express ability, which is what it is doing in the sentence: The computer won't work. <S> It's basically saying "The computer is not able to work." <A> I think there is a slight difference in meaning between "isn't working" and "won't work". <S> "The computer isn't working" implies that the speaker knows it has not been working for some time in the past, and knows it has not yet been fixed. <S> " <S> You can use this with tenses: <S> "My computer wasn't working last week" or "My computer wouldn't work last week." <S> "My computer didn't work last week". <S> "I'm going to upgrade my computer next week, so it won't be working then." <A> Saying "It won't work" is like making a strong prediction that if you press the power switch, it is not going to turn on as it should. <S> It is basically synonymous with "It doesn't work".
| The computer won't work" implies that it was working in the past and the speaker expected it to work now, but it doesn't work now for some unknown reason.
|
Name for the type of religious philosophy that doesn't require any religious beliefs to "use" or "implement" I'm curious as to what the word for religious philosophy that, although it may have come from a religious figure, or said in some religious context, can, and often times is, used in a secular context. For example, the expression "Do unto others as you would have done to you." is derived from the Christian bible, but this is a fairly common ideal of many societies. I know that it's not just religious figures that have talked about that kind of concept, (for example Immanuel Kant with the Categorical Imperative), but what would be the best word or way to describe this kind of philosophy that is non-religiously contingent? <Q> I think the word philosophy would fit here, actually. <S> We want to distinguish between two distinct meanings of the word: A field of academic study, encompassing metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, etc. <S> and Some particular set of doctrines, principles, or beliefs; a worldview <S> Here I'm talking about the second definition. <S> The meaning is sometimes clarified by using the phrase personal philosophy . <S> You can also be more specific using phrases like moral philosophy , or for example, <S> "What is your philosophy regarding X?". <A> I would suggest Natural Law . <S> The idea behind natural law is that we can use reason to recognize some values and rights that we have because we are human. <S> One of the most famous expressions of this idea is from the US Declaration of Independence: <S> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them , a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. <S> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. <S> Yes, the Declaration does mention "their Creator" and "Nature's God", which has religious connotations, but the main idea is that because we are human, we have certain rights that we don't have to earn from or be granted by a higher power; we are born with them. <S> We can discern right from wrong using our reason and our observation of Nature. <S> Because of this, human-made laws should be derived from or based in Natural Law. <S> Plato identified four Cardinal Virtues , prudence, justice, temperance, courage, that have been expanded upon by later philosophers. <S> Some Christian religions, particularly Catholicism, have incorporated Natural Law concepts into their views, which causes some of the overlap between secular law and religious teachings. <A> I think you might be looking for "metaphysics": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
| Justice, or fairness, would be the virtue that corresponds to the Golden Rule mentioned in the question.
|
Word for other side of telephone call Say I have a table with list of telephone calls. This table contains both incoming and outgoing calls received or made by me. There is a column with number of person I called to in case of outgoing call and number of person I received call from in case of incoming call. I want to know what's most appropriate word to put in header of this column. What's the common word for one who I call to and one whose call I receive? <Q> You'll probably need to go with something generic because I don't believe there's a term that can mean either at the same time. <S> An example would be "Other party". <S> "Other" implies that it's not you in a way that "party" by itself does not. <S> If all of the people who call you or you call fit a certain description, you can also use that description as your header... <S> so, if you work at a call center where everyone you call or who calls you is a customer, you could title the column "Customer name". <A> On the one hand, they are the contacts <S> you made going out , and on the other hand they are the contacts coming in to you. <S> It can also be used for any form of contact- ing : emails, letters, face-to-face visits. <S> Usually a CRM system like Salesforce.com will break these down into narrower categories to specifically pinpoint where conversions are being generated. <A> From your perspective, the people called you would be callers , the people you called to would be receivers . <A> The person who calls is referred to as the caller , while person who is being called is the recipient . <S> These are just general terms. <S> If you're looking for more technical terms, a caller is also called the calling party , the call originator or A-party , while the recipient is the called party or sometimes the B-Number / B-party . <S> In this case, the only overlap is party , so I would just call them the other party .
