source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
And Then There Were None And Then There Were None This is the title of A. Christie's mystery novel. Why is there the verb "were" used instead of "was"? Are in this case these two verbs interchangeable? <Q> When none is followed by of , you need to look at the noun in your of phrase. <S> If it is singular, use a singular verb, and vice versa. <S> Most of the time, but not always, you will want to use a plural verb. <S> None of the children were/was hurt in the accident. <S> BUT: None of the food was (food is uncountable) <S> left on the table. <A> No, they aren't interchangeable. <S> In this case, "None" is actually plural, because it's being used as "not any." <S> "Were" is the plural form, while "was" is the singular, so "were" is used in this case. <A> A meteor hits the earth killing all the dinosaurs <S> And then there were none <S> The last of an extinct species dies <S> And then there was none <S> ( the last one died ) <S> And then there were none (of that species ) <S> It depends on the group one wants to reference. <S> In Agatha Christie's book, there were ten people involved...
| The word none has both plural (“not any”) and singular (“not a single one”) sense.
|
I wish you would speak louder.... vs I wish you spoke louder....? I'm confused between two versions of a sentence I came across in a test. Which one is correct and why? I wish you would speak louder as I can't hear what you say? Or I wish you spoke louder as I can't hear what you say? <Q> Would you speak louder? <S> Is a polite request. <S> I wish that you would speak louder. <S> Is a slightly tetchier version of the same request. <S> It suggests that there is no reason to speak so quietly, other than to irritate you. <S> I wish that you spoke louder <S> is a hypothetical wish- <S> as though there is some insurmountable problem that prevents him or her from speaking louder. <A> "I wish you would speak louder as I can't hear what you say?" -is correct because it means you did not speak louder <S> but you should have. <S> On the other hand, "I wish you spoke louder as I can't hear what you say? <S> " Does not make a clear sense. <S> Somehow it is similar in meaning that, I wish and you really fulfilled my wish by speaking louder. <S> But in the sentence according to the later clause, "I can't hear what you say" means he actually did not speak louder. <S> So it is incorrect. <A> Context free both: <S> I wish you would speak louder. <S> and I wish you spoke louder. <S> are grammatically correct with a nuance: <S> I wish you would speak louder. <S> shows the irritation of the speaker to what they feel is an unpleasant situation. <S> To my mind adding the subordinate clause "as I can't hear what you say" does not modify this difference and both the sentences you give are correct. <S> Why would they be considered incorrect? <S> I expect some could say "would" is used to express a wish about the future, and simple past only used for the present. <S> Another reason I can think about for the choice of simple past is that showing irritation is impolite in certain situations but if context is not specified I can't see a reason why one sentence should be preferred over the other. <A> from Cambridage Dictionary <S> **used to express anger at someone's behaviour: <S> ** <S> I wish you would speak louder as I can't hear you. <S> The other party complains that your voice was too low.**used with the past simple to express that you feel sorry or sad about a state or situation that exists at the moment: <S> ** <S> I wish you spoke louder as I can't hear you. <S> You made a good speech, but the other party didn't hear it becasue your voice was too low.
| Specifying "as I can't hear what you say" definitely expresses the wish for the present situation to change.
|
"It doesn't matter" or "It don't matter" Which one is correct: "It doesn't matter" or "It don't matter"? I think the first one is correct but in the lyrics of Adele's song, "Hello", the second one is written. <Q> "Does" is for a singular noun (but only in the third person as pointed out by snailplane), and "do" is for a plural noun. <S> You could say "they do matter", but "it does matter". <S> Adding the word "not" does not change the rule: <S> It doesn't matter. <S> Never expect that song lyrics or similar texts (such as stories) will use "standard grammar. <S> " Lyrics and other such texts employ the grammar of the person who wrote them ... even if the author uses grammar that differs from standard grammar. <A> "It doesn't matter!" is correct, but usually the americans could say "It don't matter!" <S> It's a way to say informally. <A> In the 16-ish century both of "does not" and "do not" were shortened to "don't". <S> "Doesn't" appeared a lil bit later though... <S> However it is still used in some rural dialects.
| It is okay to say "it don't matter" instead of "it doesn't matter" if it is kind of informal speech
|
Better phrases meaning "Learner of Android App Development" I am learning Android App Development(I know how to build Android Apps to a certain extent), and since I haven't completed it, I cannot call myself an App Developer yet. Also, I cannot call myself an enthusiast or aspirant as these phrases doesn't describe that I could develop apps. So I decided Learner of Android App Development holds good. But it looks somewhat long and I need a better phrase which means the same. I need it for LinkedIn <Q> Novice is probably a good choice. <S> It appears to be in the computer science world ( "Novice Android Developer. <S> " <S> or "Novice Developer" or "Novice Java Developer" ) <S> Novice carries the sense that you know a little about the topic and you are actively learning more. <S> As your skills grow, you will progress to intermediate, advanced, and hopefully expert status. <A> One word that you should consider is budding , which suggests that you do not have a lot of experience <S> but you are "beginning to develop or show signs of future success in a particular area". <S> You could therefore justify describing yourself as a budding Android Developer. <A> How about: <S> I am training in Android App Development. <S> Currently I have completed ... and expect to complete my training on ... <S> or I am studying Android App Development. <S> Currently... <S> You could add your current skill level if you want.
| Novice is a common term used to described someone who is just beginning to learn a new set of skills.
|
Can I say "Call it a project" similar to "Call it a day" I know we can say, "Call it a day" at the end of a day. Can I say, "Call it a project" meaning successful completed project? <Q> "Call it a day" does not mean "successful completed day"... it means "it's time to leave, let's stop for the night". <S> There's no implication that the day was particularly fruitful... <S> in fact, it's often used in cases where the day wasn't particularly successful. <S> You've been hitting your head against that wall for the last 10 hours and staying here isn't going to make it any better. <S> Call it a day , go home, and come back fresh tomorrow. <S> So there would be no equivalency between "this project is now successfully completed" and "call it a project" because there is none in the "call it a day" idiom to start with. <S> If anything, you risk it sounding like you're saying the project outcome is mediocre rather than completely successful: <S> Well, this is the best we can do with this project, so <S> let's call it done and ship it out. <A> Maybe you'd prefer "That's a wrap!" <S> Edit for more details: If I was working with someone on a group project and they said "Let's call it a project!" <S> I would understand it as "We are finished working on this, it is as finished as it is going to get" or "good enough" ( <S> Similar to "Let's call it a day", although if you call it a day you are saying you are done working that day , and presumably will come back the next day to do more) <S> "That's a wrap" has <S> the same general feel of you are finished working on it, although "That's a wrap" doesn't have the same "good enough" implication. <S> It is more like "this is a good finished project". <S> As a commenter pointed out, this has come from the film industry when they would finish shooting. <S> Both "that's a wrap" and "call it <S> a day/project" are very casual sounding, so I would say them to partners, but not to superiors or in formal writing. <S> In response to some of the comments, here are some other options: <S> "I think we have ourselves a project!" - expresses completeness and excitement <S> "Let's stick a fork in it and call it done." <S> - Another "good enough" sentiment <S> "Ship it!" <S> - Could be either "good enough to sell" or actually complete/finished, depending on context. <A> No, the idiomatic phrase call it a day is never modified in that way. <S> We do have some variations, including call it a night , but they typically refer to the time period when work was being done and not the thing being worked on . <S> Call it a project <S> may or may not be understandable to native speakers depending on the precise context, but it will almost certainly sound awkward. <S> We do sometimes play on idioms by replacing one or two words like this (often for humorous effect, sometimes intentionally being ungrammatical), but that can be hard even for native speakers to pull off successfully. <A> Can I say "Call it a project" meaning successful completed project? <S> You can say it, but to be better understood by a native English speaker you might instead say, <S> "We have successfully completed the project!" <A> "That's a project" is often used in the sense of something being a big undertaking. <S> With that context, using "Call it a project" may give a sense of work lying ahead rather than work being wrapped up/temporary halted as implied by "Call it a day." <A> As other answers have pointed out, "Call it a day," implies some measure of cutting your losses, or maybe a tactical decision to get some rest and get back to work tomorrow. <S> If that's the feeling you're going for with, "Call it a project," may I suggest: "Ship it!" <S> It's often used in software or product development to mean, "This is as good as it's going to get without significant extra effort. <S> We can't justify the additional cost (time, money, manpower), it's good enough " <A> I've never heard anyone say that - maybe I'm just lucky. <S> It just sounds like contrived business-speak to me: <S> poor use of language. <S> Why not just say "well done everyone <S> , that's a successfully completed project"? <A> To me, "Call it a project" would mean, "You know, this isn't just messing around any more. <S> This has gotten big, and serious <S> : let's call it a project!" <S> If we'd finally gotten something (mostly) done, I'd say "Let's call it done" or "That's a wrap". <S> If you just said "call it a project" out of the blue <S> , I think I'd be confused; I'd have to think about it a bit before I'd start to figure out you might be inventing a variation on "call it a day".
| You could say that, and in context it would probably make sense to those involved, but it isn't exactly a common idiom.
|
What is the meaning of this sentence about sustaining gradients in thunderstorms? When I am reading Philosophy and Simulation , I encountered the sentence: "the higher the air reaches the colder it gets, the more saturated it becomes, and the larger the liquid drops and ice crystals that condense from it" But I could not understand what the sentence means. Could you pharaphrase it for me? The death of a thunderstorm, in turn, is linked to processes that counteract its sustaining gradients: the higher the air reaches the colder it gets, the more saturated it becomes, and the larger the ·liquid drops and ice crystals that condense from it. <Q> The author is using some parallelism in phrasing and eliding some words that might help in understanding the sentence. <S> "the more saturated it becomes" means, roughly, " <S> it becomes increasingly more saturated". <S> "the larger the liquid drops and ice crystals that condense from it" means roughly "the liquid drops and ice crystals that condense from it become increasingly larger. <S> " <S> We could rephrase the entire sentence as "As the air reaches higher, it becomes colder, and this makes it become more saturated, and the liquid drops and ice crystals that condense from it become larger." <A> The death of a thunderstorm, in turn, is linked to processes that counteract its sustaining gradients: the higher the air reaches the colder it gets, the more saturated it becomes, and the larger the liquid drops and ice crystals that condense from it. <S> This is about cloud formations during rain, snow and lightning-and-thunder storms. <S> The atmosphere of the earth is colder at higher altitudes, and this drop in temperature causes the moisture in the clouds to condense and be released, forming rain, snow, sleet and/or hail, which then falls to earth. <S> As far as I can tell from this quoted passage, it has nothing to do with philosophy; it appears simply to be a statement about the weather. <A> The sentence is not bizarre and you need to understand the so called "the more comparative" structure in order to understand the sentence in the book. <S> This link seems to have pretty nice examples. <S> For example: The more he reads, the less he understands. <S> It means <S> Even though (as) he spends more time reading ( increase ), he doesn't understand more ( decrease ). <S> (He should understand more as he reads more, but it is not happening). <S> Another example: <S> The less you spend, the more you save. <S> It means <S> When (as) you spend less money than before ( decrease ), you can save more money ( increase ). <S> The sentence basically means: <S> The higher the air reaches (increase of height: when or as the air reaches a higher point) <S> the colder it gets, (increase of coldness: it gets colder) <S> the more saturated it becomes, (increase of being saturated: it becomes more saturated) and the larger the ·liquid drops and ice crystals that condense from it (increase of the size of liquid drops and ice crystals: the size of them increases) <A> "sustaining gradients" are those factors that must keep changing in a certain direction in order for a thing to survive. <S> Anything that tends toward the opposite direction, or towards stillness, will tend to kill it. <S> It has often been said that a business must grow or die. <S> In that case, positive growth is the sustaining gradient. <S> In the case of thunderstorms, there are several gradients that keep it alive: Air moving from lower to higherwarmer to colderless to more saturatedsmaller to larger drops. <S> The counteracting forces are mostly intrinsic. <S> As the air gets colder and denser, it sinks. <S> As larger drops form <S> , they fall out of suspension making the air less saturated. <S> Therefore the "sustaining gradients" carry within them the seeds of their own destruction. <S> The same has been said about growing businesses.
| "The higher the air reaches the colder it gets" could be rephrased as "As the air reaches higher, it becomes increasingly colder."
|
Article usage before "historical" What indefinite article ( a or an ) should be used before " historical "? For example: an historical standpoint. an historical misunderstanding. <Q> The simple rule is, "Use 'a' before a word that begins with a consonant sound. <S> Use 'an' before a word that begins with a vowel sound." <S> As Stangdon notes in his comment on another answer, the key is the SOUND and not necessarily the spelling. <S> "Historic" is a classic ambiguous case because some dialects pronounce the "h" ("h" as in "here") <S> and others don't. <S> Those who do pronounce the "h" often pronounce it only slightly. <S> So there's either no consonant sound or only a weak consonant sound. <S> Thus "an" would be appropriate. <S> But if you pronounce the "h" clearly, then "a" is appropriate. <A> Virtually all modern English dialects begin "historical" with a consonant sound, so "a historical" is correct for the modern pronunciation in most dialects. <S> If you speak a (somewhat uncommon) dialect of English that features <S> phonetic H-dropping for the word <S> "historical," then you might use "an historical". <S> However, there is a tradition ( mainly in British English ) of using "an historical" in modern text, despite the fact that "an 'istorical" is not generally spoken aloud. <S> This is possibly due to adherence to the traditional form of "an historical": at some point in the past, the pronunciation "an 'istorical" was more common, and certain British authors chose to persist this formulation in text long after the silent-H pronunciation had dropped out of common use. <S> Alternatively, John Lawler suggests this is simply a matter of syllable stress so that some dialects still soften the H in "historical" to merit use of "an". <S> I speculate that uncovering the reason and history of this persistence is potentially a collegiate-level research topic. <S> If in doubt, " a historical " is safest. <S> If you wish to persist the British affectation of "an historical," you may do so at the risk of being corrected by people following the standard rules of English based on modern pronunciation. <S> In any case, "a historical" is more popular than "an historical" and has been since around 1940 . <A> The rules for using "an" instead of "a" is really only about what sounds better. <S> You see both used because of accents. <S> Some British accents don't pronounce the H at the beginning of "historical". <S> So saying "a istorical" is difficult, so "an" is used. <S> In most North American accents, the H is pronounced. <S> So it's easier to say "a historical". <S> Which you use when writing will depend solely on who your intended audience is. <A> The answer is " a historical ..." because the "h" in front of "historical" is pronounced, and therefore "historical" doesn't begin with a spoken vowel, and "an" is to be used when the word begins with a spoken vowel, like "hour" (pronounced "our"). <S> You can learn more about it here and here among a lot of other sources. <A> "An historic" sounds more natural to me than "a historic," even though I do pronounce the H. <S> The same goes for "hilarious," "heroic," and "habitual. <S> " I think it's because the first syllable is unaccented. <A> In the US the use of "an historical" is becoming more and more common among American elites and aspiring elites. <S> It was almost unheard of twenty years ago. <S> It is being used as a sign of class distinction In our increasingly stratified society. <S> Those who use it are making deliberate statement that they are not of "The Great Unwashed Masses. <S> " <S> I lived among elites throughout the 1980's. <S> They never used "an." <S> I worked at an elite Northeastern college from 2004 to 2014. <S> In 2004 professors and high ranking administrators almost universally used "a." <S> By 2012 at the latest those very same administrators were using "an. <S> " <S> The professors' usage was mixed at the time I left. <S> I took note of the affectation several years ago and continued paying attention to it over the years because, at first, I thought it was odd. <S> Over time it became clear to me what was going on. <S> Another good example of this phenomenon is National Public Radio. <S> Their commentators never said "an" before "historical" until about 8 years ago. <S> All of their commentators have been using it for the last couple of years. <S> Some of their reporters still use "a." <S> But, I am sure they have to change their ways to get a promotion.
| If you are simply following the rules of English, you use "a" in front of consonant sounds and "an" in front of vowel sounds.
|
Is the word 'appreciate' too formal? I tend to use appreciate in my letter endings. Such as: "I appreciate your help". I wonder if it is too much formality? <Q> If it is to someone you don't know personally, it is not too formal. <S> For a friend, usually a thanks will do. <A> It's not more formal at all. <S> It does read like a deeper level of thanks than a simple "thank you" or "thanks" <S> but I doubt anyone will think anything of it. <A> I will sometimes casually say, "appreciated" to my friends if they do something for me, and that's very informal. <S> Letters are usually slightly (but only slightly) more formal than direct speech though, even between friends. <S> "I appreciate your help" would not be out of place in such a letter, though I would word it with a slightly less-formal, "I appreciate the help." <S> "Thanks for helping me out with that" would also be a good option.
| How formal the word is depends mostly on the context you use it in.
|
"You can't learn a musical instrument ______________ you practise every day" I was trying to do a PET sample test, and I found the following sentence reconstruction exercise, they were easy; but there's a sentence that I couldn't complete, this is the sentence: "If you want to learn a musical instrument, you need to practise every day." "You can't learn a musical instrument ______________ you practise every day" How can I fill it? <Q> NOTE: <S> The question originally did not include the sentence that provides context. <S> Given that context, "unless" is the only sensible choice. <S> I am leaving this answer up to illustrate some of the options that would be available if the context was not provided. <S> The other respondent's answer ( unless ) is likely the expected one. <S> There are other possibilities that make some kind of sense, and would be perfectly grammatical: <S> If you don't practice daily, you will not learn to play. <S> This is probably the "correct" answer. <S> You can't learn a musical instrument if you practise every day." <S> Your mind needs to rest a little - take occasional breaks from practicing if you wish to learn faster. <S> You can't learn a musical instrument because you practise every day." <S> Similar to the previous one - daily practice is hampering your progress. <S> You can't learn a musical instrument until you practise every day." <S> You have been wasting your time with occasional practices. <S> Change your behavior and start practicing more, or you won't learn. <S> You can't learn a musical instrument even if you practise every day." <S> You are a fat-fingered, tin-eared incompetent. <S> You will never learn to play an instrument. <S> Give up now. <S> Although would also work here. <A> One possible answer is "unless." <S> You can't learn a musical instrument unless you practise every day <S> The same sentence could also begin with the "unless" clause, in which case unless means "if not" e.g. if you don't ... <S> Unless you practice every day, you can't learn a musical instrument. <A> Here is another way: You can't learn a musical instrument before you practise every day.
| You can't learn a musical instrument unless you practise every day."
|
Am I going to use "with" or "wearing"? It's may day 2016 and every student can wear graduated cap this weekend in Finland. I read, that the word "cap" is deprecated and the synonym for "cap" would be "headwear". I'm going to tell my followers in English that I'm going to have a party with my college graduating cap or "Going to party wearing my college graduating headwear". I'm not sure if it's "Going to party with my college headwear". Please help me, with or wear with the word "headwear". <Q> "Headwear" is definitely not commonly used, at least not here in Canada. <S> It's more commonly referred to as a "graduate cap" or "graduation cap". <S> Using "with" or "wearing" doesn't matter too much, but "wearing" is more specific. <S> "With" just means you are taking it, but you could be carrying it under your arm the whole time. <S> But "wearing" means that you intend to wear it (probably for the whole party). <S> Also, you would say "a party". <S> So, you could say something like, <S> I am going to a party wearing my graduate cap. <A> For certain types of things put on one's head, some people may no longer use "cap". <S> However, if I understand you correctly, you are speaking of the thing you had on your head when you graduated. <S> In many situations it may look like a square with a tassel and upon graduation the tassel is switched from one side to the other. <S> The entire dress is usually referred to as cap and gown . <S> Not all graduates will wear a "mortarboard" and even in those instances, it is still referred to as a "cap" or "hat". <S> For example, cadets at West Point will traditionally throw their hats in the air at commencement <S> You will want to say I am going to the party in my college graduation cap <S> I am going to the party wearing my graduation cap <A> For example, if I went to the headwear section of a department store, I might be able to get any of these items: a cap, a hat, a visor, a beret, or a headscarf. <S> Headwear usually refers to items such as sun hats, rain hats, ball caps, snow caps, and stetsons. <S> Headgear might be used when the item is more protective, such as a helmet. <S> I'm unlikely to say, "I'll be wearing some headwear tomorrow." <S> Instead, I would say, "I'll be wearing a cap tomorrow," or, "I'll be wearing a hat tomorrow." <S> (Whether I use hat or cap depends on what I plan to wear. <S> Some headwear is almost always a "hat", and some is usually a "cap" instead.) <S> That said, if I was organizing a golf tournament, I might say, "It's supposed to be hot and sunny tomorrow; bring some headgear." <S> That's a convenient way to let everyone know they should bring some type of protective headwear – although what each golfer chooses to wear might vary quite a bit: <S> There's a famous line in an old Christmas poem: <S> And mamma in her ’kerchief, and I in my cap, Had just settled our brains for a long winter’s <S> nap <S> Mama's kerchief and the narrator's cap are usually imagined to like something like this: <S> I agree; that sense of the word cap is in decline – partly because fewer people wear sleeping caps nowadays. <S> But if you are talking about a graduation cap (i.e. a mortarboard ), that is still commonly referred to as a cap , and that's the word I would expect to read in your announcement: <S> Going to party wearing my graduation cap . <S> but I think "wear" is the better choice. <S> We go to parties with our friends, but we go to parties wearing headwear.
| As for "with" or "wear", you could use either one: Going to party with my graduation cap . A word like headwear or headgear is a hypernym for a word like cap or hat ; that is, it usually refers to a range of items in a particular category. As for the decline in usage of cap that you speak of, I don't think it's as drastic as you might think.
|
Which one is more correct, "near impossible" or "nearly impossible"? Usually, I write This task is nearly impossible , but I read the following line in a blog : Even though prices have been dipping, it's near impossible to manufacture a smartphone at such a low price. Is it correct? I also want to know whether nearly impossible is more used in Indian English. <Q> It's entirely up to the writer; English is a rich language. <S> The '-ly' form may place a little more emphasis on the verb, being a conventional adverbial form - the reader's attention is subliminally directed to the verb.[phew, can't quite do it]. <S> 'Near' slightly suggests, in contrast, a quality belonging to whatever is being so described. <S> [wooah, that's not on, effectively] <A> According to Merriam Webster Dictionary one of the meanings of near as an adverb is "almost or nearly" as in "The plant was near dead when I got it. <S> " You can find it here . <S> Both are true but according to corpus information "near impossible" is less frequent than "nearly impossible". <S> So it is better to use "nearly impossible". <A> "Nearly" is an adverb, which means "almost". "Near" can be an adjective, verb, or adverb: I am nearly finished with the assignment. <S> (adverb) <S> He lives near the school. <S> (preposition) <S> As we neared the railway station, we could hear the sounds of trains . <S> (verb) <S> Their house is the near side of the lake. <S> (adjective)
| Both are fine; they are both adverbs, though 'near' is as mentioned above also an adjective and a verb. In the example sentence, it's "almost impossible" so to be grammatically correct, "nearly" should be used; although "near impossible" could also be found which is, strictly speaking, contrary to the grammar books I know of.
|
Using "instead" with "but" Which of the following sentence is grammatically (more) correct? It's not your problem but your friend's. It's not your problem but your friend's instead . <Q> There are myriad ways in which you can phrase these <S> and it would be grammatically correct, although awkward. <S> I would suggest the following, which is based on my own experience as a native speaker. <S> It omits both " but " and " instead " and relies on the form for emphasis. <S> It's not your <S> problem-- <S> it's your friend's. <S> Depending on whether you want to emphasize the positive or negative aspect of the sentence, you can invert it, as in this example: <S> That's my toothbrush-- not yours. <S> In most cases, you can flip it either way without issue: <S> His cat's a Burmese-- not a Turkish Van. <S> His cat's not a Turkish Van-- <S> it's a Burmese. <S> This will sound more natural and idiomatic to most speakers, at least in American English. <S> I would love to know if other users have a different opinion. <S> Quick Note: <S> I've used dashes here to link the clauses of each sentence. <S> This seems correct to me because the sentences have a corrective, interruptive quality. <S> In my experience, native speakers are not always keen on the punctuation rules with commas (,), colons (:), semi-colons (;), and dashes (--). <S> Disagreements over proper usage can sometimes create opposing camps (e.g. the Oxford comma). <S> For what it's worth, I would say that you could substitute each dash (--) with a semi-colon (;) and the meaning would be largely the same, if a bit less emphatic. <A> Neither sentence is great, but I would say that the first sounds better. <S> However, I would use something like this, instead: <S> It's not your problem but, rather , your friend's. <S> (Note that my commas might be misplaced.) <S> Rather works better here stylistically than "instead". <A> They are both correct. <S> Adding "instead" just amplifies the contrast being made about whose problem it is. <A> " but " as a conjunction is used in contrast to what has already been mentioned. <S> You can use them together when " but " and " instead " don't form the same idea in a sentence: <S> You needed to go to the hospital but instead you went to the cinema. <S> (in contrast to going to the hospital as an alternative you chose to go to the cinema) <S> Your sentence doesn't seem to work that pattern and it sounds a little bit odd with possession (to me) . <S> However, I don't see anything ungrammatical about it. <S> It's not your problem but your friend's instead. <S> (in contrast to not being your problem as an alternative it was that of your friend's) <S> It would be much better to say, " <S> It's your friend's problem, not yours. ".
| Both of your examples are correct, but they would strike me as a rather clunky way to get your meaning across. " instead " is used to speak about something done or existing in place of another thing meant to be done or existing (as an alternative) .
|
"That's my jam" - is it only for songs? What does "That's my jam" I heard this phrase in TV serial 'Scream Queens' and the woman who said this dialogue was referring to some song. I searched it on Internet and found out from some local sites that it means that the song which was being played was one of the favorite song of the speaker. I just want to make sure that is this information correct and can we say 'that's my jam 'to refer to some other things other than songs or this phrase is just for referring song. <Q> It originally refered to favourite music in someone's personal playlist or music collection, and more specifically to music that forms a 'soundtrack' to their life or activities. <S> It has come to be applied more generally to refer to something that the person likes a lot, approves of strongly or enjoys doing. <S> Examples could include: 'Grilling steaks in the backyard with friends, <S> yeah <S> that's my jam!' <S> 'like my girls a little plump, yeah, curvy is my jam' 'Bass pounding dance music, that EDM stuff is my jam'. <A> But it isn't really used outside of music. <S> Mostly because jamming refers to the musicians having fun and playing well. <S> And it's become a slang word describing the listener to be having fun or being very into the music. <A> A former coworker who stopped working for our mutual employer told me that the job, "just wasn't her jam. <S> " She just could not get interested or excited about the position and did not feel she was a good fit -- very important for a jam amongst musicians and for someone working in a small office such as ours. <A> The phrase "That's my jam" refers to a song. <S> (Example: Is that Enter Sandman playing? <S> That's my jam!") <S> To use it in a way that describes something other than music, is just wrong, wrong, wrong. <S> Stop it, please!
| Yes, you use: "That's my jam" when referring to one of your favorite songs.
