source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
A locative complement before the direct object - is 'Do not park here your motorbike' correct? I was walking with a friend and we saw a sign that said Do not park here your motorbike. Thank you. To me, it looks incorrect, and I think the correct sentence should be Do not park your motorbike here. Thank you. My friend insisted that the order of the words could be changed, though, and that the first sentence is correct. Are both sentences correct? <Q> In this sentence, here is an adverb of place that applies to the verb park . <S> According to this guide , it is normal to put adverbs of place at the end of a clause. <S> They sometimes go at the start of the clause. <S> Do not park your motorbike here. <S> Thank you. <S> - this follows the guide Do not park here your motorbike. <S> Thank you. <S> - this does not As per the pirates code , it's more a guideline than a rule. <S> For example, it is possible to put information other than the direct object after the adverb: We will be there at that table - this is OK <S> Do not park here your motorbike <S> - this is not OK <A> ?? <S> Do not park here your motorbike. <S> Frankly, it sounds like something a learner would write. <S> But it is simply not idiomatic. <S> This is because adverbs modifying verbs do not appear between the verb and its object. <S> See page 257 of, A teacher's grammar of English . <S> The version of the sentence with here after motorbike is correct and idiomatic and natural. <A> I don't think it is a matter of whether the first sentence is correct or incorrect. <S> Rather, it is a matter of which sentence is more idiomatic and your second example is far more idiomatic. <S> Positioning of adverbs in English is very tricky. <S> Some are very flexible and some aren't without hard-and-fast rule. <S> Usually, adverbs are placed before a main verb and after an auxiliary or modal verb. <S> However, this rule doesn't apply to every sentence. <S> For example, if you contrast I will be waiting here . <S> vs I will be here waiting. <S> Basically two sentences have the same meaning, however, the adverb here is positioned differently. <S> The former places emphasis on "waiting" and the latter on "here". <S> Usually, "waiting" in the former is stressed while "here" in the latter is. <S> As @JavaLatte explained, an adverb of place is usually , most of the time placed at the end or beginning of a sentence. <S> However, it is not always the case as the second example sentence above shows. <S> Your second example will be far more broadly used than the first example. <S> However, I don't see any reason why you can't use the first example if you want to emphasize "here".
| It will mainly depend on which word you want to emphasize or stress and whether their position will change the meaning of a sentence or not.
|
Why there is comma after "for" word? Source In English, Landa then notes that his papers state that all of the Jewish families around LaPadite's region have been accounted for, except the Dreyfuses, who have vanished completely in the past year. I never saw comma after " for ". Does this make sentence correct? <Q> Accounted for is itself a phrasal verb . <S> From Dictionary.com: <S> 12. to give an explanation (usually followed by for): to account for the accident. <S> 13. <S> to answer concerning one's conduct, duties, etc. <S> (usually followed by for): to account for the missing typewriters. <S> 15. <S> to cause (usually followed by for): <S> The humidity accounts for our discomfort. <S> His reckless driving accounted for the accident. <S> Now, to answer your question: <S> Phrasal verbs can have pauses after them like any other verb , in disregard to the use of the prepositions contained in the verbs. <S> The president had the elections called off. <S> Everything has been cut off, so you must make do with what you have. <S> That's the key I was looking for! <S> There are no jobs at XYZ that you can currently apply for, due to internal turmoil at the company. <A> Landa then notes that his papers state that all of the Jewish families around LaPadite's region have been accounted for. <S> which happens to end with the preposition "for", as in All present and accounted for, sir! <A> In English, Landa then notes that his papers state that all of the Jewish families around LaPadite's region have been accounted for, except the Dreyfuses, who have vanished completely in the past year. <S> The comma is very well placed here. <S> The part in the bold is the extra information provided, which can be removed without affecting the meaning of the main sentence, like this: In English, Landa then notes that his papers state that all of the Jewish families around LaPadite's region have been accounted for. <S> The information is extra because the vanishing of the Dreyfuses family is a known fact. <S> Everyone knows that the family either died or vanished.
| The comma demarks the end of the main sentence
|
My family ( is / are ) all doctors I understand that "family" is usually followed by a singular verb in American English, but how about the sentence in the title? Is it ok to say "My family is all doctors." in AE? <Q> The subject-verb agreement in English is not consistent. <S> There is virtually no hard-and-fast rule governing it unless the number of a subject is very clear such as he, she, we, they, etc. <S> When a collective noun is used, it is as much subjective as it can be <S> and it entirely depends on how you perceive the word. <S> If you think of "family" as individual family members, you should use "are". <S> One more thing to consider is the subject complement. <S> If it is plural as in your example (all doctors), it is better to use "are". <S> If it is singular, it is better to use "is". <S> As the first answer to this ELU question, Are collective nouns always plural, or are certain ones singular? <S> suggests, there is difference between American English and British English. <S> I like @BarrieEngland's answer to the question, <S> My family is or <S> My family are ? <S> : It would again depend on how the family was viewed. <S> It could be ‘His family were abducted one by one’ or it could be ‘ <S> His entire family was abducted while he was away.’ <A> Family is a singular collective noun. <S> So, usually, the singular form of verbs is used with it. <S> In this case, it would be okay to say that "My family is all doctors", because you're talking about your one family. <S> However, there are cases in which singular collective nouns are used with the plural form of verbs, mainly when members of the collective noun are not in agreement or when they're not necessarily doing the same thing. <S> Here is a good website with a lot of examples for both cases of singular collective nouns. <A> In short, both versions are grammatical. <S> To get rid of the confusion, consider the following (from @keitereth24 ) <S> Everyone in my family is a doctor. <S> and this pair (from @BarrieEngland ) <S> His family were abducted one by one. <S> His entire family was abducted while he was away. <A> My family are all doctors is correct, you should have learned this. <S> If you think that it's "is", then it should be "doctor" instead of "doctors" and you only have one family member. <S> So there's no correct answer, it depends on your family.
| If you think "family" as a single unit, you should use "is. All the people in my family are doctors.
|
Does the word "metaphorical" have the extended meaning of "being similar or alike"? I came across this context in which I find the word "metaphorical" is used in an unusual way, Yet the 440-pound silverback leaves another metaphorical gorilla in the room, raising questions that extend far beyond the particulars of the case... I consulted dictionaries and only found the meaning connecting with "metaphor". I assume the word "metaphorical" have the extended meaning of "being similar or alike"? What exactly does it mean here? <Q> Metaphorical relates to the use of metaphor. <S> When Shakespeare's Hamlet considers whether to take arms against a sea of troubles <S> he is not talking about attacking a large body of water - sea of troubles is a metaphor, Hamlet is speaking metaphorically; it is a metaphorical sea. <S> So to return to your example: <S> Yet the 440-pound silverback leaves another metaphorical gorilla in the room, raising questions that extend far beyond the particulars of the case. <S> Although it's difficult to be certain without the full context, I'd interpret this as a a play on the expression 'Elephant in the room' The elephant in the room is a metaphor for something big that everyone knows is there but that they either choose to ignore or pretends not to exist. <S> For example: when we talk about welfare cuts from a purely fiscal perspective, the elephant in the room is the suffering that those cuts will cause <S> (that's a rough paraphrase of a political discussion I heard recently) <S> In the case of the quote, I think the writer is substituting gorilla for elephant thereby preserving the metaphor by using another large, imposing animal and linking it to the incident that is being discussed. <S> The metaphorical elephant has been replaced by a metaphorical gorilla... <A> A "metaphor" is a figure of speech in which one thing is compared to another without using any "comparison" words, such as "like". <S> For example, "Her words were a dagger pointed at my heart. <S> " <S> Her words were not literally a dagger of course, but her words were like a dagger -- presumably because they hurt me like being stabbed with a dagger. <S> So yes, "metaphor" refers to things that are said to be similar or alike. <S> This is not an "extended meaning", but the normal meaning of the word. <S> (And to the best of my knowledge, the only meaning.) <S> Referring to the example above, you might say, "The metaphorical use of the word 'dagger' indicates how much her words hurt." <S> There is a commonly-used metaphor, " <S> X was the 300-pound gorilla in the room", where "X" is someting that people are trying to ignore or pretend doesn't exist. <S> Like, "The company's profits have been falling for several years. <S> The 300-pound gorilla in the room is the new president, the son of the previous president but obviously incompetent. <S> " <S> The idea is that you really have to work hard to ignore a 300-pound gorilla, but everyone does for some reason. <S> The sentence you quote appears to come from an article in the New York times. <S> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/science/gorilla-shot-harambe-zoo.html?_r=0 <S> The article is about the gorilla in the Cincinnatti Zoo who was recently shot by zoo officials to prevent him from harming a child who had fallen into his enclosure. <S> The writer says that a subject no one wants to talk about is the ethics of keeping primates in zoos. <S> No one wants to talk about it, i.e. a 300 pound gorilla in the room. <S> The sentence you quote is linking the literal gorilla who was shot to the metaphorical gorilla that people are supposedly trying to ignore. <A> The word metaphorical is indicating that 'it seemed like that', but it is only a metaphor used to create excitement or, over-exaggerate, within the sentence (that, literally, it couldn't possibly be true) <S> The metaphor is the word that the 'lie' is built around. <S> I.e - His words struck me like that of punch, one by one, as each one felt so strong. <S> Here, 'words' is the word that the metaphor is building around - <S> words couldn't possibly hurt you physically, but here, the metaphor is that 'the words were like punches, strong.'
| "Metaphorical" is just the adjective form of "metaphor", meaning "having to do with a metaphor.
|
"One of THOSE days" vs "one of THESE days" I don't know exactly when we'll go but we really must visit them one of these / one of those days. When should we use " one of these days " and " one of those days "? <Q> One of these days One of those days <S> These are idioms. <S> The former means sometime in the near future. <S> So you can say "we really must visit them one of these days". <S> The latter (one of those days) means a bad day; a day when everything goes wrong. <S> I missed breakfast, got late to work, and got caught in the rain at lunchtime - it was one of those days! <S> ( The Free Dictionary ). <S> It looks like it's going to be one of those days ( McMillan ). <S> So you shouldn't use this idiom in your sentence presented. <A> The short answer. <S> The two phrases are idioms. <S> one of these days <S> On some day in the future one of those days a day when everything goes wrong <S> So if you want to visit them in the near future, but you're not sure when, then use <S> I don't know exactly when we'll go <S> but we really must visit them one of these days. <S> The long answer. <S> The two expression have them meanings as above, but they can also take on various meanings depending on the context. <S> For example "one of these days" can also mean [1.] <S> someday; in some situation like this one <S> One of these days, someone is going to steal your purse if you don't take better care of it. <S> You're going to get in trouble one of these days. <S> It can also be used to refer to the past. <S> For example, if you are looking at a calendar from last year, you started point at the month of May. <S> As you tried to recall a particular event, you say "I know it happened <S> one of these days , <S> but I can't remember which one." <S> As for "One of those days", it can also used when referring to specific days or dates, in the future or in the past. <S> For example, During the last week of June, one of those days I will mail this letter. <S> Back in high school, I remember one of those days I have quite a terrific day. <S> Finally, if you're looking ahead in a calendar, for example, and you know that on certain days the weather will be favorable, you could say I don't know exactly when we'll go <S> but we really must visit them one of those days. <A> you should use One of THESE days because these signifies upcoming events, that are in the future, while those signifies past events.for eg : <S> One of THESE days <S> I'm going to the gym. <S> This signifies that I am planning to go to a gym in the upcoming days, whereas THOSE were the days when I used to go to the gym. <S> This sentence states that I am remembering past events , like I remember going to the gym so, saying that I don't know exactly when we'll go, but we really must visit them one of these days. <S> means that you are planning to go visit someone in the upcoming days. <A> When you will do something at a future date you say "one of these days". <S> e.g. "One of these days <S> Alice, Bam! <S> Right to the moon!". <S> When you will refer to, typically a bad day, you say "one of those days". <S> e.g. "I tripped and fell into a mud puddle; today is one of those days." <A> Both can be used in a purely literal sense for example. <S> 'Any one of these days would be suitable for a meeting: <S> 2nd January, 24th January or 1st February.' <S> 'I am definitely busy on one of those days <S> but I will be free for at least one <S> , I will let you know.' <S> However, in isolation both phrases do have specific additional meanings. <S> ' <S> as in 'Sorry if I'm in a bad mood I've just had one of those days '. <S> Here it is given addition meaning by inflection and/or context. <S> However if can be positive if qualified ' <S> It was one of those days where everything falls into place'. <S> In both cases there is an implication that it is a state of affairs that both parties will be familiar with. <S> ' <S> : ' <S> One of these days I will get around to fixing that leak'. <S> 'He will get into serious trouble one of these days'. <S> In general terms 'these' implies something immediate or close to hand eg. <S> 'Would you like to try any of these apples?' <S> Whereas 'those' implies something a bit more distant or removed from the speaker eg. <S> ' <S> Those hills are a nice place for a walk'.
| One of these days', can be used to indicate an intention to do something or a belief that something will happen at some indeterminate time in the future, eg. One of those days', generally means a bad day.
|
An antonym to "return" in the "return trip" Suppose, I'm considering a trip from A to B and then from B back to A. The latter probably should be called a "return trip" and the whole journey, I guess, is a "round trip". But how does one call the AB leg? Is it an outbound trip? Or onward? Or something else? In other words, what is X in "A round trip consists of X and return trips"? <Q> outward (journey) <S> The B -> <S> A (return) leg might be referred to as <S> inbound <S> coming <S> return (leg / trip) <S> home leg <S> (if A is your home) <S> homeward <S> An "onward" journey implies you are at a transfer point <S> and there is further travelling until you reach your final destination . <S> In AmE the A <S> -> <S> B - <S> > <S> A trip is referred to as a "roundtrip", in BrE it is simply referred to as a "return" "Two roundtrip tickets to Boston, please." <S> "Two return tickets to Nottingham, please." <S> As a related but side note: <S> POSH = port "out", starboard "home" the more comfortable side of the ship between England and India <A> In British English, it would be ' outward journey '. <A> There is no casual AmE term for this. <S> Outward or outbound sound like terms <S> someone in the travel industry would use, but not in normal conversation. <S> The default assumption, if you do not specify "return", with a trip A->B is that you are going from A to B. <S> If you want to emphasize that you are going A->B without including the counterpart return trip B->A, the term one-way or one-way trip can be used. <S> what is X in "A round trip consists of X and return trips"? <S> The way to say it is "A round trip consists of both the trip to X and a return trip back from X."