| The single generic word you may be looking for is Contacts .
|
Does this sentence need "if" or "when"? I came across this sentence: "There isn't an entomologist in the whole world who wouldn't give all he has to be in my shoes today ." This was said when a person caught a rare insect. If "if" or "when" is placed before "he has to be in my shoes today", I think it makes sense but this sentence doesn't have them. Is my understanding wrong? <Q> I think your confusion might just come from not understanding the idioms in the sentence, so I'll start by paraphrasing it. <S> There isn't an entomologist in the whole world who wouldn't give all he has to be in my shoes today <S> Since there is a double negative, we'll go ahead and reverse it. <S> Hopefully this makes the sentence less confusing already. <S> Any entomologist would give all he has to be in my shoes today. <S> 2 of the phrases left are give all he has and to be in my shoes . <S> You seem to be trying to split it into would give all and [if/when] he has to be in my shoes , and you are reading "has to" as "must". <S> To give all he has is to sacrifice anything he owns. <S> To be in my shoes means to be experiencing what the author is experiencing (catching the rare insect) <S> So the whole sentence simplified is: <S> Any entomologist would love to be in my situation <S> It should be clear there is no room for if or when in that sentence. <A> No, this sentence is fine without an "if" or "when". <S> I think you are being confused by an incorrect parsing of "he has to be" present in this sentence. <S> " <S> He has to be" can mean "he is obligated to be" or "he is required to be". <S> However, in this example "has" and "to be" are actually separate. <S> In this sentence, "he has" means that which he possesses (a hint here is "all he has"). <S> Thus, the sentence can be rewritten: "There isn't an entomologist in the whole world who wouldn't trade everything he owns for the opportunity to be in my shoes today." <A> There isn't an entomologist in the whole world who wouldn't give all he has to be in my shoes today. <S> The sentence is fine. <S> We could rewrite the sentence, slightly, and get <S> There isn't an entomologist in the whole world who wouldn't give all he possesses in order to be in my shoes today. <S> all he possesses is the direct object of the verb <S> give in order to be in my shoes <S> today is a prepositional phrase that provides more information. <S> This prepositional phrase could be moved to other places in the sentence, such as the beginning <S> In order to be in my shoes today, there isn't an entomologist in the whole world who wouldn't give all he possesses. <S> with no change in meaning. <S> The prepositional phrase could also be omitted and the sentence remain grammatical: <S> There isn't an entomologist in the whole world who wouldn't give all he possesses.
| This is incorrect in context. It does not need an if or when before he has to be...
|
"imagine for the moment" vs. "Imagine for a moment" From Chemguide : We'll choose one of these water molecules at random (it doesn't make any difference which one!), and look at the bonding in a bit more detail - showing all the bonds around the oxygen. Imagine for the moment that the 3+ charge is located entirely on the iron. Can we change this to "imagine for a moment"? Would there be a significant change in meaning? Am I right to assume that "for the moment" here means "for the short period of time while we are discussing the issue"? And "for a moment" would mean "for any undeterminate short period of time"? I did an Ngram search for "imagine for the moment, imagine for a moment", and the latter option seems to be more widespread: <Q> "Imagine for a moment" means any unspecified moment, or a short period of time. <S> This can be any moment. <S> You can choose which moment. <S> "Imagine for the moment" refers to now. <S> In this case, you are tasked to imagine a thing while reading the argument and to pretend for the sake of the argument that it is true. <S> This is a very specified instant in time. <S> You can use other examples as well: Imagine for a moment that the world will end tomorrow - how does this make you feel? <S> In this case, you can do the imagining in any moment of your choice, and then tell the asker about your thoughts. <S> But in the example of your chemistry book, you need to imagine it for the specific moment in time when reading the argument. <S> The difference is subtle, but noticeable. <A> True. <S> The latter is more common but as I see all the examples for both the strings, I find no great difference in the meaning. <S> But if I dig in further, I agree with you. <S> '..the moment...' <S> may talk about this <S> very moment when you start thinking whereas 'a' , as we all know, talks about any moment when you start thinking. <A> To my understanding, imagine for a moment is just a variation on the expressions imagine for a minute and imagine for a second . <S> They all mean the exact same thing, but just use slightly different words. <S> Regarding the example in the text you gave, I asked a friend of mine, who is a native American English speaker, and he said that imagine for the moment sounded absolutely fine to him. <S> I also asked him if there was a difference in meaning between the two expressions and his answer was that he couldn't really see one. <S> So, for the moment and for a moment really do mean the same thing. <S> The only difference that I'm able to see is that for a moment is just used much more commonly. <S> Some like to use the first one, others prefer the second one. <S> That's all there is to it, folks. <S> End of story. <A> I think "for the moment" is used because the "moment" here refers to "the moment you're looking at the bonding in a bit more detail.