|
Opposite of "well understood" I wanted to say about a field in physics, that the laws are not well understood . To my ear, "well understood" sounds fine, but "not well" sounds clumsy, and any antonym I tried seems a little wrong... How would I call it: badly? or ill? or poorly? or [...] <Q> They do have slightly different meanings; poorly understood could also mean incorrectly understood , which is not the same. <S> Not well understood can imply that what is understood is correct, but that it is only a subset of the facts, whereas poorly understood could imply, like incorrectly understood that the facts are interpreted incorrectly. <A> A rather common expression in the sciences is little understood . <S> Here are several examples from scientific literature: <S> Yet these same organisms happen to be, in the language favored by field biologists, “vastly undersampled.” <S> Consequently, they have been little studied and so are little understood . <S> 1 <S> Although these physiological diseases are little understood , it is known that they are all communicable and hereditary. <S> 2 <S> The rigor of formal simulation models seems especially important <S> where the processes are little understood and the task environments loosely structured. <S> 3 <S> The principles by which hypotheses are discovered, or invented, are little understood , but the testing of hypotheses is a more tractable matter. <S> 4 <S> The electromagnetic properties of charged particles were little understood until the British mathematician and physicist Michael Faraday discovered the laws of electromagnetic induction in 1831. <S> 5 <S> However, from a physical standpoint, entanglement is little understood . <S> The questions of what exactly it is and how it works are still not resolved. <S> 6 <S> Therapeutic vaccines are little understood 7 S O U R C E S 1 Weird Life: <S> The Search for Life That Is Very, Very Different from Our Own by David Toomey, 2013. <S> 2 <S> From a report on a 1912 International Convention on Horticulture. <S> 3 Cognition and Instruction By David Klahr, 2014. <S> 4 Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content by P. C. Wason and P. N. Johnson-Laird, 1972. <S> 5 <S> The Truth About Tesla by Christopher Cooper, 2015. <S> 6 Quantum Backpropagation Neural Network Approach for Modeling of Phenol Adsorption from Aqueous Solution by Orange Peel Ash by Bhattacharjeem, Bhattacharyya and Mondal, 2014. <S> 7 Headline from The Telegraph , Sep 11, 1994 (page 64). <A> Adding to the great answer by Brian, you could consider using the laws are difficult to understand. <S> When something is well-understood, it means it is easy (not difficult) to understand. <S> And when something is difficult to understand, people don't understand them well. <S> Using an adjective such as " complex " or " complicated " could be considered if the cause of them not being understood well is they are consisting of many different and connected parts or elements as follows: <S> The laws are complex / complicated to understand.
| We would commonly use poorly understood , however not well understood would read well to a native speaker.
|
What is this cute pose called in English? What do you call this cute pose that usually young babies adopt? <Q> If I search Google images for those phrases, the image in your post comes up, as well as some other examples (click for larger size). <S> Handstand was the first thing I thought of, even though a real handstand would have the person's feet and head lifted off of the ground. <S> A headstand has some of the weight of the person's body resting on the head, so in the image above where the child has their cheek on the floor, it looks more like a headstand than your example picture, which seems more like a baby handstand. <S> Another phrase would be " upside down baby " - <S> That describes the content of the image, not exactly the pose. <A> For babies and toddlers, it's usually called looking between their legs <S> For adults it could be looking between their legs bending over and touching the ground <S> toe touching ( callisthenics ) Downward Dog ( yoga ) <A> In Yoga this pose might be called a 'forward fold' or a 'standing forward bend' (Also may be called: Padangusthasana or Uttanasana <S> but that is not English)
| I would call it a {baby/kid/child} handstand or headstand .
|
A more polite way of saying "the world is going to sh--" I am writing an essay and I want a more polite way of saying "the world is going to shit". I don't want to swear and can't think of what else to say. Can anyone help me? <Q> Oh so many, many ways. <S> I'm sure you will get many suggestions. <S> The world is going to hell in a handcart. <S> The world is going downhill. <S> The world is going to pieces. <S> The world is going to pot. <S> Just a few to get you started... <A> I like <S> The world is going downhill in another answer. <S> It sounds neutral (register-wise) and idiomatic. <S> But because you mentioned "essay", you may want to consider these alternatives: <S> The world is plunging/sinking/spinning into turmoil/chaos/disarray/oblivion . <A> Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, <S> The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. <S> And what rough beast, its hour come round at last <S> , Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? <A> It is a belief not a fact (depending on your perspective), you may want to simply express doubt. <S> You can say things like: <S> I don't like where the world is headed. <S> I'm not optimistic about ... <S> There is no hope for the world. <S> If you want to make that strong statement, maybe something like: <S> The world is lost. <S> The world will never recover. or to quote a song, and my boss, "It's the End of the World as We Know It".
| The world is going to the dogs.
|
Do you native speakers pronounce "don't ask" as /doʊnæsk/? This page said The /t/ is optionally silent when it follows /n/ and precedes a vowel sound, /r/ (including all r-controlled vowels) or a syllabic /l/. do you native speakers say " don't ask " as /doʊnæsk/ ? <Q> syllable-finally). <S> I might not even understand /doʊnæsk/ if the context didn't make it clear, and certainly it sounds excessively colloquial to me. <S> I never omit /t/ <S> after a nasal; "banter" will have the strong aspirated /t/ <S> even in casual speech. <S> You can't go wrong by pronouncing the t. <A> Being Australian I tend to use a lot of slang in my general conversations. <S> In this case, I would utilise the latter, simply because it rolls of the tongue better. <S> In formal situations though in which I am paying attention to my speech, I would say the former. <A> I think this is an accent thing. <S> I'm also Australian, and notice many people drop the "t" in this situation. <S> However, interestingly it seems to only be after _on't words, and not _an't words. <S> For example, "don't ask" becomes "doun ask", "won't ask" becomes "woun ask", but "can't ask" becomes "carnt ask" - I suppose because can is the opposite of can't - so silence on the t would lead to confusion. <S> Though I have heard "carn ask"...again due to accent. <S> doesn't...this is another one that depends on accent. <S> I've often heard it pronounced as "dozen". <S> Australian English is a lot more slurred and relaxed than England English though, and will differ from state to state. <S> In Tasmania, people often sound half asleep ;) <S> "Howz yuz goinn darl" ( <S> meaning how are you going darling) and "howz arz ya" (how are you) is a common greeting that I used to cringe at when I moved to Tasmania! <S> It is common here for complete strangers to call each other "Darl" (meaning darling) but never heard this in other states of Australia.
| I am a native speaker of a very general General American and I would say /doʊnʔæsk/ in all cases regardless of formality of speech (I always glottalize /t/
|
Why is "of" dropped in 'as X (of) a something'? Can anyone explain why preposition "of" is deleted in the second sentence? Please provide relevant examples to understand. If there is a certain rule, then what is the name of that rule? Incorrect: Most people think that women have achieved equality with men, but sociologists know that statistics for both post-graduate education and median income indicate as drastic of a gap as there was 10 years ago. Correct: Most people think that women have achieved equality with men, but sociologists know that statistics for both post-graduate education and median income indicate as drastic a gap as there was 10 years ago. If possible what is the difference between below two sentences. He is as melodramatic of a man as any I have seen. He is as melodramatic a man as any I have seen. Why can't I use He is as melodramatic man as any I have seen. <Q> Of is not 'deleted' in the second sentence; it is improperly intruded into the first. <S> This intrusive of has been common in colloquial English at least since I was a child in the 1950s, but it is not acceptable in formal writing. <S> As for the article: it is required by the ordinary sense <S> : He is a man. <S> It falls after the adjective here because melodramatic is not a direct attributive adjective ( He is a melodramatic man ) but the first term in the predicate comparison as melodramatic as . . . <S> In fact, it would be entirely proper to write it that way: He is a man as melodramatic as any I have seen. <S> There are really two predicates here: the "matrix" predication <S> He is a man and the subordinate predication <S> He is as melodramatic as any man I have ever seen . <A> Can anyone explain why preposition "of" is deleted in the second sentence? <S> I agree with StoneyB's answer to the effect that the of is not omitted in the second sentence, but rather improper in the first. <S> However, of is used in some phrases involving quantities and omitted in others, and not always in a predictable way. <S> For example, someone telling you how much sugar to add to a cake might say: a half a cup a third of a cup a quarter cup <S> Likewise, they might tell you to include a couple apples a pair of apples <S> I don't think there's much logic behind the differences above; they're just idioms that you get used to, and some may change regionally. <S> (I sometimes hear a TV personality say "a third a cup" and it sounds awful to my ear.) <S> For example, you might serve your cake to: your three guests : There are three guests and they all have cake. <S> three of your guests <S> : There are more than three guests, but three have cake. <S> three guests : Three guests get cake, the total number of guests is uncertain. <A> Apparently there's a grammatical rule being violated in your example sentences with "of", but as a native American-English speaker who writes reports for a living and has always done excellently on English tests (perfect English SAT), I'm completely unaware of it. <S> I'm sure I use the "of" construction fairly often. <S> In the US, I doubt most native speakers would even notice. <S> So, take note of the explanations you've been given here, but don't worry about it too much unless you're doing something rather formal. <A> To me, a non-native speaker, the "correct" isn't as easy as pie to be fully grasped at first read, but "as drastic a gap as there was 10 years ago" is proper usage . <S> As for the melodramatic man , I don't think it's the proper collocation ( <S> his gestures or behavior or some actions MAY be melodramatic, though) - maybe "a melodrama man" would suit the character best, IMHO.
| We often use of to distinguish between a portion of a greater number and an entire group.
|
Walk in/walk into -- meaning difference, and whether there interchangeable in the given context What's the difference between walk in and walk into in contexts like : He walked into/in my room? Are they interchangeable? <Q> It depends on the context. <S> "Into" gives the idea of transitioning from outside to inside. <S> "In" can mean the same, but not necessarily. <S> For example, "He walked in your room" could mean that he was already in the room and he walked ( <S> no transition from outside to inside). <S> But if someone is outside a room and says "I'm walking in your room", they would mean that they're walking into the room. <S> Whether that's incorrect or not, I don't know. <A> The main difference between walk in the garden and walk into the room <S> [walk into a wall] Walk into is not a phrasal verb. <S> It implies a location or place. <S> to walk in a place, like a garden or room means you are already inside the area and walking. <S> but watch out for the noun: a walk-in clinic, you don't need a appointment. <S> In AE, walks-in is also used for hair dressing salons (no appointment needed). <S> When used as noun, a walk-in customer is one without an appointment. <A> He walked into/in my room Usually, when the verb walk like go and come expresses the movement of someone to the inside of a place, it takes the preposition into, not in. <S> However, it's correct to use 'in' in the same sense as an adverb, without a following noun of place or space. <S> For examples: He walked in and sat down in a chair. <S> The door was open <S> so I just walked in.
| is: to walk into means to enter [a place] or bang into. Sometimes they are used to mean the same thing, sometimes they aren't.
|
Is it correct to say "take me on the way" I want to express that I learning some courses will give me a good vision in a specific field. Can I say like "these courses take me on the way to the statistics"? <Q> Maybe you want to say <S> We can shorten this in several ways. <S> These should get me on my way <S> would be clear and idiomatic if your listener knows what you are talking about. <S> The sense of way here, means heading toward or going in the direction of some destination. <S> We can assume that the destination you have in mind is the mastery of statistics to some degree. <S> See http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+way <A> No, that's not correct. <S> I assume the course is about statistics, right? <S> Maybe you could say, This course will give a good overview of statistics. <S> An "overview" means you will understand what the subject is about, but not be an expert. <S> I'm not sure if that's what you want to say. <A> I think it's not idiomatic to say: These courses will take me on the way to the statistics. <S> I think you can rephrase your sentence as follows: <S> These courses will go a long way toward(s) learning statistics. <S> These courses will give a good insight into statistics.
| These courses should/will get me started on my way to learning/understanding statistics.
|
"Please orange juice" is natural? When a server at a restaurant asks me "Anything to drink", I say "orange juice please." In that situation, can I say "Please orange juice"? <Q> I do think it is correct though, if you speak with a pause after "please" (or place a comma there, if writing). <S> Saying "Please, orange juice" might be confusing and cause the server to ask you to repeat your response. <S> I think using the response would be particularly troublesome in a restaurant that is fast-paced like many American restaurants. <S> Servers in most restaurants are probably used to hearing " yes, [drink] please " or " [drink] please " many times a day and hearing someone respond with something <S> almost what they're expecting will probably make them think they misheard you, or that they simply didn't understand you. <S> This could lead to you repeating yourself, or rewording your response and repeating yourself. <S> Either way, it isn't natural to make a simple response require a few sentences instead of a few words. <S> I don't think it would ever be natural in normal conversation. <S> Ordering at a fine dining restaurant might be one example where the setting is formal enough for this phrase would seem more natural and perhaps not cause confusion. <S> I would say in general, this wording is not natural. <A> If the (brand) name of the orange juice you want is Please <S> then you can say that; otherwise no, not really, not even with a comma: Please, orange juice. <S> The please at the beginning of the sentence sounds like an objection to something that the server has said. <S> Maybe he or she's asked if you if you want coffee, and you say Please! <S> orange juice. <S> accompanied by some hand waving and facial grimacing to indicate 'no' to coffee. <S> It is short for <S> Please, [no coffee, but I'll have] orange juice [instead]. <A> Honestly, I very rarely hear anyone ever use that phrase, but it is correct. <S> I would think that if you did use those words in that context you would say,"please, orange juice," as in "yes I would like a drink please" and then stating the preferred drink of choice. <S> So it makes much more sense if you add the comma <S> but it also sounds very formal. <S> It's up to you.
| I don't think that I have ever heard anyone respond with that particular word order. In conclusion, "Please orange juice" could be correct with a pause or comma after the word "Please".
|
Difference between which and them Each year, world-famous artists are invited to design and produce works of art from the ice, many of which/them can be found in the rooms. Which one is correct? And why? <Q> With "them", it would be a run-on sentence: two independent clauses without a conjunction between them. <S> If they are made into separate sentences, or semi-separated by a semi-colon (as commenters suggest) then it would be grammatical (though, ambiguous as to what "them" referred back to). <S> With "which", the second clause becomes a relative clause, and the sentence is grammatical. <A> Each year, world-famous artists are invited to design and produce works of art from the ice, many of them can be found in the rooms. <S> What's odd with this sentence? <S> Well, what will I find in the rooms? <S> The works of art? <S> or will I find the world-famous artists? <S> I'm not sure. <S> 'Them' can refer to the artists as well as their works. <S> On the other hand, if you had used 'which' , Each year, world-famous artists are invited to design and produce works of art from the ice, many of which can be found in the rooms. <S> It becomes very clear what you'll find in the room. <S> So I suggest you use 'which' instead of 'them' . <A> You can use both. <S> "Many of them can be found in the rooms. <S> " is an independent clause and needs to be separated by a semi-colon or a full stop/period: Each year, world-famous artists are invited to design and produce works of art from the ice; many of them can be found in the rooms. <S> or Each year, world-famous artists are invited to design and produce works of art from the ice. <S> Many of them can be found in the rooms. <S> If you want to use "which," then you need a comma to separate the two sentences. <S> This is because by using "which," you are creating a dependent clause, but the one which is non-essential, i.e., you can remove this part without affecting the meaning of the original sentence: <S> Each year, world-famous artists are invited to design and produce works of art from the ice. <S> Each year, world-famous artists are invited to design and produce works of art from the ice, many of which can be found in the rooms. <S> If you want to convey that only the artists are to be found in the room, use "whom" instead of "which/them" to kill the ambiguity. <S> Each year, world-famous artists are invited to design and produce works of art from the ice, many of whom can be found in the rooms.
| It can be either of them.
|
Is there one word that includes walls/ceiling/floor? Is there one word that includes walls, ceiling, floor - basically all the faces of a building? For example I would like to use such a word in the following sentence: "All the X of this building are made of wood". <Q> Well there isn't any one word that is totally right. <S> You could argue that surfaces is right, <S> All the surfaces in this building are made of wood. <S> All the walls in this building are made of wood. <S> Or maybe you could say: <S> But really there are quite a bit of words you could use <S> and it's kind of personal preference. <A> If you want to refer to what is inside <S> the walls, ceiling and floor, you can use framing . <S> The framing of this house is all wood. <S> While there is no single word that includes the surface, you express this by saying This house is all steel framing covered with drywall. <A> As has been suggested, structural surfaces is as good as anything.
| All the structure of this building is wood. You could argue that just walls could means walls, ceiling and floor. There is no English word to cover this.
|
Why is Robin Hood pronounced the way it is? As if it were one word (like "sisterhood"), with only one primary emphasis (ROB-in-hood)? As opposed to, say, "Henry Clay," with two primary stresses (HEN-ry CLAY)? <Q> Tonic Stress in an Intonation Unit. <S> The problem of stress in Robin Hood, which is spoken as one word or intonation unit. <S> is this: <S> If we agree that Robin Hood is said as a single unit, it can only have tonic stress on a single syllable of the unit comprised of three syllables . <S> 1) <S> Most say: Rob in Hood as sisterhood, tonic stress on the first syllable. <S> That takes account of how one would say Robin. <S> The reason for that I think stems from the single name Robin having the tonic stress on Rob when it stands alone. <S> Therefore, if you add another word with only one syllable (hood), it would tend to be secondary stress and not primary stress. <S> 2) <S> Others might say: Robin Hood , two equal stresses for Robin, tonic stress on Hood. <S> However, it also depends on the sentence in which the term appears. <S> For example: Q: What's your favorite movie? <S> Ans. <S> from a group: Robin Hood! <S> [1) is more likely] VERSUS <S> An entire sentence: <S> Well, they can say what they like about that other movie. <S> I really thought that Robin Hood was the best. <S> The tonic stress could very easily be on the Hood over the arc of that sentence. <S> If you take a name like Judy Dench, it has the same stress pattern, if we look at it as a single unit: <S> Ju dy Dench. <S> I truly doubt anyone would say: Judy Dench , with the stress on Dench unless it's in a full sentence where her name becomes emphatic. <S> "But the best actress was Judy Dench! ". <S> So, what takes the tonic stress depends on: What the unit is and whether the unit is a created by two names where the first has two syllables with stress on the first syllable, the second name has one syllable and the two words are said as a unit , then, the tonic stress will tend to stay where it is without the second word, unless the unit is spoken in a sentence where emphasis can change drastically. <S> Just for reference, I'm giving this site, but it could be anyone. <S> I am only posting it because this site likes references. <S> intonation unit and tonic stress <S> [Please note: my answer does not deal with the issue of accent, only tonic stress] <A> I think of this as a cultural issue. <S> This is analogous with Judy DENCH, Peter PAN, etc. <S> To me, ROBin Hood sounds strange and "American" (because I only hear it in US media and when I used to live there). <S> For example, UK says Potato SALad. <S> US says PoTAto Salad. <S> I am generalising hugely of course. <S> I know there is more than one stress in each phrase - I'm talking about the major one. <S> I also know there is a lot of variation within countries and regions too. <A> Because historically, his name arose exactly the way you wrote it: as a contraction of 'Rob-in-hood'. <S> Ever noticed how he wears a hooded cloak or hood-like hat in almost every incarnation of the tale? <S> His birth name was Rob (or Robb, or Robert, depending on which source you read), not Robin. <S> Remember that surnames were unfixed for most of recorded history, and even after they became commonplace, they would usually consist of a person's occupation (Cooper, Smith), location (Hill, Ford), or appearance (Brown, Short). <S> Therefore nicknames were used often to distinguish between people. <S> Say your name was Edward, and you became renowned for always wearing a cape. <S> You'd start off as Edward-in-cape, and over time, natural attrition through word of mouth would render you Edwin (or Eddin <S> ) Cape. <S> Which looks like it would follow the usual name pronunciation format, but actually would still use the contracted stress pattern. <A> Eh? <S> It's two words. <S> First name = <S> Robin, surname = <S> Hood. <S> It's pronounced with the same stress pattern as any other name, such as Fred Bloggs.
| Here in UK (where the legend originated) almost everyone says Robin HOOD. I think this may be linked to general differences in stress patterns between UK and US.
|
Why is the past perfect used here? It doesn't seem to refer to two past actions... "Although the waves barely covered my knees on this crossing, I still stopped on far bank and looked back to the mainland with a sense of exhilaration. I had made it back to my childhood island.(From Coastlines by Patrick Barkham ). It seems not to be an example of "what happens earlier and what later",does it? Why did the author use past perfect here? I have some thoughts about the completion of the action. I don't think the usage was covered in the suggested explanation because though there are some examples of completion and they mention it,but there are always two verbs and two actions. What we are having here is one verb,no time reference, but a result of his efforts to visit the island of his childhood,the event he had been anticipating all his life. <Q> You say What we are having here is one verb. <S> This isn't true. <S> There are four verbs in this passage: <S> Although the waves barely covered my knees on this crossing, I still stopped on the far bank and looked back to the mainland with a sense of exhilaration. <S> I had made it back to my childhood island. <S> The first three are in chronological order. <S> The fourth comes before the second and third. <S> Thus, we use past perfect for it. <S> (We could use past perfect for the first verb as well, but we don't need to because it's in chronological order.) <A> I had made it back <S> simply refers to arriving (coming back) to the island. <S> The first sentence can be in the near present because it talks about activities after arriving. <S> (As much as I can get with no other context, and the timeline being unclear.) <A> There are two past actions and as such this is a classic use of the past perfect. <S> Most recent action: stop on far bank and look back to the mainland <S> Prior action: <S> make it back to to the island <S> He makes it back to the island before <S> he stops and looks back. <S> This concept seems to be clearly covered in, <S> When is the past perfect exactly needed?
| There seems to be a relatively common belief among ESL students that when you use past perfect, the two relevant verbs have to be in the same sentence.
|
What is the difference between "yell" and "scream"? I am having some problems to differentiate between "yell" and "scream". From what I understand ( and read ), when somebody screams he/she is shouting in a loud way. Then, yelling is the same, only that it has the connotation of shouting out of control. Am I right? Is there any piece of context I am missing? <Q> scream - to cry or say something loudly and usually on a high note, especially because of strong emotions such as fear, excitement, or anger <S> yell - <S> to shout something or make a loud noise, usually when you are angry, in pain, or excited <S> Both definitions are very similar, as is the generally understood meaning. <S> Some people might have a preference about which word to use in a particular situation, but that would be a personal preference rather than a difference in generally understood meaning. <S> For example, I would probably use scream rather than yell about something non-verbal- for example the noise people make when they are on a rollercoaster ride at the fairground. <A> They can be used interchangeablly in many situations, like big and large . <S> For example, screaming, yelling, hollering, shouting, and crying can all refer to words uttered at a high volume. <S> "You dirty SOB, you're gonna regret the day you were born!" <S> screamed/yelled/shouted/ <S> hollered <S> /cried Bill. <S> However, there can be a difference between screaming and yelling. <S> This is screaming . <S> There are no words to this kind of screaming, just an expression of horror. <S> Compare the noise to a crying baby. <S> This is not usually described as yelling. <S> Because when you yell, shout, holler, etc you are usually producing actual words. <S> Note the video Top Ten Movie Yells includes "yells only in which words are spoken," thus differentiating yells from screams ( <S> the famous shower scene in Psycho is a scream, not a yell). <S> If it is a baby we usually use the word cry . <S> If it is someone who can talk, we can use either cry or scream . <S> When words are included, it can also be called a yell, holler, shout. <S> Particular contexts and historical usages make it difficult to cover all cases. <S> For example, a battle cry may be called a yell even though it contains no words as such. <S> The battle cry of the South, the Rebel Yell , is an example. <A> The differences in connotation vary by location, but generally "yelling" is less loud and, more importantly, less intense. <S> If one is screaming, it is at the top of their voice, sometimes incoherent, and sometimes accompanied by physical violence.
| Both 'scream' and 'cry' can refer to times when someone makes loud vocal noises that do not include actual words.
|
Is/Am/Are and To be Can some one explain me when we use a form of to be verb (is/am/are) and when we use "to be" or "be" instead of "is/am/are"? For example: Why bellow sentence doesn't use is/am/are but "to be"? I need this to be done within a hour <Q> Here 's a little explanation to it along with some examples. <S> Whereas, "to be done" is a passive construction as explained by AlanCarmack in the comment. <A> You can say either: <S> I need|want this car fixed. <S> I need|want this car to be fixed. <S> car fixed, house painted, sidewalk swept, grass mowed, etc <S> I want|need something (to be) {past-participle}. <A> First of all, "to be" is used in your sentence because "need" is followed by a "to infinitive". <S> For example, You need to tell her you love her. <S> Secondly, in this case, just like Alan Carmack comments, after "need" comes a passive construction (verb "be" in any tense + the past participle of the main verb), so need + <S> to infinitive = need to be + past participle. <S> Thus, in passive voice you may have any tense : <S> S.Present - am/is/are + P.P. <S> For example, I am criticized by my parents. <S> S.Past - was/were + P.P. <S> For example They were sent to jail. <S> It is the verb "be" the one you conjugate to produce the tense. <S> Besides this usage, "be", may be the main verb + an adjective or a noun. <S> For example, You are hardworking. <S> or She was a film star . <S> Finally, "be" may be an auxiliary + an -ing verb to produce continuous (progressive) tenses. <S> For example, They are typing their homework now or His mom was cooking when he arrived. <S> Usages of "be" without to: <S> A) AFTER MODAL AUXILIARIES <S> (can/could/may/might/shall/should/will/would/must/have to/needn't/ought to) <S> + BE For example <S> , He must be sick. <S> or We needn't be in that class. <S> B) <S> AFTER ADJECTIVES EXPRESSING NECESSITY, URGENCY OR ADVICE ( <S> essential/ crucial/obligatory/necessary etc.) <S> in the following formal constructions: For example, It is necessary that he be more careful. <S> C) <S> AFTER VERBS EXPRESSING ADVICE, URGENCY OR NECESSITY <S> (recommend/insist/suggest/demand, etc.) <S> For example, They recommend(ed (that)) <S> we be sensible of the situation.
| The primary auxiliaries "is, am and are" are used in the simple present tense to show the connection between the subject and a noun or adjective that comes after the verb.
|
"New York is raining" vs "It is raining in New York" New York is raining. It is raining in New York. Which one is correct? As far as I learned, it is correct to use it to describe weather. However, is it possible to say New York is raining in colloquial English? <Q> Only the latter, "It is raining in New York" works. <S> New York is raining would not work and is the equivalent of saying, Bob is raining. <S> New York is a state/city and cannot perform the verb rain. <A> you can refer to https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/192296/can-i-use-drenching-to-mean-being-drenched for the latter case <A> 'It is raining' or 'It's raining' are the usual ways to say this. <S> However, you can get creative and say that a person, place or thing is raining. <S> This can be figurative, as in ' <S> Bob is raining on my parade' (= <S> Bob is ruining my activity.) <S> or more to do with actual rain: <S> 'New York is raining cats and dogs this morning' <S> (= <S> It's raining cats and dogs in New York this morning.) <S> Here we are ascribing to New York the weather in New York in a substitution of the noun New York for the impersonal <S> it that we usually use. <S> You won't hear this often, but perhaps on the weather station.
| "It is raining in New York" or " New York is getting drenched in rain " would work.