| For your trip from A to B, the A -> B leg might be referred to as outbound ( leg / trip ) going
|
How to compare numbers in the beginning of the phrase How can I say: From 999, 500 are yellow balls and 499 are white balls. Can I start with "FROM"? <Q> A native speaker would use "of" in order to show that the different colours (yellow and white) are part "of" a whole (the 999) Of the 999 balls, 500 are yellow and 499 are white. <S> Of the voters in America, some are Democrats and some are Republicans. <S> Of the people in the world, about half are men and the rest are women. <A> but you could also say The balls from 1 to 499 are white and those from 500 to 999 are yellow. <S> and in America Balls 1 through 499 are white and 500 through 999 are yellow. <S> but I am not a native American speaker <S> so am not sure about using from in the sentence above with through <S> In reality I would be more likely to say "five hundred are white and five hundred are yellow "... <S> (or four hundred and ninety nine are white) <S> Edit after comment: Ok.... not "from" but "out of" <S> .... <S> Out of 2000 reports, 400 were well written, 675 had only a few problems and the rest were average except form 20 which were not good. <S> but I am not sure about the comma after reports <S> ... maybe a semicolon - someone will correct me <S> I hope... <S> but you want "out of" instead of "from." <A> It is understandable. <S> From the 999 balls, there are 500 yellow balls and 499 white balls. <S> From the 999 balls, there are 500 yellow ones and 499 white ones. <S> From the 999 balls, 500 are yellow and 499 are white. <S> From the 999 balls, 500 are yellow and the rest are white. <S> If you want to preserve this structure, I would suggest using the word "among" instead of "from" in my examples. <S> "From" is understandable-- as in, it sounds like something you might here from native speakers-- <S> but it might not be the best, as I suggested. <S> As the others point out, "out of" might be preferable. <S> If you choose "out of", then using your example, you could say something like: <S> Out of 2222 reports, 444 had problems and 1778 were satisfactory. <S> Out of 2222 reports, 444 had problems and the rest were satisfactory.
| I would say Balls 1 to 499 are white and those from 500 to 999 are yellow.
|
Difference in the meaning between “flying straight for the lunch” and “flying straight to the lunch”? What is the exact difference in the meaning between "The ball was flying straight for the lunch" and "The ball was flying straight to the lunch" ?i want to see the examples about the differenece. thank you. <Q> Functionally they are the same. <S> I would have chosen to use the word "towards". <S> So, The ball was flying straight towards the lunch. <S> I think a meaningful difference could be made if it was not a ball, but a person or an animal . <S> For example, let's say it was a bird, for a literal sense: <S> The bird was flying for the lunch. <S> The bird was flying to the lunch. <S> Again, they are functionally the same; the bird moves towards the lunch. <S> However, in 1., the word for might suggest an intent to eat the lunch or that we think the bird wants to eat it. <S> In 2., the word to might not suggest this. <S> It simply gives the direction in which the bird moves. <S> Maybe the bird just wants to perch next to the lunch. <S> Maybe the bird is curious, or maybe it does want to eat it. <A> Also, to "make for" something has the same meaning. <S> This is an idiomatic use of for over to . <S> Both "head for" and "make for" have the implied meaning of the subject having the intention of getting to whatever it is "heading for." <S> That implication wouldn't be there if we used to instead. <S> So, there's an slight implication in "flying for" that the ball has the intention of hitting the lunch, as if the ball had a bit of a mind of its own, and its mind was set on crashing into the lunch. <S> It is, after all, a children's story. :) <A> The use of the word lunch in the examples provided sounds unusual. <S> Lunch is a mealtime, or the food consumed at the mealtime, but isn't usually referred to as such. <S> For example, the sandwich, chips and drink of which a 'lunch' might consist, are only 'lunch' if they are being consumed for the mid-day meal. <S> They are still food, and might be eaten later for 'dinner' instead... <S> Also, the verb 'flying' in these examples also sounds a bit unusual. <S> A ball might be flying through the air, but aside from that example, I have a hard time imagining the use. <S> One might instead use: The ball was (streaking toward | headed for | headed toward | destined to hit | arcing toward) the lunch. <S> All that being said, in answer to your question, they are both equally correct and awkward. <S> One might instead say "The ball was headed straight for the cup of soda" or "The ball was arcing directly toward the sandwich." <S> These sound more natural to me, a native speaker of US English.
| They both mean that the ball is flying in the direction of the lunch and it suggests that the ball will hit the lunch. They mean the same thing. To "head for" something is to head towards it.
|
What is more appropriate here - since or from? Which one is correct here? I am not working in this problem from yesterday onwards. I am not working in this problem since yesterday onwards. <Q> I am not working in this problem from yesterday onwards. <S> I am not working in this problem since yesterday onwards. <S> I am is only used in present and future tenses <S> working is an indicative progressive verb that can be used for past ( I was working / <S> I have been working , present <S> I am working and future <S> I will be working ) tenses in this problem <S> We would normally expect on this problem or in this area since yesterday puts this in the past <S> So, a correct alternative would be: <S> or I have not worked on this problem since yesterday. <S> The second one would be my personal choice. <S> Note that the onwards is redundant <S> - it doesn't really add anything and is probably a tautology. <S> Hope that helps <A> But, if I were to change the tense to something a little more natural, I would state: <S> I have not been working on this problem since yesterday onward. <S> In this case, the second feels better, though from would work as well. <S> Personally though, I would use the simpler: <S> I have not worked on the problem since yesterday. <S> as the idea of "onward" is implied. <A> Neither is correct, in my opinion. <S> There are a few issues. <S> First, it should be on this problem, not in this problem. <S> Also, the first clause has to be changed to present perfect continous , which you can read about here: http://www.englishgrammarsecrets.com/presentperfectcontinuous/menu.php <S> A correct sentence might be this: I have not been working on this problem since yesterday onward. <S> You can omit the 's' at the end of onward .
| I have not been working on this problem since yesterday. Neither are correct as they stand - you have a mix of tenses As you have it written, with the current tense of "I am not working in" (which does not sound natural), I would probably choose "from".
|
same content, different meaning? (with + subject + adjective (participle)" construction) Other studies, including in the United States, have shown this same pattern, with girls who begin developing earlier than their peers vulnerable to depression in adolescence. Without context, are there two meaning? : Girls are vulnerable to depression in adolescence. Peers are vulnerable to depression in adolescence. Put another way: if sentence is There are girls who begin developing earlier than their peers vulnerable to depression in adolescence. then is there ambiguity which group is vulnerable to depression in adolescence? <Q> There are girls who begin developing earlier than their peers vulnerable to depression in adolescence. <S> Yes, I suppose that could be parsed in one of two ways: <S> There are girls who begin developing earlier than (their peers vulnerable to depression in adolescence). <S> or: <S> There are girls (who begin developing earlier than their peers) vulnerable to depression in adolescence. <S> In the first case, the sentence would seem to almost imply that depression might delay development. <S> In the second case, it would seem to almost imply that early development could be the cause of the depression. <S> Both interpretations would be grammatical. <S> Other studies have shown this same pattern, with girls who begin developing earlier than their peers vulnerable to depression in adolescence. <S> Both meanings are possible when this phrase occurs after the word with as well. <S> However, there is a bit of a fallacy in your question: Without context, are there two meanings? <S> Thankfully, though, we usually do have context. <S> Therefore, the study previously talked about presumably provides enough context that the intended meaning is apparent. <S> As a footnote, I'm guessing that it's the second meaning that applies: <S> girls who develop early are vulnerable to depression. <A> Let's say there are two groups of girls, one group develops (grows) faster (than the other group) and reaches puberty at 13 and the other does at 15. <S> The sentence is comparing these two groups in terms of which group is more likely to suffer from depression in adolescence. <S> It could be rephrased to Other studies, including (those studies done) in the United States, have shown this same pattern, with girls who reach puberty at 13 more vulnerable to depression in adolescence than those who reach puberty at 15. <A> Not necessarily. <S> In either sentence, either girls or peers could be the vulnerable ones.
| Yes, without context, we could come up with two meanings.
|
Is it correct to say "testing passed / failed"? In software development, after I perform a number of tests on a program, is it grammatically correct to say "testing passed" (or failed)? It is probably correct to say "testing is completed", but it doesn't tell anything about the outcome. <Q> I don't think anyone would question this. <S> It's not a complete, grammatically correct sentence. <S> What you really mean, I presume, is, "The software passed the tests. <S> " If we tried to read "testing passed" as a complete sentence, we'd have to conclude that "testing" is the subject and "passed" is the verb, that is, the "testing" has "passed" something. <S> Which isn't what we mean at all. <S> The testing hasn't passed; the software has passed. <S> You could phrase it as a passive: "Testing is passed. <S> " It that case the actual actor is unspecified, but in context we'd understand that to be "the software". <S> But as I say, people use sentence fragments all the time, in both formal and informal contexts. <S> As long as everyone knows from context that you're talking about software testing, "Testing passed" conveys the desired meaning. <A> As @Jay's answer mentions, it is not likely "Testing passed" or "Testing failed" would cause any confusion in their intended meanings. <S> But, I don't think "Testing passed" sounds better than "Testing successful". <S> "Testing unsuccessful" could be used for "Testing failed". <S> Both phrases (testing successful and testing unsuccessful) are broadly used when you are referring to any test. <S> Actual usage: <S> Testing unsuccessful: Internet Explorer 9 for Windows <A> Your phrases Testing passed <S> Testing failed are understandable and may be used to mean Testing successful <S> Testing unsuccessful to describe the entire testing process and the actual tests . <S> Tests passed Tests failed might be used after the test suite has been run to describe the tests themselves. <S> Testing usually consists of two parts: 1) the framework; and 2) the individual tests. <S> For example, in Rails, the framework would be: spec; rspec; or minitest; and the tests are files using the *_spec.rb suffix.
| It's common to say "Testing passed" or "testing failed".
|
Can the sentence "Do you know if Jason ------ French before moving to France?" ever be asking about something that has already happened? Consider the following sentence, "Do you know if Jason ------ French before moving to France?" Which of the following options best completes it? a.has studied b.has been studying c.will have been studying d.will be studying Is it possible that the sentence refers to an event that already happened, that is, Jason already has moved to France, or it can only be used, the way it is phrased, to refer to an event that is still to happen? How would you rephrase it in the case that Jason has already moved to France? Explanation :To my non-native ears, at first it seemed like the question could be referring both to event that already happened, and also to an event that is still in the intent phase. However, after reading native speakers discuss a similar question, they think that choices a. and b. sound immediately wrong, therefore ruling out the possibility that the sentence refers to something that has already happened. What is the truth then? <Q> It can express something that already happened, but not by using a. or b. <S> Let's assume <S> Jason already moved to France. <S> That means the event that occured before that is already over. <S> So you would use simple past and not present perfect. <S> Do you know if Jason studied French before moving to France? <S> If Jason moving to France is a scheduled event in the future, which the question suggests, then I would be torn between choosing either c. or d. <A> Instead, it would read: <S> Do you know if Jason studied French before moving to France? <S> though I suppose this version would be grammatical, too: <S> Do you know if Jason studied French before moving to France? <S> If (b) was intended to be the right answer, then the move would not have happened yet. <S> One way to write that sentence might be: <S> Do you know if Jason has been studying French before he moves to France? <A> The sentence could refer to past or future with the right words in the blank. <S> Clearly if you put future tense in the blank, then the "moving to France" must logically be in the future also. <S> "Do you know if Jason will study French before moving to France? <S> " If the studying comes before moving, and the studying is in the future, then logically the moving must be in the future also. <S> If you put past tense in the blank, I think the moving would normally be understood to be past also. <S> "Do you know if Jason studied French before moving to France?" <S> The studying is past. <S> We'd generally assuming the moving is also past, though I suppose not necessarily. <S> If guess if the moving was in the future, than if Jason hasn't studied yet he still might. <S> If we wanted to say that the studying was in the past but the moving was in the future, we'd probably add more words to clarify. <S> Like, "Do you know if Jason studied French for his move to France next month?" or some such. <S> "Has studied" seems awkward to me. <S> I'm not sure I can give you a rule why it would be wrong. <S> Like, he started studying last month, he's still studying, and the move is in the future. <S> "Will have been studying" would mean that he hasn't started studying yet, he will study at some time in the future, and then he'll have been continuously studying since ... <S> when? <S> Normally we don't use "will have been" unless there's some other event to contrast it with. <S> "Will be studying" is fine if the studying and the moving are both in the future.
| It could refer to an event in the past, but, if that were the case, you wouldn't use has in the sentence. "Has been studying" would be appropriate if your intent is to say that Jason still is studying.
|
"It is built" or "it was built" Which is correct: Florence is built on both sides of the Arno River. or Florence was built on both sides of the Arno River. Source: The ILI English Series, Intermediate 1 Workbook, Page 56 <Q> Florence was built on both sides of the Arno River. <S> Both are acceptable. <S> Past participles with BE may be parsed in two ways: as components of the passive construction or as predicate adjectivals. <S> In the first example, built is understood as a component of the passive construction: the sentence asserts a past event . <S> In the second example, built acts as an adjectival: the sentence asserts a current state . <S> Note that although a simple present will usually designate a state and a simple past will usually designate an event, it is the entire discourse context, not the tense of the auxiliary, which determines which interpretation is to be applied. <S> Passive built may be employed in the present tense: New US suburbs are built mostly by developers. <S> And adjectival built <S> may be employed in the past tense: <S> Ancient Rome was built mostly of brick. <S> ADDED: <S> Note, too, that these parsings are not necessarily exclusive. <S> The name 'participle' designates an entity which 'partakes' of the nature of two different categories simultaneously , and in some circumstances both the adjectival and verbal properties of a past participle will be present. <S> As Cardinal points out in the comments, saying that something is made of a particular substance implies an adjectival parsing; but this may occur in a context which is also clearly passive, such as that cited by nekomatic where the by phrase designates the agent of a passive construction: Ewelme palace, in Oxfordshire, was built of brick by William Delapole, in the reign of Henry VI. <S> (my emphasis) <A> use past tense because the building process of Florence was hundreds years ago. <A> Your question: <S> Florence is built on both sides of the Arno River. <S> or Florence was built on both sides of the Arno River. <S> You are asking which sentence is correct. <S> The building process of Florence was finished long time ago. <S> So, you can't use 'is' in the sentence if you want to use past tense. <S> However, 'was built' implies that Florence was built by someone else. <S> Look at the following sentences: John ordered Daisy to go to the market. <S> Daisy was ordered to go to the market. <S> The first sentence is active voice statement. <S> The second sentence is passive. <S> In passive voice sentence, we can guess that Daisy was ordered by someone else to go to the market. <S> Your passive voice sentence (Number 2 sentence) also has been used in this sense. <A> Both sentences are correct but have sligtly different meanings. <S> Sentence " Florence was built on both sides of Arno Rinver. <S> " is focused to the past. <S> It slightly implies that building of Florence or the connection between Florence and Arno River is over. <S> I think more suitable sentences are "Pompeii was built under the Mount Vesuvius." or "Florence was founded on both sides of arno River. <S> " <S> Sentence " Florence is built on both sides of Arno River " is focused to the present. <S> Ith slightly implies that Florence was and still is on both sides of Arno River. <S> Sentence " Florence is being built on both sides of Arno River. <S> " imply that there was no Florence and that the construction is happening now. <A> Its question about logic. <S> It is build so it exists still. <S> It was built and then removed or maybe still exists. <S> It is build beeing right now- still in construction. <S> It was built 2 times.