| "Your understanding about "for the moment" and "for a moment" should be correct. There is a difference.
|
Are dummy subject and impersonal subject the same? It is sunny. (impersonal subject) It is difficult to learn English. (dummy subject or place holder) In Korea, we learn that dummy subject and impersonal subject are different.But, I don't think so. I think that dummy subject and impersonal subject are same. For example, 'It is hot in the room.'can transfer to 'In the room is hot.' Is this an example of 'dummy subject'? But we learned that this is 'impersonal subject'. What do you think about that? <Q> A quote from the Wikipedia article on dummy pronouns : <S> A dummy pronoun, also called an expletive pronoun or pleonastic pronoun, is a pronoun used for syntax without explicit meaning. <S> Your example sentences: <S> It is sunny. <S> It is difficult to learn English. <S> it is in both sentences <S> doesn't really have any explicit meaning apart from being there just for the reasons of grammatical completeness. <S> That's a pretty good sign of a dummy pronoun at work as per the quote mentioned above. <S> I would even go so far as to say that the terms impersonal pronoun and dummy pronoun are really just one and the same. <S> So, in answer to your question, the two instances of it is in both sentences are conceptually equivalent. <A> According to Merriam Webster dictionary, a place holder (dummy subject) and an impersonal subject are different. <S> When they say impersonal subject <S> they mean using it with an impersonal verb that expresses a condition or action without reference to an agent as in <S> It is raining. <S> When they say place <S> holder or dummy subject <S> they mean using it as an anticipatory subject which is often used to shift emphasis to a part of a statement other than the subject as in <S> It was in this city that the treaty was signed. <S> It is necessary to repeat the whole thing. <S> Based on this distinction, I think, when you say "it's hot <S> " it is an impersonal subject since there is no word in the sentence that we can point out as the real subject and the meaning is implied based on the condition/situation . <S> For example, we can guess when someone standing in the sun in a hot day in summer says "it's hot" <S> he's talking about the weather. <S> When you say "it's hot in the room" <S> it serves as an anticipatory subject , place holder or dummy subject since we have a word or phrase in the sentence that we can point out as the subject of the sentence. <A> There are different names for it : <S> dummy , empty , <S> formal and, perhaps, more <S> (We are not talking about a personal pronoun,a substitution for an object, an animal or an abstract noun). <S> They are subdivided into impersonal it <S> (no antecedent,the subject can't be identified ) <S> (1) and <S> anticipatory it or introductory it (2) with the real subject coming later in the sentence. <S> 1.It is sunny. <S> It is hot in the room <S> (illustrate a dummy/empty impersonal it .) <S> 2.It is difficult to learn English. <S> But the second sentence has a meaningful it because it refers to the fact that to learn English is difficult. <S> It here =to learn English. <S> It can refer to a whole fact,event or situation . <S> It's difficult to learn English. <S> (To learn English is difficult). <S> It's awful --everybody is ill,and our central heating isn't working.(The <S> situation is awful). <S> It in these sentences is dummy/empty, introductory/anticipatory. <S> Not all dummy it-subjects are impersonal, but any impersonal it-subject is dummy/empty.