|
How to understand "don't code today what you can't debug tomorrow"? It's a title of a blog . In my option, I absolutely can debug my code tomorrow which I wrote today. So how to understand that? <Q> It's a rephrasing of the old programmer's adage: "don't be clever" ! <S> Or Brian Kernighan's famous quote: <S> Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. <S> So if you are as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it? <A> It sounds like the quote means or intends for the developer to write clean and simple code that may be easily understandable even after some period of time . <S> The code should be easy enough to understand even if viewed after a certain period of time <A> It's sounds like a play on the phrase "Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today". <S> It's attributed various people including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. <S> Essentially it means "don't procrastinate". <S> If I had to guess, this version is intended to encourage readers to write clean code, particularly if you don't have the time to debug it. <S> I think that "can't" in this case doesn't mean "if you don't have the ability", it means "if you don't have the time". <S> So, my interpretation of this title is: <S> Write clean code today because you may not have time to fix it tomorrow. <A> Even for simple programs, I remember having hard times understanding some details a few months later. <S> Because I don't not use explicit enough variables, because I did not comment lines that seemed simple back then. <S> Most often, because I started coding directly, without taking a little time with pencil and paper before to map ideas, to record limitations, to foresee dependencies, to check whether I did a similar program before (which I did forget). <S> Every program, no matter how small and big, is a project, and deserves some project plan , asking at minimum (quoting from the preceding link): <S> Why? <S> - What is the problem or value proposition addressed by the project? <S> Why is it being sponsored? <S> What? <S> - What is the work that will be performed on the project? <S> What are the major products/deliverables? <S> Who? <S> - Who will be involved and what will be their responsibilities within the project? <S> How will they be organized? <S> When? <S> - What is the project timeline and when will particularly meaningful points, referred to as milestones, be complete? <S> Today and tomorrow should not be taken literally. <S> You would be a different coder in a few month. <A> Since we're in <S> English Language Learners <S> StackExchange and not in Programmers StackExchange , Tomorrow means in the future in its figurative sense (weeks, months, years later), not literal (in 24 hours). <S> If you ever studied your first programming language at school (or at home) <S> several years ago, try to find where you stored your old school projects, and read them. <S> When you wrote them you knew exactly what you were doing right? <S> ( don't code today... ) <S> Turns out you will probably struggle to understand your own code, and unless you were an experienced developer when you learned your first language (ahem), you had probably not left many hints for your future self to help him <S> /her understand what you were thinking back then <S> ( ...what you can't debug tomorrow ). <S> In this sense, when you write code you have to keep in mind someone else is going to read it. <S> And that someone else could be a "future you". <S> The "future you" could go from several days, to several weeks, to months or years later. <S> Ultimately the saying "don't code today what you can't debug tomorrow" or rephrased "aim to write readable and maintainable code in the long-term" is a general rule for developers. <S> You write code for your colleagues to read, and eventually your future replacement once you'll get promoted or move to work for another employer. <S> Seen from a different angle, if you don't write maintainable code, no-one can replace you and you won't get promoted. <A> It's a phrase that needs to be understand in terms of maintenance, try to put yourself in to those person shoe who have to deal with the code/project of other person. <S> What I understand is if you can't understand your after some time then it will be very difficult for someone who is working/solving bug of yours. <S> So use commenting to your code <S> is very necessary to make it clear <S> , what logic you were having in your mind just note it down, so after some in future if you are working on that same code or someone <S> other <S> then it can be easily have workaround with your project. <A> The quote, you say, is: don't code today what you can't debug tomorrow <S> It's not what you seem to have read it as, which would be more like: <S> no matter what you code today, you won't be able to debug it tomorrow … <S> which, as you point out, is nonsense. <S> The real quote is encouraging you not to write code that is difficult to understand. <S> If you would struggle to understand it if you came back to it in a year, that's bad; if you would struggle to understand it if you came back to it in a month's time, that's a big problem. <S> If you wouldn't be able to understand it enough to debug it tomorrow , then something is terribly wrong and you should not have written it that way. <S> (In that sense, there's some hyperbole in there.) <A> It simply means write a simple code including comments which can be easily debugged in the absence of the developer who is the owner of the code or may be by the developer itself after a period of time.
| Basically it's saying that you shouldn't write clever and/or tricky code because debugging such code later will be very hard.
|
what does it mean when someone says "it is one of the ones"? Marriage is one of the ones to keep couple committed for lifetime. I want clarity on the usage of word ones here? <Q> Your example sentence is not quite idiomatic (you need to say couples or a couple ). <S> Ones refers to an antecedent noun, but your sentence has no such context. <S> ones refers to a set of X, where X is established by an antecedent noun. <S> one refers to a member of a set. <S> Consider the following: <S> Marcos had many dresses. <S> The ones <S> she wore on state occasions <S> were very expensive. <S> This is one of the ones <S> she wore when visiting the White House. <S> The (particular dresses) <S> she wore on state occasions <S> were very expensive. <S> This is (a member) of the (set of dresses) she wore when visiting... <S> I like apples, but I don't like yellow ones. <S> Can I have one of the red ones? <S> He likes that director's movies, especially the ones involving espionage. . <A> You can replace the word ones with the word things and the meaning is the same: <S> "Marriage is one of the things which keeps a couple committed for a lifetime." <S> The phrase "one of the ones" means one thing from a group of things you could consider it a less formal and more uncertain or ambiguous way of saying the following: <S> "Marriage is one of the five things which keeps a couple committed for a lifetime." <S> If you say one of the ones, you do not necessarily know how many ones there are in total making it less certain and ambiguous. <A> From all of the things happened between couple's life, marriage is one of the ones will make couple committed to each other. <S> Here, ones is related to all things that happen in couple's life and marriage is one which will stand out to be reason for committing to each other.
| The ones refers to a subset.
|
Words to describe people that react angrily and offensively when someone disagrees with them? What do you call a person that dislikes it and takes it personally and becomes angry and frustrated whenever you disagree with them or present a logical argument contradicting what they are saying? One such person thought it was a matter of being opinionated, but actually one could have very strong opinions but not care less if someone else felt or thought differently, so that is not the correct word (and of course I cannot even tell them that or they will get angry and shout at me). <Q> There's more of an aspect of stubbornness to truculent than getting angry. <S> "Difficult" people can also be contentious or the type of people who like to argue. <S> I might also call them confrontational or people who enjoy confronting or opposing other people, but I also don't know if that's strong enough. <S> Another word came up when I was discussing this with my husband - Defensive : excessively concerned with guarding against the real or imagined threat of criticism, injury to one's ego, or exposure of one's shortcomings. <S> This doesn't always imply angry and aggressive, but it is very closely related to not being able to handle people disagreeing with you. <S> You might call him "aggressively defensive" and it would have the added benefit of combining two normally opposite words :) <S> In poker, we call them "rammers and jammers" - they play extremely aggressively by raising the bet and re-raising to scare other players out of the hand instead of winning by skill. <S> They also tend to lose a lot of money against folks that play well and know their tricks ;) <S> I don't think that phrase is widely known, and it might mean different things to different people if you use it outside of the context of poker. <S> The reason I think it fits is because people who get extremely aggressive when other people disagree with them are trying to "win" the discussion by overpowering the other person instead of using their logic. <A> I would use hotheaded : <S> Easily angered; quick-tempered: a hotheaded commander . <S> Impetuous; rash: a hotheaded decision . <A> Based on the description, intolerant comes to mind. <S> However, you asked for a special word that especifically bears getting angry while discussing or hearing others' opinion. <S> I cannot think of a single word but probably aggressively intolerant/biggoted can work here. <S> There are some words that can imply aggressiveness or being dangerous sometimes like fanatic as a noun or fanatical as an adjective. <A> That one is hard to pin with one word in English. <S> I'd try a combo of words that express "disagreeable" and "easily angered", e.g. some combo of these: Incendiary; inflammatory; fragile; provocable; tempered <S> ; Irreconcilable, incorrigible ... <S> Incorrigible may be good.
| One word that came to mind was truculent : tending to argue or be bad-tempered; slightly aggressive , but I don't think it is strong enough for the behavior you're describing.
|
How to choose from 'There is no chair / There isn't a chair / There are no chairs / There aren't any chairs'? This question might seem a bit of a cliche. I looked for duplicates and found two but the answers were not convincing. I even went through other forums to find similar questions; interestingly the respondents weren't sure at all or gave irrelevant answers. So, I'm going to be clear as much as possible and keep things to the point to get the point I'm looking for. I know all about singular/plural countable or uncountable thing about these structures and possible grammatical sentences out of them. My question is probably about the register, being more common, expectation, emphasis , or something like that. Where do native speakers tend to say each of these statements and why? There is no chair here. There isn't a chair here. There are no chairs here. There aren't any chairs here. I think there must be something that determines which structure to be used or preferred to the other one. What is that?! If someone asks me "Why did you say, ' there aren't any chairs here ' and not ' there is no chair here '" what should I say?! Why would I choose singular form over plural form?! Actually a junior language learner asked me that and I wasn't sure how to answer! <Q> So much would depend on the intonation of the sentence. <S> Intoned in a certain way, the statements could take on specific meaning: <S> There's no chair here. <S> There used to be a chair here. <S> But it's not here now. <S> You said there was a chair here. <S> But I don't see one. <S> There isn't a chair here. <S> You might think a place like this would have quite a few chairs, but I don't see a chair anywhere. <S> Strange. <S> Where have all the chairs gone? <S> Something other than a chair is here. <S> By no means am I suggesting that this is the only way to understand these sentences. <A> If you are expecting just one chair to be there, you would say There is no chair here. <S> There isn't a chair here. <S> So if somebody says "this is your desk", and there is no chair placed at that desk, you might use one of these. <S> If you are expecting several chairs, you would say There are no chairs here. <S> There aren't any chairs here. <S> So if somebody says "the meeting is in this room," and there is a table but no chairs you might use one of these. <S> There isn't any significant difference between the sentences in each pair. <S> For a more extreme example we would say There was no moon in the sky, and not <S> * <S> There were no moons in the sky, <S> Similarly, we would say There are no snakes in Ireland, and not <S> * <S> There is no snake in Ireland. <A> Any of those sentences could be used and seem completely natural in different contexts. <S> Are you talking about one chair or many chairs? <S> That (obviously) determines whether you choose the plural or not. <S> If I asked about multiple spoons, but you answered me with a singular response, it would seem odd. <S> For example, if I said "Would you get me two spoons from the drawer please?" and you responded "There's no spoon here. <S> " If I ask about a singular and you responded with a plural it wouldn't be as odd. <S> If I say "Go tell Joe he has a phone call. <S> " you could say "There are no Joes in this room - I don't know who you're talking about." even though it's more likely you would say "Joe isn't here. <S> " <S> Are you talking about one specific chair or just any chair? <S> That determines whether you say "there is no chair" or "there isn't a chair". <S> This can be tricky because it really depends on what is in your mind when you say it, and not necessarily anything that has been said earlier. <S> I could say "When you get there, sit in the chair." <S> and if there are only couches when you get there, you might tell me "There is no chair here." <S> (the specific chair that you were going to sit in isn't there) or "There aren't any chairs here" (you looked for any chair to sit in and there were none available). <S> In the movie the Matrix, there is a scene where a boy is bending a spoon with his mind <S> and he says that to do that first you must realize there is no spoon. <S> He is speaking about a specific spoon. <S> If I asked you to get me a spoon from a drawer that had no spoons in it, you could say "there isn't a spoon in here (for me to give you)." or "There aren't any spoons in here, just forks." <S> or "There's no spoon in here (the specific spoon you want isn't here). <S> " All of those statements are fine and sound natural.
| You choose each among those expressions based on what you want to communicate.
|
When to use "come" & when to use "go"? I don't understand what this article is saying: We use come to describe movement between the speaker and listener, and movement from another place to the place where the speaker or listener is. We usually use go to talk about movement from where the speaker or listener is to another place. When we talk about another person (someone who is neither the speaker nor the listener), we can use either come or go, depending on whether the speaker sees things from the receiver’s viewpoint (come) or the doer’s viewpoint (go). [doer]Yolanda came to [receiver]her mother for help. We use come when we see things from the receiver’s viewpoint (in this case the mother). [doer]Melissa went to [receiver]her mother for help. We use go when we see things from the doer’s viewpoint (in this case Melissa). Could you explain it clearly? <Q> The short answer: <S> You: "Please go." <S> Other: <S> "Okay I'll leave. <S> Bye." <S> Come is used when something or someone is moving from their position to yours. <S> You: "Come here." <S> Other: "I'll be right there." <S> In this example you are telling another person to move from wherever he/ <S> she is and move to where you are. <S> In the article you quoted, the examples are from a third person's perspective and are in past tense. <S> Here are some examples similar to the ones in the article: <S> "His friend went to the store the other day to buy some fruit." <S> His friend is the doer because he/she is the one who went to the store. <S> " <S> Her dad came over and said hello to Jason last Tuesday" <S> Her dad is the doer and <S> Jason is the receiver. <S> Something else I noticed about the article <S> : went and came are used in a slightly more complex way than the way I used them in my examples. <S> In the first sentence, Yolanda may have, but did not necessarily physically move from her location to her mother's location. <S> It can certainly be inferred that for Yolanda to get help from her mother she had to physically go to her mother, but it's less clear than in my examples. <S> The sentence, in black and white, only means that Yolanda sought out help from her mother. <S> Also, I'm not sure I would agree with the article's explanation. <S> If the first sentence is from the mother's viewpoint then why did she refer to herself in the third person? <S> She should have said "Yolanda came to me for help" instead. <S> TL;DR: <S> Go and went have different meanings in the article's sentences than in mine. <S> In my sentences, they mean to move from a place to a different place. <S> In their sentences, they mean to get help from someone. <S> The difference is subtle but present. <A> In the context of the article, a simpler way to put it is to use "come" when the destination is either the speaker or the listener, or their location. <S> Use "go" when the destination is a third party, or a location where neither the speaker or listener currently are. <S> "I will come to you. <S> ""Please come here. <S> ""He will come to me. <S> "but"I will go to him. <S> "When the destination is a location rather than a person, you can still infer whether the speaker or listener is at said location. <S> "I will come to the park. <S> " implies the listener is already at the park. <S> Likewise, "Please come to the park. <S> " implies the speaker is already there, whereas you might say "Please go to the park and wait for me there." <A> A simple explanation of the difference can be seen in the following example: <S> John is at his house. <S> John says, "This afternoon, I will go to the park." <S> Steve is at the park. <S> Steve says, "This afternoon, John will come to the park." <S> From John's point of view, he is "going" to another place. <S> From Steve's point of view, John is "coming" from another place. <S> ... <S> Sarah could say two things that mean the same thing, since she is not at John's house or at the park: <S> "This afternoon, John will go from his house to the park." <S> "This afternoon, John will come to the park from his house." <S> Sarah has a number of other ways that she could phrase what is happening, depending on what she is trying to emphasize or how she might be involved in John's plans for the day.
| go is used when something or someone is leaving or moving away from you.
|
Smack someone from behind with your crotch What is this called in English I describe the situation as follows: When a boy goes behind a girl, front-to-back position, especially when the girl is distracted because it makes it funnier to him, hits (kind of smack) her butt using his crotch including the part where his genitals are and then runs away. Occassionally boys who are close friends do that, too, just to tease eachother. Sometimes that strong that the other one bends backwards somehow or is pushed forward. Actually it's a kind of sexual harrassment thing if the girl/boy is not OK with that. The word that I'm looking for doesn't need to include running away , or being funny although if it does that'd be even better. I was thinking of bang someone but I think that's too strong. They're not having sex or anything! Maybe this happens in a disco, too, and the girl either slaps the boy or becomes a date. <Q> It can also be used to describe actual sexual intercourse depending on the context and usage. <S> It certainly is behaviour that is demeaning to a woman or a person who it is done to. <S> There's an infamous video hoax that apppears to show former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi doing this behind a woman on the street as he enters a building. <S> The other sense in which humping is used is when a dog decides to "hump" your leg. <S> It may be trying to have intercourse with your leg, but you would probably want to say <S> : "Stop humping my leg" And then gently shove him off your leg! <A> As both Nik and R have stated in the comments to Nik's answer, I feel the term you are looking for would be a pelvic thrust . <S> This implies one movement whereby the pelvis is thrust from backwards to forwards in one motion. <S> Doing this more than once would be called pelvic thrusting . <S> Humping / Dry Humping on the other hand, is often used to express the act of simulated or real sexual movements (not dissimilar to thrusting the pelvis) or to the act of copulation itself. <S> However, there is a heavier implication of there being an object that is being "humped" such as another person or thing. <A> I think the term you're looking for is "bump 'n grind." <S> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BUMP%20N%20GRIND <S> And it's also an R Kelly song.
| I think the word you are looking for is "humping", which is often used to describe simulated sexual activity in the way you describe. This can be done in the air (such as the dance move from the Time Warp) or against a person or thing.
|
Is "hello" followed by "!" or "."? Is "hello" followed by an exclamation mark or a full-stop? How about "Have a nice day"? I normally type "Hello!" However, I got corrected to be "Hello."Which punctuation mark should I use? <Q> Punctuation is about making your writing more readable and exclamation points are a great way of showing that something was said with emphasis. <S> The answer to your question is that both are just fine, depending on your intent. <S> If you mean for "hello" to be read as an exclamation, use an exclamation point. <S> Hello! <S> It's so good to see you again after so long! <S> Hello. <S> This is customer service and we are returning your message. <S> The same is true if you're adding direct address to it: <S> Hello George! <S> I've missed you! <S> Hello, Mr. Sanders. <S> I'm writing to address your questions. <S> (There's a great answer on ELU about whether to use the comma between "hello" and the person's name here ) <S> If you're using it as a salutation, you could also consider a comma: <S> Hello, <S> This email is in regards to your message from May 7th. <S> All of the above applies to "Have a nice day" as well, with the exception that the comma would be used in the case of a signature since you wouldn't use it as a salutation. <S> Have a nice day, John <A> It all depends on the context - who is it that corrected you? <S> Anyway, I think both "Hello." <S> and "Have a nice day." <S> (with periods) seem kind of passive aggressive for causal communication, and would usually opt for the exclamation mark, although you probably wouldn't start some kind of formal email or message with "Hello!" <S> On a different note, the punctuation I would probably use most often with those phrases is a comma, since they seem like they'd most likely be used as part of a letter: <S> Hello, <S> Do you know where I can buy shoes? <S> Have a nice day, Sarah <A> To me, "Hello." is more neutral, and "Hello!" is more friendly. <S> In a letter, as Sarah mentions, a comma is common, but an exclamation point is fairly common as well. <S> A period is uncommon as an opening salutation in a letter. <S> One other wrinkle to this: if someone is answering the phone, or walking into an empty room and asking if someone is there, you will often see it written Hello? <S> as people often raise the pitch at the end of the word in these situations. <S> There's an implied question in both cases: on the phone it's Hello. <S> Who is calling? <S> and in the empty room it's Hello. <S> Is anyone there? <S> So, whoever "corrected" you is oversimplifying, although perhaps the person was only correcting the way you used it in one place.
| If you mean for "hello" to be read more flatly, use a period.
|
"A boiled egg in the morning is really hard to beat" - explain the pun please It's from The Last of Us video game: A boiled egg in the morning is really hard to beat. I don't get it. Here are more puns if somebody is interested. I managed to understand the rest of them though. <Q> One of the senses for the verb beat is, per Wiktionary : <S> To mix food in a rapid fashion. <S> Compare whip . <S> " <S> Beat the eggs and whip the cream." <S> Thus, you can only "beat an egg" if it is in the raw condition. <S> Secondly, the expression "hard to beat" has the idiomatic meaning ( Macmillan ): to be very good, or to be better than other things of its kind <S> "It’s an expensive hotel, but that kind of service is hard to beat." <S> So, there are two layers of meaning here: <S> It is hard to turn a boiled egg into a mix by beating it (I would say, almost impossible). <S> Since it is hard to do this in any part of the day, naturally it is hard to do this in the morning. <S> It is great to eat a boiled egg in the morning: you can eat something else, but that would most likely be less delicious than a boiled egg. <A> Meaning 1: Boiled eggs for Breakfast: YUMMO!!!! <S> It's "hard to beat that", i.e. it's hard to better that as an experience. <S> Frank McCourt in "Angela's Ashes", <S> describing his family's childhood poverty in Limerick Ireland, dreamt of being sooo <S> wealthy that his little brother Alfie could have a boiled egg everyday if he wanted one and how wonderful such wealth would be. <S> Meaning 2: To fold an egg, as in cooking (i.e. stir vigorously either to mix, or in the case of eggwhites, to beget chemical change that gets them ready for making meringue or Pavlova). <S> Eggwhite only folds when the egg is raw. <S> You can try it on cooked eggwhites, but only if you have a really powerful blender! <A> If you break a boiled egg and mix the white with the yolk (yellow) <S> no matter how you do it, I would be much surprised to see it that way in the morning for breakfast unless you want to put it into an egg salad . <S> When you make an egg salad, you use the verb to "chop" (cut something into pieces with repeated sharp blows). <S> The purpose is not to mix the white with the yolk as to "beat" does, but to break the boiled egg into as many pieces as possible. <S> The below is an excerpt from Timaru Herald in 1898. <S> 2 May 1898, <S> Timaru (NZ) Herald, pg. 4 ad: <S> WHY is BENJAMIN GUM like a Hard-boiled Egg?—Because <S> it is HARD TO BEAT! <S> Your sentence has a double meaning as well explained by the other answer. <S> A boiled egg is the best food you can have in the morning. <S> Nobody can beat a boiled egg because nobody can. <S> If you do it, you would be considered "crazy". <S> I don't think it is a matter of whether it is possible to beat a boiled egg or not. <S> We don't beat a boiled egg because it is not customary. <S> And if something is refered to as a "hard-boiled egg", it has the best quality and it is almost impossible to beat its quality. <S> The two meanings are closely related.
| The expression "hard-boiled egg" has been used for a long time to refer to a tough guy (if you are a tough guy, it is not easy to beat you) or something that is second to none (best in quality).
|
A word or a phrase to describe a person who distort your message and pass it to another person A colleague of mine encountered a person who selectively distort some message on purpose when communicated to certain group of people. As a result of that, the main message was not been correctly conveyed. I wonder is there any term or phrase to describe that person trait? I mean this person makes the message false by mutilation or addition. <Q> It may be an instance of the children game called; Chinese whispers (or telephone in the United States) is an internationally popular game, in which one person whispers a message to another and so on through a line of people until the last player announces the message to the entire group. <S> Although the objective is to pass around the message without it becoming misheard and altered along the way, part of the fun is that, regardless, this usually ends up happening. <S> Wikipedia <A> In Canada where I grew up we called them malicious gossipers . <S> This meant (to us) that even a kernel of truth was distorted by the person. <S> Other words we'd have used would be rat bastard or nasty bitch , but they would have had to be in context. <S> Slanderer and scandalmonger might fit, but the listener might not know the gossip to be lies. <S> Defamer and slanderer both fit, but aren't common here in everyday speech. <S> A lawyer can help use sue for slander. <S> n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. <S> Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. <S> legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slander <S> LINK <S> This still doesn't work for willfully distorting a message. <S> That person is most likely a narcissistic liar . <A> In British English, such a person is colloquially known as a stirrer . <S> They are deliberately stirring up confusion amongst the members of the group addressed. <A> In Russia we call them falsifier . <S> I'm also familiar with the English term " foger ". <A> The specific term might depend on how the message is changed. <S> For example, if the original words are reported accurately, but the meaning is changed by omitting the surrounding words, then this is the fallacy of quoting out of context . <S> Or the closely related straw man argument .
| I've also heard fabricator .
|
Can a person say he's saturated? (In the sense that he can't take anymore) I was talking to my friend yesterday and he told me that he has been promoted and has to take additional responsibilities. Then he told me that he would soon become saturated. Can a person become saturated? Can saturated be used in this context? I keep thinking that overwhelmed is the right word. I also came across sentences like feeling a bit saturated, saturated of what I am doing. <Q> I don't recall any use of "saturated" referring to a person, and couldn't find any in online dictionaries. <S> All the examples I found are of describing objects or materials. <S> So, it is an unusual usage, to say the least. <S> A close related word that is used to describe a person is "satiated", but it doesn't seem to be a perfect fit in this case. <S> "Overwhelmed" is suitable, and you can also consider "swamped", "overworked", "overloaded", "exhausted", or "drowned", depending on the message you want to convey. <A> In normal english usage, saturated means getting completely wet. <S> It also has a technical meaning, when a liquid contains the absolute maximum amount of a dissolved solid. <S> Saturate can also mean filling something completely, but this is not used in everyday speech. <S> From this comes the business meaning saturate the market - to supply every possible customer or channel, leaving no possiblilities for further sales or development of sales. <S> Overwhelmed is not an equivalent word, as it suggests that you are not just required to work at 100% capacity, but at more than 100%- the equivalent would be supersaturated . <S> The nearest equivalent would be more like "at the limit of his capacity". <S> a bit saturated is definitely an incorrect usage, as you can't be a bit absolute maximum . <S> Likewise, saturated of what I am doing is unusual and unlikely to be appropriate. <S> If it is intended to imply that you are completely busy (and you find it interesting) <S> you would say I am completely absorbed with what I am doing. <S> And if you are completely busy and if you are neutral about it, you would says I am fully occupied with what I am doing. <A> Saturation has a variety of meanings which all include the notion of being at a limit that cannot be passed. <S> For example "saturated by the rain" - you're as wet as you can get, "saturated solution" - <S> you can't dissolve more of a chemical into a solution by adding some more and stirring (leaving out the special case of "supersaturation"), "saturated color" - you can't make the color purer: it's already a rainbow color (although perhaps in a different shade), "emotionally saturated" - <S> your body has already produced all the adrenaline it can, you can't feel some emotion more than you are already feeling it, "cognitively saturated" - you can't handle more information because you are already thinking about something as hard as you can. <S> So your friend saying that he will soon become saturated is effectively saying he thinks he will reach the limit of the work he can get done in a day. <S> I am not saying this usage is particularly common or widespead, but I think it would be understood by native speakers. <S> The last example, "saturated of what I am doing" is awkward and "of" should probably be replaced with "from" if used at all. <S> A much more common expression to use about work is "inundated" (Collins Dictionay) : " <S> I am getting inundated at work" would mean I am receiving more requests that I can handle on a regular basis.
| "Feeling a bit saturated" would convey to me that the speaker is nearing some limit of their capability and perhaps reaching it from time to time.