| Florence is built on both sides of the Arno River.
|
It's not unusual for Is it possible to say "strange" instead of "unusual"? It's not unusual for people to want to travel. or It's not strange for people to want to travel. <Q> Sure, it's possible. <S> There is plenty of overlap between the two words that you can often substitute one for the other. <S> However, some caveats may apply. <S> For example, consider your two sentences about traveling: <S> It's not unusual for people to want to travel . <S> It's not strange for people to want to travel . <S> How would we talk about those folks who don't like to travel? <S> It's unusual for people to not want to travel . <S> Both of these sentences would imply that most people enjoy traveling, and want to do so. <S> But the second sentence might cause a homebody to be more offended. <S> It's one thing to say that someone's interests are uncommon (which is what "unusual" might mean), but <S> another to say their preferences are bizarre (which is how "strange" could be interpreted). <S> In short, I think unusual is a "softer" term, less likely to offend or cause people to bristle. <S> That said, "strange" isn't always insulting, either. <S> Sometimes it's regarded as quaint. <A> I think you can use ' unusual ' to mean ' strange ' <S> or you can use ' strange ' to mean ' unusual '. <S> These two words are almost synonyms. <S> In the case of meaning of ' unusual ' is concerned, it is "not usual or expected" For example: <S> It is unusual that Tom is riding a bycycle. <S> In this example, Tom isn't expected to ride a bycycle. <S> May be he always drives a car. <S> So, it's not usual. <S> But, the word strange is stronger than ' unusual '. <S> For example: Tom is dancing lonely at home without music. <S> It's his strange behaviour. <S> Here, [dancing lonely at home without music] is very unusual behaviour. <S> Tom is showing a strange behaviour. <S> But generally you can interchange them (strange and unusual) <S> That's why both are correct to use. <S> It's not unusual for people to want to travel . <S> or It's not strange for people to want to travel. <A> "Usual" or "unusual" has to do with expectation of habit or repetition. <S> " <S> Strange" or "familiar" has to do with more of an absolute level of expectation, experience, or value. <S> Not so long ago, people usually rode horses to work, which would seem strange today. <S> "Usual" has more a meaning of "often" but does not usually mean "familiar". <S> I heard that usually happens, but I've never seen it before. <S> When events are unexpected, "unusual" and "strange" can often be interchanged. <S> It was unusual to have rain today. <S> It was strange that it rained today. <S> He has an unusual habit. <S> He has a strange habit. <S> Consider the following pairings unusually familiar <S> strangely familiar <S> unusually strange <S> are idiomatic meaning something is either "familiar" or "strange" but <S> one is not quite sure of the reason, something like deja vu .
| It's strange for people to not want to travel .
|
Do you say “2 Byte” or “2 Bytes”? Do you say "2 Byte" or "2 Bytes"? Which one is correct? If both is possible, when to use what? The same question would come to my mind for my own language: German. So, there has to be a technical answer. <Q> Both are possible, although the former would normally employ a hyphen. <S> When used as an adjective, 2-byte refers to size of something: <S> The computer's memory is organized into 2-byte words . <S> The token is stored as a 2-byte variable . <S> This will need to be stored as a 2-byte character . <S> When used as a plural noun, the 2 is simply a quantifier. <S> However, in this case, you might see the word spelled out (as is often the case with numerals less than 10 ): <S> Each word in memory can be broken into two bytes . <S> The token is stored as a variable which takes up two bytes . <S> We will need to store this character in two bytes; it won't fit in one . <A> To add to J.R.'s answer, note that in English, adjectives never change their form. <S> Thus, any noun which is being used as an adjective cannot use its plural form. <S> In addition, compound adjectives (multiple words functioning as a single adjective) are separated by hyphens. <S> Compound nouns usually (but not always) are not, at least in American English. <S> Consider: <S> "He's two meters tall." <S> In this sentence, two is an adjective modifying the noun meters. <S> "That's a two-meter-tall man. <S> " Here, two-meter-tall is a compound adjective modifying man . <S> The key here is that meter is being used adjectivally. <A> It depends. <S> If you want "two bytes" as a noun, use <S> This program has size of 2 bytes. . <S> Note that in the compound adjective form, 1 is often omitted. <S> This is a 1-byte-long program. <S> -> <S> This is a byte-long program. <A> Under most situations, the proper term should be "2 Bytes" rather than "2 Byte". <S> The "2" here is being interpreted as a set of two units, thus requiring pluralization. <S> See Here . <S> This will continue for N numbers (2 bytes, 3 bytes, ... , N bytes). <S> However, more rarely when the system is the topic, such a "2-byte system", there is only a singular object, not requiring pluralization.
| If you want "two bytes" as a compound adjective, use This is a 2-byte-long program. .
|
Is it acceptable to say "I am off" in meaning that I'm tired or something like that? Is it acceptable in English to say "I am off" in meaning that I'm tired or something like that? I heard it from non native English speaker, that's why I'm not sure about it. <Q> Not quite. <S> Well, I'm off ! <S> Means that you're leaving . <S> See: TheFreeDictionary - I'm off . <S> This song sounds/feels a little off . <S> Means that there is something not quite right about this song to you. <S> It feels weird. <S> A thread on ELU about that: <S> What does the idiom “to sound a little off” mean? <S> If you wanna say you're not feeling well, you could say: I'm feeling a bit under the weather <S> , I think I'm going to go home. <A> It's possible you may be thinking of <S> I'm a bit off (BrE) <S> I am feeling unwell <S> and therefore the speaker is feeling tired as a result. <S> To only express tired might be <S> I'm tired (obviously) <S> I'm knackered (BrE) Usually expressing tiredness and sickness are kept separate. <S> As pointed out, simply using "I'm off" <S> would usually mean <S> I'm off (to some destination) <S> I'm leaving/going <A> Off means many things, including not being normal, being sub-standard, or separated from a place or thing. <S> It does not mean "tired," and if you were to state this, a native speaker would understand it to mean that you're feeling unusual or are ill. <A> Yes, I think so. <S> The more "usual" statement would be "I feel [a little] off" or <S> "I'm a little off" or <S> "I'm off my game", etc. <S> but I think "I am off" or "I'm off" are adequate and perfectly understandable.
| It may be a little unusual, but I think it would be understood easily by a high percentage of native speakers.
|
HOUCKS UP A LUGI Daisy Domergue looks over the letter with interest… THEN… HOUCKS UP A LUGI and SPITS it on the letter with a BIG SPLAT. Source: https://indiegroundfilms.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/1390849759320.pdf Page 16 of PDF, numbered page 14. This is a quote from the script from the movie The Hateful Eight by Quentin Tarantino. What does "houcks up a lugi" mean? My GOOGLE research failed. In the scene Daisy just spat on the letter. <Q> Actually, the spelling with which I am am familiar is to hock up a loogie <S> Here is a definition from urban dictionary hock a loogie <S> To cough up and spit out a large glob of flem usually resulting in a loud a cough and throat clearing noise. <S> Here is a tutorial . <A> This is mostly a spelling issue. <S> The phrase is normally spelled " Hock a loogie "... and it has an Urban Dictionary article: <S> To cough up and spit out a large glob of flem usually resulting in a loud a cough and throat clearing noise. <S> Note that we generally spell "flem" - phlegm... <A> Both Urban Dictionary and the script in question misspell the first word. <S> The standard spelling is hawk : hawk 3 – verb 1 Clear the throat noisily: <S> ‘he hawked and spat into the flames’ 1.1. <S>   [with object] ( hawk something up) Bring phlegm up from the throat. <S> ‘Well most people can hawk it up and spit it out of their mouth… but I cannot do that.’ <S> – OxfordDictionaries.com <S> Incidentally, the pronunciation familiar to me (west coast USA)is like "huck," which is slang for throw. <S> The second word is nonstandard English and typically spelled loogie : loogie – noun 1.   (US, slang) <S> A thick quantity of sputum, usually containing phlegm. <S> 2.   (US, slang) <S> Any thick, disgusting liquid. <S> – Wikitionary.org
| Essentially, "hocking up a loogie" is the act of clearing one's throat and then spitting out a blob of phlegm.
|
Use of would for "vagueness" I have been told that modal 'would' can be used to express 'vagueness'. Its usage has been linked below but I'm not fully convinced because I don't know in what kind of context it would be appropriate to use 'would' for 'vagueness'. Does 'would' carry any kind of meanings in those contexts? Is it formal or natural? Or 'would' has been used just for softening the statement? [...] You use would , or sometimes would have with a past participle, when you are expressing your opinion about something or seeing if people agree with you, especially when you are uncertain about what you are saying. [vagueness] ⇒ I think you'd agree he's a very respected columnist. ⇒ I would have thought it a proper job for the Army to fight rebellion. ⇒ 'Was it much different for you when you started at the Foreign Office?'—'Worse, I'd expect.'. ⇒ I would imagine she's quite lonely living on her own. Source: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/would <Q> I don't think that vagueness is at all a satisfactory way to describe the usage of <S> would in any of the examples that the excerpt quoted. <S> Here is a much better definition of would meaning OPINION - used to express an opinion in a polite way without being forceful . <S> Here are the examples that my link quotes: I would think we need to speak to the headteacher about this first. <S> Here you are politely suggesting that we need to speak to the head teacher. <S> It's not what we would have expected from a professional service <S> Here you are politely saying that you expected better work from a professional- for example, an architect, accountant, builder or decorator. <S> If you find would used before words like say , <S> think , expect , then one possible interpretation is that it is a polite expression of opinion- <S> however many have other interpretations. <S> If you are not sure, check out the would link above for other meanings. <S> Here are some examples that definitely are polite opinions: <S> Even amidst the unpleasant reality of my divorce, I would expect somebody in the church to understand that there can surely be a note of justice and peaceful resolution in this process. <S> Devotions for the Divorcing <S> I would think an emigration level at least as large as the 1985-1990 figure (130,000) would be more appropriate. <S> Revised estimates and projections of international migration <S> I would expect from him enough work that I wouldn't feel guilty about asking him. <S> Don't expect applause <S> I would say this, that the one thing you cannot do is to act not-acting. <S> Holding and Interpretation Note that we can make a polite opinion more formal by replacing I with one : <S> One would expect people to remember the past and imagine the future. <S> Livelihood and Resistance <S> The example that you asked about: I would have thought it a proper job for the Army to fight in the rebellion. <S> The speaker is politely expressing an opinion <S> "It is the proper job of the army to fight in the rebellion". <S> The view is expressed in the past "would have thought", which suggests that actual events differ from what the speaker expected. <S> I don't know the context, but it seems likely that the army has not taken any action to deal with the rebellion. <A> Using "would" to create vagueness is an option. <S> "Would" creates a sense, in some cases, of potential or "the about to happen. <S> " Take a look at the example sentence below: <S> Would you like to go to the party? <S> In this question, "would" creates the potential options of "yes" or "no. <S> " We don't know the response yet, and because there are multiple responses, the result is impossible to determine, and thus, in loose terms, vague. <S> You ave an example of a statement, not a question, so let's take a look at another example <S> : I would have thought it a proper job for the Army to fight in the rebellion. <S> In this sentence, "I would have thought..." implies that the speaker did think that it was a proper job at some point under some circumstances, but now has a different opinion. <S> Once again, because we don't know what that opinion is, a vagueness becomes apparent. <S> The use of the word "would" can create some form of vagueness, but I do not feel that that is a good way of describing what the word does. <S> I like the idea of potential better that vagueness, but vagueness is still somewhat applicable. <A> My two pence. <S> The term vagueness is indeed vague as someone else already mentioned but this is something Collins Dictionary people have chosen and, for justice's sake, they explained what they meant by this term in this very quote: [...] <S> You use would , or sometimes would have with a past participle, when you are expressing your opinion about something or seeing if people agree with you , especially when you are uncertain about what you are saying . <S> [vagueness]
| "Would" makes a statement more indirect, which can open more doors of interpretation and thus create room for a form of vagueness.
|
Meaning of "win convert(s)" in context In my book you can see: In a free society it is intrinsic that individuals and groups have the inherent right to propagate ideas and try to win converts . I can understand or guess that the author wants to point out that in a free society people can change their religions readily . But, I am not sure about the exact meaning or technical definition of the phrase. <Q> In this instance, the verb win implies that you really had to struggle to convince others to join your side, or agree with your opinions, beliefs, religion etc. <S> It is much like a battle of words and ideas. <S> And in battles, there are winners and losers . <S> Winners win. <S> What do they win? <S> Converts . <A> A convert (noun) is a person who converts (intransitive verb) or is converted (transitive verb) from one affiliation—religious or political or intellectual—to another. <S> To win converts , then, is to succeed in attracting converts to your affiliation. <A> It would be difficult to say how the metaphor works there. <S> Is the idea of (religious) convert secularized, or are secular ideas being treated figuratively as religious tenets?
| What the author is writing about is not freedom to choose your own affiliation but "freedom of speech": freedom to attempt to persuade others to convert to your affiliation.