| It is not uncommon, especially in English, to see many different terms used to mean the exact same thing.
|
Question about the use of "at outset" Is "at outset" grammatically correct to use as in the following These dormitories were at outset for senior girls or is "at the outset" better? <Q> "At the outset" is more modern, so if you want to sound like you are using contemporary English, then "at the outset" would indeed be "better." <S> outset noun <S> a. <S> The action or fact of setting out upon a journey, course of action, business, etc.; a start, a beginning. <S> Now chiefly in at the outset , from the outset . <S> ( Oxford English Dictionary [emphases <S> OED's ]) <S> There seem to be certain contexts in which at outset is a fixed phrase, such as in A En garde French for "on guard"; spoken at outset to warn the participants to take a defensive position. <S> (Wikipedia: Glossary of Fencing ) <S> Bin scientific papers, such as this one <S> The formerly proposed percentage of patients that achieve normal weight (or overweight) is clearly unjust to to patients with more severe obesity at outset <S> I would recommend using at the outset or from the outset rather than at outset unless you have a special reason not to. <A> You can also say from the outset . <S> The only time you would ever see at outset used like that would probably be only as part of a news article headline. <S> Example : <S> Charges dismissed at outset of hearing <A> I agree that 'outset' needs the article 'the.' <S> However, I would suggest that you might consider 'initially' to replace 'at (the) outset.'
| at the outset is the only grammatically correct way to say it.
|
"What more" vs "what else" do you need? I am providing you with food, shelter, clothes. What more do you need or what else do you need? Which one's correct? <Q> But note that idiomatically, What more do you need? <S> is far more likely when what's being asked is effectively a rhetorical question (implying the speaker thinks you either don't or shouldn't need anything else). <S> Also note that when using else , to some extent the distinction between a rhetorical question and a genuine enquiry can be made more explicit by stress/emphasis... <S> 1: <S> What else do you need? <S> (Probably: You don't need anything else - just get on with it) <S> 2: <S> What else do you need ? <S> (Probably: If you need anything else please tell me) <A> In the context you have given, can mean different things. <S> What more do you need? <S> Can be taken as for example - "Isn't what is given enough? <S> What else possibly could you need" implying that what is given should suffice. <S> What else do you need? <S> Can be taken as for example - <S> "What are the other necessities that I can provide to you? <S> What other requirements do you have?" <A> You can say : What more do you need? <S> (When you are really vexed up with that one) <S> You can say : What else do you need? <S> (when you were really happy to help him, and you were asking do you need something more(Soft Tone) ) <S> As far as I known. <A> They both work but are slightly different. <S> else means; In addition, besides, or different and instead. <S> What else (different, besides, or instead of) do you want? <S> more means; A greater or additional amount or degree. <S> What more ( A greater amount, or in addition to ) do you want? <S> And more , generally means A greater amount or In addition to . <A> Both are acceptable but my personal opinion when you say "what more do you need" <S> it sounds as if you provided more help than they need so there is a connotation that you think they don't need something anymore <S> whereas "what else do you need" sounds neutral that you don't know their needs even if you provided some help before.
| Both more and else are syntactically fine in OP's example, and in many contexts they'll mean exactly the same thing. So the main difference is that else , in general means different .