|
What's the meaning of "break your legs"? One of my friend told me to break my legs before entering the examination hall...I was confused with her words! How am I supposed to sit for the exam if i broke my legs? Or maybe is it kind of idioms/phrases? <Q> The usage of the phrase "break a leg" originates from within the theatrical profession. <S> It was considered that to wish an actor "good luck" for a performance was to "jinx" them and have the opposite effect. <S> As a result it was wished they would "break a leg" and thus cause "good luck". <S> This is referenced in the movie the Producers where you can hear it used in this song . <S> The confusion caused by those who do not know this convention is illustrated here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjJRPlY8dUY <S> So you are not alone in your reaction to this! <A> I could not find any support for the claim that "break a leg" was once slang for bowing. <S> Presumably it was never particularly widespread. <S> Therefore, and since the phrase seems to be relatively recent, I doubt the theory (on the English Wikipedia) that this is how it arose. <S> As a native German speaker I find one explanation in the Wikipedia article particularly convincing. <S> (The version at the German Wikipedia seems a bit clearer to me.) <S> It passes through the equally enigmatic German phrase "Hals- und Beinbruch". <S> It appears that there is a Hebrew expression <S> "hazlacha uwracha" ("הצלחה וברכה"), which turned into Yiddish "hatslokhe un brokhe", meaning "success and blessing". <S> (Apparently the initial u of uwracha was reinterpreted as un , which is German und <S> / English and .) <S> There was a well known connection between German showpeople and the Rotwelsch language , which in turn had a strong Yiddish influence. <S> It is therefore a totally plausible speculation that German showpeople unfamiliar with Hebrew turned the Yiddish phrase into the malapropism "Halsloch und Bruch" ("neck hole and fracture"), which was then replaced by "Hals- und Beinbruch" ("neck and bone fracture" or "neck and leg fracture"), already a frequently used phrase originally referring to actual accidents. <S> (Compare "pots and pans" as a general reference to household goods.) <S> "Hals- und Beinbruch" first occurs in this new sense in the Google Books corpus in the 1860s. <S> Today the phrase is still employed very commonly when wishing someone success (e.g. in a theatre show, in an exam, or sometimes in business talks - basically anything that resembles a performance), but has almost fallen out of use in its original sense. <S> Regardless of these details, it appears to be well established and generally accepted that "Hals- und Beinbruch" originates in the Yiddish (and ultimately Hebrew) phrase. <S> It seems plausible that this phrase crossed the Channel as part of the lively exchange of artists and showpeople between Germany and Britain, with Germans first wishing their English colleagues "leg fracture!" <S> (edited: or "neck and leg break!" <S> - see AlanCarmick's find in a slang dictionary) and then, when this wasn't understood, "break a leg!". <S> "Break a leg" in this sense was first attested around 1920. <A> The other answers seem to define the phrase as "Good luck" but I would classify it a little more specifically as "Have a good performance". <S> The reason, as noted in the other answers, is commonly associated with theatrics, but the phrase is typically used when someone is about to "actually do something of significance" (hence the performance part). <S> You wouldn't, for counter-example, wish someone to 'break a leg' when buying a lottery ticket - even though you might wish them luck. <A> Break a leg! <S> (humorous spoken ) is used to wish someone good luck. <A> Italian provides a very different expression but with the same sense of threat and well wishing: "in bocco al lupo" - literally "in the wolf's mouth". <S> See this entry on Italian Stack Exchange where the accepted answer notes the correspondence with the English "break a leg" <A> In Shakespearean times, if the audience liked a particular actor's performance, they would receive sustained applause at the end the performance, during curtain calls. <S> Actors would place one foot in front of them and bend their back leg when taking a bow, thus 'breaking' a leg. <S> It isn't used as an ill-wish, but as a friendly way to say, have a great performance and hope you receive many 'extra bows' to the audience at the end of the show. <A> I always enjoy seeing derivations of phrases when they force some idea to suit the needed outcome. <S> One perennial is tips as T.I.P.S. and also "A camel passing through the eye of a needle". <S> I could not respond before Adam <S> but yes, a leg is the vertical block on each side of the stage. <S> To break it is to allow oneself to be seen behind it, being where one should not be. <S> This can be easy to do since you cannot look out to the audience to see where the sight lines are without being seen yourself. <S> The lines of sight are not marked on the floor so you need more experience than caution to stay clear of them. <S> Being seen on the side of the stage takes focus from those on the stage and ruins the moment they are working on. <S> Wishing someone "luck" is a performer's death sentence requiring several steps to dispel. <S> Wishing that they make a big mistake as in "Break a leg" is the standard warm hearted threat that lets them know you care.
| The wish that you "break a leg" is part of the actor's expressions of reverse luck.
|
What's a professional synonym for "would love to"? I frequently use the expression "I would love to" when I write e-mails to request things from the other party. As in " I would love to have a call to discuss... " I feel like it conveys humility, expressing that the other party would be doing me a favor by accepting the call, for instance, which is useful for sales. However, it was pointed out to me that this may not be very professional, because it has the word "love" in it. Are there any similar constructs that can convey the similar subtlety of the expression, while still sounding more professional? Expressions like " I would like to.. " clearly don't make the cut.. <Q> My verb of choice would be appreciate . <S> It conveys all aspects you want to express: a polite request, valuing the other party's time and effort and a gratefulness for their contribution. <A> I don't know why you said I would like to... "clearly doesn't make the cut", because it is precisely the expression you need to use in a formal context such as a work email. <S> I would like to have a call to discuss the new project. <S> Would Wednesday at 2:00 work for you? <A> "It would be great if we could..." Seems like it will fit the bill to me. <S> Slightly stronger than "I would like to..." and slightly weaker than "I would love to..." <A> I don't understand why somebody would point out "would love to" or "would like to" may not be very professional. <S> They are perfectly fine in any business context. <S> An expression like I would be much obliged if we could have a call to discuss XYZ. <S> will be considered unnecessarily formal. <S> It doesn't mean you can't use this expression. <S> You can use this expression if you are dealing with high authorities or if you are asking for a special favor. <S> if we could have a call to discuss XYZ. <S> Again, this could be considered a little formal. <S> You can just say <S> Please let me know what time is/would be most convenient for you to discuss XYZ. <S> or Please give me a call to discuss XYZ when it is convenient for you. <S> Using just "please" is simple, polite, and it is not unprofessional at all. <A> Go with "I would be delighted to... <S> " it conveys what you describe when using "I would love to..." <A> I often use: I would welcome the opportunity to ...
| The most common expression would be I would appreciate (it) When you are making a request, "like" is way more polite than "love", and "like" doesn't have any of the connotations that would make "love" unsuitable regardless of politeness or lack thereof.
|
Why is "be" used instead of "is" in this sentence "Be he alive, or be he dead"? He was a big one, to be sure. At his belt he had three calves strung up by the heels, and he unhooked them and threw them down on the table and said: 'Here, wife, broil me a couple of these for breakfast. Ah! what's this I smell? 'Fee-fi-fo-fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman, Be he alive, or be he dead , I'll have his bones to grind my bread.' This content is from "Jack and the Beanstalk" Why is "be" used instead of "is" in this sentence "Be he alive, or be he dead"? <Q> The giant is essentially saying whether the Englishman be alive, or whether he be dead <S> The subjunctive is a very tricky aspect of aspect of English, and some people argue that it doesn't really exist at all! <S> You don't see it very much in modern English; it mostly appears in forms like <S> It is important that he see a doctor. <S> where it isn't very obvious, because the subjunctive "see" <S> just looks the same as the bare infinitive anyway. <S> But when we use the verb "to be", you can see it: <S> It is important that he <S> **be <S> * here on time. <A> The giant is making a statement about the conditional Be he alive, or be he dead whether he (be/is) alive, or whether he (be/is) dead <S> Using is turns it into a question <S> Is he alive, or is <S> he dead <S> (?) which has a different meaning. <A> I think it's used here as a subjunctive (occurs pretty rarely). <S> So it sounds to me like:"Whether he is alive or not (dead), ..."
| I believe this is because the sentence is using the subjunctive mood , which is used to describe hypothetical or unreal situations.
|
What is a casual way to say "appointment"? I think "appointment" is only used in formal way.What can I use to refer to it more casually? "I have an appointment with my friends after the school." sounds me unnatural. What would you say situation like this? <Q> Depends on what you're doing with friends, of course, but the most natural thing to say in the US would be "hanging out." <S> I'm hanging out with friends after school. <S> Another natural option would be "meeting up with": <S> I'm meeting up with friends after school. <A> In addition to Alex K's answer, it's also casual to say that you'll be seeing your friends after school. <S> (Kindly note that I prefer using hanging out or meeting up) <A> You can have a catch-up (noun) with your friends. <S> For example: I am catching up with my friends after school. <S> A catch-up is (Cambridge Dictionary) : <S> A meeting at which people discuss what has happened since the last time that they met. <A> The word "appointment" indicates a mutual promise to meet. <S> or My friends are expecting me. <S> In this way you are indicating an expectation or promise you don't want to break.
| For something casual you can say: I promised my friends we would get together tonight.
|
"going to die" vs "to die" My SO from Japan contemplates two phrases: "We are going to die eventually." "We are to die eventually." Why does sentence 1. sound more correct? Is sentence 2. correct at all? <Q> Both are correct but mean different things. <S> Be + <S> infinitive X means "destined to X" - usually in the sense that someone has planned, programmed, or commanded X to happen. <S> Going to X = <S> will <S> X . <S> Usually this is part of the English future tense, which simply describes an action in the future, but doesn't automatically have the planning or "control of destiny" implication of be to X <S> (this is different from <S> will being used to issue requests which is also possible). <S> So: We are going to die eventually = <S> We will die eventually - e.g. of natural causes or of whatever is happening currently. <S> There is no implication that someone/something is planning it. <S> We are to die eventually = <S> Someone/something has planned our death and it will happen eventually. <A> It is a special structure that we use to talk about the future. <S> The structure of "going to" is: subject + <S> be + <S> going + to-infinitive <S> SUBJECT <S> BE <S> NOT GOING <S> TO-INFINITIVE <S> I am going to buy a new car. <S> I 'm going to go swimming. <S> He is not going to take the exam. <S> It is n't going to rain. <S> Are you going to paint the house? <S> https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-m_going-to.htm <A> Going to die suggests that the subject will die in the future. <S> In difference, to die in that context suggests that it is the subject's function and purpose to die. <S> Think of it this way: <S> we are in isolation could be redefined as we exist . <S> Then, simply substitute the verb: we exist to die . <S> You can see the implication of function here.
| The first sounds more natural, because the phrase going to specifically refers to the future, whereas the second does not: Going to is not a tense.
|
Can I say: She looks so perfectly happy? Can I use that structure: SO + ADVERB + ADJECTIVE. Does it make sense? Is it grammatically correct? <Q> so wonderfully delicious <S> so maddeningly red <S> so artificially sweet so intensely sour <S> so boringly <S> (,well,) boring <S> One does need to be aware of heaping superlative upon superlative <S> She looks so perfectly happy <S> She looks so very much incredibly happy with her teddy bear, I dare not take it away. <A> When you use <S> so in this way, it is a modifier meaning <S> very and can be applied to adverbs so slowly and adjectives so happy . <S> It can also be used as a modifier for an adverb that modifies an adjective so very happy , although usage of this construction has been steadily declining - maybe because it is perceived as exaggerated- so very happy <S> is like saying very very happy . <A> yes, you are so definitely correct.
| Yes, the construction "so"+adverb+adjective is so perfectly fine, that you can use it to really drive home the adjective
|
could have - must have - may have - might have Why is John late? He could have got stuck in traffic. He must have been stuck. He may have been stuck. He might have been stuck. Are there any differences (even subtle) between these answers ? <Q> He could have got stuck in traffic. <S> An action he took in the past resulted in the possibility of him getting stuck in traffic in the past. <S> Since this possibility has passed, it ended up that he did not get stuck in traffic. <S> Otherwise we would say "He did get stuck in traffic." <S> E.g. <S> Why is Bobby late? <S> Forgive him, he could have been stuck in the rain. <S> It also can be used in the same way as "might have been" below. <S> He must have been stuck. <S> Something happened X, and the only reason that explains it is the fact that he had been stuck. <S> X refers to something that is completed or completely in the past. <S> E.g. <S> Bobby was late because he must have been stuck in the rain. <S> (Bobby is here now) <S> He may have been stuck. <S> Something happened X, and a possible reason that explains it is the fact that he had been stuck. <S> Other reasons for him being stuck are possible. <S> X refers to something that may have started in the past but is happening now. <S> E.g. <S> Bobby is not here, he may have been stuck in the rain. <S> (We are still hoping he makes it) <S> He might have been stuck. <S> Something happened, and a possible reason that explains it is the fact that he had been stuck. <S> Other reasons for him being stuck are possible. <S> X refers to something that is completed or completely in the past. <S> E.g. <S> Bobby hasn't called. <S> He might have been stuck in the rain. <S> (Implication is that we don't expect him to show up) <A> Could have (been) done emphase you had the ability to achieve some thing if you had tried some other things. <S> for example, you could have passed the exam if you studied hard. <S> May, Might and Must describle the magnitude on the possiblity that some thing is happening or just happened. <S> the Must has the strongest estimation, it is almost certain. <S> May has the medium estimation whereas Might has the least estimation. <A> In each of these, the speaker is making an inference or guess. <S> But there are differences in certainty. <S> They aren't completely certain, but they will assume it. <S> With the other 3 phrases, they are making no assumptions, but instead are stating that it is a possibility that John was stuck in traffic. <S> Personally, I don't see much difference in their meanings in this case, though some might claim that one is less certain than another. <S> However, a note should be made about could have . <S> Although in these examples it closely resembles <S> may have and might have , there are other uses of could have where the others can't be substituted: <S> I heard John took all day to fix that bug. <S> I could have fixed it in 5 minutes. <S> In this case, could have is used to state that something was a real possibility in the past, even though it didn't really happen. <S> In the above example, the speaker didn't fix the bug, but if they had tried, they would have. <A> Could, may and might indicate less certainty than must. <S> Must is almost completely sure. <A> He could have got stuck in traffic. <S> It is about possibility He must have been stuck. <S> It is about certainty <S> He may have been stuck. <S> He might have been stuck. <S> Both are equivalent and both are about probability
| When must have is used, the speaker is presuming it to be true.
|
Ok to say "I find hard to believe that I'm speaking to you"? I was about to write in a mail addressed to an important person "I find hard to believe that I'm speaking to you". I had a doubt though, so I tried looking for it on a search engine. I thus found out that it has apparently never been used on the web. I tried also "I find it hard to believe that I'm speaking to you", same result. I was rather sure that it was correct, but it seems unlikely after these findings. Can you confirm me if it's incorrect, and if so why and what alternative might I use? <Q> "I find hard to believe that I'm speaking to you". <S> incorrect <S> "I find it hard to believe that I'm speaking to you". <S> correct <S> "I can't believe I'm (actually/finally) speaking to you." <S> correct have opinion/feeling <S> I find it amazing that they're still together. <S> find something + noun <S> She finds it a strain to meet new people. <S> http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/find_1 <A> Cathy's right in that "it" is required. <S> To add to cathy's answer, I'm not totally sure, but I believe the "it" is required because the verb "find" is transitive(meaning it is a verb that requires an object). <A> Without "it", the sentence is incomplete. <S> The first clause, expressing a belief, lacks a direct object describing what is difficult to believe. <S> Isolating that clause (because I believe it functions as an independent clause) looks like: <S> "It", as a pronoun, fills this hole and from context refers to the dependent clause as the antecedent.
| "I find [] hard to believe" This has an obvious hole to a native speaker without an additional word, and a dependent clause doesn't help because it won't function as a direct object for "find".
|
"Tom wants (wanted) you to pick him up" - which tense to use? If my brother calls me and says "Tell mom to pick me up." Do i tell my mom which of the one below? I know that wants is present tense and wanted is past tense. So should i use the second one? Tom wants you to pick him up Tom wanted you to pick him up <Q> Both forms are correct, but imply slightly different things. <S> 1.Tom wants you to pick him up <S> This states that you know for a fact that Tom, at this very instant, wants you to pick him up. <S> You are asserting that that information you have is accurate and current. <S> Example: <S> "I left Tom at the store and he has no way to get home, so he wants you to pick him up." <S> 2.Tom wanted you to pick him up <S> This indicates that, at some point in the past, Tom wanted you to pick him up, but leaves some degree of questionability as to the currency of that information. <S> One would use this form in the event that one is unsure what Tom wants at this moment. <S> Example: <S> "I left Tom at the store and he wanted you to pick him up, but since that was two hours ago he may have found another ride home." <S> The above example makes a positive assertion about Tom's wants in the past, but doesn't indicate if that want still exists in the present. <S> Using wanted implies that maybe you should check with Tom before driving around the store parking lot looking for him. <A> Both sentences express accurate information, but they do not express the same information. <S> The first sentence is the one to use because Tom's desire to have your mom pick him up still exists in the present, and your mom would be expected to react to the still-existing desire. <S> The second sentence suggests that Tom's desire to have your mom pick him up did exist, but no longer does. <S> This would suggest a missed opportunity (Tom made other arrangements). <S> This sentence could also mean that you no longer know if Tom's desire to have your mom pick him up still exists, but without additional context I think it would be more natural to interpret the sentence the other way. <A> You should use "wants": <S> Tom wants you to pick him up. <S> This could be because Tom has changed his mind. <S> Or it could mean that it is no longer possible to pick him up: he could still be wanting you to pick him up, but the speaker realizes that it's impossible and uses the past tense. <S> Why can't we use "wanted"? <S> Because this verb describes a state, a condition in which Tom was. <S> You can say: Tom said that he wants you to pick him up. <S> Here, the past-tense verb "said" is appropriate. <A> I disagree with the above interpretations of the sense of this phrase. <S> Although on a superficial level wants is in the present tense and wanted <S> is in the past tense, there is an important shade of meaning that has nothing to do with the tense. <S> Consider the following phrase <S> : I wanted to see if you could help me. <S> While this certainly could refer to a past desire that I no longer have, it is much more probable that I am using the past polite form. <S> This is common in many modal verbs. <S> Thus, in the example you gave, a lot depends on context: <S> Tom wants you to pick him up. <S> This unambiguously refers to what Tom wants now , but depending on your tone of voice can come off as impolite. <S> Tom wanted you to pick him up. <S> This can refer to a past desire, but to my (American) <S> ear sounds much more polite and hesitant, as if he did not have the right to expect you to pick him up.
| If you use "wanted", it will mean "Tom wanted you to pick him up, but now he does not want that".
|
Overdose or overdo on vitamins? I came across this sentence on Facebook today. I think I might have overdosed on vitamins. Does overdose on vitamins sound ok? Wouldn't it be better to say? I might have overdone on vitamins Overdose on/with heroin or drugs somehow makes more sense than overdose on vitamins, but just technically is it ok to say so in English? Thank you. <Q> I think I might have <S> overdosed on vitamins. <S> This would be OK if you took an excessive amount of a certain vitamin. <S> As long as doing so causes the possibility of harm, it is an overdose". <S> The amount you are supposed to take, let's say 1 tablet a day, is the dose. <S> Though literally speaking, anything "over" the "dose" is an "overdose". <S> I might have <S> overdone <S> it with the vitamins. <S> This means that you have taken more vitamins than necessary, though not in amounts greater than recommended. <S> Let's say you only need (medically speaking) <S> vitamins A and C, but being a bit worrisome <S> you also take multi-vitamins along with some other supplements. <A> If I eat so many vitamin C's that I get a tummy ache, I would say that "I might have overdone it with <S> the vitamin C." <S> If I have so many vitamin E capsules that my sweat smells like fish oil, then <S> "I might have overdone it with <S> the Vitamin E." <S> If my kid gets into the Iron tablets and eats so much that she has to be rushed to the ER to get IV fluids and a ventilator, then she has overdosed on Iron. . <S> (Which happens - see link) <S> In the example you found, it sounds like it may have been a bit of an exaggeration, unless the FB poster was checking in from a hospital bed. <A> I think I might have <S> overdosed on vitamins. <S> is understandable and sounds OK even though it's not really possible, except for Vitamin A which in high doses will affect your liver (so never eat the liver of a polar bear). <S> As you thinking about it correctly that overdose has a lethal connotation. <S> I might have overdone on vitamins. <S> I might have overdone it on the vitamins. <S> sounds better since it means you may have taken more than necessary, but not enough to be fatal. <S> If you've overdosed on a medication, you've certainly overdone it. <A> When said about somebody else, e.g., "Jenny overdosed on heroin", often the implication is that the drug killed them. <S> But "overdosed" can also be used figuratively to mean "had more than I should have", e.g., "This afternoon I overdosed on chocolate. <S> " Or even "Last weekend we overdosed on episodes of the Simpsons." <S> Your example <S> "I think I might have overdosed on vitamins" is likely intended figuratively. <S> It is possible to cause medical problems by taking too much of certain vitamins, but I doubt that applies in this case. <S> The word "overdone" means "done to excess", and doesn't have the implication of serious medical harm or death. <S> The phrasing "overdone on" doesn't sound right in most contexts; it would usually be "overdone it with [something]" or "overdone the [something]". <S> So the original sentence you mentioned could be rephrased as "I might have overdone it with the vitamins", or "I might have overdone the vitamins".
| When the term "overdose" is applied to drugs or alcohol, the meaning is that the user has taken enough to cause serious medical problems.
|
the difference between taunt and ridicule which one of these words is used as everyday English as well as means to despise someone and make fun of him for example because of his shape or Social status and so on <Q> Ridicule and Taunt are very similar in meaning, but taunt has the additional meaning of inciting the person who is being taunted to a response. <S> Adolph, enraged at this taunt, flew furiously at his adversary, swearing and striking on every side of him <S> (Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin) , quoted in The Free Dictionary ridicule , The Free Dictionary <S> The act of using words, gestures, images, or other products of expression to evoke laughter or contemptuous feelings regarding a person or thing: a remark that invited the ridicule of his classmates. <S> taunt , <S> The Free Dictionary <S> To reproach in a mocking, insulting, or contemptuous manner: taunted her for wearing hand-me-down clothes. <S> See Synonyms at ridicule. <S> 2a <S> To drive or incite (a person) by taunting: His friends taunted him into asking for a raise. <S> 2b <S> To tease and excite sexually: taunted him with glimpses of skin <S> (emphasis added) <A> Where I do agree on the answers given by the others, I wanted to add this: When taunting the intended receiver of your message <S> is the person you are taunting. <S> The purpose of the taunt is to get a reaction from that person (or animal). <S> When ridiculing the intended receiver of your message is whomever is your audience at the moment, and it doesn't need to include the person (or animal or thing) being ridiculed. <S> The purpose of ridicule is to lower other peoples opinion on whomever or whatever you are ridiculing. <S> Both taunting and ridiculing doesn't require words to be effective. <S> I would wager that is the most common use of taunting in our modern society. <S> Taunting was used a lot in battle (and still is) to make the opponent make a unfavourable move out of anger. <S> In pen and paper role playing games and video games there will often be a skill or action called taunt that can be used by the tank (the one who is tough and is meant to take most of the hits) to attract the attention of the foes so they will favour him/her over other targets <S> even though hitting them would be strategically more favourable. <A> Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary treats <S> ridicule and taunt <S> as fairly close synonyms, in a cluster that also contains deride and mock . <S> A Google Ngram chart of the four expressions over the period 1900–2005 shows that ridicule (blue line) and mock (green line) are considerably more common in published texts than taunt (red line) and <S> deride (yellow line): The most striking thing about the chart is how stable the frequency of usage has been for three of the four words (all except ridicule ) over the charted period. <S> In any event, here is the Eleventh Collegiate 's note on how the meanings of the four words differ: <S> RIDICULE, DERIDE, MOCK, TAUNT mean to make an object of laughter of. <S> RIDICULE implies a deliberate often malicious belittling {consistently ridiculed everything she said}. <S> DERIDE suggests contemptuous and often bitter ridicule { derided their efforts to start their own business}. <S> MOCK implies scorn often ironically expressed as by mimicry or sham deference <S> {youngsters began to mock the helpless wino}. <S> TAUNT suggests jeeringly provoking insult or challenge {hometown fans <S> taunted the visiting team}. <S> So you have two considerations to bear in mind: the commonness of the term, and the particular connotations of the term. <S> Both ridicule and taunt are widely used and understood words, although ridicule appears to be more common; but the implications of the two words (if we are to believe Merriam-Webster) are somewhat different. <S> (As a final note, I should point out that ridicule and taunt can be either nouns or verbs, whereas mock can be either a verb or an adjective, and deride is strictly a verb. <S> So the advantage in frequency that mock has had over ridicule since the 1970s, according to the Ngram chart above, may actually understate the advantage that the verb mock has over the verb ridicule , or it may reflect, in part, the popularity of mock as an adjective.) <A> Taunt is personal: to say insulting things to (someone) in order to make that person angry. <S> A taunt can consist of ridicule ("Your mama wears army boots"), but doesn't have to be about anything or even derogatory; a simple "Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh" is a nonspecific (childish) taunt. <S> In order to be a taunt, the taunter expects the person being taunted to be paying attention. <S> Ridicule is not personal: making fun of a person or thing, usually based on a specific characteristic, deserved or not. <S> But ridicule doesn't have to be directed at a person. <S> One might ridicule a political opponent's opinion to people who agree with you ("preaching to the choir"). <S> Or you can ridicule something or someone when you are all by yourself.
| To ridicule someone (especially in front of someone they admire) is often a very effective taunt and getting an explosive reaction from a taunt in front of others is often effective ridicule.
|
What is the meaning of "pull" In the sentence: Merging two forces that pull in opposing directions requires some creativity. Going through lists of words here and there , I didn't find anything that would fit in this context. My first thought was that the meaning of pull here was closed to "stay" ("stay" in opposing directions). But there's no such meaning of it. <Q> To pull means the first definition of your second link . <S> move someone/something towards you <S> For example, let's say there are anti-Trump Republicans and pro-Trump Republicans. <S> They oppose each other because they have different views on his candidacy. <S> They are trying to pull (attract) each other toward them in opposing directions. <S> However, merging (combining) those two forces (groups / parties) will require some creativity (good ideas, new slogans, etc). <S> The above is just an example to show how the verb to pull can work and in the above context, to pull could mean to attract a person or people which is listed in your first link . <S> To pull could have various meanings, but it depends on what "forces" are in your context and all the meanings are derived from "to move someone/something towards you". <S> I think you are familiar with tug of war . <S> Look at No. 2 definition: a contest in which two teams pull against each other at opposite ends of a rope with the object of pulling the middle of the rope over a mark on the ground <S> You will understand what the verb means more easily if you see the picture above. <A> X pull[s] <S> Y means that: [optionally] X is not moving or not initally moving, X is grabbing or otherwise applying force to Y somehow, X causes or is trying to cause Y to move toward X or in the same direction as X. <S> It's possible to pull things to move them around, and it's also possible to specify or imply a location for <S> pull if you say "X pulls from Y", or omit specifying anything if the "thing" being pulled is abstract or unknown. <S> Merging two forces that pull [from Y] in opposing directions <S> We are talking about forces themselves, and not caring exactly what they are trying to "force", so the "from Y" is omitted. <S> FWIW sounds like a game programming math book talking about vectors - if you have 2 forces acting on an object, how do you determine the single combined force to apply movement to the object for the next display frame or game tick? <A> In addition to Rathony's examples, there is also the verb to pull apart. <S> Thesaurus.com offers the following synonyms for pull apart: admonish, berate, castigate, chastise, chide, denounce, discipline, rebuff, rebuke, reprimand, reproach, scold, abuse, animadvert, asperse, attack, backbite, blame, cavil, contemn, denigrate, deprecate, disapprove, disparage, impugn, incriminate, judge, knock, lecture, ostracize, remonstrate, reprehend, reprove, upbraid, carp at, cut up, exprobate, find fault with, get after, look askance, pick apart, read out, take to task, tear apart, and tell off. <S> Dictionary.com includes the following definition as well: to draw or tug at with force.
| To pull doesn't mean to stay.