|
meaning of "love of something" I am given a sentence "All human love is based on love of God ".What does "love of God" mean? Does it mean "human love for God"? or does it mean "God's love for human"? or does it mean something else? I am confused... Thank you, <Q> I admit, I am not sure. <S> But I think it means "human love for God". <S> The main reason I prefer this over "God's love for humans" is because, if the author meant "God's love for human, than I think he <S> /she would have written <S> To me this sounds natural and has the exact meaning "God's love for humans". <S> Addendum: <S> I realized love of (noun) is a commonly used construction. <S> So I think the meaning above is "human love for God". <S> If the author meant "God's love for humans", than another way he or she could have expressed it is as <S> All human love is based on love from God. <A> JDneverSleeps, I try to do my best: <S> I think that " God's Love for Mankind " is grammatically correct . <S> So long,Jack <A> In my opinion, "love for" is closer to an enjoinment whereas "love of" - to a passion. <S> Again, my humble opinion. <S> May "love of" in the example act both ways - as God's love of humans and humans' love of God as an example of how humans should love each other?
| All human love is based on God's love. It means the love a person has for (noun).For example, My love of math drove me to become a math major.
|
"just" - meaning and position I've been taught that "just" is placed before the element it modifies. As in: Can I use your computer just for a few minutes ? In this case the emphasis is that it will take no longer than a few minutes. So far, so good. But then I've come across this sentence: Can I just use your computer for a few minutes? I can't make sense of "just" before "use", because nobody would think that you might want to sell, steal or smash my computer, and that you are pointing out that you just want to use it. Is it the case that "just" still modifies "for a few minutes" though it is "displaced"? Is there any other explanation for the position of "just" in the sentence? Thank you! <Q> The second usage of "just" is being used to minimize the request as a whole. <S> In other words, it is saying "what I am asking for is really a small thing <S> and it costs you nothing". <S> It suggest that what the person is asking for is trivial or harmless or costs nothing and <S> therefore there is no reason not to grant the request. <S> Thus, Cyndi Lauper sang "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun". <S> So in this case it is modifying "use", but not in the sense of "do this thing and no other things" but in the sense of "do this trivial thing that costs you nothing". <A> Actually, that second use of just kind-of is suggesting that they won't do anything else with it (steal, smash, pour drink all over it...). <S> It's almost like they're expecting you to complain, and they're pre-excusing what they're going to do with it. <S> It's what I expect to hear from my teenage daughter... <S> "D-a-a-d <S> , I just want to use your computer for a few minutes. <S> Is that OK?" <S> "Sure, go ahead!" <S> * <S> Several hours later... <S> * <S> If she'd have said "...for just a few minutes..." <S> then she'd have probably meant it. <S> Of course, she didn't say that! <S> (And I removed all of the ", like," fillers that she'd have used too...) <A> You use the word just as an adverb in many senses. <S> Among them, you also use it in spoken English for making a request more polite. <S> For example: Could I just borrow your pen for a minute? <S> (McMillan Dictionary entry #6 under just). <S> It's in this sense that the OP has used 'just' in the second sentence. <S> Can I just use your computer for a few minutes? <S> Besides, the use of 'could' is more appropriate than that of 'can' in this sentence as could makes the request indirect or more polite. <A> 1955 E. Tarry <S> Third Door <S> v. 69 <S> We don't want to get you in no trouble with the white folks, but could you just show us how to write a letter? <S> 1995 .net <S> June 77/1 <S> You should be able to view GIF images automatically in all Web browsers by just clicking on the image. <S> ( Oxford English Dictionary ) <S> A synonym would be merely or simply . <S> Compare Collins COBUILD Advanced Users <S> : adverb [ADV before v] You use just with instructions, polite requests, or statements of intention, to make your request or statement seem less difficult. <S> [spoken] ⇒ Could you just give us a description of your cat? <S> ⇒ <S> Can you just lift the table for a second? <S> ⇒ <S> I'm just going to ask you a bit more about your father's business. <S> ⇒ Just add water, milk and butter. <S> ⇒ <S> I'd just like to mention that, personally, I don't think it's wise. <S> ⇒ <S> Just wait for me in the lounge. <S> ( Scroll down for source.)
| Just Used to weaken the force of the action expressed by a verb, and so to represent it as unimportant.
|
Should I use 'neither one', 'none of them' or 'neither one of them' in this question? I'd like to form this question: Is she beautiful or smart or {neither one/ neither one of them/none of them}? So do I need 'of them' for sure or can I omit 'of them' and say 'neither one' or only 'neither'? I'd like to keep it simplest possible. Which one is correct? Is she beautiful or smart or neither one ? Is she beautiful or smart or neither one of them ? Is she beautiful or smart or none of them ? Is she beautiful or smart or neither ? Is she beautiful or smart or none ? The duplicate question does not answer my question. My question is not about single plural verb harmony. It is about whether I can omit and if so to what extent I can omit to give the same meaning in simplest way and that according to what one prefers neither over none or vice versa. <Q> To me: 1. <S> and 2. have the same meaning and are used when talking about two persons. <S> Where are your parents? <S> I don't know, <S> neither one is home right now. <S> Neither one of my parents is home right now. <S> Has the same meaning but can also be used to talk about more than two persons. <S> None of my parents are home right now. <S> None of my 10 friends showed up for my birthday. <S> Even though the first one (none of my parents) sounds weird <S> and I would prefer not using it. <A> It seems like you are trying trying to convey the message in the simplest way possible, regardless of grammaticality. <S> So, my response relies on what I think sounds natural. <S> Also, I assume that you want to keep this specific <S> Is she beautiful or smart or X? <S> structure. <S> I assume that there is a woman and you are interested in two particular traits, being beautiful and being smart. <S> There three options and only one can be chosen: beautiful smart <S> not beautiful and not smart <S> Your 1. expresses the scenario, but neither one seems redundant since the question is brief. <S> In my opinion, you don't need the word one . <S> If your 1. is redundant, then your 2. is definitely redundant. <S> It still expresses the scenario, but "one of them" is excessive. <S> Again, I am assuming that you want the simplest answer. <S> In this instance, I am taking simple to mean terse. <S> Your 3. <S> doesn't sound right. <S> None also suggest to me that there are more than two traits up for consideration. <S> So none of them strongly suggests that to me. <S> As you can imagine, I like 4. best. <S> Regardless of whether we use the word neither correctly or not, we understand that it is to be used with two things. <S> Because of this strong association with two things, I think it is natural to use neither here. <S> In this instance, neither implies exactly "not trait one nor trait two". <S> I don't like none in 5. <S> Again, none suggests use with more than two things to me, which is not the case here. <A> All of your doubts will be cleared by going here . <S> To me, only 1, 2 and 4 make sense. <S> Actually, you can consider 1 = 2 = 4. <S> Neither is used when we're given two things and none, when multiple of them are given. <S> We can never use statements 3 and 4. <S> They are incorrect. <S> We are considering a girl's beauty and smartness ( TWO things), use of "none" is inappropriate here.
| To me, of them suggests that there are more than two traits up for consideration.
|
Parentheses or comma in this sentence I wrote, In these systems, in a supervised manner, the user specifies the desired items on one or more example pages and the system automatically generates the extraction rules (the wrapper) , and applies it to other web pages with a similar structure. Should I or can I write it as: In these systems, in a supervised manner, the user specifies the desired items on one or more example pages and the system automatically generates the extraction rules, the wrapper , and applies it to other web pages with a similar structure. In these sentence the wrapper is a name for the same extraction rules (or the name for the output program).. also note I used it to refer to the wrapper, if I want to refer to extraction rules I must use "them", I don't know which should I refer grammatically or if using "it" is ok?! Update: Also that's not the first definition of wrapper so that I can use " called wrapper ", it is just an emphasis By the way is it fluent to say (repeating in ) In these systems, in a supervised manner ... <Q> Commas can be used to include more details, just like you are trying to do. <S> In this instance, I would recommend writing <S> the system automatically generates the extraction rules, called the wrapper, and applies... <S> If you would like to use use parentheses, that seems fine too. <S> I believe that the parentheses should imply to your reader that the extraction rules are called the wrapper. <S> the system automatically generates the extraction rules (the wrapper) and applies Again, for clarity, you might want to write (called the wrapper) if you want to use parentheses. <A> So: <S> In these systems, in a supervised manner, the user specifies the desired items on one or more example pages and the system automatically generates the extraction rules (the wrapper) , and applies it to other web pages with a similar structure. <S> As for repeating "in", consider whether you need "In these systems" in context. <S> My guess is that it is already understood. <S> But if you need it, some separation might help. <S> In these systems, the user in a supervised manner specifies the desired items on one or more example pages and the system automatically generates the extraction rules (the wrapper), and applies it to other web pages with a similar structure. <A> You could choose to use either commas or parentheses, but if you do use parentheses don't use a comma before and after. <S> the system automatically generates the extraction rules (the wrapper) and applies it <S> And if you choose to use commas, it might be more clear if you clarify that the wrapper is the extraction rules by saying something like: <S> he system automatically generates the extraction rules, also called the wrapper, and applies That would be my preferred sentence. <S> To address your second question the repeating in does sound pretty awkward. <S> My primary instinct would be to just remove the "in a supervised manner" part, as I don't see what it really adds to the sentence. <S> If the user is the one supervising then the user needing to specify other things seems to imply that they are supervising it. <S> However, you know your topic better than me, so if you feel it is necessary maybe consider something like <S> In these systems the user specifies the desired items in a supervised manner on one or more example pages and the system automatically generates the extraction rules, or <S> In these systems the user, in a supervised manner, specifies the desired items on... or some other rephrasing. <A> Separating "the wrapper" with either a set of commas or parentheses is correct. <S> If "the wrapper" is simply a name and does not add a specific description, I would probably stick with the parenthesis version. <S> In this case, though, you will need to remove the comma following the parenthetical phrase. <S> Also, you will need to add a comma after "example pages. <S> " Your two independent clauses are "user specifies" and "system generates and applies. <S> " You probably also want to change "it" to "them" since the pronoun is taking the place of the plural "extraction rules." <S> In these systems, in a supervised manner, the user specifies the desired items on one or more example pages, and the system automatically generates the extraction rules (the wrapper) and applies them to other web pages with a similar structure. <A> When I read the second version of the sentence, … the system generates the extraction rules, the wrapper, and … <S> I feel as though I’m reading something like … <S> the customer buys the eggs, the milk, and … <S> In other words, lacking any sort of advance indicationthat you are introducing a singular term, wrapper ,to refer to a group of things (the rules),your intended meaning is very obscure. <S> I strongly recommend that you use one of the suggestionsinvolving the word “called”. <S> The first version(with the parentheses, but with no comma after he right parenthesis )would be my second choice. <S> Once you’ve successfully made the leapfrom the collective concept (the rules) to the singular term (“wrapper”),you should of course use the singular pronoun, “it”.
| The explanatory term the wrapper does not need punctuation between it and the term it explains, when parenthesis are used. In these systems, in a supervised manner seems fine, though you might want to clarify what "supervised manner" is in a separate sentence.
|
Is the word 'expensive' negative or neutral? I'm not a native speaker of English. I'm trying to teach English learners positive and negative words. I found this word in students' textbook, which only gives me the choice between positive and negative. I doubt the correctness of the textbook. Is the word 'expensive' negative or neutral? <Q> It really depends on the context, and because of that, I think you would be best to say neutral. <S> For example, here are three cases: <S> Positive: My friend brought an expensive wine to the party for us to try. <S> Neutral: <S> The electric dryer was more expensive than the gas. <S> Negative: I was shocked by how expensive hotel rooms were because of the convention. <S> I would say that in general most English speakers would say something being "expensive" is a bad thing, but actual usage is rarely that simple. <S> Ultimately, the connotation depends on who is paying the "expensive" price. <A> In fact, it could be both. <S> If you use the sentence <S> That toy was way too expensive! <S> the connotation is negative. <S> If you use the sentence The blue boat is more expensive than the red one <S> it's not. <S> So the answer depends on the sentence. <A> The literal meaning of expensive is that it costs a lot of money. <S> It also depends on the reason why something is expensive. <S> It is quite a philosophical question, I think.
| It depends on your view if that is a negative or a neutral thing.
|
How to combine "Select an apple for Mary" and "Select an apple for John"? Here are several possible sentences I currently can figure out. Select an apple for Mary and John respectively. Select two apples for Mary and John respectively. Select each apple for Mary and John. Select an apple for each Mary and John. For 1, it sounds correct. But as we overall have to select two apples so I have some questions when I see "an apple" in the sentence. For 2, it is just a counterpart of 1. For 3, it sounds weird and should be wrong. For 4, we usually say "for each people". I don't know if this construction is right and if this sentence conveys my meaning. Follow-up question According to @Steve Ives, Select an apple and a pear for Mary and John respectively. which means select an apple for Mary and a pear for John. The above interpretation should be correct. I often construct sentence in this way. If this is correct, then one could infer the following sentence can convey the meaning; although it is odd. Select an apple and an apple for Mary and John respectively. which should be equivalent to, Select two apples for Mary and John respectively. This contradicts to what @user3169 said. So which one is correct? I am confused. <Q> We say things like: Give Mary and John an apple each. <S> Give Mary and John one apple each. <S> Give Mary and John each an apple. <S> Give Mary and John one apple apiece. <S> Give one apple apiece to Mary and John. <S> Things get a little dicier with "pick" and "choose" Choose one apple each for Mary and John. <S> Pick Mary and John an apple for each of them. <A> respectively denotes first Mary and then John. <S> So even if you say: 1) Select an apple for Mary and John respectively. <S> it would be understood as two actions (first select an apple for Mary and then select an apple for John). <S> 2) Select two apples for Mary and John respectively. <S> is ambiguous at best. <S> I think literally it would require 4 apples, but with some imagination maybe 2 would work out. <S> 3) <S> Select each apple for Mary and John. <S> means any apple would go to both of them. <S> They would need to share. <S> 4) Select an apple for each of Mary and John. <S> here of is needed to be grammatically correct, but I doubt anyone would say this. <S> Using respectively as in 1) is much better. <S> You could use it in this way though: <S> Select an apple for each of the children, Mary and John . <S> Take a look at Each and each of . <A> I'm in favor of: <S> Select Mary and John one apple each. <S> This is actually grammatically fine, and probably the most natural construction of the idea. <A> Select an apple for Mary and John respectively. <S> Respectively is used to associate the items in one list with those in another list i.e. : <S> Select an apple and a pear for Mary and John respectively. <S> which means select an apple for Mary and a pear for John. <S> Select two apples for Mary and John respectively. <S> See above. <S> Select each apple for Mary and John. <S> Select an apple for each Mary and John <S> These are just incorrect. <S> Select is a bit formal too. <S> A native English speaker would most likely say: Choose an apple for Mary and John <S> it's understood that it's one each, or to be more explicit: <S> Choose Mary and John an apple each.