|
I have a question regarding "I am sorry" I would like to say I'm sorry that the item you needed for your brackets has been discontinued. Is this sentence correct? Or should I say I'm sorry. The item you needed for your brackets has been discontinued. Can "I'm sorry" be used alone as a complete sentence? <Q> I think it can stand alone, as in, "I am sorry. <S> The item you need for your brackets has been discontinued." <S> "I'm sorry that the item you needed for your brackets has been discontinued" is correct too. <A> If someone tried to order Item A, but you didn't have any, say I'm sorry. <S> That item is out of stock. <S> If someone tried to order Item A, but you were out of stock and they got angry about it <S> (they really wanted that Item A) <S> I'm sorry that Item A is out of stock. <S> Would you like Item B? <S> The difference being in the first example, you are informing them that Item A isn't available, and prefacing it with "I'm sorry" to soften the blow. <S> In the second, they already know it is not available and are upset about it. <S> You're using "I'm sorry" to apologize for the situation that is making them upset. <A> Yes, either way is fine. <S> Your second sentence is equivalent to <S> I'm sorry to say (or inform you ) <S> that the item you needed for your brackets has been discontinued. <S> This version and the stand alone <S> I'm sorry. <S> version mean you are offering an apology. <S> As Tofystedeth points out, your second sentence means that the speaker is apologizing for a situation his addressee is already upset about. <S> Another example: I'm sorry. <S> We don't have any vanilla ice cream. <S> Would you like to try one of our other 46 flavors? <S> or I'm sorry to say (or inform you ) <S> (that) we don't have any vanilla ice cream. <S> Would you like to try one of our other 46 flavors? <S> or I'm sorry that we don't have any vanilla ice cream. <S> Would you like to try one of our other 46 flavors? <S> Again the first two are equivalent: <S> "softening the blow" of the announcement that the place is out of item our flavor you want. <S> The second is apologizing that the listener is already upset by this fact.
| Both sentences are correct and will work, although in my experience, the circumstance in which you would use them are slightly different.
|
Use of would in sentences Could you please tell me the meaning of 'would' in the following sentences: 1 He would seem to be getting better . (Does it mean you the speaker lack of knowledge about his health?) 2 The answer would seem to be correct . (Does it mean the speaker is hesitating?) 3 That's what I would call annoying . (Why is would used here? Is it hypothetical situation or what?) I found it quite difficult to know the meaning of 'would' in these sentences. I hope someone will help me with it. <Q> I would suggest you think of this use of 'would' as a way of 'hedging'. <S> I would agree with JR's opinion that 'would' here just softens the feel or tone of the sentence. <S> The implicit hypothetical element would be something like "if my opinion had any value in it", "if you asked me", or "if I were in this situation". <S> I would say lots of learners have the same confusion as you. <S> As you can see, would in my sentences makes my statement less confident. <S> I would be happy to accept better opinions than mine. :) <A> The short version - to a native American English speaker, 'would' makes these sentences not as certain. <S> For example, "He is getting better" is a very certain statement, while "He would seem to be getting better" implies that you might be wrong. <S> The longer version - in each of these sentences "would" is a modal verb , meaning that it forms a compound with another infinitive verb (to seem and to call, in your examples). <S> "Would" is the preterite of the modal verb "will", but is commonly used to express the subjunctive mood . <S> In doing so, it expresses uncertainty. <S> Other examples of preterites of modal verbs used to express doubt or uncertainty include: <S> "He could walk to the store." <S> as opposed to "he walks to the store." <S> Where "could" is the preterite of the modal "can", meaning he is able to walk to the store <S> but there's uncertainty whether he is going to or not. <S> "You should go." <S> as opposed to "Go!" <S> Should is the preterite of the modal "shall" (not commonly used on its own in modern English) and is used to 'soften' a command. <S> "You should go" <S> is much politer than the command "go". <A> The first two could easily be said as: <S> He seems to be getting better. <S> The answer seems to be correct. <S> In fact, that's probably how most native speakers would say it most of the time. <S> As for the third: <S> That's what I would call annoying. <S> that might be reworded as: <S> I would call that annoying. <S> but context might prompt someone to use the longer wording: <S> You know what drives me crazy? <S> When people pass me on the freeway, then get back in front of me, and then slow down slower than I was going! <S> What's the point of passing me if you're just going to slow me down. <S> Now that's what I'd call annoying! <S> That wording fits the mood of the narrative. <S> I understand why this might be hard to understand; would is perhaps one of the most difficult words to explain in English.