|
To be on, at or by someone's side Which preposition should I use: on , at or by someone's side to mean to be in favour of somebody in an specific situation. Please, I would also ask you to correct any minor mistake I have made and, If it's necessary, tell me if there is a better way to say what I am trying to convey. Thanks in advance! <Q> I think the preposition you want to use is on . <S> To be at or by <S> someone's side usually means a close, physical presence. <S> It conjures up images like this one, where three friends are walking side-by-side: To be on someone's side, though, usually means to be siding with them in an argument or dispute, or maybe supporting them in a tough situation. <A> I'm definitely on your side in this. <S> Whose side are you on anyway? <S> From Oxford dictionary <S> You can also say: I side with you. <S> Meaning to agree with or support the opinions or actions of you. <S> If you say "stand at/by your side", it will figuratively mean remain loyal to someone. <A> All three have different meanings. <S> Being at someones side usually refers to a physical location, e.g. standing besides someone. <S> Standing by someone means to render (emotional) support. <S> You can stand by someone and support him/her even if you don't share his/her views. <S> Being on someone side means that you share his views and have the same opinion on that matter.
| be on somebody's side to support and agree with someone
|
Backward vs The Other Way Around Which word/expression should I use, "backward" or "the other way around", to express something must be done or placed in an opposite way than it's being done or placed at the moment. For example: The phrase pen red is incorrect. You should place the words the other way around/ backward . Your sign is backwards/ the other way around . Turn it. Please I would ask you also to correct any minor mistake I have made and if it's necessary tell me if there is a better way to say what I try to convey. <Q> When it comes to words or letters that are out-of-order, the proofreading term for this is transpose . <S> A proofreader would use the following notation to show that the words need to be transposed: You can learn more about this (and other similar proofreading notations) at websites like this one , this one , or this one . <A> You would say: The phrase "pen red" is incorrect. <S> You should write the words the other way around . <S> or The phrase "pen red" is incorrect. <S> You should <S> ** <S> reverse* the words. <S> You can't use backwards because there is no forward/backward relationship or positioning. <A> To describe your incorrect example <S> The phrase pen red is incorrect. <S> The words are backwards , you should reverse them. <S> With your sign example Your sign is backwards . <S> Turn it around . <S> Your sign is the wrong way around . <S> Turn it around . <S> Though sometimes signs and lettering are intentionally inverted so they are correctly read when viewed in a mirror. <S> It's backwards . <S> It should be the other way around . <S> Can be used interchangeably in most circumstances to describe orientation.
| You could say You should place the words the other way around .
|
How should I interpret 'that' in this passage from 'Tom Tit Tot'? If this girl can't spin five skeins, she will be killed by king. However, all of a sudden she heard a sort of a knocking low down on the door. She upped and oped it, and what should she see but a small little black thing with a long tail. That looked up at her right curious, and that said: 'What are you a-crying for?' 'What's that to you?' says she. 'Never you mind,' that said, 'but tell me what you're a-crying for.' 'That won't do me no good if I do, ' says she. 'You don't know that,' that said, and twirled that's tail round. 'Well,' says she, 'that won't do no harm, if that don't do no good,' and she upped and told about the pies, and the skeins, and everything. This content is from "Tom Tit Tot" in English fairy tales. I can't understand these sentence "That won't do me no good if I do","You don't know that", "that won't do no harm, if that don't do no good" . Is "that" a small little black thing? <Q> The emphatic "double negatives" in the first and third sentences are non-standard but common in dialect, equivalent to <S> That won't do me any good/harm <S> OR <S> That will do me no good/harm. <S> To do good means to cause a good result and to <S> do harm <S> means cause a harmful outcome . <S> The that s in the girl's lines refer to the girl's telling the 'black thing' why she's crying. <S> The black thing's that refers to her assertion that her telling it won't do any good. <S> The that's in the speech tag refer to the black thing. <S> You may paraphrase: 'Telling you why I'm crying won't do me any good if I do tell you,' says she. <S> 'You don't know that telling me why you're crying won't do you any goood,' the black thing said, and twirled its tail round. <S> ' <S> Well,' says she, 'Telling you won't do any harm, even if it doesn't do any good,' and she upped and told . <S> . . <S> everything. <A> " That " is telling the creature why she is crying. <S> ' Never you mind ,' that said, 'but tell me what you're a-crying for.' ' <S> [Telling you why I am crying] won't do me <S> [any] good if I do, [tell]' says she. <S> ' You don't know that ,' that said, and twirled that's tail round. <S> ' <S> Well ,' says she, '[Telling you why I am crying] won't do no harm, [even] if <S> [telling you why I am crying] don't do no good, ' and she upped and told about the pies, and the skeins, and everything. <A> "'That won't do me no good if I do, ..." <S> It should be noted that this is using a double-negative to indicate a negative. <S> Strictly speaking, the phrase would be interpreted as " <S> This will not not help me", or "That will help me", but locally, these are sometimes used instead to indicate a single negative. <S> The girl is indicating that telling the visitor why she is crying won't actually help her. <S> " <S> `You don't know that'..." <S> This is simpler. <S> It should be interpreted as "You don't know [that telling me what is wrong won't help]". <S> "... 'that won't do no harm, if that don't do no good,'...' <S> This is another example of double-negatives being used as single-negatives. <S> It can be read as "[Telling you...] won't be harmful, if [telling you] won't be helpful". <S> She is deciding that, even if telling the visitor what she is crying about won't actually help her situation <S> , it won't hurt her situation either. <S> The story definitely has a little ambiguity with its use of "that". <S> In each quote, the main interpretation of "that" is "telling the thing why she is crying". <S> I suspect, though, that the writer is doing this on purpose, and a second meaning can be read by reading "that" as the black thing.
| "That won't do me no good" is meant to say "That won't help me".
|
What is the difference between "a lot of clothes" and "fully clothed"? I was reading a book earlier today and it said this sentence which I understand: Mary walked down the street fully clothed in beautiful silk and bought a hot dog from the corner stand. This means that Mary was wearing silk when she bought a hot dog. Then I was reading a news article online and it said something like this: A man walked down the street without a lot of clothes and was then luckily taken into custody before he could run into traffic. I don't understand what this means. Does it mean that the man didn't have a lot of clothes with him like in a box or something or is it a way to say homeless person? <Q> As you suggested, "fully clothed" means completely dressed, like anything you would wear out of your house without being embarrassed.(Think a shirt and pants, or a dress, or some other complete outfit.) <S> If someone said "I'm wearing a lot of clothes" I would take that to mean more than just "fully clothed", such as wearing a t-shirt, sweater, and jacket. <S> However is is dependent on the context. <S> If it's 100 degrees out, and I'm wearing long sleeves and pants I might say "I'm wearing a lot of clothes for this weather". <S> If someone is "without a lot of clothes", as in your example, they are likely wearing less clothes that is appropriate for the situation. <S> In your quote the man may have been arrested for running around outside in his underwear. <S> Another example, the opposite of my one above, would be if you are outside <S> and it is 40 degrees and are shivering in just a t-shirt and shorts you might say "I'm not wearing a lot of clothes!" <A> A man walked down the street without a lot of clothes and was then luckily taken into custody before he could run into traffic . <S> The end of the sentence (which I have bolded) gives you a clue. <S> Why was the man taken into custody before he could hurt himself? <S> Probably because he was mentally ill or under the influence of drugs or alcohol and was running in the street in his underwear and socks or something less than a full outfit of clothes a normal person would wear. <S> If he was completely naked, the article probably would have said that, so he must have had some clothes on, but wasn't dressed in an acceptable way for being outside in public. <S> Normally we would say something like "She didn't have a lot of clothes on . <S> " <S> Without more context we wouldn't know if it was just hot outside <S> and she was wearing revealing clothes, or if someone had just saw a half-naked woman running in traffic. <A> The second sentence could mean a couple of things: <S> A naked man walked down the street and was then taken into custody <S> A man who was not fully clothed walked down the street and was then taken into custody. <S> Or the more literary suggestion you made in your question: A homeless man walked down the street and was then taken into custody. <S> I think the least likely meaning is the one you suggested where the man is carrying clothes with him. <S> I doubt many people would come to that conclusion. <S> If you want to say the man was walking with few clothes, I would suggest: A man carrying a few articles of clothing with him... <S> or A man carrying some clothes walked... <S> or A man brought some clothes to the swap meet... <A> In this case "not a lot of clothes" is clearly an euphemism for indecent exposure. <S> The cops would still pick you up if you were wearing socks, shoes, a t-shirt, a sweater, a jacket, a bandana and a cap. <A> To add to some of the other answers, it's NOT implying that the man in the second sentence had some clothes but fell short of what would be considered "a lot". <S> It's a figurative way of saying that he was severely underdressed, possibly totally naked. <S> I suppose it would be considered litotes . <S> I think it's fair to say that in English, when we say "not a lot" we almost never mean that someone has many of something but falls just short of "a lot". <S> We instead mean that they have few of something.
| In a more general sense, though, "a lot of clothes" refers to the quantity rather than the appropriateness of the attire.
|
"Let's just say" meaning and usage When do we use this expression "let's just say" and what does it exactly mean? <Q> "Let's just say" is a transition to an examination of a particular option, regardless of whether the option is real, acceptable, agreed upon, etc. <S> Here's an example where the context should be simple enough to demonstrate its usage: <S> John: "I will arrive at the movie theater at 7:00 PM when the movie starts." <S> Jill: <S> "John, you will never arrive by 7:00 if you are coming from the other side of the city through traffic." <S> John: "I will certainly be there at 7:00." <S> Jill: <S> "Ok, let's just say you do arrive by 7:00. <S> You will still be late because you have to wait in line to purchase the movie ticket." <S> In this example you can see that Jill thinks that John will be late to the movie. <S> John says he will be on time, but Jill tries to say that arriving at 7:00 isn't even enough because of the line. <S> An equivalent phrase to "let's just say" would be "even if you were". <S> Jill could have said, <S> "Even if you were there at 7:00, you would still be late because you have to wait in line to purchase the movie ticket." <S> ... <S> In addition, "let's just say" can be used when a scenario has unknown aspects: <S> Jill: " <S> John, can you really finish 4 sodas during the movie?" <S> John: "I'm not sure. <S> I know that the movie is 2 hours long, but I don't know how long it takes to drink 1 soda." <S> Jill: <S> "That is true. <S> Let's just say you drink 1 soda every 45 minutes. <S> You wouldn't finish all 4 during the movie." <S> John: <S> "Yes, but let's just say I can drink 1 soda every 30 minutes. <S> Then, I would be able to finish all 4 during the movie." <S> ... <S> A business might plan to purchase a building, make renovations to the building, open the building for customers, and continue to run the store. <S> The business may spend a lot of time planning the renovations, planning how to sell their goods, and planning how to run the store. <S> However, someone might say, "Let's just say we can't buy the building to begin with. <S> Then, what will we do?" <A> "Let's say" or "let's just say" has two common meanings: (a) <S> What follows is an example, a premise, or a hypothetical situation that the speaker will assume to be true for purposes of discussion. <S> For example: "This investment will grow by 10% per year. <S> Let's say you started with $1000. <S> After a year you would have $1100. <S> After two years you would have $1210. <S> Etc." <S> Or, "Let's say that we have a permanent base on the Moon by 2030. <S> That base could then be used to ..." <S> (b) <S> What follows is the speaker's understanding of a consensus or agreement that has been reached, or a condition that he wants the other party to agree to. <S> Often used after a discussion about a disagreement. <S> Example: "Okay, so let's just say that you'll put up $10,000 <S> and I'll put up $5,000." <A> let's just say I wasn't mad about it. <S> And it is used to say that you are not going to give someone all the details about something . <S> Let’s just say she wasn’t very pleased about it.
| "Let's just say" could also be used to question an assumption. It is a statement made to indicate a situation a person doesn't want to just come out and say they enjoyed .
|
I can't get the right answer between live or living on a test Living with a foreign family can be a good way to learn a language. or Live with a foreign family can be a good way to learn a language. <Q> Your basic structure is [[Something]] can be [[something else]] <S> Subject - verb* - object. <S> What can be the subject of a sentence? <S> Either a noun or a phrase that acts as a noun. <S> In this case the subject is going to be a gerund which is a type of noun made by adding -ing to a verb: Liv-ing. <S> In this case, we think of living as a something - an abstract something, but a thing, not an action. <S> Living can be a good way to learn a language. <S> Now we have a fully grammatical sentence - <S> but it doesn't really make sense. <S> Not just any living is good for learning a language - we need to modify what kind of living <S> it is. <S> We'll turn the noun into a noun phrase by adding a prepositional phrase to it. <S> Living with a foreign family can be a good way to learn a language. <S> Note that since the noun is a gerund in this case, we could also call it a gerund phrase. <S> Live is a verb, not a noun, so it doesn't work as the subject of the sentence. <S> One other form that could have worked, if it were an option on the test is the non-gerund noun " life ." <S> This sentence would have a very similar meaning to the one that uses living : Life with a foreign family can be a good way to learn a language. <S> * <S> Can be <S> is actually a modal verb phrase. <S> Can is the modal verb, and be <S> is the bare infinitive of the verb to be. <A> One of the tricky things about English is that many verb forms are the same. <S> Live can be an imperative <S> live <S> well! <S> Or a present tense <S> I live in Egypt Or <S> an infinitive I prefer to live near my family <S> Living can be an active participle <S> I was living in Tehran at that time Or a gerund (verbal noun) Living abroad is exciting <S> In your sentence, can be <S> is a verb and requires a noun phrase as a subject. <S> You can use a gerund or an infinitive to form a noun phrase: <S> Living with a foreign family can be a good way to learn a language <S> To live with a foreign family can be a good way to learn a language The first (living) is the most idiomatic way of saying this. <A> You could use live , but you'd need to restructure the sentence somehow: <S> Live with a foreign family <S> – that can be a good way to learn a language.
| Living with a foreign family can be a good way to learn a language.
|
Why is this sentence wrong "He wasn't a stranger because I have met him before"? "He wasn't a stranger because I have met him before." What's wrong with this sentences? <Q> The verb tenses do not agree. <S> "He was not" requires "I had met". <S> Or, you could use "He is not" with "I have met". <S> Both tenses need to be in agreement. <S> However, if speaking this to a native English speaker, they will definitely understand what you mean, and they may not even notice the incorrect grammar. <S> In my region of the United States, many people would not even realize that the sentence had anything wrong (in conversation- they might notice if it was written). <A> Actually, I tend to think of the issue with this sentence as a logical one, rather than grammatical (although of course most grammatical rules are meant to be logical). <S> In fact, there is no grammatical rule that two independent clauses in a compound sentence (of which this is an example) need to have the same tense. <S> Because they are exactly that: independent. <S> The more fundamental issue here is this: how can you say that the man was not a stranger simply because you have met him before? <S> It is very possible that you had not met him at the time of seeing him even though you have met him since then, in which case he would have still been a stranger at that point. <S> So having met the person at the current time is not sufficient condition to say that he was not a stranger at all points in your past. <S> So it is really a logical problem as well as a grammatical one. <A> The sentence is structured as a logical proposition (e.g. A is true "because" B is true), but the logic is invalid because of the inconsistent tenses. <S> "I have met him before" refers to a different time when I met him (say T2). <S> T1 and T2 can be different times. <S> If T2 was after T1, then the logical inference is invalid. <S> For example: Monday: I met him for the first time, so he was a stranger Tuesday: <S> I met him again. <S> Wednesday (now): <S> "He wasn't a stranger (on Monday) because I have met him before (on Tuesday)" Long story short - The sentence is wrong because it is illogical . <A> The correct form of this sentence would be: "He wasn't a stranger <S> because I had met him before", so that there is verb-tense agreement. <S> " <S> He isn't a stranger because I have met him before". <S> However, this changes the sentence from past tense to present. <S> I hope this helps! <A> The sentence can be corrected to: <S> "He isn't a stranger because I've met him before." or "He is not a stranger because I have met him before." <S> Points to note: 1. <S> Usage of contractions, such as "isn't", "wouldn't", should be consistent throughout a sentence. <S> It sounds awkward otherwise.2. <S> The author of the sentence has met the person before, so right now, the person is no longer a stranger. <S> Therefore the author ought to use present tense to describe the person's status. <S> You could see it this way: The person was a stranger, and is no longer a stranger.
| "He wasn't a stranger" means that at some time in the past (say T1) he was not a stranger.
|
"not at all good" vs "not good at all" - Do they have the same meaning? "The walking is not at all good." "The walking is not good at all." I wonder if it is the same or have different meanings like "the walking" in the first sentence is better than in the second one. <Q> I'm not a native speaker. <S> But for some reason I think the 2nd one is the one you should use. <S> It follows the English rhythm. <S> The first one sounds kind of weird. <A> Yes, they have the same meaning. <S> Personally, the second one is moderately preferable, as it communicates the core of the message sooner, but semantically, they're identical. <A> In "The walking is not at all good", 'at all' is emphasising on 'not' then the adjective is put, giving a meaning that something is not completely good. <S> On the other hand, in "The walking is not good at all." 'at all' is put after the whole part of sense making sentence. <S> well, I'm not a native English speaker and the idea only belongs in my mind. <S> Thank you!
| In order to the meaning I think they're the same.
|
How to name stuff that measures water and electricity usage in your house? How to name stuff that measures water and electricity, gas (whatever...) usage in your house? Is there any term to name them all together? Need common term, e.g. "domestic meters" <Q> You could consider using utility meter which includes: Electricity meter, gas meter, water meter, heat meter <S> You can visit the above Wikipedia link and see what it is. <S> Edit after @Ben Kovitz and @Zach Lipton's comments <S> : I think most fluent speakers wouldn't typically use the term "utility meter" and might not even think of it. <S> But "utility meter" follows common patterns of phrase-coining so well that a fluent speaker easily understands the distinction it draws. <S> " <S> The term "utility meter" isn't that commonly used because it's pretty rare to need to talk about them as a group. <A> I think you're thinking of meter . <S> An electricity meter may look like this: From Macmillan Dictionary: <S> meter NOUN <S> [countable] a piece of equipment for measuring how much of something such as gas, electricity, or water you have used an electricity meter Someone from the gas company came to read the meter (=to check how much gas has been used). <S> Some useful related terms (besides utility meters , which is already mentioned in another answer) are smart meters , telemetry , telemeters , metering , telemetering . <S> The term used by the original poster himself, domestic meter , is also in use (also related: domestic variable-rate meters , in-house meters , etc.). <A> I personally would use the term metering devices to name them altogether.
| I think most speakers would generally refer to a specific type of utility meter, such as a "water meter" or "electric meter.
|
"There has been a vast amount..." vs. "There have been a vast amount..." In recent years, there has been a vast amount of debates. or In recent years, there have been a vast amount of debates. <Q> You should use has here. <S> Its number matches with amount <S> (both are singular), which is the relevant noun to consider here. <S> To match the verb <S> ’s number with debates (i.e. to use have ) would be a mistake, since debates is the object of a prepositional phrase. <A> The two alternatives for your sentences are There has been a vast amount (a lot of one occurrence) <S> There have been vast amounts <S> (a lot of different occurrences) <S> where the number (amount/amounts) matches the verb (has/have) <S> For example, There has been a vast amount of rain today in the metro area <S> a lot of rain fell today <S> There have been vast amounts of rain today in the metro area <S> a lot of rain has fallen, across different areas <A> Mass noun <S> The word amount exploits the common English practice of treating a count noun, which would ordinarily be plural, as a singular mass noun when it serves some rhetorical purpose. <S> To make the sentence sound right, you need to say: <S> In recent years, there has been a vast amount of debate . <S> Making debate <S> singular here turns it into a mass noun, agreeing with amount . <S> With this phrasing, the listener tends to imagine "debate" as a non-stop process, extending over several years. <S> This is a common technique: mass nouns encourage people to think of the things referred to as continuously divisible substances like water, mud, or sand. <S> The listener is led to imagine people droning on and on in "debate" ( <S> singular, as a mass noun), rather than a lot of separate debates (plural, as a count noun). <S> This phrasing would be a good choice if you wanted to suggest that over the last few years, there have been two sides stuck in a long-running disagreement, mostly just repeating themselves or falling into ever-more complicated technicalities as they attempt to persuade. <S> Count noun <S> On the other hand, if you wanted the listener to think of an overwhelming quantity of separate debates, then you need to replace or omit the word amount : <S> In recent years, there have been a great many debates . <S> In recent years, there have been a great number of debates . <S> In the second of these sentences, you could use the verb has (singular), agreeing with number , but when the subject is number , English lets the verb agree with the object of the preposition (or with the prepositional phrase as a whole). <S> The plural have is better rhetoric if you're trying to emphasize a large quantity of separate debates on separate occasions. <S> The count-noun phrasing would be a good choice if you wanted to suggest that many different ideas have been proposed during the last several years.
| The singular noun amount agrees with the singular verb has .
|
Why there's 'a' and not 'an'? I read most of the questions about an and a here, but still I'm not quite sure since I found that uniform should be "prefixed" with a instead of an (read in a comment here). So I totally lost the string here. A US navy aircraft is helping with the search for debris, he says. Is this correct or should it be An US navy aircraft... ? <Q> <A> Yes, it is correct. <S> Please see the use #5: <S> Use the indefinite article <S> a before words that sound like they start with a consonant even if the first letter is a vowel. <A> It is easy. <S> Pronunciation decides, not the letters. <S> For example, US is pronounced as /ju:'əs/ so the first sound is /j/ <S> rather than /u:/ or /ʌ/ as in umbrella /ʌmˈbrel.ə/ <S> , so we say: an umbrella, a US flag a map (/mæp/) an mp3 player (/em.piːˈθriː/) <S> So if a noun starts with (a, e, i, o, u), it does not mean we should always use indefinite article "an", only where needed. <S> This rule is correct only if the beginning of the word produces a vowel sound.
| The “u” in “US” and "uniform" makes the “Y” sound — a consonant sound — therefore you use “a” as your article.
|
"Compassion Was the Most Important, Perhaps the Sole Law of Human Existence." "Compassion was the most important, perhaps the sole law of human existence.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Idiot What may seem the grammatical function of this comma, here? I think, I thought, if a comma marks a phrase, there may seem two . . . Compassion was the most important ― perhaps the sole ― law of human existence. Compassion was the most important ― perhaps the sole law ― of human existence. Compassion was the most important, (perhaps the sole law), of human existence. Compassion was the most important, (perhaps the sole), law of human existence. Compassion was the most important (perhaps the sole law) of human existence. Compassion was the most important (perhaps the sole) law of human existence. Compassion was the most important, perhaps the sole, law of human existence. Compassion was the most important, perhaps the sole law, of human existence. May any of these seem grammatically proper, and work? <Q> EDIT: <S> If I were going to repunctuate the sentence to help learners understand it, it would be as OP has it: <S> Compassion was the most important ― <S> perhaps the sole ― law of human existence. <S> It may be topmost in importance of the laws of human existence, or it may be the only law of human existence. <S> If we say He is the oldest of the cousins. <S> the plural noun cousins supplies the referent set that superlative oldest requires. <S> The preposition of introduces the set to which he belongs: he is a cousin. <S> Among that set of cousins, he is the oldest. <S> But if we say Compassion is the most important of human existence <S> the singular noun existence does not identify a referent set, and so we must ask, Compassion is the most important <S> what ? <S> We could say Of all human virtues , compassion is the most important. <S> or Compassion is the most important of human virtues . <S> We could even rely upon a noun in a previous sentence, which is implicitly "carried forward" as the referent: <S> Today we are going to talk about virtues. <S> I think compassion is the most important (one). <A> It is difficult to understand the usage of the comma in the original sentence when the sentence is on its own. <S> If it is correctly placed, the meaning is probably different to that of your versions- <S> perhaps something like this <S> : Compassion was the most important. <S> [It was] perhaps the sole law of human existence.” <S> You will probably find this explanation of the use of commas useful: see the section on interrupting elements . <S> The same site explains the differences in usage between commas, em-dash and parentheses. <S> In my opinion, comma and em-dash work in these sentences but parentheses do not. <S> Generally speaking, if you separate out an interrupting element with commas, you should be able to remove the bit in commas without affecting the meaning of the remaining sentence. <S> This works when law is outside the commas: <S> Compassion was the most important ... law of human existence. <S> It does not work if law is inside the commas <S> Compassion was the most important ... of human existence. <A> I won't rule out a chance of the translator's quirk or error. <S> Originally, in a Russian phrase*, it is possible to put an optional comma in the sentence, but the author didn't do so. <S> Maybe the translator wanted to keep the flavor of the original punctuation or something like that. <S> Also, it might be a mistake. <S> If JavaLatte's answer is correct, and one comma implies this meaning: <S> Compassion was the most important. <S> [It was] perhaps the sole law of human existence. <S> Then the translation have accidentally changed the meaning of the original phrase; it was supposed to mean "compassion is the main, and perhaps the only, law of human existence". <S> * <S> The original quote looks like "Сострадание есть главнейший, и, может быть, единственный {you might put a comma here, or might omit it} закон бытия всего человечества". <A> Compassion was the most important, perhaps the sole law of human existence. <S> If he meant, for example, compassion is the most important in these relationships like motherhood, friendship, neighborhood, ...etc , his idea stops in important and not in the law . <S> Therefore, compassion was the most important and the hidden idea is ( the most important in human relationships) . <S> Thus, all the sentence perhaps the sole law of human existence. is additional . <S> That means if the writer meant that compassion is the most important law , the comma should precede the word law , so the sentence between the commas perhaps the sole would become the additional one.
| The phrase "perhaps the sole" is a parenthetic remark, a tentative revision of the previous "the most important". It depends on the context and what was intended to be said by the author without being written.