| Give one apple each to Mary and John.
|
Apartment as a type of house As far as I know home is the place where you live such as a house or an apartment. So apartment is a type/subcategory of home as mentioned in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary and its picture . However, in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (see the word focus box on the bottom of the page) apartment is a type of house . <Q> I don't think that you can infer anything from the content of the word focus box about the hierarchical classification of the words house and apartment: it's simply meant to show that the words are related, not that they have exactly the same meaning. <S> house, cottage, apartment, flat, condo, log cabin, tent... <S> whatever. <S> But you would only talk about my house if it does not share an enclosed entrance area with any other houses, and you would only talk about my apartment or my flat if it shares an enclosed entrance area with other apartments. <A> According to American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Apartment. <S> n. 1. <S> A room or suite of rooms designed as a residence and generally located in a building occupied by more than one household. <S> 2. <S> An apartment building: a row of high-rise apartments. <S> 3. <S> A room. <S> 4. apartments Chiefly British A suite of rooms within a larger building set aside for a particular purpose or person. <S> The second meaning is an apartment building or a house . <S> I think you misunderstood the article in the first dictionary. <S> Home doesn't depend on the type of the house, it's just the place, where you live and which you love. <A> Home is simply where you live or a word that means "starting point." <S> It does not automatically imply a house or building of any kind. <S> You might be homeless and sleeping in a cardboard box on the street, that box is your home. <S> An apartment or house is not your home unless you live there. <S> If no one owns the house and no one is living there <S> , it isn't anyone's home. <S> Marketers use this term for emotional effect. <S> A house is a standalone building designed for a single family. <S> An apartment is a typically large, long building where tenants will share a wall with someone else. <S> However smaller apartment buildings are possible. <S> Sometimes a large house can be converted into two or more apartments, the term house or apartment might be used to describe these. <S> It would not be called a house unless on the outside it looks like a house.
| You can refer to the place you live as home regardless of what type of building it is-
|
"I have 2 days open next week." Can I say I have 2 days open next week to mean that I have 2-day free time next week? <Q> In the US "open" time ordinarily means time which has not been allotted to meetings or other formal activities and is therefore available for the purpose under discussion. <S> I can't meet with them today, but I have tomorrow afternoon open. <S> "Free" time has pretty much the same meaning in this sort of context—you could say "I have tomorrow afternoon <S> free"—but <S> if you speak of your "free" time in general terms, not tied to a specific timespan, it can also mean your time away from work, time when you are free to do whatever you want: <S> I spend a lot of my free time answering questions on ELL. <S> Time "off" is time when you are released from ordinary obligations. <S> It's usually time when you have permission to be absent from work, and that's probably what you mean: <S> I have two days off next week. <S> It's also used for shortened prison sentences: prisoners get "time off" for good behavior. <A> Usually open means "not in a meeting or engaged in a scheduled activity". <S> You could use open, as you have in your example, but what you haven't addressed is, are they consecutive days? <S> Are you working <S> but on a scheduled task. <S> For example: Let's meet next week. <S> Sure, I have 2 days open, Monday and Thursday. <S> Let's do Thursday at 4pm. <S> Thursday at 4pm <S> it is. <S> On the other hand if you're trying to say that you're not working for two days, generally you would say something like "two days off" or "I'm not working two days next week. <S> " The latter is a bit more common when schedules change a lot. <S> Example: <S> So we can we go on our hiking trip? <S> I have two days off next week, we can go then. <S> Sounds good to me, I'll start packing. <A> Yes, you may say that as the listener will unambiguously be aware of your intent. <S> However, you may try: <S> I have two days free next week. <S> I have a two-day span (or period) free (or open) next week. <S> I am free for two days next week. <S> If you are speaking of scheduling and wish to indicate that you have room to be engaged, choose 2. <S> If you want to indicate that you will be away from some regularly scheduled task or event, such as work or school, in order to rest, relax or play, choose 1 or 3. <S> If those days are consecutive, choose 3. <S> Otherwise, replace the "for two days" with the specific days. <S> If your writing is informal, "two" may be replaced with the numeral. <S> If the writing is formal, I would include "which" or "that" after "day," as appropriate. <A> I would generally not use phrases that are not very clear in the first place or those that are ambiguous. <S> This has the added attraction of being more explicit and informative.
| In this instance, I would say just say: I am free on Wednesday and Friday next week.
|
What does "It is important to know different perspectives to be reflective" mean? "It is important to know different perspectives to be reflective" This sentence made me confused. I think it means that we must use the perspectives in our actions. Is it right? <Q> The phrase be reflective is used to describing thinking about something considering something <S> In a reflective moment, he thought about his childhood. <A> "Reflect" as used here means to think about. <S> "Perspectives" means points of view, ways of looking at something. <S> So ... It is important to have heard different points of view in order to think about something. <S> Like if you read and understand Peter's post, <S> and then you read and understand mine, you will have an advantage in understanding this issue. :-) <A> The sentence plays on words at several possible levels, including poetry. <S> One instance, for instance, dwells in the semantic fields of ight rays and mirrors. <S> A mirror is an object with a reflective coating that offer different perspectives. <S> For a mirror, "it is important to be reflective to offer different perspectives". <S> The sentence is reversed. <S> A human who would only "reflects" one perspective, would not be "reflective". <S> I remember a proverb (unknown origin) saying: "one never sees more than the half of a man". <S> Vision is flat. <S> You need to revolve (at least mentally) around people, concepts and things, to hope grasp a little of their multidimensionality.
| Your passage means that it is better having different viewpoints (perspectives) to think about something .
|
What does "barely" imply when used with a quantity? I was recommended to post this question here, instead of on English Language & Usage . In summary, I understand "barely" to mean "equal to, or more than, but not less than" when used with a quantity, but I think this is inconsistent with the definition "certainly not more than" as specified in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 7th edition. This is the full definition of "barely" from the Dictionary. I believe I understand the first and second definition: "barely" implies that something did happen, although it was very close that it didn't. As is also explained here https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/148031/what-does-barely-imply . However, I am having trouble understanding the third definition, describing a quantity. Using the first example sentence and substituting in the provided words from the third definition, changes how I understand the meaning of the sentence. To me, stating that Just 50% of the population voted. is similar to the definition in 1 and 2 and means the population percentage hit 50%, and maybe trickled over a tiny bit, but it is definitely not less than 50% (don't confuse this usage of just with how it can be used as a synonym for only ). Meanwhile, I interpret Certainly not more than 50% of the population voted. as if 50% or less (but probably close to 50%) of the population voted, but definitely not more than 50%. Combining these two interpretations creates a third definition of "barely" , as a synonym to "precisely" , meaning no less and no more than 50.000...% of the population voted. I realize this interpretation could also be derived from "just" alone. Maybe this could also be related to the root "bare" , as it would be a "naked" 50%, nothing more and nothing less? Which, if any, of these interpretations is more accurate to how "barely" should be used with a quantity? Does this correct definition reflect the everyday use of "barely" , or is it used less strictly to mean "around" or "about" a quantity? <Q> That third definition (to me) is slightly misleading: "just; certainly not more than a particular amount" doesn't actually state that "a particular amount" is the number quoted: <S> The presidential nominee barely got the 50.1% of votes required ... <S> when s/he got 50.2%. <S> Would 51% still qualify for 'barely'? <S> Maybe. <S> 60%? <S> Nope. <A> Bare, the root of barely, means "without any(thing) extraneous…." <S> Likewise barely conveys the same meaning: "just that much up to a very little more or less. <S> " <S> That is, meeting the lowest requirement for a classification, with a little wiggle room. <S> The dictionary listed meaning that say the same things. <S> 1. <S> Barely audible. <S> Humans hear -8db and the sound was at -7.8db. <S> Just within the range.2. <S> Barely acknowledged. <S> There was acknowledgement, but nothing extra; no chit-chat.3. <S> Barely twenty years. <S> Just became 20, or the birthday is within a month. <S> Again, very little else.4. <S> Barely started to speak when…. <S> I wasn't speaking, then I began and shortly thereafter this event happened. <S> Barely does not imply preciseness. <A> Just 50% of the population voted. <S> It really depends on the context. <S> To me, this implies that exactly 50% (maybe a little rounding, there is often rounding when talking about voting percentages) voted <S> but you expected more people to vote. <S> However, I can imagine that to others, or depending on the context, just implies that you expected less people to vote. <S> In other words, the word just does not really imply any sense of "no more than" or "no less than". <S> Instead, it has an implication regarding expectation in this example. <S> Barely 50% of the population voted. <S> This might actually be a bad example. <S> To me, it means that 50% of the people voted, but the percentage exceed 50% by a very small amount. <S> Maybe 50.0001% voted. <S> But it is possible to imagine something like a news anchor reporting the news. <S> A graphic reads "49.9% go out to vote" while the news anchor say Barely 50% of the population voted. <S> So with rounding, 49.9% can be consider barely 50%. <S> Here is an example <S> barely means <S> certainly not more than . <S> A girl is trying on a tank top, and it is slightly loose around her breasts. <S> She remarks <S> I barely fill out this top. <S> In other words, her breast size is certainly not more than the breast size of the top. <A> Barely implies that there is a categorization and that something, while close to the borderline, still fits within this categorization. <S> John barely passed the class. <S> Perhaps John needed a score of at least 70% to pass the class and he got a final score of 72%. <S> Sue barely made it to work on time. <S> Perhaps Sue starts work at 8:30 and arrived at work at 8:29. <S> Barely 50% of the population voted. <S> There is an implication that the categorization is at least 50%, which means the actual number could be something like 52%. <S> Google examples: fee.org/articles/barely-half-of-student-loans-are-being-repaid/ http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/high_school_and_beyond/2016/06/only_half_of_colleges_study_ACT_SAT_as_predictors_of_success.html
| To me, barely does not mean certainly not more than in this example.
|
What does the word "equally" mean in this context? When someone say: God loves everyone equally. What does the word "equally" mean in this context? B2 fairly and in the same way: In an ideal world, would everyone get treated equally? the word "equally" has several meanings, and I don't know which meaning is appropriate. C1 in equal amounts: The inheritance money was shared equally among the three sisters. C1 to the same degree: You looked equally nice in both dresses. › used for adding an idea that is as important as what you have just said: Not all businesses are legitimate. Equally, not all customers are honest. ( Cambridge Dictionary ) <Q> To the same degree would be a correct interpretation here, but a simpler interpretation would just be "the same. <S> " <S> Identical, no difference. <S> Take any two identical things, you can say that they're equal. <S> Put back into the original quote, you could say: "God has the same love for Jim as He does for George, or anyone else for that matter." <S> Also with the various definitions you quoted, it always comes down to whatever referenced thing being "the same." <S> We'll distribute the liquid equally between these two jars. <S> In the end, both jars are going to have the same amount of liquid. <S> Rotate both dials equally. <S> Both dials will have undergone the same degree rotation. <S> Distribute your money among your children equally. <S> All children will receive the same amount of money. <A> To the same degree is a reasonable interpretation, but there is another that should be considered: as if they were equal. <S> That is, to treat two people equally is to treat them as if they were equal even though they are not. <S> That is consistent with "to the same degree", but there is a further implication here: regardless of their merits. <S> Thus we might in various situations treat the rich and poor equally or the young and the old equally, or the clever and the dull equally, meaning that we ignore the differences between them. <A> The word equal means to be the same. <S> I.e - cooking - 'Make sure the cup of sugar is equal to the flour'I.e - respect - 'Show equal respect for your fellow classmates' (treat everyone equally) <S> I.e - The distance to XYZ is equal to ABC. <S> (the distance is the same)I.e - 'I had such anger within my heart, but at the same time an equal amount of love' (as much anger was equal amount of love)
| Absolute equality, no difference found or implied to either people, they are treated as if they are exactly the same in this regard.
|
Usage of "spark" and "spark off" In the list of examples for the verb spark I found usages of spark off and spark : This proposal will almost certainly spark another countrywide debate about immigration. The visit of G20 leaders sparked off (= caused to start of) mass demonstrations. It's not clear the difference between them. I mean, can we replace spark with spark off in the first example and spark off with spark in the second one? <Q> Yes, they are pretty much interchangeable in these cases. <S> This is not the only case where this is true. <S> "start" and "start off" are interchangeable in many situations as well. <A> I don't think you are going to find a hard rule on this. <S> I found this definition for spark . <S> spark : to set off in a burst of activity : <S> activate — often used with off : to stir to activity : <S> incite Here is one for spark off . <S> spark off <S> (tr, adverb) to bring into being or action; activate or initiate <S> This coincides with my experience. <S> You might also simply consider off as an intensifier. <S> In your specific examples, spark off and spark works for both. <S> It terms of how it sounds <S> , spark without <S> the off might sound a little more formal. <S> So depending on your particular style, you might choose spark over spark off . <S> But in terms of meaning, they are the same. <A> X sparked off Y might connote that Y is continuing after X ends, or that Y "took on a life of its own" or became an entity "unattached" to X due to size, intensity, etc. <S> X sparked Y can mean this too, but off emphasizes the meaning above. <S> This paper sparked off a discussion about our values (The discussion about values became a separate "thing" from the paper and could possibly grow into something on its own.)
| So I would say that they have the same meaning.