| The use of "would seem" instead of "seems" doesn't really change the meaning; it just changes the feel or tone of the sentence.
|
Differences between soon and early/earlier Could you please help me to distinguish the difference between 'soon' and 'early/earlier'. These words are pretty similar to me, I often get confused with their usage, please make it clear with examples. <Q> They're pretty interchangeable <S> but I think a good rule of thumb is that "sooner" generally modifies the time it takes to complete a task whereas "earlier" modifies the time of day you expected the task to be completed. <S> I'm going to answer this question at 1pm. <S> Do you need it earlier? <S> This may imply that answering the question is a short task, but I'm going to wait until 1pm to do it. <S> Do you want it at an earlier time than that? <S> I'm going to spend 10 minutes answering this question. <S> Do you need it sooner? <S> Now I'm implying that I could work faster, to get it to you in less amount of time. <S> Really you could swap the words and it still works ("Can we do this sooner" = <S> "Can we do this earlier") but "sooner" better addresses the time it takes to do the thing whereas "earlier" better addresses the time on the clock that you expect it to be done. <A> Soon refers to something that will happen in the near future <S> He will soon go to college <S> When is his school finish? <S> Does the school finish at 5:00? <S> A proper response would be: No a little earlier. <S> Another common way to use earlier would be to refer back to the beginning of a time period <S> Earlier that day... <S> Earlier in his career... <S> Early is usually used as an adverb describing to time period of an event <S> We should get to school early. <S> You woke up early this morning. <A> Both words (sooner and earlier) are comparisons between two date/times, but sooner can only refer to the future. <S> This is because with 'earlier' the two dates are relative to each other, whereas sooner compare one date/time with the the time at this moment. <S> IE in the first example, either earlier or sooner could be used. <S> Let's arrange to meet next Monday, but you can come sooner/earlier if you like. <S> In the second example, only earlier could be used: We arranged to meet yesterday at 11:00 but he arrived earlier at 10:45.
| A proper way to respond would be: "Soon" Earlier refers to something that has already happened or the time or the event that has happened.
|
"Could anyone have expected that..." vs. "could anyone expect that..." Having spent a couple of weeks in a hopeless attempt to translate the poem ( could anyone have expected that it would hide such a subtle subtext?), I gave up. Can we use "could" instead of "could have"? Having spent a couple of weeks in a hopeless attempt to translate the poem ( could anyone expect that it would hide such a subtle subtext?), I gave up. Will this sentence look strange due to this phrase, or are both variants more or less equal in meaning? <Q> Although both of your examples mean approximately the same thing, I agree with Stangdon's comment that <S> "My feeling is that 'could have' is slightly more accurate, because you would have expected it to be simpler before you knew the truth." <S> Since both examples are basically rhetorical questions, ( could anyone have expected that it would hide such a subtle subtext?) <S> makes more sense, because surely the author of the poem and a reader who is very familiar with his or her work would understand the hidden subtext, while (could anyone expect that it would hide such a subtle subtext?) <S> suggests that no reader in the world would understand. <A> The issue becomes clearer if we convert the parenthesized questions into statements: could anyone have expected that it would hide such a subtle subtext? = <S> > <S> Anyone could have expected that... could anyone expect that it would hide such a subtle subtext? = <S> > <S> Anyone could expect that... <S> The difference between "could" and "could have" was explained quite well in this answer . <S> In a nutshell: "could" means "was capable", "could have" means "was (hypothetically) capable, but didn't". <S> Based on that, and the fact that the rhetorical question suggests that actually nobody could expect that , " could anyone have expected " is more suitable. <A> Adding to Mark Hubbard's answer, I think the tense plays an important role here. <S> We use "could have + past participle" in the subjunctive mood especially when we talk about possibilities in the past <S> , e.g.: If I had studied harder at college, I could have gotten a better job when I was 25. <S> However, could usually indicates a