|
Can you use "the" with "a lot of"? I know that the article " the " is not used with the fixed expression " a large number of ". But I wonder if it can be used with " a lot of " . <Q> Yes, you can. <S> When to use "the" with "a lot of" depends on what meaning you are trying to convey. <S> "The" can be used when the following noun is specific. <S> For example: A lot of the children I meet are small. <S> She has seen a lot of the movies that have just come out. <S> I'm unhappy a lot of the time. <S> A good rule of thumb for such usage is the possible substitution of the word "many" or"much" for "a lot." <S> Many of the children I meet are small. <S> She has seen many of the movies that have just come out. <S> I'm unhappy <S> much of the time. <S> In contrast, if the noun that follows "a lot of" is more general, "the" does not work: <S> A lot of children eat candy. <S> She has seen a lot of pain. <S> I have a lot of unhappy moments. <S> A good rule of thumb for these uses is that the entire phrase "a lot of" can be replaced by "many" or "much." <S> Many children eat candy. <S> She has seen much pain. <S> I have many unhappy moments. <A> As an adverb, the word lot has two idiomatic forms: <S> lots a lot . <S> The article <S> a in this case is what allows the word lot to act as an adverb. <S> A lot full of cars was destroyed when the gas station exploded. <S> = <S> > <S> The lot full of cars next to the gas station was destroyed when the station exploded. <S> (Here lot is a distinct portion or piece of land.) <S> A lot was drawn to see who would try sneaking through the mob of zombies to go get help. <S> = <S> > <S> The lot was drawn to see who would try sneaking through the mob of zombies to go get help. <S> (Here lot is a casting of objects used as a decision method.) <S> There are cases where this might be ambiguous; in such a case, many English speakers will assume the adverb meaning (often; a great deal; greatly; many) is being used unless context indicates otherwise. <S> A lot of furniture recovered from the gas station explosion is up for auction. <S> = <S> > <S> The lot of furniture recovered from the gas station explosion is up for auction. <S> (Most readers will assume "many items of furniture" from the first sentence, but the second sentence makes it clear we're talking about a specific portion/parcel of merchandise.) <S> A lot of cars that survived the explosion are being auctioned. <S> = <S> > <S> The lot of cars that survived the explosion are being auctioned (Readers will assume "Many cars" from the first sentence, but the second makess clear the reference is to the portion/parcel of merchandise.) <S> Hopefully this answers the question in an understandable fashion. <A> Yes, you can, but only with certain constructions. <S> Omnidisciplinarianist's answer identifies one set of constructions that are acceptable because "a lot" is a noun. <S> It is also possible to use "a lot of" with "the" if the use of "of" in the sentence is partitive. <S> Examples: <S> "A lot of birds" uses of to indicate number. <S> Since the construction identifies multiples, it by definition cannot be a definite article construction. <S> Thus "a lot of the birds" is incorrect. <S> "A lot of the time" uses of to indicate a part of the whole. <S> Mass nouns and definite nouns can be partitioned! <S> Thus "A lot of the time" means "much of the time" or "a plurality of the time". <S> Amusingly, "A lot of The Birds" is correct, since it indicates many or a plurality of the band The Birds. <A> You cannot say the a lot of ever. <S> If you mean the lot of : A lot can mean and be used in the same way as the word many or much . <S> This meaning and ability disappears when you use the - the meaning in that case becomes "large group" or "large area to park things."
| However, if you're using lot in most other capacities, the answer is: yes, you can . It depends on how you are using the word lot . With respect to using lot as an adverb (meaning: often; a great deal; greatly; many ) the answer is: no, you cannot .
|
"has not sold" vs. "didn't sell" I got this email from a colleague: I am writing because product #55 has not sold and we would like to expand the list... Is this the right sentence structure or should it be written: I am writing because product #55 didn't sell and we would like to expand the list.. <Q> Has not sold suggests that product #55 is still available for sale. <S> Here's a typical example: <S> My house has been on the market for two months. <S> Why hasn't it sold ? <S> This implies that the house is still on the market. <S> The speaker made the house available for sale two months ago, and no one has bought it yet. <S> The speaker is still trying to sell the house. <S> For example : Your house was foreclosed but didn't sell at auction. <S> This means that the house was placed for sale at an auction, no one bought the house, and the auction is now over. <S> Another situation where you might say that product #55 didn't sell is if it's a seasonal item and the season is over. <S> For example, if product #55 is a winter coat, and it's now summer, you might say that product #55 "didn't sell": it had its chance in the marketplace, and it failed. <S> In this context, didn't sell can mean "didn't sell enough to be considered successful". <S> The simple past suggests that we have enough evidence to conclude that product #55 was unsuccessful. <S> We know. <S> The present perfect has not sold <S> can suggest that there may still be some way to make product #55 successful or perhaps you need to allow more time for sales to pick up. <S> However, if product #55 has been on the market for a long time, has not sold <S> can mean that you are suggesting that now it is time to give up. <S> The difference in meaning comes from the fact that the present perfect tense locates the action in a time interval that starts in the past and reaches at least to the present, while the simple past tense locates the action at a certain time in the past. <S> When no time is specified with the simple past tense, there is usually (not always) an implication that the event finished in the past and is not continuing in the present. <S> For more about this, see my answer to this question . <S> (Note that not everyone agrees with the time-interval theory.) <A> As a BrE speaker, both are commonly used. <S> As the accepted answer implies, "product #55 has not sold" is a (possibly informal and/or grammatically "incorrect") abbreviation of "product #55 has not been sold". <S> It may have been withdrawn from sale, or it may still be available but nobody has yet bought it. <S> That usage would apply to a single item, which (obviously) can only be sold once. <S> The word "product" is not very idiomatic - the usual generic word would be "item", or a specific noun like "house", "car", etc. <S> "Product #55 didn't sell" would more often refer to something which is produced in large quantities and sold to many customers. <S> The meaning is not that none of the product was sold, but that the total sales were lower than expected. <S> For example a processed food manufacturer might say that "bacon-and-egg-flavoured yoghurt was very popular in specialist delicatessens, but it didn't sell in Walmart", or a history of the motor industry might say that "the Ford Edsel didn't sell" - <S> though of course some people bought that model of car. <A> "has not sold" suggests that the product has two possible states: sold, or unsold. <S> If you have 1,000 items, not one of them has sold, and so you still have 1,000 items. <S> With the phrase "did not sell", the word "sell" might suggest "selling well". <S> Maybe you sell lemonade and strawberry lemonade for 15% higher cost. <S> Maybe lemonade was a popular item, but only 0.2% of people chose to use the strawberry add-on. <S> It just didn't "sell". <S> Although some strawberries were indeed sold, the product failed to take off.
| Didn't sell suggests that the period when product #55 could have been sold is now over. The phrases look like they have identical literal definitions, but there may be some difference implied by the actual usage.
|
Looking for the label that books get when they out of use (at the library) When a library has a lot of books or when a library doesn't want the book for any reason, then they used to put a stamp with a label that says that these books are not already belong to the library, and the person which hold them, hold them or buy or sell it, do it honestly. But there are specific words which accepted in this field in my language, it's something like "out of use in x library" or "taken out of the x library. Can I know what's the normal or parallel way in the library of English spoken countries to do this label, that I talked about? <Q> I think you're looking for "removed from circulation". <S> Some libraries use much longer phrases: <S> There's no one set phrase for this, though. <A> It really depends on the library. <S> I've seen several ways this can be done from different libraries. <S> In our local (community) library, they cross out the bar code and in several places they stamp the phrase: " <S> Sold to the public, and removed from [Library Name] collection". <S> I've also seen some stamps that say "Discarded from library stock." <S> So, there isn't a universal way that this is done. <S> In many cases, books get sold in batches and no stamp is ever made on the book. <A> Books that a library does not want to keep in its system are, in the USA, called discards are are usually stamped DISCARD or maybe WITHDRAWN . <S> You can see some images here . <S> The process of withdrawing a book from circulation is described here at Making Discards (American Library Association). <S> The nomenclature may differ in other English speaking countries. <A> I believe the phrase you're looking for is "out of circulation" . <S> If a book is in the library system, (checked out, or available to be checked out) <S> it is "in circulation". <S> If, for whatever reason, it isn't, it is "out of circulation". <S> I can't think of it being used as a stamp though. <S> Edit: As far as a stamp explicitly saying a book no longer belongs to a library, I don't recall ever seeing one (I'm not saying they don't exist though). <S> When I was a kid I had lots of former library books, most of which still had the "Property of X Public Library" stamp, although sometimes that stamp was crossed out in black marker. <A> Just to add another perspective, 'discarded' and 'withdrawn' are possible labels to use, and " weeding " is the process. <S> It is one of the vital processes in collection development. <S> 'Discarded' books are usually sold or donated, while 'withdrawn' books are usually placed in a separate warehouse as they may have historical value (or something to that effect). <S> (I am speaking in a general sense, some libraries have their own term definitions for such) <S> I won't use "out of circulation" as it may also imply that the book is for room use <S> only (i.e., it [the book] could be a part of some special collection.) <S> I worked as a volunteer librarian long ago.
| Sometimes they will simply have a stamp that reads "withdrawn" Or "discarded"
|
Spelling a word with two U's in a row out loud I would like to know how to spell a word with two consecutive U's out loud—like "vacuum". Do we say vee , ay , see , double U or just U, U , em ? I'm wondering because if we say "double U" it might be mistaken for the letter "W". But, in fact, the word "vacuum" is not written with a "W". <Q> I have in fact heard (American) native speakers spell two consecutive U's out loud as "double U". <S> There is no rule. <S> Language is something to have fun with, and there is a wee bit of fun in saying "double" <S> and then the name of a doubled letter instead of saying the name of the letter twice in a row. <S> When spelling out VACUUM, saying "double U" is ambiguous, and there is a wee bit of fun in choosing the ambiguous way to say it. <S> If you want to avoid ambiguity, of course, you can say "U U". <S> The choice is yours. <S> However, there is less ambiguity than you might think. <S> The name of the letter W has primary stress only on the first syllable: /'dʌb.l.ju/. <S> When people say "double- <S> X " where X is any letter, they usually fully stress both the first syllable of "double" and the name of the letter. <S> For F, that would be /'dʌb.l. <S> 'ɛf/ <S> , not /'dʌb.l.ɛf/. <S> For U, that would be /'dʌb.l. <S> 'ju/, not /'dʌb.l.ju/. <S> Also, rhythm is very important in English. <S> Normally when people spell out a word, they give each letter the same amount of time and equal stress. <S> When spelling out CAT, for example, people usually say /'si. <S> 'eɪ. <S> 'ti/, <S> maintaining a steady beat so each syllable takes the same amount of time. <S> When spelling out AWE, the time spent on each letter stays the same even though it takes three syllables to say the W: <S> /'eɪ. <S> 'dʌb.l.ju. <S> 'i/ <S> ; the three syllables of /'dʌb.l.ju/ are spoken quickly, totaling the same amount of time as /'eɪ/. <S> When people indicate a doubled letter with the word "double", it usually makes rhythm irregular. <S> Usually the time spent on the word "double" is a less than the time spent on each letter's name. <S> Sometimes people squeeze "double" into the letter-name's time, or into twice the time of one letter-name, similar to a grace note in music. <S> But it's not a rule. <S> By the way, the letter W started as two consecutive U's; hence the name. <S> Back then, U was written V; hence the shape. <A> Your analysis is correct. <S> A native speaker would realise the ambiguity and spell it out loud as: <S> Vee <S> Aye <S> See You <S> You <S> Em <S> We never say "Double-You" for anything but the letter "W". <A> There is no inherent ambiguity because <S> Double U (back-to-back letter u's) is pronounced differently from Double U (the letter W ). <S> The letter <S> w is pronounced as one three-syllable word with the stress on the first syllable. <S> Listen here on Forvo . <S> In addition–although not as important–in rapid speech, some speakers of English pronounce W as if it had no l , so dúbba-yu . <S> In fact, to deliberately avoid ambiguity, they would slow down and make sure the addressee heard it as two words. <S> This would be true whether spelling V-A-C-Double U-M or some sequence as J-3-Double U-4-underline (J3UU4_) as in a password. <S> One would not usually mistake this for J3W4_ , because the W in that would be pronounced differently, as explained above. <S> If the speaker or listener had any doubt, they could always ask for clarification. <S> If there was extreme importance or noise interference they could use a phonetic alphabet . <A> This type of ambiguity was why these were developed. <S> In the NATO/ICAO Phonetic Alphabet : Victor Alpha Charlie Uniform Uniform Mike <A> When spelling something out loud, the intent is to be especially clear and unambiguous. <S> To that end, even if you used the terminology "double" in general, you should avoid it in this case. <S> In fact, you may want to (or need to) use a phonetic word spelling in this situation too, so you actually spell out loud, " victor alpha charlie umbrella unicorn mary" . <S> Using two different words, though non-standard, helps convey the repetition within the message rather than the message fragment being repeated, which is another source of ambiguity.
| To refer to back-to-back u's, the native speaker will pronounce this as two words, with a slight pause between Double and U , and with stress on both words, double and u . You could also use the phonetic alphabet to spell it out too if you know it.
|
What is the adjective for someone with cancer? What is the adjective for a person that has cancer? For example, cancerous individual, cancerous child, or something else? <Q> We never use the adjective cancerous to refer to a person suffering from cancer. <S> If you do so, you may cause people great offense as well as emotional pain. <S> If you wish to refer to people who have cancer, you can refer to them as cancer patients , as noted in another answer here. <S> Usage note: <S> One reason that you might offend them is because "cancerous person" is often used metaphorically to describe a person regularly causing negative effects to others around them i.e. that person is a metaphorical cancer. <A> The adjective cancerous usually modifies cells, growth, tumor, etc. <S> It is better to use a prepositional phrase with cancer which post-modifies the noun. <S> A person (diagnosed) with cancer <S> Or you could use cancer patient which means: a person who is receiving medical treatment for a malignant growth or tumour: ' an increase in the number of cancer patients ' [ Collins Online Dictionary ] <A> In English it is common to use the term "cancer patient" as stated already. <S> The following is not a real answer, as much as a suggestion: in Greek, someone suffering from cancer is called carcinopathés (noun, a person suffering from cancer). <S> I think the addition of a term such as carcinopath or canceropath in the English vocabulary wouldn't go amiss. <A> Single words (if hyphenated counts as single word) would be "cancer-ridden" or "cancer-stricken". <A> There is no single word adjective you can come up with that won't range from being offensive, to extremely offensive and whose use won't mark you as a weirdo with no social sense. <S> Nevertheless, if my life somehow depended on coming up with one, I would make my answer "becancered", taking advantage of the "be-" morphological formation to denote "afflicted with", "surrounded with", "loaded with", "stricken" and such. <S> Somehow it has a small softening effect, placing a separation between the subject and the disease. <S> There is a certain slight nuance in "cancered" in that to be "cancered" <S> is in some sense, to be identified as being one with the cancer, to be inseparable from it, or the degradation of health which the progression of cancer causes. <S> The "be-" prefix re-frames <S> the cancer as some external affliction which in some metaphoric sense drapes the individual and can be shed, or something that the subject has (like a "bespectacled" person is someone who is wearing glasses, and something "bejeweled" is covered with jewels). <S> This possibly may have to do with "be + word + ed" plausibly deriving from a noun sense of word . <S> In "becancered", "cancer" refers to the noun "cancer", and not to cancer as a verb, unlike in "cancered", where the derivation is ambiguous; there is a verb sense which means "degraded by the progressive action of cancer" and not simply "having cancer". <A> Most sources I can find online tell me "cancerous" is grammatically correct for both a growth and a person, as meaning "relating to or affected with cancer". <S> Though if I may, I find this expression very repulsive. <S> It might be because I played online games too much, but I think that referring to a "patient with cancer" or a "cancer patient" sounds way better than a "cancerous/cancered(?) patient". <A> Cancer-stricken Examples: <S> Cancer-Stricken Farmers Sue Monsanto <S> Over Roundup Amanda Ferreira, the cancer-stricken Auckland mother who fought for more time with her girls
| You can also refer to people with cancer as cancer sufferers or people with cancer .
|
Name of colours or Names of colour Which is the correct phrase? Name of colours Names of colour Names of colours <Q> I'm not a native speaker, but I strongly believe 3. <S> is the correct phrase. <S> This is so because there is more than one name, and there is more than one colour, so both "name" and "colour" should be plural. <S> "Names of X", when X is singular, could be correct only if X was a single, unique, object / animal / person and if it had more than one name. <A> Upvoted A. Darwin, but just to add: If you're talking about one color, use the singular. <S> "What is the name of the color of that piece of paper?" If you're talking about many colors, use the plural. <S> "What are the names of the colors in that painting?" <S> "Names of color" would make sense if there were many names for one color. <S> Like, "I call this 'red', but my wife has many names for this color: red, burgundy, crimson, cherry, etc. <S> " Or if you were talking about names in multiple languages: the French call it "rouge" and the Germans call it "rot" and so on. <S> Perhaps if you were talking about many shades of a color, you could say "The name of all these colors is 'red'. <S> " Or if you were talking about some set of colors. " <S> The name of the colors on this palette is 'palette 7'. <S> " Though we'd be more likely to say that's the name of the palette than of the colors. <A> I would use Name s of color - if they were multiple names for the same color <S> Name s of color s - if they were just a list of color names (pink, red, green, etc.) <S> Name of color s - if you had the same name describe multiple colors (unlikely) <S> Hope that helps.
| "Name of colors" indicates there is one name for many colors.
|
Why is "agreed" used as an interjection? A lot people use "agreed" as an interjection, especially while writing comments in blogs, forums, and other online platforms. This use is also mentioned by different English dictionaries (e.g. Collins ), but I don't know whether it can be used in a more formal setting than an online forum. I'm also curious as to its actual meaning. Is it a shorthand of I have agreed ? If so, is the present perfect used (albeit in an abbreviated form) to describe an action that was completed in a very recent past? Or is it a shortand of I am agreed ? I sometimes find this expression, although in a different setting than "agreed", but I'm not sure it is correct. Or is it something else entirely? I've tried searching on the Internet, but I haven't found an answer so far. <Q> " It is short for the much more formal <S> "It is agreed." <S> One way you typically see this done is when speakers are setting the ground rules (or baseline assumptions) before beginning a discussion where there may be some disagreement. <S> This likely stems from a more formal era where you were making an oral contract with somebody, and the first speaker declares the terms of the contract, and the second speaker is accepting the terms of the contract. <S> "It is agreed that we will proceed the way we have discussed. <S> " <S> Over time this has just been shortened to "Agreed" which then morphed into a simple way of showing agreement. <A> It just is. <S> And the Oxford English Dictionary gives usages as far back as 1534 1534 <S> J. Heywood Play of Loue sig. <S> Bi, Loued not louyng. <S> We shall neuer agre <S> Unlesse ye wyll admyt some man.. <S> to..gyue iudgement. <S> Louer not loued. <S> Agred. <S> This old usage just shows a different spelling of agreed (as for love , lover , loved , etc.) <S> I think of it as the second party indicating that the two parties are agreed ( in agreement ) when the second party says agreed . <S> Either that or the matter at hand has been agreed upon with the second party saying agreed . <S> It could have first had a legal connotation in that the oldest meaning of agreement was a legal term akin to contract . <S> We can just think of it as the equivalent of I agree . <A> Agreed is used to express your approval on the immediate matter at hand, and is thus welcome in an oral discussion with friends or when instant-messaging someone. <S> For instance: What do you say we go out and grab a drink after work ? <S> Agreed ! <S> Used this way, you could replace it with a simple <S> "Okay !" <S> or "Alright !" <S> You wouldn't use it so much in a discussion on a forum or through emails, and would prefer <S> I agree to show someone you and him have the same point of view. <A> I think that "agreed" belongs to the same type of shortened answers (not really interjections) as "understood", "noted" etc. <S> And like stangdon I think it should be taken as kind of idiomatic.
| When you use "Agreed" as an interjection, it is equivalent to "I agree.
|
What is the difference in meaning between output and result? Let's say that we ran an analysis (e.g. statistical analysis). What is the difference in meaning between: The result of this statistical analysis The output of this statistical analysis When can I use 'result' and when I can use 'output'?What is correct synonym to "result" to be used? <Q> I see it this way: The output is the raw data that was generated by the statistical analysis. <S> This is the information generated by the process before it has been considered and evaluated by the person or people who will make a decision. <S> The result is the decision made (or direction that you are going to take) based on your interpretation of the data. <A> Be careful. <S> Result and output are slippery and depend a lot on context. <S> The result of the statistical analysis was that we all packed up work and went to the pub <S> The output of the statistical analysis is represented in the table below Generally, an action yields a result in the form of an output . <S> So the result from the statistical analysis would typically be an output in the form of a dataset. <S> However, the further study of that data (another action) yielded a result in the form of a decision to go to the pub. <S> That makes it seem like the decision is a result in itself when actually it is a subsequent output. <S> No matter how complex or how simple, all calculations tend to follow the same path: <S> input -- <S> > action --> <S> result -- <S> > output <S> So <S> , in your example: Data Analysis Raw data Dataset -- <S> > -- <S> > -- <S> > <S> (Input) (Action) (Result) (Output) <S> Feeds in to <S> Datasets Analysis Conclusion Decision -- <S> > -- <S> > -- <S> > <S> (Input) (Action) (Result) (Output) <S> So, if the world was run by mathematicians and information scientists, that would be the end of it, everything is linked and nested iterations of that pattern. <S> Sadly, it's not :) and English comes along and confuses things by often using the two terms interchangeably. <A> Bad or good is the output, no matter good or bad that’s the implication of what we do. <S> Result is a pre-determined output, <S> that’s why more controllable. <S> The degree of good is higher than bad supposed to be. <S> Outcome is the impact of both output and/or result
| So I see the output being the information generated by the computer, and the result being the decision made based on the output, or the impact the output had.
|
Is the use of "on time" in the sentence correct or not? Peter had applied for a teaching position at a school, and he agreed to start his employment on 25-April-2016. But Peter did not go to the school on the day as promised, he came to the school three days later without any good reasons and so was fired from the job. Given that situation, I am trying describe it in a simple way, Peter was fired from his job because he could not come to work on time on 25-April-2015. But I am not sure whether using "on time" in the sentence can fully describe what happened, or it is incorrectly used.Will people think think he got fired because he was late to work when seeing "on time" in the sentence. <Q> You are right that your use of "on time" will imply late arrival on the day. <S> You might instead say as scheduled or as agreed <S> I prefer the latter, because I think that the crucial problem was that Peter had said he we come on a specific date and did not arrive. <S> There is an implication that he also did not contact the employer to explain the problem. <S> It's not just that he "could not" come (we can imagine many acceptable reasons why he could not come) but also that he didn't notify his employer. <S> Hence I would also modify " <S> could not" Peter was fired from his job because without explanation he failed to come to work as agreed on 25-May-2015. <A> As @djna mentioned in the answer, using "on time" is not appropriate as it means he was late on that particular date. <S> There are good suggestions, but here is another one. <S> Peter was fired from his job because he didn't (or failed to) show up for three consecutive days from April 25, 2015 which was his first day at the school. <S> Especially if there was a weekend between April 25, 2015 and April 28, 2015 <S> (I didn't check the calendar), this sentence clearly states that he didn't show up for three days consecutively <S> and it led to the unfortunate consequence (his being fired). <A> You can explain the situation quite directly by avoiding the word "not": <S> Peter was fired from his job after he showed up four days late. <A> This does not exactly describe what happened. <S> He got fired for being absent 3 days in a row, not just for being late/absent on the 25th. <S> You'll need a sentence a bit more complex in order to describe perfectly what happened: Peter was fired from his job because he could not come to work on his starting day, 25-May-2015, but instead started on 28-May-2015 without any good reasons. <S> Or something along the line.
| As others have said (including you), using on time would generally mean he was late , not that he was a no-show .
|
What is the difference between "you are being" and "you are"? Having a debate on whether "You are being a jerk" and "You are a jerk" have the same meaning in context. Are you calling someone a jerk if you state they are "being" a jerk or is the context that they are portraying qualities of a jerk? <Q> There is a pretty visible distinction between both, and this example displays one of the main uses of continuous present. <S> You are being a jerk Means that you're a jerk <S> right now , on the matter at hand. <S> You are a jerk. <S> Is way more general and is used to express your opinion about the person. <S> However, you could say "you're such a jerk" on the moment because you're furious, but then not think so any more. <A> You are being a jerk. <S> He <S> /she is not a jerk, but at that time he/she is acting like one. <S> Or portraying the qualities of a jerk. <S> You are a jerk. <S> It's a fact. <S> The person is a jerk. <S> This can also mean that the person is acting like a jerk at the time of speaking. <A> Saying "You are" implies a quality that is deeply engrained in someone or rather a quality they have little to no control over and/or unable to change on demand. <S> Whereas saying "You are being" implies a quality that one could easily change at will. <S> Sometimes you can't refer to someone as "being", such as if you were to say, "You are tall. <S> " You couldn't say, "You are being tall" because that is not a quality that someone can easily change. <A> The targeted individual is presently behaving the way described. <S> You are being silly. <S> -- They are doing something silly right now. <S> You are being mean. <S> -- They are doing something mean right now. <S> You are being argumentative. <S> - They are being argumentative right now. <S> " You are " is what the targeted individual is in a broad, constant sense. <S> You are silly. <S> -- They aren't behaving in a silly way, they are a silly person. <S> You are mean. <S> -- <S> They aren't being mean, they are a mean person. <S> You are argumentative. <S> -- They aren't arguing, they are an argumentative person. <A> You are being is about a continuous sentence <S> But You are <S> is an information about that guy . <A> Imagine two people side by side, one a selfish Jerk and one who is compassionate. <S> Either one has the option of acting out a quality of the other, compassionate can be (are being) a jerk or selfish and the Jerk, although a Jerk, can be compassionate. <S> "Are being" or "being" does imply acting out "right now" and the implication is that you are still what you started out as.
| " You are being " is happening right now. Saying of someone "You are a jerk" would be more insulting than saying "You are being a jerk". Without context, it's not really possible to determine whether they have different or same meaning.
|
What is a meaning of this William Shakespeare's quote? My problem is understanding of following quote: "There were no age between ten and three-and-twenty, or that youth would sleep out the rest; for there is nothing in the between but getting wenches with child, wronging the ancientry, stealing, fighting." I will highly appreciate if someone could paraphrase this quote to be more easy than it is now. A little more context Through the ages, most answers have cited dark forces that uniquely affect the teen. Aristotle concluded more than 2,300 years ago that "the young are heated by Nature as drunken men by wine." A shepherd in William Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale wishes "there were no age between ten and three-and-twenty, or that youth would sleep out the rest; for there is nothing in the between but getting wenches with child, wronging the ancientry, stealing, fighting." <Q> I would paraphrase this as: <S> I wish that youth either skipped from age ten to age 23, or that they would sleep during all these years, because there is nothing good between the ages of 10 and 23 except teens sexual exploits, including teen pregnancy, doing mean things to older people, stealing, and fighting. <S> Essentially, those years between the ages of 10 and 23 are the time when people bring upon themselves, and others, much misery and pain, and if you could skip those years, life would be better for everybody. <A> <A> In my opinion the old shepherd meant that he wished that young people aged between sixteen and twenty-three <S> either hibernated through this period of their lives or didn't exist at all because they, being unruly and destructive, create too many troubles for others. <S> By the way, it's from Winter's Tale, act 3, scene 3.
| The quote expresses his distaste for individuals between the ages of ten and twenty-three; if they went to sleep at age ten and woke up at twenty-three nothing would be lost, because all they do between those ages is have sex, harass elders, steal, and fight.
|
How to say that I have done something in importance order in English? Is my sentence correct : I put the files based on their importance in the attached folder. The file structure should be something like that : 1- First file (Most important) 2- Second File ( Second most important) 3- Third File (Third most important) <Q> Per Jeffrey's comment, you may use: <S> "I put (or insert) <S> the files into the attached folder in order of importance." <S> Also, you may opt to use: "... arranged according to importance..." <S> Kindly note that i t is better to indicate that the first [or the topmost, etc.] <S> item is the most important in case the context is not clear. <S> So to consolidate: <S> "I arranged the files according to importance in the attached folder, the first[topmost] file being the most important." <A> "based on their importance" , on its own, is ambiguous in that sentence. <S> It could mean that you choose, based on their importance, whether to put the files in the folder or not. <S> So, your sentence needs to make it clear that it is the order in which the files are placed that is being determined by their importance. <A> Your example: I have prioritized the files in the attached folder (as follows). <S> Or you could use to arrange in place of to put. <S> I have arranged the files in order of priority in the attached folder (as follows). <S> Priority is better than importance when you try to list in order of priority.