|
What does "they are looking for nurses to go out to Saudi Arabia.“ mean? From Longman dictionary , We know that: go out to : (move abroad) to travel to another country in order to live and work there. example: They are looking for nurses to go out to Saudi Arabia. I am not sure about the meaning of the above example. The nurses move to Saudi Arabia, or "They" move to Saudi Arabia and want to get Nurses job. <Q> Consider the situation that they (whoever they are) are looking for nurses in their current location, for example the UK, to go elsewhere (to Saudi Arabia) to work. <S> Neelam's answer is close, but this sentence implies that they might not go with the nurses, but instead that the nurses go without them, perhaps on their behalf. <S> For example, in a conversation it could be: <S> "My boss is looking for nurses to go out to Saudi Arabia, would you perhaps be interested?" <S> So this sentence means that they (a group of people, maybe a company) want nurses to go work in Saudi Arabia for them. <S> For context, I'm a native Australian English speaker. <A> Grammatical analyses (object, complement, modifier) aside, go out to {some place} reflects the speaker's attitude that the place is remote . <S> A speaker in New York City might say: They are going out to Alaska to live closer to Nature. <S> We are going out to the country for the weekend. <S> Remoteness is relative. <A> Your first interpretation is correct: the nurses are going to Saudi Arabia. <S> Remember that English word order is usually just Subject, Verb, Object. <S> The subject of this sentence is <S> They , and the verb (or verb phrase) is are ...and what are they? <S> Looking for something. <S> And the object that they're looking for is nurses to go out to Saudi Arabia . <S> If the sentence had the other meaning - that they want to go to Saudi Arabia and get jobs - it would have to be phrased like <S> "They are looking to go out to Saudi Arabia for nursing jobs" or <S> "They are looking to go out to Saudi Arabia to get nursing jobs" or "They are looking to go out to Saudi Arabia to become nurses" or maybe <S> "They are looking to go out to Saudi Arabia as nurses" <S> But never "they are looking for nurses". <S> Note that whatever they are looking for always comes right after the words looking for . <A> Your problem is the word "they". <S> There is no particular group of people who are "they" <S> - it's just the way that English says "unspecified people are looking for" in the active voice. <S> In the passive voice, it's clearer. <S> "Nurses are being looked for to go to Saudi Arabia." <S> It's clear that there is no particular person doing the looking. <S> Some languages have a word which covers this in the active voice. <S> In French for instance, we would say "on cherche". <S> English used to have this too, with the word "one" <S> - it used to be possible to say "one is looking for nurses". <S> This has long since fallen out of use though.
| So the object of this sentence is nurses : they are looking for nurses, and to go out to Saudi Arabia is a prepositional phrase that explains something about the object.
|
Can we use the word "sportsman" to refer to a person who engages in sport activities? Sportsman vs. Athlete I came across this discussion on a translators' forum, and some people there say that Uh uh, NEVER use sportsman to mean athlete. Messi and Mayweather are athletes, not sportsmen. ) and A sportsman in actual usage (not in Wiki cut-n-paste lol) is someone who partakes in outdoor activities, like hunting, boating, fishing, etc... It is so? In Russian, the generic term for a person engaged in sports is "sportsman", it is a loanword. Is it a "translator's false friend"? Would translating Russian "спортсмен" as "sportsman" instead of "athlete" always be a mistake? The matter is, Wikipedia does state on its disambiguation page for "Sportsman" that Sportsman may refer to: Sportsperson, someone who enjoys sport <Q> I always often bristle when I hear people use absolutes such as NEVER or ALWAYS, particularly in ALL CAPS. <S> I do agree with the overall sentiment. <S> When I hear the word athlete sans any additional context, I think of sprinters, gymnasts, and basketball players. <S> So does Google . <S> When it comes to the word sportsman , I might be more inclined to think of hunters and fisherman, but Google doesn't seem to be so sure. <S> (If we Google outdoor sportsman , however, we can find those fishermen we were expecting to see.) <S> One obvious exception to the sportsman ≠ athlete argument I immediately thought of was Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year. <S> Wikipedia says: Since its inception in 1954, Sports Illustrated magazine has annually presented the "Sportsman of the Year" award to "the athlete or team <S> whose performance that year most embodies the spirit of sportsmanship and achievement." <S> The terms may not be equal, but there are some contexts where there is a lot of overlap. <S> That said, the language might be evolving while SI clings to tradition. <S> In other words, sportsman might have been more closely aligned with athlete <S> 50 years ago than it is today, but the magazine might be reluctant to change the name of its prestigious award. <S> Bottom line <S> : I think athlete might be the better word in many contexts, but, in answer to your title question: Can we use the word “sportsman” to refer to a person who engages in sport activities? <S> is: <S> Yes, that can be done. <S> The dictionary would back both sides of the argument, defining sportsman with some definitions that show it to be just about synonymous with athlete : <S> A man who is active in sports. <S> A man who engages in sports. <S> A male athlete. <S> while other definitions are more aligned with the hunting, fishing, and boating aspects of the word: <S> A man who engages in country sports, such as hunting or fishing. <S> One who pursues the sports of the field; one who hunts, fishes, etc. <S> I think those participating in that discussion forum may have found an interesting distinction between the two words; however the assertion: NEVER use sportsman to mean athlete is not quite true, and fails to see how flexible the English language can be. <A> As a native American English speaker, I would agree with the information you found. <S> 'Athlete' refers to a person playing a sport. <S> If somebody is an amateur, as you mention in the comments, I would probably call them a ' player' (as in, football player or volleyball player) before I would call them an athlete, but that word can't really be used on its own. <S> (Calling someone a player in American English is slang for a variety of things, none of them having to do much with athletics...) <S> I live in a big city, so I don't encounter hunters very often. <S> To me the word sportsman sounds odd and outdated, and I'm mostly familiar with it in the context of "sportsman stores" which sell hunting and boating gear. <S> I'm not sure many people would know what you're talking about if you use the word sportsman. <A> As an American, I agree that athlete is the accepted and much more used term. <S> Anecdotally, I live in Japan and I have heard the term sportsman thrown around by non-native English speakers. <S> Perhaps sportsman is just a more intuitive word for English learners and therefore is more commonly used as a loanword? <A> All of the responses above are entirely American-centric in their use of English language. <S> As a Brit, the definition of athlete is generally much more specific and reserved for those people who are part of the sport of 'athletics' or as you generally call it in America, track-and-field. <S> We'd use specific words such as 'footballer' 'basketball player', 'cyclist'. <S> The only time we might use the word athlete for sports other than athletics, would be if we were talking about a group of sportspeople from a variety of different sports together at which point we might refer to them as an athlete (or potentially if referring to someone as an overall sportsperson - 'they're an excellent athlete' to refer to the fact that they are skilled in a variety of different sports). <S> Even then we'd probably be more likely to use the word 'sportsperson', 'sportsman' or 'sportswoman'.
| We would use sportsperson for anyone who takes part in sport (especially if a professional) and would rarely use the word athlete for anyone that partakes in any sport apart from athletics itself.
|
Is this a rule that article should precede adjective? I have enrolled to an ESOL class in Wellington, New Zealand. My teacher taught me that article should precede with adjective always.For example - My country has three seasons - winter, summer, and rainy season. She corrected to My country has three seasons - winter, summer, and a rainy season. Reasoning - She told that rainy is like an adjective so this should have an article before it. He is tall person. > correct He is a tall person. Logic - 'a' article because we can count the person. - 'the' article if we say the tallest -superlative degree. Can I take these rules? <Q> Your teacher is generally correct, but with English there are always exceptions, so it will depend on the sentence and the context. <S> Also acceptable might be <S> My country has three seasons: winter, summer, and the rainy season. <S> you can use "the" if there is one rainy season <S> and it would give emphasis to rainy season. <S> My country has three seasons: winter, summer, and rainy. <S> would also be correct if "rainy" is the proper name of one of your seasons. <S> Also acceptable would be <S> My country has three seasons: a wet, a dry, and a cold season. <S> My country has three seasons: wet, dry, and cold seasons. <S> In terms of countable and uncountable <S> He is a tall person. <S> She is a pretty girl. <S> They are tall people. <S> They are all tall people. <S> With the superlative -est, since there is only one He is the tallest person. <S> She is the prettiest girl. <S> However, there is also <S> He is of Chinese origin. <S> They are of African origin. <S> where an article is not used. <A> Most EFL/ESL teachers cannot explain article usage, so they often make up reasons on the spot, or they give out oversimplified "rules". <S> This teacher might have just thought the sentence sounded better with a . <S> However, My country has three seasons - winter, summer, and rainy season. <S> is fine as it is. <S> I would probably not use <S> a here, <S> since it is indefinite <S> but we're talking about a definite season that comes each year. <S> We're not talking about one ( a ) rainy season out of many possible rainy seasons. <S> That's the most important part. <S> In addition, the phrase rainy season without an article acts as sort of a name, just like winter and summer, and we wouldn't put <S> a before winter or summer here. <S> So it would be something like <S> There are three people in class: John, Mary, and tall person. <S> If we want to talk about tall person as one among many, we would use a tall person . <S> In the less likely case that tall person is actually the nickname of the third person, we wouldn't use a . <S> This is sort of how rainy season works in your sentence, as the name of the third season. <S> It's also an extreme oversimplification that we use <S> the with superlatives. <S> We can, but a is also possible: <S> That was a most wonderful cake, <S> Sammy, thanks for cooking it. <S> In general, ESL/EFL teachers have to give out some sort of rules as s starting point to learn article usage, but unfortunately these rules are usually way oversimplified and rarely, if ever, cover all uses of articles. <S> And so articles remain troublesome for many learners for years and years. <S> But one thing to do is not trust any list of simple rules about article usage. <S> No one has ever come up with an explanation that describes all usages of the articles in English. <A> Academically speaking, your teacher is absolutely right. <S> The article here is referring to the noun 'season' . <S> So you have 'a season' that it 'rainy' <S> Your sentence should be either: <S> My country has three seasons - winter, summer, and a rainy season. <S> or My country has three seasons - winter, summer, and Rainy Season. <S> In the second sentence you use "Rainy Season" as a name for a season. <S> You cannot say, "He is tall person. <S> " If we leave out the adjective it is "He is person," which is improper English. <S> You say, "He is a person" which is correct and then, "He is a tall person," - a what kind of person? <S> A tall one! <S> You don't place articles before uncountables like: money, weather, water, sugar, <S> e.t.c. <S> We had good weather yesterday - not 'a good weather'. <S> Clean water is healthy - not 'A clean water'. <S> You do not place an article before adjectives that precede titles and names in examples like: <S> That women is beautiful Lady Winter. <S> He is mighty Sir Nicolas.
| Your teacher is correct with the examples you have presented.
|
The pronunciation of the word "honest" is with "h" or without? I would like to know and to get some information about the pronunciation of the word " honest ". Some people told me that it's pronounced without the first letter "h" (as if: onest ) but some told me that it's pronounced with the "h" as a full form pronunciation ( h onest). Who's right? or does it depend on the country? <Q> These sources dictionary.com merriam-webster.com dictionary.cambridge.org <S> thefreedictionary.com <S> oxforddictionaries.com say that the pronunciation is without the "h". <S> I've never personally heard it with the "h". <S> It's possible that some people do pronounce it with the "h", but I feel that they are the minuscule minority. <S> So, I would say you are safest saying "onest", without the "h". <A> I've known it with a silent "h", so "an honest man" as opposed to "a helpful man". <S> The silent "h" occurs in some words of French origin: <S> hour <S> heir <S> honest honour <S> but not in others . <S> whereas a hard "h" will occur in words of Germanic origin <S> hatchet <S> harness <S> helmet <S> hamlet <S> In terms of accents: The French, when speaking English, will often drop the "h"s since it is not pronounced in French, e.g. Les Halles is pronounced " lay al ". <S> On the other hand, I have been asked in Paris by an American "Do you know where Les Halles ( les hal-les ) is? <S> Had to think for a moment what they meant. <S> In BrE, an East London, South London, or Cockney accent also drops "h"s, because, well, that's what they do. <S> So they may say " elpful " for helpful. <A> Even in regions (such as mine) in which initial "h" is scrupulously not dropped, "h" is never pronounced in "honest". <S> Necessary concomitant <S> : we say "a historian" (where I gather Brits write "an historian"), but we say "an honest man". <A> There are three root words <S> I know of that <S> are spelt beginning with a H but are pronounced without any initial aspiration in those accents that have H-aspiration: Hour Honour (Honest, Honesty) <S> Heir <S> These could be ancient imports from French (where the aspiration is not pronounced) <S> who's pronunciation became standardised before other H-words were Anglicised. <S> Accents like Cockney that say "Eez at iz ouse" for " <S> He's at his house" drop the H from all words AFAIK. <S> As others have alluded to, use of a/an before a H-word depends on pronunciation: "A historian received an honour." <A> It does not depend on the country or region. <S> The H is silent. <A> This video on You-tube is also talking about it: <S> "Mispronouncing words that they have silent aitches in English, is a very common mistake " <S> That's why I think that those who told me to pronounce it with h ( h onest), are wrong. <S> So-far <S> I didn't even one source that supports or gives evidence for correct pronunciation of h onest with h. <A> Check this video on Youtube "Banshee Review - Commodore Amiga + CD32 - Kim Justice (Kimblitz #4) ".The <S> narrator, a British native speaker, clearly pronunces "honestly" with the H.
| There are words with initial "h" where the pronunciation of that "h" varies by region and dialect, but the word "honest" is not one of them.
|
When to use 'by' instead of 'at' or 'on' to specify time/date? We use "by" to specify time or date, as in I have to go by 9 am. We can also use "at" here. When to use "by" / "on" / "at"? When "by" should be preferred over "before" or "till"? <Q> by <S> not later than; at or before: on use on to designate days and dates at use at to designate specific times. <S> So, I have to go by <S> 9 am means the latest you can stay is 9 am. <S> You have to leave at or before 9 am. <S> I have to go on <S> 9 am does not make sense because on is used with days and dates . <S> I have to go at <S> 9 am means you have to leave when the time is (exactly) 9 am. <S> To answer your follow-up question: <S> Use before when you have to leave earlier than 9 am. <S> Till is the informal version of until . <S> Until has many uses, just like the on/at/by, but I think the main use here is until use until to talk about something that will keep going on for a duration of time from a specific time to another. <S> So "I have to leave until 9 am" doesn't really make sense. <S> One might interpret this as you have to be gone or absent until 9 am. <S> But as you can see, it has a completely different meaning than with the words at or by . <S> You can say I have to stay until 9 am. <S> This means you have to stay. <S> And when the time is 9 am, you are free to leave. <S> Depending on the context, it might imply that you will leave at exactly 9 am. <A> "By 9 am" means any time before 9 am. <S> "At 9 am" means at 9 am specifically. <S> We don't use "on" with time of day, but we do use it with days: "On Monday" means sometime during Monday. <S> "By Monday" means any time before Monday. <A> Use by when some action or event needs to be completed before a specific date or time, but it is possible that it could happen earlier. <S> I must leave for the airport by 9:00 AM tomorrow (allowing the possibility of leaving earlier) <S> We must complete this report by the end of July. <S> (allowing the possibility of completing it earlier) <S> We leave for our vacation on Tuesday 13th August. <S> The train is due to arrive at 10:15 tomorrow morning. <S> we can use both on and at in the same sentence: <S> My flight leaves at noon on Wednesday 17th September.