present or future aspect as in, <S> If I knew it, I could solve the problem now. <S> A <S> : I am free tomorrow. <S> B: Then, we could watch Star Wars. <S> As your example sentence is in the past tense with "gave" as a main verb, it would be more grammatical to use " <S> could have + past participle". <S> The distinction is clearer if you contrast <S> "You could have told me the truth" with "You could tell me the truth". <S> The former clearly indicates and emphasizes the fact that the other party did not tell the truth in the past, however, the latter is not clear in terms of its meaning and tense. <S> Your example sentence emphasizes the fact that nobody could expect there would be such a subtle subtext hidden in the poem. <S> The same applies to "must" and "must have + past participle", "cannot" and "cannot have + past participle", <S> "would" and "would have + past participle" and "might" and "might have + past participle", etc. <S> The most important thing is the tense of the sentence. <A> As a native speaker, I think that, although both are perfectly understandable, the first sounds much more natural: <S> Having spent a couple of weeks in a hopeless attempt to translate the poem (could anyone have expected that it would hide such a subtle subtext?), I gave up . <S> Having thought about it a bit, I've come to the conclusion that this is because the main verb ('to give up') is in the past tense (perfect to be precise), so the verb in parentheses should also be in the past tense.
| You can't replace "could have gotten" with "could get" in the above example because it indicates the possibility in the past, not in the present or future.
|
Which the meaning of "Not for a long time yet" is correct? I came across this conversation "Are we going out now?" "Not for a long time yet". When I asked some persons the meaning "Not for a long time yet", one say it means "We are not going out yet. It will be a long time before we go out.", and one say it means "We won't be leaving for a while." They say "We aren't going out now" but the term is different like "for a long time" and " not for a long time(for a while). Which is correct? Or do "for a long time" and "for a while" mean the same term? <Q> Not for a long time yet . <S> By definition, <S> yet as used here means: 4) at some future time; <S> sooner or later but it is not time specific. <S> So you have to look for another term for the time frame, in your examples "a while" or "a long time", whatever they mean in context. <S> yet just emphasizes that it hasn't happened yet . <S> It does not really add anything pertinent in your example. <S> I would leave it out - Not for a long time. <S> Not for a while. <S> etc. <A> The easier way to understand the phrase is to put "for a long time" in a bracket as follows: Not (for a long time) yet. <S> "Not yet" is broadly used to mean that something has not happened (is not happening) until the present time <S> , e.g.: A: <S> Has he arrived? <S> B: <S> Not yet (He has not arrived yet). <S> The answer means, We are not going out yet <S> and we won't be able to go out for a long time. <A> You've given us an interesting phrase to parse. <S> Are we going out now? <S> No, not for a long time yet . <S> means: <S> No, not yet – <S> and we probably won't for a long time . <S> It's almost as if the word not is being used distributively. <S> So, semantically: Not for a long time yet = Not⋅(for a long time + yet) = Not yet + Not for a long time However, this isn't always the case! <S> Contrast the phrase you're asking about with this very similar one: <S> Have you heard from John lately? <S> No, not for a long time now . <S> This simply means: <S> As of right now, I haven't heard from John in quite some time . <S> So, semantically: Not for a long time now = (Not for a long time) <S> + (now) = <S> As of right now + not for a long time Going back to your original dialog, had the person responded with a slightly different answer: <S> Are we going out now? <S> No, not just yet . <S> That typically means: No, not yet – but we probably will in just a little bit . <S> As for this last one you asked about: <S> Are we going out now? <S> No, not for awhile yet . <S> the phrase "for awhile" means "for quite some time." <S> (It's a tough amount of time to quantify, but, if someone told me that, I'd probably might want to find something else to do, because I'll probably get fidgety if I wait that long.) <S> NOTE: <S> Many of these phrases are somewhat idiomatic, and word order is important.
| For a long time is just a prepositional phrase to indicate this will not happen for a long time.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.