| Adding to other great answers, you could consider using the verb to prioritize which means: to list or rate (as projects or goals) in order of priority
|
The difference between a pub and a bar What is the difference between a pub and a bar? Based on this chat between two colleagues I could say bars and pubs are different in meaning. A: Looks like we're going to a pub B: Easier to get to the bar at a pub A : true. cheaper too <Q> Pub and bar are synonyms, both names for an establishment that serves alcoholic drinks. <S> (They also have non-alcoholic options.) <S> Tavern is another word that means more or less the same thing. <S> Pub and bar can be used interchangeably, but pub implies something in the British style, often with full meals available, whereas bar sounds more American, and I picture a bar as having fewer food options than a pub - perhaps only limited finger-foods. <S> Pubs will (almost) always have several different beers, including some on tap, probably some ciders, and then a range of harder options. <S> Some bars have the same options as a pub, but some specialise in certain types of drinks, for example there are vodka bars and wine bars. <S> Tavern sometimes implies a low-class pub. <S> Of course there are many exceptions to these generalisations. <S> B: <S> Easier to get to the bar at a pub <S> What's confusing you in that sentence is that bar has a secondary meaning: it is also the word for the counter at which the drinks are served. <S> Some restaurants have that sort of bar, and if you arrive before your table is ready they may seat you at the bar for a pre-dinner drink. <S> So when your colleague said it is easier to get to the bar at the pub <S> they mean that they find it easier to get through the crowd to the bar (counter) to order their drinks. <S> Perhaps your local bar is really crowded and busy, but your local pub is more relaxed. <A> Pub is more British. <S> It's a place for buying, drinking alcohols, and a small amount of food can also be offered. <S> In Britain, people usually watch footbal games in the pubs. <S> Bar is specifically a place for buying alcohols in a club or pub. <S> Also, In America, they call it Bar instead of pub <A> The "barrier" is between you on one side, and the bartender and her cache on the other. <S> The word "pub" comes from "public House," which is what taverns & inns were originally called in the 18th century in both America & England. <S> Here is information with primary sources to explain it in further detail: https://passionforthepast.blogspot.com/2015/07/colonial-travel-taverns-pulse-of-18th.html
| Actually, the word "bar" refers to the counter upon which the drinks are served.
|
Do most Americans pronounce 'months' as 'mons', and 'clothes' as 'clos'? I am watching a video course which teaches American accent (The video course is called 'The American Accent'). The teacher inside it says that most of Americans actually omit the [th] sound and pronounce 'months' as 'mons' and 'clothes' as 'clos', because they have problem to pronounce them as [ths] specified in dictionary. Of course, they still pronounce 'month' and 'cloth' as it is. The 'ths' and 'thes' sound is indeed difficult to second language learners like me. But I am a bit surprised that most Americans feel the same as us:-) Is it real? <Q> Some do, some don't. <S> Even one person's pronunciations can shift depending on the situation. <S> I pronounce months <S> /mʌnθs/, with the θ. <S> I think most people I know personally also pronounce the θ. <S> But not all. <S> When I hear it without the θ, I cringe (inwardly). <S> To my ear, that sounds sloppy. <S> There are also some East-coast regional accents that make it /mʌnts/. <S> I've even heard /mʌmfs/. <S> When I was a kid, I pronounced clothes /kloʊz/, without the ð. <S> That's how most Americans pronounce it. <S> But I have heard some people pronounce it /kloʊðz/. <S> To my surprise, many of those people grew up in the same region that I did, central Ohio. <S> When I heard that pronunciation, it sounded clearer, more elegant, and more formal than my pronunciation, but also a bit fussy (to my ear, not theirs). <S> As an adult, my pronunciation of this word tends to vary. <S> While giving a talk at a research conference, I would probably pronounce it /kloʊðz/; while asking about when the washing machine will be ready, probably /kloʊz/. <S> If you want to sound educated, intelligent, high-class, or formal, then articulate every vowel and consonant clearly, in the standard way. <S> If you want to sound uneducated, not-so-intelligent, low-class, or casual, then slur anything that's hard to pronounce. <S> There's more subtlety to the way people perceive clarity in speech than that, but if you master clear speech first, you'll be fine. <S> Later, you can learn when to "lax up". <S> By the way, for some time when I was a little kid, I was puzzled about how you could make "clothes" singular. <S> No one says /kloʊ/. <S> And "clothe" (/kloʊð/) is a verb. <S> I had to wait a long time before I learned the phrase "article of clothing", which is the singular. <A> I've lived all over various parts of the USA. <S> Months often pronounced as munce , sounding like dunce . <S> Some people use proper annunciation, but it's more rare than common. <S> Common alternative is clo'th's , extended phonetically as clo <S> (hard O) th <S> (th sound, clipped and brief) s (extended s, like a brief hiss). <A> I don't know about most Americans, but /kloʊz/ is a standard pronunciation of "clothes" (noun). <S> It's not a mark of being uneducated or lazy, it's just a pronunciation. <S> Just like thumb is pronounced without the b sound. <S> Anyone who insisted on pronouncing the b would be looked upon as weird. <S> Many speakers of American English are unaware that they pronounce clothes as /kloʊz/ , until you bring it to their attention. <S> And even when you do, some will still deny that they pronounce it in this way. <S> It's similar to how most English speakers don't know that in everyday conversation they pronounce handbag as hambag . <S> ('I dropped my handbag in the parking lot'.) <S> The th sound can cause difficulty in certain environments. <S> Many native English speakers do not pronounce the second f in fifths . <S> Or the d in width . <S> But the pronunciation is not impossible. <S> The same people who pronounce the noun clothes without saying the /ð/ <S> do say it in the third person <S> singular <S> verb form <S> /kloʊðz/ <S> as in <S> She clothes the tree with holly before Christmas . <S> Probably few would drop the /ð/ here, despite the ensuing /ð/ in the . <S> Thus, the /ð/ sound is maintained to distinguish the noun from the verb, even though the two can rarely be confused. <S> Thanks for this sharing. <S> I guess I have three points <S> I'm not sure. <S> 1) <S> Do you mean some native speakers would drop the second /f/ sound in 'fifths'? <S> Yes, the second f in fifths is not pronounced by many native speakers. <S> 2) <S> The last paragraph seems to imply that /ð/ <S> in 'the' would influence the pronunciation of 'clothes'. <S> What is exactly it? <S> 3) <S> Do you mean some speakers would use /ð/ <S> to imply that they are saying a verb instead of a noun? <S> I know of no one who would pronounce the verb clothes as /kloʊz/. <S> The verb phrase ... <S> clothes the (door) is a difficult sequence. <S> I meant that we might expect the pronunciation of the verb clothes to change in this environment. <S> But, in fact, if speakers were to make a pronunciation change, they would most likely change the pronunciation of the . <S> Why? <S> The is unstressed and it is not a content word.
| Like months, some people use proper annunciation, though it's more rare than common. Clothes often pronounced as close , sounding like the normal word.
|
"I have been had it" or "I have had it": which one is correct? Which one is correct? This is a very old book. I have been had it since I was child or This is a very old book. I have had it since I was child <Q> The second one is correct present perfect of "to have." <S> "I have had it since I was a child," is correct. <A> "I have had it" is the correct answer because the first one used "have been" and "had" in one phrase, which makes it grammatically wrong. <A> The auxiliary verb "be" is usually followed by the present participle (as in "having") rather than the past participle (as in "had"). <S> Thus, "I have been had it" is not a valid phrase. <S> By contrast, "I have had it", from your second example, is fine.
| Even if you wrote "I have been having it", it would be wrong because "have" is a verb that expresses a state, not a repeated action (as in "I have been coughing all day").
|
Is "I was had" standard English? I've recently watched West Side Story and heard some weird expressions, one of which is "I was had" : Dear kindly Judge, your Honor, My parents treat me rough. With all their marijuana, They won't give me a puff. They didn't wanna have me, But somehow I was had . Leapin' lizards! That's why I'm so bad! The movie is set in the early sixties, so this may not be used anymore. It is also part of a song, so it may even be a license and never really used. Does this sound right in today's standard English? Can "have" be used in passive constructions at all? <Q> Oh, wow, that's a much more complex bit of word-play than it seemed in the title of the question. <S> However, that is not <S> the meaning of "was had" in context – though it very clearly is an allusion to and playing with the "was cheated" sense. <S> The people singing are criminals, and they're singing about their being criminals – people who cheat and trick others; their song is a list of humorous excuses for their behavior, and "I was had!" can be a kind of excuse. <S> The context was: <S> My parents [...] <S> didn't wanna have me, <S> But somehow I was had. <S> In another idiomatic use of "to have", such as "have me", here, means "to give birth to a child". <S> The singer is saying "My parents didn't want a (or another) child, but somehow they wound up with me." <S> Using "was had" to mean <S> "was born" <S> this way is very unusual, but makes literal grammatical sense – and reminds the listener of the idiom " <S> I was had" meaning "I was cheated". <S> The entire song is a list of the reasons the characters addressed should have mercy on the young criminals, and those reasons are all specious explanations that position the criminals as the real victims of the unfairness of life: <S> everything bad they do is someone else's fault. <A> Have is rarely used in passive constructions, even when it is used as a dynamic (versus a stative) verb. <S> Here are two acceptable uses: 1 <S> A good time was had by all. <S> This expression (and ones based on it) is quaint, hackneyed and stale. <S> More germane to your question: <S> 2 <S> I was had by the insurance company. <S> Here was had <S> means was cheated or was swindled . <S> See Oxford definition 2.8 and <S> be had at the free dictionary. <S> Now, let's look at a particular active usage that is ungrammatical in the passive: <S> Had can mean <S> gave birth (simple past). <S> A common but somewhat informal use is <S> My mother had me in 1999 when she was still young. <S> Had here <S> means gave birth to . <S> However, to use this meaning in the passive, as in <S> * <S> > <S> I was had by my mother in 1999 when she was still young. <S> is ungrammatical. <S> In fact, the natural way to interpret this sentence would be to give it the meaning of to be cheated . <S> Which is why I originally jumped to the conclusion that was had in the lyric you ask about means to be cheated . <S> However, the songwriter has been clever and written a lyric that is both grammatical and ungrammatical at the same time. <S> The grammaticality of its use as <S> I was cheated/swindled "allows" the listener to process the ungrammatical usage as I was given birth to as making sense in the context of the singer's parenting. <S> It's a startling usage. <S> If one were to distill or separate the two uses, the lyric would mean something like: <S> Somehow I was cheated when I was given birth to by my parents. <S> But again, <S> I was had as in <S> I was given birth to <S> is strictly ungrammatical in normal usage. <S> Acknowledgement to the comment by MarkHubbard and the answer by Codeswitcher, which have allowed me to update and improve my answer... <A> They didn't wanna have me, but somehow I was had. <S> This sentence suggests that the character is the product of an accidental pregnancy. <S> The first clause of the compound establishes the relevant sense of "to have". <S> The passive voice might be unusual here, but it does not fall outside of standard. <A> To be had is an expression meaning to be taken advantage of . <S> It's valid.
| The expression "was had" is an idiom that means "was cheated or tricked", and is perfectly valid English.
|
What is the plural form of "magic"? Wiktionary claims it is "magics", from how I read its page , but e.g. Ask.com claims it has no plural form . Considering that Wiktionary also claims that it is "usually uncountable", are there only certain situations it has a plural form in? <Q> There's nothing to count. <S> "Someone who practices magic ", "friendship is magic ", or " magic powers this device" would all fit this pattern. <S> However, if you're referring to some specific kind , it's countable. <S> So "the magics of necromancy and enchantment" is legitimate: it's referring to two different but related things. <S> (Similarly, "the peoples of England and Scotland" refers to each separate group of people, and "the monies allocated were spent primarily in two ways" does the same thing for "money".) <S> This is not a very common usage, though, since for most purposes there's really no reason to make a distinction between different kinds of something that's imaginary anyway. <S> Or here's another example: <S> Ain's machine was built under the Black Spike surrounded by deep water, a work of genius tainted by madness. <S> They had called it the Sixth Magic. <S> No matter its power; it was flawed and unclean from the beginning. <S> Mael's last accomplishment was supposed to elevate the magics above the stain of Ain's madness. <S> ( Source: The Seventh Magic ) <A> Alan and Nathan have both answered this, I'm only adding some references Magic is, indeed, an uncountable noun. <S> However, an instance of magic is singular and so has often been made plural with the addition of an S. Kipling writing in Strand Magazine in 1906 <S> What's that for—magic?’ said Una... ‘One of my little magics,’ he answered. <S> - sourced from the OED <S> Another example from the OED ... <S> you keep bumping into these small magics — things people would like to believe, just as we'd all rather like to believe in haunted houses and water witching <S> As for the other conversation about magick or magik- <S> it pre-dates <S> the now standard spelling Chaucer, back around the turn of the 14th century Clerkes eke, which konne wel Al this magik naturel.. <S> thrugh which magik To make a man ben hool or syk. <S> Shakespeare himself was a bit of a fan of Magick (all from 1st folio spellings c1623) <S> Magick Verses haue contriu'd his end. <S> - Henry VI part 1 <S> There's Magick in thy Maiestie - Winter's tale <S> And plucke my Magick garment from me - The Tempest <S> And, an example in the plural... <S> Bring your Magicks, Spels, and Charmes, To enflesh my thighs, and armes. <S> From Robert Herrick's Hesperedes <A> Magic is usually used as a mass or non-count or uncountable (pick a term) noun, so it will usually be used in the singular. <S> Sometimes words we think are only used as a mass noun, such as money and imagination can be used as count nouns, so it cannot be said that you'll never see magics . <S> Magical arts is a close equivalent. <A> In most common usage "magic" is an uncountable noun. <S> Using the word "magics" generally implies a context of a specific religious/fictional belief-structure that has internally-defined concepts of different kinds of magic <S> For example: As an outsider witnessing a group preforming four magic-rituals I would probably refer to the four rituals collectively as "magic". <S> A member of the group might refer to the first three rituals as "spirit magic", but they may refer the four rituals as "magics" if they believed the fourth ritual to be a distinct class of "earth magic". <S> The next day I might say "They showed by their magics", but using the word "magics" implies that they told me they were "magics", and that I am speaking from the internal viewpoint of their belief system, although it does not imply that I share their belief. <S> I am merely speaking in a specific context of their beliefs.
| The plural form of magic is magics . If you're referring to the idea in general , it's not countable.
|
Is incomplete sentence bad to use? I like to begin some sentence with "And", especially when I wrote some stories at Reddit. I have someone there who voluntary fix my grammar, and I noticed that he often fix my sentence that begins with "And". But I found beginning sentence with "And" feels more natural to the context of the paragraph. And there, I did it again, I started a sentence with "But". Oh, and another "And" there. Duh. Is there any rule of how to use incomplete sentence correctly? Or is it a big no no ever after in English? <Q> The proscription against using conjunctions to start sentences (so called "sentence-initial conjunctions", see google makes you look smart) seems to be taught in school in some places, but descriptive linguists don't agree with it. <S> See Initial coordinators in technical, academic, and formal writing for a nice Language Log post by Mark Lieberman filed under prescriptivist poppycock . <A> In school, teachers train students to never start sentences with "and" or "but". <S> However, in the real world, like writing fiction or doing journalism, authors start sentences with "and" or "but". <S> One would likely want to avoid it in formal writing. <A> You will often start sentences with and or but in speech to link back to previous things you said. <S> In formal writing, or a formal speech that you are reading, you have (or should have had) time to plan everything out. <S> So this is less acceptable in such a situation. <S> And and <S> but are meant to link two things. <S> If one of those things is missing and context cannot fill in the blank <S> then you are <S> I walked to the store. <S> And there I saw Bobby. <S> (First sentence establishes a context, <S> thus from the second sentence we assume Bobby was at the store.) <S> I walked to the store. <S> And then I got in the car. <S> (Was the car at the store? <S> Typically a car is in a parking lot. <S> So we are missing details here, unless they were in previous sentences.) <S> I decided to eat dinner and then go home. <S> (The two things here don't depend on anything outside of the context <S> so it's complete.)
| This is OK because in speech you often don't plan out what you say too far in advance and often need to express new thoughts and relate them to previous things you said.
|
She being or her being What sounds better here: 'she being....' or 'her being...', if both are not wrong? She has a keen analytic mind and very good comprehension and communication skills. Her performance in examinations bears witness to the above, she being among the top five percent of her peer group. She has a keen analytic mind and very good comprehension and communication skills. Her performance in examinations bears witness to the above, her being among the top five percent of her peer group <Q> I'd personally choose the first one, she being as it emphasizes more on the her. <S> her being would be better of in a context, where possession is required. <A> The subject of the main clause is "performance", not "she". <S> On the one hand, there is reason to argue both ways about the case of the personal pronoun in an absolute construction. <S> The choice between "she" and "her" can be reduced to a question of personal preference. <S> On the other hand, there is no reason to bring her (or she) back into the sentence. <S> The performance itself is the topic at hand. <S> That is to say: Her performance in examinations, among the top five percent of her peer group, bears witness to the above. <S> No need for "she". <S> No need for "being". <S> The prepositional phrase can carry the semantic weight on its own and lend that weight where it is most effective. <A> Neither of these strike me as more preferable, as they both sound correct enough. <S> However, I would suggest that you have a third option, which sounds more natural to me: <S> She has a keen analytic mind and very good comprehension and communication skills. <S> Her performance in examinations bears witness to the above, with her being among the top five percent of her peer group. <A> I'd write <S> She has a keen analytic mind and very good comprehension and communication skills. <S> Her performance in examinations bears witness to the above; she is among the top five percent of her peer group.
| Neither sounds right; it's just a bad construction.
|
Using the structure seem + noun What is the difference between these two: 1- It seems water. 2- It seems to be water. <Q> Seem is one of common link verbs (like be, appear, look, sound, smell, taste, feel, become, get) and it can be followed by adjectives only: <S> The weather is horrible. <S> The dish tasted delicious. <S> She seems excited. <S> Nouns can be used after seem only when it is followed by to be : <S> He doesn't seem to be a coward. <S> Or by like , which sometimes can be omitted: <S> It seems (like) a good place to spend the rainy night. <S> Also: It seems to be the place to spend a rainy night. <S> "It seems water <S> * sounds most awkward to me, in comparison with "It looks (tastes, feels. <S> ets) like water. <A> He seems nice. <S> He seems a nice man. <S> You can also use 'to be' after seem in these sentences, without any difference in meaning, such as: <S> He seems to be nice. <S> He seems to be a nice man. <S> However, if you want to use seem in front of a noun, you should use a to-infinitive. <S> So the sentence should be as follows: <S> It seems to be water. <A> You asked using the structure of seem + noun . <S> Yes, it's possible! <S> OALD: <S> seen + noun: <S> He seems a nice man. <S> No difference in those two sentences ( 'seems to be something' is also possible) . <S> However, I feel that the latter structure is more common. <S> It also looks better to me as compared to the previous one.
| Seem is a linking verb that's usually followed by an adjective and an adjective + noun such as:
|
Will people get confused when they see 'Some of our customers speak Spanish, English, and German'? Our cakes are very popular for foreign visitors. Some of them speak Spanish, Some speak English, and some speak German. Now, I want to make the second sentence neat and more easy to read, so I am writing it this way: Some of our customers speak Spanish, English, and German. But I am afraid that the new sentence will make people think that these customers speak three languages, (i.e. Spanish, English and German). Can you give me some advice please? <Q> Just replacing and with or removes the ambiguity: <S> Our cakes are very popular among foreign visitors. <S> Some of our customers speak Spanish, English, or German. <S> "Or" would be interpreted in this case to mean "at least one of …". <S> However, that still doesn't make these two sentences well constructed. <S> I have a hard time figuring out what connection you are trying to draw between linguistic ability and food preferences. <S> I suggest combining all of the facts into one statement: <S> Our cakes are especially popular among our Spanish-, English-, and German-speaking customers. <S> That makes it clearer that you are categorizing your customers by inferring their place of origin through their language. <S> Or, if you wish to to use a simpler and less specific expression, you could, in some contexts, say "western" to mean roughly European / Australian / North American / South American. <S> (There's no point in being exact, since you are just expressing general preferences anyway.) <S> Our cakes are especially popular with our western customers. <A> Our cakes are very popular for foreign visitors. <S> Some of them speak Spanish, [s]ome speak English, and some speak German. <S> Yes, the revised sentence ( Some of our customers speak Spanish, English, and German ) can be ambiguous. <S> However, your original sentence is not difficult or cluttered. <S> Repetition of structure is sometimes good; it allows the reader to anticipate what's ahead in the sentence. <S> It is like taking the hand of the reader and guiding them. <S> So it's not bad. <S> Note also that with foreign visitors is more idiomatic. <S> See the sentences at Cambridge dictionary . <A> I will replace the preposition for with among (or possibly with) which sounds a little more natural. <S> Our cakes are very popular among foreign visitors. <S> Your original sentence doesn't have any problem except that you are repeating the same word. <S> They speak English, German and Spanish to name a few. <S> It doesn't necessarily mean one visitor speaks all three languages. <S> It means you have visitors from all over Europe. <S> Considering the fact that many Europeans (especially travelers) are bi or tri-lingual, I don't think you need to worry about the possibility that the sentence could mean they speak three languages.
| The most natural way to interpret the sentence is that it means Some of our customers speak all three languages.
|
Can we call a divorced woman single? If a woman who got married and had a child gets divorced, can we call her single? I searched for the term "single parent" and it seems to reflect the responsibilities of a person rather than their marital status. <Q> Yes, from language perspective, a person is generally considered "single" in any of the following situations: never married widowed <S> divorced <S> If, however you are asking about how legal status affects the terminology, we'd need to know more about the legal jurisdiction involved. <A> "Single" only describes their current relationship status. <S> "Single parent" only describes who looks after the child. <S> It's perfectly possible to be a "single parent" and still be married, if the other person is no longer around and you haven't (yet) divorced them. <S> (Or incidentally if your religion means that you cannot divorce them.) <S> "Divorced" or "widowed" <S> only describe the state of historical relationships, and are completely unrelated to your current relationship status. <A> Quote from Single Parent Statistics : <S> The assumption that "most" single mothers are were single from the outset is false. <S> Of the mothers who are custodial parents: <S> * 44.2% are currently divorced or separated * 36.8% have never been married * 18% are married (In most cases, these numbers represent women who have remarried.) <S> * 1.1% were widowed Of the fathers who are custodial parents: <S> * 53.5% are divorced or separated * 24.7% have never married Definitely, single ≠ never married. <A> As others have noted, it depends on context, but generally "single" is understood to include divorced and widowed. <S> When we talk about "single parents", I think this almost always includes divorced and widowed. <S> The point of the phrase "single parent" is to say that this person is raising the child or children by him/herself. <S> There are all sorts of difficulties in doing this, starting with how you hold down a job while also taking care of children. <S> How you got to this situation is ... maybe "irrelevant" isn't the right word, if we're talking about the wisdom or morality of your choices, but certainly how you got there doesn't change the difficulties you face. <S> If you're filling out a form, I presume you pick from the options offered. <S> Like, I'm divorced. <S> When I fill out a form and the choices are "married" or "single", I choose "single". <S> If it offers "divorced" as a separate option, than of course I check that. <A> It's possible to be single and married at the same time, in that "single" is usually a social description of a person who might go on dates and might like to find a new partner, and "married" can be a legal term applied to a person who is separated but not yet divorced. <S> So it must be possible for a divorced woman not to want to be known in social terms as single <S> , possibly if she has already found a new partner and is prevented from marrying him only because of her own religion forbidding re-marriage. <S> Another possibility would be a couple who divorced in law in order to reduce their tax bills, but who still live together and have no intention of separating. <S> In these cases and others, "not married" does not imply "single" in the everyday conversational sense. <S> As ever, context is really important!
| In some cases the term 'single parent' also applies if the parents are separated, but still married.
|
An appropriate word to expressing rewriting the programming codes I deleted my program, actually C++ code, and am re-writing it in a different way. Especially, I am updating the engine of my code. What would be the best word or verb to express what I am doing? remake renovate rebuild redesign reconstruct <Q> There's a domain-specific term <S> Refactor which you may be looking for. <S> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/refactoring <S> Improving a computer program by reorganising its internal structure without altering its external behaviour. <S> For example:- "The original program grew out of a messy prototype, so I spent some time refactoring and now it is easier to maintain." <A> As per me, rebuild will be the best verb to use, and rewrote itself seems like a good option. <S> I had to rebuild the C++ program I was working on. <S> Or, I rewrote the C++ program code from scratch. <S> I remade the C++ program. <S> Renovated and redesigned do not seem appropriate to me. <S> Renovate is more popularly used for physical buildings. <S> For example, I had to renovate my house after the earthquake. <S> Redesign seem appropriate when the 'design' of something is being considered, which is not the case here. <S> I redesigned the software because it was not looking very user-friendly. <A> There are three things you might have changed: The outward behaviour. <S> For example the user interface might now be radically different <S> The internal design. <S> Perhaps you used a different approach to the overall structure or you used a different Framework or set of low-level libraries, or different algorithms to calculate the results. <S> The actual code. <S> In principle you might have used exactly the same algorithms, program structure etc. <S> but simply wrote the code using different variable names. <S> It's pretty unlikely that you would have just done item 3; almost certainly the crucial part was the redesign. <S> The fact that you chose to delete the entire code-base implies that this was a very fundamental change not just a simple refactoring or replacement of some low-level libraries. <S> I would make it clear that a new design was created. <S> I think in this case you did not actually change the functionality. <S> So: We redesigned and reimplemented the application exploiting the xxxx framework. <S> Had you modified the actual functionality I would say: The application has been completely redeveloped, with detailed analysis and function design preceding the technical redesign and reimplementation.
| Remake also sound correct but somehow doesn't sound as good as rebuild to me, in this case.
|
What does it mean to 'play on, in'? How do you differentiate between He is playing in the field. He is playing on, in the field. Edit:I had seen most actually 'Virat playing on ,in the field' below an image. <Q> "In the field" is where it is. <S> A dense fog has rolled in, but Manchester City want to play on. <S> He has strained a muscle, but is playing on. <S> He has strained a muscle, but is playing on in the field, not as catcher. <S> [baseball example] <A> The second one - "he is playing on, in the field" - doesn't read very well. <S> Did you see this sentence somewhere? <S> The only way I can imagine that sentence being used is if on is being used in the sense of "continue". <S> We can say things like He played on to mean "He continued playing", or Carry on to mean "Please continue." <S> So "He played on, in the field", could only mean " <S> He continued playing, in the field." <S> It does not scan very well, due to the two prepositions in a row, but it is grammatically correct. <A> I agree with the others, "He is playing on, in the field. <S> " means someone continued playing in the field, with an implication that there was a reason they might have stopped. <S> The sentence is perfectly valid, although it sounds a little awkward and rare. <S> Example 1: <S> The child was allergic to pollen, but he played on, in the field. <S> This is valid, except "playing on" almost always refers to sports. <S> Example 2 <S> : The footballer was hurt, but he played on, in the field. <S> This is valid, but it sounds very strange to specify "in the field". <S> The only place a sportsman could continue to play is on the sports field. <S> I think the unusual/awkward phrase is explained by the fact that this was an image caption. <S> The author was probably consciously constructing a caption for people who couldn't see the image. <S> The image is a sportsman who stayed in the game, the awkward and redundant "in the field" was consciously added to create the mental imagery for people who couldn't see the picture.