| Use by when you can leave specifically at 9 am or earlier. When we have a specific date or time use on for a date, use at for a time.
|
I am a little confused about this sentence I am a little confused when I saw this sentence emailed from a customer. He said: We want tobeco mini 25mm new one in many colors. P.S. "Tobeco mini 25mm" is a product name. What is meaning of this sentence? They wanted the product which is new version in many colors for choosing, not old version. They wanted this product and will order many colors of it(Not mentioned the quantity) . They wanted the one for each color(If there are 2 colors, they want 2. 1 red and 1 pink). Which one should be correct? If this sentence grammatical and if he omitted some words? <Q> As written, the sentence is not grammatical and hard to understand. <S> All of the possible understandings you have listed seem equally reasonable to me as a native speaker. <A> I don't think you can know the exact meaning without additional information. <S> This is because "new one" (singular) conflicts with "in many colors" (plural). <A> As written, this sounds like an order for <S> We want tobeco mini 25mm new one in many colours. <S> one, new tobeco mini 25mm in multiple colours <S> The "one" is for a single tobeco tank. <S> The colour would either be Zombie White, or Zombie Green (all other colours are solid) and the glass enclosure also comes in several different colours.
| Since in some languages there is no written distinction between singular and plural noun forms, the writer could have meant either one or several.
|
"for your information" or "for your notification"? Which one we should use when we're sending emails to customers to inform them about news or other information? any other formal or informal suggestion? <Q> The other feels stilted, and to me feels like a non-native construction. <S> In fact, if I were reading your message, and I saw "For your notification," I would automatically assume the message was written by a non-native English speaker. <S> It's worth noting that the phrase "for your information" is sometimes used rhetorically as a defensive statement when one person is trying to respond to criticism, or trying to establish credibility in a defensive way. <S> Consider, "For your information, I DO have a PHD in Warp Field Dynamics, and I have 21 years of experience working with star ship engines. <S> " When you hear this, you can tell the person is being defensive, but when you are reading a message, it is harder to tell intent. <S> So, if I were writing the message, and I wanted to use "For Your Information" as a heading, I think that is fine. <S> If I were wanting to include it in a sentence, I would probably couch it in a less potentially-confrontational way like this: "We wanted to let you know about some changes that have happened..." or "We wanted to inform you about some changes...". <S> This has a friendlier tone than "For your information, we are making changes...". <A> notification by definition implies a notice: <S> The act or an instance of notifying. <S> Something, such as a letter, by which notice is given. <S> For example, if you don't pay your electric bill, you will receive a notice/notification that the power will be turned off unless you pay. <S> Since you are providing information, use for your information . <S> However, notification might apply if the information affects the status of products or services already in-process or completed: <S> This notification was sent to advise you regarding a recall of the item you recently purchased. <A> The phrase <S> For your notification is not used. <S> Usually when sending a message which requires immediate attention <S> Notice: <S> something is used. <S> For your information is the general phrase used when sending information of interest and may be shortened to FYI in certain circumstances eg texting
| As a native speaker, my preference is "for your information."
|
When should we use "these ones" vs "those ones"? When we are talking about things we can say " these ones" or those ones". What is the difference in fact? For example if I want to point with a index finger on two things, should I say "those ones" or "these ones", the same question about a case in which I am talking in front of students as a lecturer and I want to say that "those/these who want to get more marks should know a bonus chapter in the book". <Q> We mainly use <S> these to talk about something closer, and those to talk about something that is further away. <S> We can use this but not <S> these to introduce people, or to introduce your self on the phone, or to talk about things happening now: <S> Hello, this is Jane <S> Everything is so expensive these days <S> and you can use that or those to refer to something that happened in the past. <S> Things were simpler in those days We can also use these to be emphatic about something. <S> No, <S> these are the ones I want and those to talk about something that is unimportant: <S> Leave those , we can deal with them tomorrow or even to be dismissive about something: <S> I did not have sex with that woman Bill Clinton, 1998 <A> Partial answer. <S> According to Merriam-Webster , these is the plural form of this , and those is the plural form of that . <S> this <S> 1 <S> a (1) : the person, thing, or idea that is present or near in place, time, or thought or that has just been mentioned that 2 a : the one farther away or less immediately under observation or discussion <S> So those ones refers to things away from you; these ones refers to things close to you. <S> Let's suppose ones are apples , and there are some apples next to you, and there are some apples away from you. <S> You point to the apples close to you and say <S> I like these apples. <S> You point to the apples away from you and say <S> I do not like those apples. <S> Next, it should be <S> Those / these who want to get more marks should know a bonus chapter in the book <S> I cannot explain why. <S> I think it is because the students are sitting away from you, or that you are referring to people away from you. <S> If you had a cage full of students and you were standing next to the cage and you point to the students in the cage, it might make sense to say these who want to get more marks should know a bonus chapter in the book <S> But I admit, this sounds very strange. <A> Roughly, if you can touch the things or persons with your finger, even if you have to stretch to touch them, you use this and these , otherwise you use that and those . <S> Note that these ones and those ones are used by many who speak British English, Canadian English & Australian English, but not American English. <S> In AmE we say these or those . <S> For this, see Mailbag Friday: <S> These ones and Canadian TV.
| These and those are the plurals of this and that.
|
Can I use 'his this' in a sentence? He is in danger.Tie this ribbon to his this hand for his safety. Is it correct? <Q> Edit <S> I believe it is grammatical, <S> It might not be grammatical. <S> According to Jasper, it isn't. <S> The sentence sounds like something a child might say. <S> A child might not remember left from right, so would refer to it as his "this" hand. <S> It's also possible that you are pointing to your own hand and calling it "this" hand. <S> But it really needs more context to be understood that way. <S> I would recommend a different adjective, like his "right hand" or his "left hand". <A> Zero or one determiners can be used with a noun like "hand". <S> As probablyme suggests, adjectives can be used to describe other aspects of the noun. <A> I've never heard of his this hand being grammatical. <S> But this his hand or that my answer are "marginally" grammatical in today's English, being fully grammatical 400 years ago in early modern English–and possibly more recent than that. <S> I wouldn't recommend it for a test of English, but you could get by with it in other contexts. <S> Example from <S> The life of Benjamin Franklin (1835): <S> Encouraged by such good success of this his first adventure, he wrote on, and sent to the press, in the same sly way, several other pieces... <A> .....his this hand. <S> The sentence is incorrect grammatically. <S> You can't put a determiner between a possessive determiner and a noun. <S> Instead, you can use the following structure: Determiner + noun + of possessive. <S> For example, Did you see this car of Peter's? <S> So you can say: Tie this ribbon to this hand of his for his safety. <S> But the use of 'his right hand/left hand' is more appropriate. .
| No, it is not grammatically correct. As used in the original poster's example, "his" and "this" are both determiners, with conflicting meanings.
|
Opened vials must not be used in other patients - or "for other patients" From a package insert (solution for injections) Previously opened vials must not be used in other patients. Is it okay? Or should it be Previously opened vials must not be used for other patients. <Q> I would expect with to be most common here. <S> In, on, or for would also be idiomatic. <S> They would be standard alternatives, but probably not the first choice. <A> So you wouldn't use on . <S> If you were to speak of other vials, and those vials were to be used used inside of a person, like inside of their mouth, ear, or other orifice, then in is ok. <S> Using for seems fine. <S> It sounds like you are doing it on behalf of the patient though. <S> I would recommend on other patients, if the vial is being used physically upon the patients. <S> Or with other patients, if the vial is being used near the patient or with samples from the patient in order to prevent contamination. <A> The first example seems... icky. <S> anyway - but it rips away the medical veil for the squeamish: <S> "Hey yeah, that really does go inside us! <S> Ewww..." <S> As the others have said, "for", "with" or "on" all maintain that veil.
| Since the purpose of these vials are to be used for injections, then these vials would not be used inside of a person. It's literally correct - for at least the contents of the vials
|
Why is "rapid decrease in blood pressure" used more often than "rapid decline in blood pressure"? There's only a smattering of google-hits for "rapid decline in blood pressure", and significantly more for "rapid decrease in blood pressure". Is there anything about the nouns 'decline' and 'decrease' that makes the latter preferable, or is it just a coincidence? <Q> Decline and decrease <S> both mean to move down in amount , but decline can also mean to grow weaker or less desirable. <S> For example, a city where businesses are closing and jobs are disappearing can be said to be "in decline" or "declining." <S> But never "decreasing" unless you specifically say something like "The city's jobs are decreasing." <S> So decline can have a more negative connotation than decrease . <S> and thus decrease tends to be the more "scientific" or emotionally neutral term. <S> Telling a patient their blood pressure is "declining" might make them think it will never get back to normal level. <A> I feel that it's more the level excitement and who is actually speaking. <S> When you say the words "rapid decrease" it sounds more excited with the way the word is pronounced. <S> But either works and some people may feel better saying decline than decrease. <A> Numeric measurements usually increase and decrease. <S> Words like advance and decline are more situational (Ex: <S> The decline and fall of the Roman Empire, a decline in one's health). <S> If you check the definitions of decline <S> I think you can see this. <S> Kudos to user3169
| When you say "decline" it make the speaker feel like there is a declining slope.
|
What is the difference between happy and cheerful in this quote: I am cheerful. I don't know if I'm happy.? What is the difference between happy and cheerful in this quote? I thought they was the same. I am cheerful. I don't know if I'm happy. There is a difference, you know. Tom Robbins http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/tomrobbins584246.html <Q> The definitions can be confusing since it would lead one to believe that to being happy is a condition of being cheerful. <S> Robbins is referring to "happy" as a general contented state of being. <S> We all know the feeling when things are going our way, the sun is to our back, and everything is going smoothly and well. <S> The definition of "cheerful" is a noticeable display of happiness. <S> It is possible to be cheery on the outside, having a facade, while being sad on the inside, thereby not showing ones true emotions. <S> This is what Robbins is referring to. <A> I like to think of it as the difference between "weather" and "climate". <S> Weather is what's going on right now. <S> Being "cheerful" means that, right now, you're upbeat and feeling good. <S> - Like if the weather is sunny. <S> Climate is what the overall weather is like for a region. <S> While it may be sunny today, if the general climate is for cold, damp weather, the sunny day is unusual. <S> Same with being happy. <S> In this case, he's using happy to mean that he's not sure he's generally happy with his life <S> but, for the time being, he's cheerful. <A> Be cheerful no matter what happens...
| Being "cheerful" is a state of not being angry mainly characterised by have outward displays of being happy, particularly having a smile.
|
How to improve reading/writing skills when spoken English is good? My friend's spoken (speak/listen) English is very good, almost as a native English speaker. However, she finds it very hard to read English (to the extent of taking 2-3 seconds to read simple words), as well as write it (having a hard time choosing the right vowel, even with everyday words). What would be a good way to improve reading/writing skills? <Q> My suggestions here are based on experience as an educator; I'm not a teacher of English. <S> We are trying to help build associations between heard/spoken words and words on a page. <S> This is made more difficult by the irregularity of English, we cannot always predict how to pronounce a word from its spelling. <S> Consider Loughborough : <S> the ough has two different pronunciations in the same word! <S> Despite being a native English speaker I learned to read many words never having heard them pronounced, and hence as a child would mispronounce them. <S> In the end all such learning, the building of associations, will come with structured practice. <S> Time and focused effort will be needed. <S> I would hope somewhere that there are good online courses for this <S> but I'm afraid I don't know of any specific instances. <S> Listen to the audio book and read the page at the same time. <S> Then attempt to read the page outloud yourself. <S> I think you will find that this is relatively painless way to practice reading. <S> Writing <S> I think will be more difficult, I certainly found this when attempting to learn French and Spanish. <S> English has so many words that are pronounced the same but spelled differently (their, there) that even native English speakers struggle. <S> Again though, using recorded may be helpful. <S> Listen to a short passage. <S> Attempt to write it down. <S> Compare with the text. <S> I often want to prepare a lyric sheet for a song I'm trying to learn. <S> I put on a track, listen to a line or two, then type it, refer back to the track again. <S> Your friend could do this, but for songs that have a reference text online. <S> You may need to be selective about this, literate song-writers who do not use too much slang may be best. <S> (Examples: Al Stewart, Reg Meuross, Paul Simon). <S> Even then, some additional work will be needed to focus on the homonyms; prepare lists of commonly used word variants. <S> (tea, tee; their, there, they're; its, it's) and work to rote learn them. <A> My guess is that the problem is not being able to covert written letters/syllables into audible equivalents. <S> For example, if you read "th", it makes a th sound. <S> If listening to such sound is fine, then reading it should be OK. <S> First you should make sure that some condition such as dyslexia is not causing the problem. <S> Beyond that, I would look into Phonics . <S> Start with very easy readers, that you can commonly find in used book stores. <S> For example, in the first grade we started with the Dick and Jane books, which start out with very simple words and sentences and build from there. <S> Such series of books have been carefully thought out and used in schools for decades. <S> And give it time. <S> Even for small children it takes years, and as adults there are many distractions including conficts with one's native language. <A> I would recommend a book called 'Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons'. <S> I used it to teach reading to my 2 sons and helped a middle-aged woman become literate with the very same book.
| However one idea that occurs to me to help with reading: get audio books and the physical book.
|
What is called in English the list with the marks that you get from the university? What is called in English the paper with the list of marks of the subjects exams, that students get from the university in the end of the year?I have friend from Nigeria and he called it "transcription". But when I told it to other friends who are native English speakers they didn't understand what I am talking about. <Q> Although, I honestly have never received a "paper" with my college grades. <S> Usually, if you are dealing with institutions like school or jobs, you will have to ask for an "official transcript". <S> This is usually a sealed hard copy to prevent tampering. <S> But nowadays, everything is electronic, so I don't think students usually handle a transcript themselves. <S> The school or some online services will handle the official transcript for you. <S> If you are allowed to view your transcript online and print a copy yourself, that copy is usually referred to as an "unofficial transcript". <S> In high school, or earlier, I remember receiving a paper. <S> This was called a report card . <S> There was also an official transcript, but that too was handled by the administration. <S> You could also ask for an unofficial copy or an official copy. <A> in India we get paper with subject and marks at every end of semester(every 6 month.) <S> that's called marksheet.and at the end of graduation we get certificate showing overall performance in CGPA(Cumulative Grade Point Average).it is called degree certificate. <A> In the US, children 18 and younger receive "report cards" or "progress reports" detailing their grades about four times a year. <S> In college, you have a "transcript. <S> " <S> This keeps track of every grade you have ever received since starting college. <S> Also, if you are applying to jobs after college, internships, or applying to another university, then the employer will likely want to see your official transcript - the transcript that is sent directly to them from the university so that you cannot fabricate better grades.