| To "play on " means to continue to play, especially despite circumstances in which it might be better for play to end.
|
How can I name a person who never tells the truth about themselves? How can I name a person who always purposely says wrong about himself (or hide the truth) if you ask anything about him, but in really he is not like that. Small example: Me: Buddy, how many coding programs have you worked-out for the practical exam? He: I didn't prepare anything buddy, I'm afraid, I'm going to fail in this practical exam. But he prepared well and scored full marks in the exam. One more example: He keep on saying he didn't look for a job change and all of a sudden comes with 2 offers in hand. He prepared for a job change but always hide this from other friends What is the suitable word for these kind of attitude person? <Q> Somebody who never tells the truth about anything, even when they will not gain anything by doing so, is a compulsive liar . <S> The following terms have the same meanings: <S> Pathological Liar , Habitual Liar and Chronic Liar . <S> If your friend wants to trick you into some wrong course of action (for example persuading you to skimp on preparation for the exam), he is devious . <S> For most other reasons, you would probably need to consult a psychology textbook to find an appropriate term. <S> Examples are: if your friend is worried about failing the exam, and thinks it's unlucky to say out loud that he might pass- <S> he is avoiding hubris <S> if your friend wants to pass the exam but doesn't want people to think that he's a swot . <S> For the second example, again it depends on the reasons for your friend hiding this information- <S> or on your opinion of their reasons. <S> Some options are devious : not telling you because they think you might be better qualified for the jobs they are applying for, and they don't want you to get the job instead insecure or unself-confident : not wanting to look foolish if they do not get the job avoiding hubris : thinking it's unlucky to say they want the job before they have an offer in hand <S> discreet : this suggests that it is prudent to keep quiet about a possible job move in case their current employer or other prospective new employers find out. <S> In a small industry where everybody knows everybody else, this is crucial. <S> secretive : this suggests that it is strange and perhaps not nice to hide this information from their friends. <A> There are a few words that may fit this description. <S> In order from most to least likely: misleader , n. <S> [One who c]ause[s] (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression about someone or something. <S> fabulist , n. <S> A person who composes or relates fables. <S> liar , n. <S> con artist , n. <S> A person who cheats or tricks others by persuading them to believe something that is not true. <A> You can call that person a fake. <S> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fake fake: one that is not what it purports to be: as a : a worthless imitation passed off as genuine b : impostor, charlatan c : a simulated movement in a sports contest (as a pretended kick, pass, or jump or a quick movement in one direction before going in another) designed to deceive an opponent d : a device or apparatus used by a magician to achieve the illusion of magic in a trick <A> I would use the word evasive , or even emotionally dependent (?) to describe such a personality. <S> Let me try and make myself clear... <S> Perhaps as a way to relate to the masses this person as you describe may resort to making up lies, as an instant reaction... <S> Or maybe, as people may seem pressured when they hear about the success of other people, the subject may also hide his/her successes, so the other person feels comfortable, leading to, again, relating to the other ( the bond of failure! ). <S> Such attitude shows just how the other person may be desperate to feel connected to others. <S> Or that might just be me! <S> Who knows. <S> Have a good day!
| A person who tells lies.
|
The name of the boy vs.The boy's name Which one is correct or are both correct? The boy's name is nice. The name of the boy is nice. I'm really confused these two sentences? Which one is more suitable? <Q> "The name of the boy" and "the boy's name" are both grammatical, and in many contexts have the same meaning. <S> But not all. <S> ("The name of boy" is not grammatical). <S> In most contexts, even formal or literary ones, we would say "The boy's name" rather than "the name of the boy". <S> So "The boy's name is Michael" is quite normal, and "The name of the boy is Michael" is a bit unusual, but perfectly understandable and grammatical. <S> But, oddly, your example doesn't quite work: " <S> The boy's name is nice" is fine, but "The name of the boy is nice" sounds very odd to me. <S> I can't quite define <S> why, I'm afraid: I just expect "The name of the boy is" to be followed by the name, and nothing else. <A> the question is about the Possessive structures in English - use of of and 's .both <S> "The boy's name" and "The name of the boy" are ok as the possessor in this case is animate. <S> However, there is a difference in emphasis. <S> " <S> whereas "The name of the boy" emphasizes the quality or attribute, which is the name (which makes you think more you are actually asking the name itself than if the name is nice). <S> please refer to http://linguapress.com/grammar/possessives.htm for more details. <A> Generally the former is preferable, but the latter is more useful if you really want to call out the specific name. <S> For example, a famous live album from 1982 is called, "The Name of This Band is Talking Heads," which makes a point of communicating the band's name to people who had never heard of them (which would have been most people at that point). <S> http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8266-the-name-of-this-band-is-talking-heads/ <A> Both sentences are grammatically correct. <S> In this particular case, I would use <S> either Nice is the boy's name. <S> or Nice is the name of the boy. <S> to prevent the ambiguity of the adjective (nice) with normal people names.
| The boy's name" emphasizes the possessor, which is the boy .
|
"RATHER THAN forgive AND forget" what does it mean? I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. I know "rather than" but this one put on an "and". I'm confused with the sentence. <Q> This sentence is talking about two options: <S> Get even - which means to retaliate, to get revenge. <S> When you are wronged, you can choose to [get even], or to [forgive and forget]. <S> (Or you can choose to do neither and hold a grudge instead, but your original sentence doesn't mention that.) <A> "to forgive and forget" is a phrase that means to let something go. <S> For example if somebody wrongs you and you decide to move past the incident rather than make a big deal out of it. <S> Sometimes I try to [A] rather than [B]."sometimes try to [get even] rather than [forgive and forget]" <A> If someone wrongs you, you will try to get revenge, or pay back with the same action or worse( eye per eye), instead of just forgive or let it goes.
| Forgive and forget - which means to forgive the person who wronged you, and then act as though the wrong never happened.
|
Mixed conditionals/ 3rd conditional which one should be the better option to go with? If I hadn't left her, it would be our 7th anniversary tomorrow. If I hadn't left her, It would have been our 7th anniversary tomorrow. Are both the above sentences grammatically correct?Do they mean the same?What's the difference in their meaning? <Q> It's true that "it would be / would have been our 7th anniversary tomorrow" is about the future, and many speakers, particularly strict teachers and non-native speakers, would think that "If I hadn't left her, it would have been our 7th anniversary tomorrow." <S> sounds wrong or even ungrammatical because it's "tomorrow" and tomorrow hasn't come yet. <S> However, this appears to be acceptable <S> and I think it happens often enough that we shouldn't consider it ungrammatical. <S> Practical English Usage by Michael Swan addresses this in 259.3: 259 <S> if (4): unreal past situations <S> 3 present use: situations that are no longer possible <S> We sometimes use structures with would have ... to talk about present and future situations which are no longer possible because of the way things have turned out. <S> It would have been nice to go to Australia this winter, but there's no way we can do it. <S> (OR It would be nice ... ) <S> If my mother hadn't knocked my father off his bicycle thirty years ago, I wouldn't have been here now. <S> (OR ... I wouldn't be here now. ) <S> To put it simply, both of your alternatives should be equally acceptable. <S> Just keep in mind that on exams (or in exams, if you prefer in to on ), it's probably safer to use <S> it would be our 7th anniversary tomorrow . <A> The first tense is a mixture of conditional type II and conditional type III. <S> The if-clause refers to the condition in the past, whereas the main clause refers to the result in the future. <S> In simple words, as said by Khan, <S> it implies that I really left her. <S> So it won't be our 7th anniversary tomorrow. <S> On the other hand, the second sentence is conditional type III, in which we talk about the situation both in the if-clause and the main clause in the past. <S> Because of the use of 'tomorrow' in the main clause, 'would have' refers to the future from the point of view of the past. <S> This sentence in actuality means that I left her. <S> So we didn't have our 7th anniversary the next day. <S> The use of these sentences depends on the time frame you have in your mind in regard to the anniversay. <S> On the other hand, if you want to refer to the happening of the event in the future from the point of view of the past, you should use would have been. <A> Yes, both sentences are grammatically correct. <S> They both mean that the speaker really did leave "her" in the past, but if the contrary were true, the speaker and "her" ( ie she) would be celebrating their 7th anniversary on the day after the speaker utters this sentence (which day is tomorrow ). <S> Notice, first, that this is a past unreal condition. <S> Different folks call it different things; you call it a third conditional; the textbook English Grammar: <S> A University Course (3rd edition) calls it a "counterfactual conditional clause"). <S> Click on Page 265 of that link. <S> As for which version ( would be or would have been ) should be the better option to go with, it really depends on what you want to say. <S> Note that page 266 of the same textbook says <S> The counterfactual construction [would/should/could + have + past participle of full verb]... <S> can occur in other discourse contexts such as expressing regret or reproof at something that didn't take place. <S> and gives the example <S> It would have been a pleasure to meet your son. <S> (but we didn't meet him) <S> This same sense of expressing regret or lament over something that didn't take place is one reason you might choose <S> would have been in your sentence. <S> If you did not want to express this, you should choose would be . <S> As for the word tomorrow in the main clause of a past unreal conditional, it's working the same way as in <S> If we had had the opportunity, it would have been a pleasure to meet your son tomorrow when we were all in Phoenix tomorrow , but I doubt I'll be over the plague by tomorrow and will need to stay in my room tomorrow . <S> Thus my being sick prevents such a meeting tomorrow . <S> The whole (conditional) sentence is written about the future–from the point of the past. <S> We often do this in English, as in <S> I was going to meet your son tomorrow, but I got sick and <S> Tomorrow was going to be our 7th anniversary, but I left her.
| If you want to refer to the happening of the anniversary in the future, you should use would be. Both the hypothetical, counterfactual sentences are correct grammatically, with a little difference in meaning.
|
Which one is right - "he did leave" or "he did leaves"? Could we said: "he did leave the house" or "he did leaves the house"? <Q> He did leave - the structure " did + bare infinitive " makes past tense. <S> e.g. I did leave, you did leave, he did leave, we did leave, you (pl) did leave, they did leave. <S> For example: I did see <S> You did eat <S> They did complain <A> When not necessary, do is added before the verb only when you want to emphasize your point. <S> For instance: <S> Person A <S> : I've heard you don't have the piano anymore. <S> Person B: <S> Oh, that's not true! <S> I do have the piano! <S> Taken from: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/40875/why-is-do-sometimes-put-before-a-verb <A> After 'do' as an auxiliary verb in questions or negatives, or for emphasis, comes the base form of the following verb, in this case 'leave'. <S> Note that 'he did leave' <S> is not the most common way to say this - the most common way is 'he left'. ' <S> He did leave' is usually emphasised: Boss (talking about a sick worker): Why didn't he leave when I told him?Secretary: <S> He did leave. <S> He just came back to get something before he goes home.
| We would say he left the house .
|
Difference between by and via I would like to ask the difference between the by and via. I already checked the grammatical rules, but I don't really get it. I'm used to say quite often, for example: "I was talking with my friend via Skype." and "I went to somewhere by tram." I don't see the point of the difference. I'm just getting used to it. <Q> The word via is used for through, which can also be an abbreviated form of through the medium of . <S> So "talking via Skype" is used to indicate that the conversation was done through the medium of Skype. <S> For example: I travelled to Wales going via Birmingham. <S> I travelled to Wales going by Birmingham. <S> These now have two different meanings. <S> Going via Birmingham still means to go through Birmingham. <S> The route goes right into Birmingham and out again. <S> Conversely, when going by Birmingham it just indicates the route came adjacent to the city and does not enter it. <S> So they can be used in similar circumstances, but have similar but different meanings. <A> Considering your specific usage, they are certainly occasionally interchangeable... but there many options and which one fits best really depends on what sounds "right". <S> Let's look at your first example <S> : I was talking with my friend via Skype. <S> Personally , I would probably not use "by" in this case. <S> My first choice here would be to use "on" followed by either "via" or possibly "through". <S> Others may feel that "by" works great here. <S> The second example (I've replaced "somewhere" with "work"): I went to work by tram. <S> This works great for me... <S> I might also say " I went to work on the tram. " <S> Via could also be a possibility here. <S> All that said, "via" is a bit of an odd word. <S> Some people may use it regularly in their vocabulary <S> but I'll bet that most people don't. <S> That doesn't mean that you shouldn't use it <S> , it's mostly something I felt worth pointing out. <A> via ~ through ~ by means of by car / by plane / by boat /… / on foot by doing / by being / by having by vaccinating / preventing through vaccination / prevention vs by me / by the sea = next to . <S> . <S> . <S> et cetera.
| I can use the words by and via when talking about a place.
|
I work the whole day/ i work for the whole day If I wanted to say"I work all day every week days"Using "whole day" instead of "all day",Should I say "I work the whole day every week days? Or "I work whole days every week days" Or "I work a whole day every week days" Or "I work whole day every week days" It will be helpful if there's an explanation why which is correct.Thanks! <Q> I work the whole day every week day. <S> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/all-or-whole <A> In many countries, there are five working days -- usually from Monday to Friday (and are defined as such in official and legal usage even though many people work on weekends) -- and they are also called weekdays . <S> So, depending upon how long your working day usually lasts, you can say, for example: I work on weekdays from nine (a.m.) to six (p.m.) <A> So maybe 'I work whole days Monday to Friday' <S> would be okay too. <S> Even better, perhaps 'I work full-time ' which just implies that you work a standard working week (Monday - Friday, ~9 to 6 as defined by Rompey). <S> full-time: <S> adjective 1.occupying or using the whole of someone's available working time. <S> "a full-time job"
| I think "I work whole days every week day" is perfectly natural, apart from repeating 'days'.
|
Is "something" plural or singular? Which one is right? Something that is not working Something that are not working <Q> Something is a pronoun, which is analogous to "a thing", that is an indefinite pronoun. " <S> A/an" is the Old English for "one" and one implies singularity. <S> Thus, I found a thing that wasn't working. <S> I found something that wasn't working. <S> are the same in meaning, but 'something' is the commonly used version. <S> To pluralise your sentence, I would say: "Some things that are not working." <S> "Some things" is not a pronoun, thus the words are kept separate. <S> A <S> = one <S> Some = more than one/indefinite article for mass nouns <S> (e.g. "I want some milk", as milk is uncountable). <S> A thing = <S> singular <S> Some things = <S> plural <S> But when "some" is attached to -body, -where, -thing, -time, or -one,(as in somebody, somewhere, something, sometime, someone) is always denotes a singular unspecified thing. <S> There are no plurals for the pronouns somebody, something, and someone. <S> Somewhere and sometime are adverbs, also denoting an unspecified place or time respectively. <A> <A> Something that is not working. <S> Something is singular. <S> Thus, the second sentence is incorrect as the verb are is the plural form.
| Something is referred to in the singular , for example: Something that does not work Something that is not working
|
'I saw the fallen tree.' and ' I saw the tree fallen.' I asked a question about the difference between the sentences below a few days ago: 1) I comforted a crying kid.2) I comforted a kid crying. My question was: "is there any difference of the two sentences above in meaning"? I got the following answer: It's possible to distinguish, though usually the two interpretations are the same, in effect. The post-nominal modifier, "kid crying", refers to a temporary or accidental characteristic, but the pre-nominal modifier, "crying kid", refers to a permanent or essential quality. If the kid differs from other kids in crying a lot of the time, then even at a time when the kid happened not to be crying, you could refer to him as the crying kid, but not as the kid crying. Below is today's question: What is the difference between the following two sentences: I saw the fallen tree. I saw the tree fallen. <Q> The second one isn't grammatically correct. <S> I saw the fallen tree. <S> Is, and means that you saw a tree that was already on the ground. <S> You could say: I saw the tree fall . <S> Which means that you saw the tree while it was falling. <A> As MadWard says, the second sentence is not grammatical. <S> When using the past tense of see , the secondary verb is in the present tense. <S> This makes the sentence <S> I saw the tree fall . <S> As for the first sentence, it is correct because the word fallen is being used as an adjective. <S> fallen , adj. <S> That has come down or dropped from a high position. <A> Both are grammatical but have different meanings. <S> "I saw the fallen tree" would describe any random tree you saw after it fell.
| "I saw the tree fallen" would refer to some known or identified tree that was previously known to be standing and you saw that it had fallen.
|
Past form of "make do" Looking for a synonym of 'to get by on", I came across "to make do with" and immediately started wondering what the past form of the latter could be. "Make did", "made do", made did" - they all sound weird — but one of them may be the right usage as soon as any other suggestions seem to me just crazy guesses. Of course I wouldn't use it in the past tense other than in the sentence with "could make do with". It's an idiom , but it's also a verb, and there must be a rule for the cases like this, I believe. If there is the rule, what is it? Could you give a couple of examples of the like verbs/verb collocations (I'm not sure about the term)? <Q> Here is a definition of make do : conveniently, the only example is in the past tense: <S> We didn't have cupboards <S> so we made do with boxes. <S> The correct past is made do with . <S> Here is another typical example: people made do with whatever they could get their hands on <S> Tulle Death Us Do Part - 2013 <S> The usage of this expression has grown rapidly since the first world war and is now quite common. <S> Here is an NGram showing this trend. <A> To make do is a verb form that is composed of two verbs such as to <S> make believe which means: To pretend or imagine. <S> You have to use the past form of to make as it is the first verb and an object of the verb to make is implied in the context. <A> I would say you had to make do with <S> those answers, if that was all you had to go on. <S> Equally, if you were caught out in the open on a rainy night, you might have been happy to make do with whatever shelter you could find. <S> To make do does convey an idea of sub-optimal. <S> Whilst "I made do with" is perfectly acceptable, extending & compounding in this way (past tense + infinitive) preserves the idiom by shifting the time into the context. <S> Is this answer any good? <S> - I think it will do .
| The past form of to make do with is made do with .
|
"Had" for future time Can I use "had" for the future when something scheduled in the future is postponed? A) what is your plan tomorrow? B) I had an interview tomorrow, but they postponed it to next week. So I am free tomorrow. Is this usage of "had" wrong? <Q> No, this usage is not wrong. <S> What it means is that, at some time in the past, you had an appointment planned for an interview tomorrow. <S> Up until you heard that it had been postponed, you would have been able to say: I have an interview tomorrow... <S> After hearing that the interview has been cancelled, you no longer have a meeting tomorrow, so you move it into the past and say I had an interview tomorrow... <A> Adding to other great answers, you need to understand that there is a "relative clause" or "past participle + preposition" omitted in the sentence as follows: <S> I had an interview (which was) scheduled for tomorrow. <S> As an adverb, tomorrow can modify the verb to have , however, it is impossible to do it contextually. <S> As others explained, it is not likely to cause confusion. <S> However, if you don't want to cause any confusion, it is better to use "scheduled for" before "tomorrow". <A> You could use a different idiom to convey the same idea: <S> I was supposed to have an interview tomorrow, but ... <S> The "was supposed to" idiom conveys that originally an event or occurrence was planned, but either the event was definitely cancelled or it is now unclear whether the event will happen. <S> At the time of speaking, the originally-planned event could be in the past or present or future. <S> Examples: <S> I was supposed to drive him to the airport tomorrow, but I haven't heard from him today <S> so I'm not sure whether I will be going. <S> I was supposed to take my final exams yesterday afternoon, but it rained all morning so school closed early and the exams were postponed. <A> The tenses in this sentence are a bit twisted. <S> "Had" refers to the past. <S> But now you have a situtation where in the past, an interview was scheduled. <S> At some later date, but still in the past, the interview was cancelled. <S> I suppose one could quibble and say that "I had an interview tomorrow" is bad grammar because the tenses are wrong. <S> One could say that the correct wording would be something more like, "I had scheduled an interview for tomorrow, but now that interview has been canceled." <S> But it's not necessary to be so awkward: we know what you mean. <S> It it <S> not that the interview was in the past, and thus "had", but that the scheduling of the interview was in the past. <S> Unless you're a time traveller of course! <S> Maybe you went to the interview on Wednesday, then travelled back in time to Tuesday to tell someone that you "had the interview tomorrow"! <S> I recall a great line from a science fiction movie once where a character is talking to a time traveller. <S> He mentions where he is from, and then says, "Have you ever been there?" <S> And the time traveller replies, "Yes, but not yet."
| As the other answers say, there is nothing wrong with "I had an interview tomorrow".
|
Can we trust phrases on T-shirts as valid and sensible English sentences? Someone asked me about the meaning of I love second rate of sun He says he saw it on a T-shirt (in Iran) What could be the meaning of it?! Should we trust such sentences or they are more some cool phrases on T-shirts which may have not a sensible meaning?! Update : some says that people do mistake and we can't trust any sentence, I know! but my main question is that is it possible that people (even native) deliberately use some irregular or even non sensual phrases as fashion (on cloths or etc.)! To me, it is important to know because when I see some weird styles, I wonder if my English is not that good to understand the phrase, but if I doubt it could be a deliberate out-standard sentence I less question my knowledge of English! <Q> Can we trust phrases on T-shirts as valid and sensible English sentences? <S> No, of course not. <S> There is no government T-shirt Grammar Department regulating t-shirt designs to ensure they make sense. <S> More broadly: <S> Can we trust phrases [that we see or hear anywhere] as valid and sensible English sentences? <S> No. <S> People make mistakes. <S> People use bad grammar on purpose for effect. <S> Even books about grammar sometimes contain grammatical errors. <S> I love second rate of sun <S> This doesn't make any sense in English - unless "Second Rate Of Sun" is the name of a band or something like that, in which case the phrase "Second Rate Of Sun" doesn't seem to make any sense itself, but the phrase "I love Second Rate Of Sun" would make sense. <S> Given that this was seen on a t-shirt in Iran, I would guess that somebody got a translation into English wrong. <A> You see lots of items with English words or sentences on them that don't make sense at all or that are inappropriate in many countries whose first languages are not English. <S> I was shopping for my son's clothes once, and found a really cute T-shirt. <S> I was thinking if I should buy it or not until I noticed a print which said "hideous". <S> I was like <S> heck no! <S> and I put it back. <S> I've seen some weird or wrong chinese characters written on T-shirts in the US, too. <S> So, in my opinion, don't trust those phrases too much! <S> If you're interested, take a look at this site. <S> It shows you some signs that are found in Japan: https://globalechos.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/japenglish-funny-japanese-interpretation-of-english/ <A> I have no idea what it means. <S> Answer to question update: <S> Anything is possible in the world of t-shirts. <S> It seems to me that the language and symbols on most t-shirts are meant to communicate a message. <S> Maybe some t-shirt makers rely on gibberish or gobbledegook to get a message across. <S> Maybe some t-shirts don't want to have a message. <S> Maybe their message is syntactical error. <S> Anything is possible.
| No, you can't trust t-shirts.
|
What expression could be used in English to say that you want to discuss to the root of the problem directly? I would like to know one expression that means the same as "Going to the root of the problem..." Could, you please, let me know the expression and the meaning of it?Thank you in advance. <Q> cut to the chase "to talk about or deal with the important parts of a subject and not waste time with things that are not important" (source) <A> The grammatical context will dictate the kind of expression to use. <S> This is, however, not easy to use and requires a certain informality of context. <S> Otherwise adverbs like "Basically", "Fundamentally", <S> "In essence" at the beginning of an appropriate sentence could do the job. <A> One common idiomatic expression is... getting down to brass tacks ... <S> which is of uncertain origin , though there are several more or less fanciful theories. <S> In my experience the primary sense is of addressing fundamental principles in a discussion, but it can also be used to mean getting serious or dealing with fine points of detail (in a barter/negotiation context). <A> "The heart of the problem"is probably used most in everyday speech. <S> However, "the crux of the problem" or "the crux of the issue" is often used in a more formal setting such as a research paper or a speech. <A> Don't beat around the bush <S> See definition here <S> This is suitable in an informal context. <S> To answer more thoroughly we would need more information
| There are dozens available but the one that occurs to me is "Getting down to the nitty-gritty", which I suppose means pushing aside vagueness, irrelevancy, distraction and other smokescreens and exposing the grit i.e. the hard, abrasive kernel of the matter.
|
Improve translation: You are nobody and your name is no one In Russian culture there is a saying: Ты никто и звать тебя никак Which means that the person is of no importance (in this society) and even his name doesn't mean anything (to this society members). He hasn't deserved being taken into account yet. Or he was always on a lowest position. I translated this like: You are nobody and your name is no one or You are nobody and are called noname How do these translations sound to native English speakers? Please help me to improve the translations. <Q> Some suggestions in other answers and comments are quite good. <S> As an alternative, I'd like to offer this, which is probably closer to the original in its literal sense: You are nobody and your name means nothing. <S> This should be close enough to the meaning you gave, "You are nobody and your name is no one". <S> I try to keep the and in the translation because I noticed the и in the original (Ты никто и звать тебя никак). <S> Note: <S> means nothing is quite an idiomatic way to express this kind of idea. <S> Imagine a couple in a breakup conversation -- it's quite possible that at one point, feeling betrayed, his or her heart broken, he or she may say <S> "Did I mean nothing to you?" . <S> I guess we all can relate to that kind of feeling. <A> Luckily, Russian is my mother tongue and I <S> very well know this saying, which literally means: <S> "You are so low in any rank order, that hardly anybody not only will take you into account whatsoever, but they even don't know your name", where, in the original, the most meaningful part is "ты никто", which means "you are of no use or importance <S> /you are nothing--a nought, a mere nonexistence" and is understandable as such even without "и звать тебя никак" (you even don't have a name). <S> So having done the best I could in search for the English equivalent, I'd like to suggest "a low man on the totem pole" idiom expression (or, maybe, " [one of] the lowest man [men]" as a variant) for the phrase you may be looking for. <S> I'm not sure, though, whether it would be appropriate to say, addressing to a group of people, "Who are you to blame it on me? <S> You are just the low ones on the totem pole! ". <S> None but native English speakers or really advanced learners can answer whether it would or not. <S> Also, I feel like suggesting the following: "(to me,) <S> you are (just) a nought/nothing without a name/with no name" , or "you are ( <S> just) nameless nothing (to/for me)" ; although I'm not sure about English nativeness of the phrases, so here authoritative comments are needed. <S> As for Russian sayings and proverbs, I'm not sure that a word for word translation of these into English will always produce the desired effect. <S> For example, take the Russian "На ловца и зверь бежит", which is translated as "An animal runs towards a trapper", and it makes no sense, whereas the equivalent proverb is: "Speak of the devil, and he is sure to come". <A> I would translate this as " <S> You're just an anonymous nobody." <S> The closest English saying is probably " <S> You're just some nobody, toiling away in obscurity. <S> " Not quite the same thing but close. <A> Nobody, noun 2. <S> an insignificant person countable nounIf <S> someone says that a person is a nobody, they are saying in an unkind way that the person is not at all important. <S> [disapproval] ⇒ <S> A man in my position has nothing to fear from a nobody like you. <S> Collinsdictionary. <S> com <S> As there are several synonyms, such as nonentity, zero,cipher we can say: You are a nonentity/a zero/a cipher and your name is "nothing ".
| An idiom is a mere nobody or some nobody , so we can say you are a mere (some) nobody and your name is "nothing ".
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.