| You are talking about a transcript .
|
What is the meaning of "Put a bullet in something"? I have seen this sentence in a chat between people and I guess when they said "put a bullet" they have used it idiomatically. I am not sure about the meaning though. A : The process is over timingB: Putting a bullet in it. Restarting Any help would be much appreciated. <Q> In this case, it means to terminate the "process", to stop it. <A> put a bullet in something <S> can mean to end or stop something and also to put something out of its misery at a bar, it can mean to add some Bulliet bourbon (pronounced the same as bullet) <S> (source: reservebar.com ) <A> While we are giving examples, <S> this is my favorite: <S> There was this kid <S> I grew up with; he was younger than me. <S> Sorta looked up to me, you know. <S> We did our first work together, worked our way out of the street. <S> Things were good, we made the most of it. <S> During Prohibition, we ran molasses into Canada. <S> Made a fortune. <S> As much as anyone, I loved him and trusted him. <S> Later on, he had an idea to build a city out of a desert stop-over for GI's on the way to the West Coast. <S> The city he invented was Las Vegas. <S> This was a great man, a man of vision and guts. <S> And there isn't even a plaque, or a signpost or a statue of him in that town! <S> Someone put a bullet through his eye. <S> — <S> The Godfather, Part 2 <A> As an addition to the other answers, a nice usage example, in a famous poem titled Richard Cory : <S> Whenever Richard Cory went down town, <S> We people on the pavement looked at him: He was a gentleman from sole to crown, Clean favored, and imperially slim. <S> And he was always quietly arrayed, <S> And he was always human when he talked; <S> But still he fluttered pulses when he said, <S> "Good-morning," and he glittered when he walked. <S> And he was rich – <S> yes, richer than a king – <S> And admirably schooled in every grace: <S> In fine, we thought that he was everything To make us wish that we were in his place. <S> So on we worked, and waited for the light, And went without the meat, and cursed the bread; <S> And Richard Cory, one calm summer night, Went home and put a bullet through his head. <S> The phrase is used literally here, of course, but it's a nice poem. <S> This use of "put" might be not very intuitive for a novice learner. <S> In Russian, we don't "put" a bullet, but "release" or "fire" a bullet. " <S> With "through", it's easier to understand.
| "To put a bullet" in something or someone can mean to kill the person, or end the thing. Put a bullet into something" would imply (to a speaker of Russian) that we gently placed it there.
|
Difference between "special equipment" and "specialized equipment" My translation of a text by a pipe-producing plant: Bevel angle inspection Inspection of this type is carried out as specified in the regulatory documentation using a bevel protractor or a gauge. Pipe length inspection Inspection of this type is carried out using rulers, tape measure tools or automatically using special (or specialized ?) equipment fitted with incremental sensors. The general meaning in the original text is "some equipment that was designed for measuring pipes". The phrase was chosen in order not to overload the production catalogue by naming the specific equipment. Would both "special" and "specialized" have the same meaning here? I googled and found many examples for "using special equipment" and "using specialized equipment", as well as for "use of special equipment" and "use of specialized equipment". There does not seem to be much difference. Maybe "specialized" might indicate a more restricted specialization relative to "special", or that the equipment was modified for some particular purpose. <Q> The adjective special is used in a wider sense than the adjective specialised. <S> The former is chiefly used to convey the sense of not being ordinary, normal, or usual. <S> In other words, it means exceptional, extraordinary, or unusual. <S> Sometimes, it's used to mean designed or developed for a particular purpose, function, or activity, and this is usually the sense in which the latter (specialised) is used. <S> We can say either special or specialised equipment to convey the sense of being developed or designed for a specific purpose, but the use of specialised is more appropriate as the use of special is too unclear and ambiguous to convey the sense in which the adjective specialised is used. <A> special equipment only means it is not equipment normally used. <S> It says nothing about the purpose of using the equipment. <S> specialized equipment indicates that the purpose of the equipment is focused on a particular application. <S> See specialized : Designed for a specific purpose or use: a specialized computer application . <A> I could have a screw driver that can by some clever design unscrew all kinds of screws. <S> Most screw drivers can't do that, so it would be a special screw driver. <S> I could have another screw driver that can only unscrew one specific rare kind of screw. <S> That would be a specialised screw driver. <A> Specialized equipment is naturally for a particullar purpose and the equipment is designed or made with a particular area of knowledge; whereas, special equipment is designed to a particular purpose and might be a common equipment. <S> For example, a special event, message means the event or message is just used for a particular person; whereas, specialized event or message means the event or message is made professionally
| Using special is far more general in scope, basically just saying it is unusual or not often used.
|
"You're done doing that" vs "you've done that" Give me a call when you're done doing that . Give me a call when you've done that . What's difference between the two meaning wise? Are they both grammatically correct? Do they both imply "Call me after you've finished doing that"? <Q> Paint this picket fence, and let me know when you're done doing it, <S> and I'll give you another chore to keep you out of trouble. <S> Turn off the lights, and when you've done that, go to bed. <A> Lets look at it without the contractions for clarity. <S> "Call when you have done that," is meant as a step in instructions. <S> It is presumed that there is no discernible gap in time from task completion until the call. <S> "Call when you are done doing that" means you don't need to call before you are done, but you can do something else between the task and the call as long as the call occurs after the task. <S> The first would likely be used by a supervisor or trainer; the second, by a friend to coordinate schedules. <A> " Done doing " implies that your engagement in the task is done without implying that the task itself is complete. <S> If shoveling the snow is a 3 day job, your wife might say "when you are done doing that, come in and get some hot chocolate. <S> " <S> She doesn't mean you need to stay out there for 3 days, but rather, when you are done doing it [for now], you should get some hot chocolate. <S> " Have done " implies that the task is complete. <S> Once you have done the shoveling, we also need to salt the sidewalk. <S> ("Done doing" can also imply expected failure. <S> You tell your wife that you're going to fix the sink. <S> She might say "well when you're done doing that, I'll call the plumber. <S> " You didn't get the task done, but you're done doing it -- you've given up.)
| done doing refers to the task or action as one that will have taken a not inconsiderable amount of time to complete have done refers to the completion of the action or task without reference to the amount time it will have taken, either because the task by its nature takes very little time, or because the speaker is not interested in the amount of time it will take.
|
Sorry, I didn't recognize "you", or "your voice"? Someone calls you on the phone, but you don't know who they are. The conversation goes like: Caller: "GIBBERISH... GIBBERISH... GIBBERISH..." You: "Um.. Who am I speaking with, please?" Caller: "It's ThisGuyWhoseVoiceYouShouldHaveRecognized..." Should your response be: "Oh, hi! Sorry, I didn't recognize YOU." Or "Oh, hi! Sorry I didn't recognize YOUR VOICE." Could the former be used in a phone conversation at all? Does it not sound like that you don't recognize them/they're importance/their existence? Please also let me know if you'd go with an alternative phrase to begin with, and if you could give two examples, one polite/formal and one for casual situations. <Q> Oh, hi! <S> Sorry, I didn't recognize you . <S> Yes, I think this can be used in a phone conversation for the simple fact that it is understandable. <S> I don't believe it suggests that you did not recognize that person's "importance" or "existence". <S> Actually, 1. might be fitting if you are very close or intimate with the speaker. <S> Oh, hi! <S> Sorry <S> I didn't recognize your voice . <S> This seems preferable over 1. <S> since it is clear that you are talking about the person's voice . <S> Some casual alternatives are: Sorry about that! <S> Sorry, I didn't realize it was you! <S> I feel like I used 2. <S> regularly. <S> As for formal/polite, I would just change "sorry" to "my apologies" or "pardon me" in 2. <S> Maybe even something like <S> Pardon me. <S> I did not realize/recognize with whom I was speaking. <A> Normally, "I didn't recognize you" means that you didn't recognize the person visually <S> -- you didn't recognize their face or however you might tell it was them on sight. <S> If someone called me on the phone <S> and I couldn't tell who it was, I would most likely say, "I'm sorry, I don't recognize your voice. <S> " <S> But if in that context you simply said, "I don't recognize you", presumably they would understand this to mean that you didn't recognize their voice, as you have nothing else to recognize them by. <S> I don't think most fluent speakers would say that, but there's no reason for it to be unclear. <A> Usage of "didn't" in both forms of the sentence notably implies that till that moment in time (of you saying so), you did not recognise the person or the voice, but now you DO. <S> There is nothing wrong with using the "you" or "your voice" as it simply means what it sounds - the former meaning you "didn't" recognize the person altogether and the latter meaning you "didn't" recognize just their voice. <S> On the other hand, I think you meant to use "don't" instead. <S> And then (after changing both your sentences to use "don't"), there is a difference in politeness with using " you " sounding intently much harsher than saying "your voice".
| "I didn't recognize your voice" of course means that you did not recognize them based on the sound of their speech.
|
Except for me / except on me / except me I was using panaroma to take a picture and it worked except my face was little distorted. Is it grammatically correct to say "Panaroma worked except for my face" Or should it be "Panaroma worked except on my face" Or "Panaroma worked except my face" It'll be really helpful if you could explain to me why which one is right or not. Thanks! <Q> When you use work in the sense be effective or successful , is intransitive, so you need a preposition- <S> in this case for - to provide additional information about what worked. <S> There are two options: <S> Panaroma worked except for my face <S> Panaroma worked for everything except my face <S> The on option is not ok because that would be talking about the surface of something- <S> you could use it, for example, for a medical cream: <S> The cream worked except on my face <S> The third option is not OK because there is no preposition. <A> 1st and 2nd both sentences grammatically correct <S> But 1st one is more appropriate in this case ,You can use 2nd statement when you are talking about some thing which you used physically. <S> For example you used any cream.it worked for your body but it don't give any result on your face <S> then you can say "this cream worked except on my face". <S> 3rd statement grammatically not correct as Conjunction is missing there. <A> You need a preposition before "me". <S> Otherwise "me" would be the direct object of "worked", but "worked" does not take a direct object when used with this sense. <S> A direct object is the thing that the verb acts on directly. <S> Like, "I read the book. <S> " The book is the thing that I read. <S> But in this case, "worked" means "operated successfully". <S> Panorama didn't work your face -- I'm not sure what that would mean. <S> If you said, "Panorama distorted my face" <S> you wouldn't need a preposition, because your face is the thing that was distorted, the thing directly acted on. <S> As to which preposition ... both "for" and "on" work here. <S> I have to disagree with other posters who say that "on" is doesn't work. <S> We routinely say that something "worked on X but not on Y", meaning that it operated successfully in regards to X but not to Y. Which preposition to use in English is often tricky.
| There is no thing that is worked.
|
A meeting of an administrative body far from its usual meeting place (headquarters etc.) Native Russian translators have trouble translating one stock phrase which means "a meeting of an administrative body (Parliament, State Council, etc.) conducted not at the body's usual location". Say, some Council members travel to the Orenburg Region and the President travels to the same location, and there they hold a meeting. The Russian journalistic stock phrase for this is "выездное заседание". Vyezdnoe is an adjective derived from the verb "vyezshat" = "to depart from somewhere". Zasedanie is meeting. Here's how it is translated on the Russian Presidential website: Vladimir Putin chaired a visiting meeting of the State Council's presidium Yet on another page a similar meeting is translated thus: The NATO-Russia Council’s permanent representatives will hold an away meeting on July 4 Both translations do not seem very idiomatic to me, but I'm not a native speaker of English. How would a native speaker describe such a meeting? There is an old discussion of the phrase on a translators' forum . I was translating a news report today and picked one option mentioned in that thread, "out-of-headquarters session". When a news mentions a particular factory, say, one clearly can choose "on-site meeting", but in my short report, there was no mention of the place of meeting at all. This is sometimes a key hurdle when translating "выездное заседание". Maybe it is prudent in some cases just to drop the phrase, since it is clear that the State Council is not based in the Orenburg Region and that NATO representatives do not usually conduct their meetings in the Black Sea resort city of Sochi - this is not their standard meeting place. But when there is no mention of the meeting place, and the phrase is used merely to indicate that the President and some Parliament members met not in the "default" meeting place, it is not so easy. P.S. An expression occured to me: "a meeting in departure " - like "a trial in absentia ". I know that there is no such expression in English but if it existed it would have been somewhat similar to the Russian original. <Q> In AmE, we use off-site or offsite to describe a meeting held away from our normal working spaces/office, but we often use it as a noun, not an adjective. <S> For example, "I won't be able to have lunch with you on Wednesday - <S> our team is having an offsite." <S> An off-site meeting isn't wrong though, especially in a more formal context (like a news story). <S> When used as an adjective, it can be applied to any activity - off-site development, off-site construction , et. <S> al. <S> In connection with a meeting, it has a connotation of purposefully choosing not to meet in your typical environment because you either don't want to be distracted from your purpose by mundane work or the meeting is special in some way. <S> There are even businesses that are set up to host off-site meetings, like this one named OFFSITE in New York City . <A> When it visits more than one place away from its base. <S> A peripatetic Council meeting <S> A remote Council meeting <S> A provincial meeting of the Council <S> A regional meeting of the council As well as the previously mentioned "off-site" meeting. <A> If the purpose is to be able to conduct a meeting more efficiently by getting away from the distractions of the office, I'd agree with ColleenV's suggestion "off-site meeting". <S> Meetings held in deliberately remote locations to get away from the distractions of the office and the city are sometimes called "retreats". <S> Like, "Our marketing department is going on a retreat." <S> Usually these involve some kind of "special" meetings, i.e. not conducting normal business, but discussing some big new policy change, educating the employees on some new techniques or procedures, etc. <S> If the point is that the people of the destination location will be invited to attend the meeting -- whether as participants or just to observe -- it's usually called a "public meeting" or an "open meeting", and then you give some indication of where. <S> Like, "The City Council will be holding a public meeting at the Elm Street Library." <S> If the point is to meet with some specific group at the destination location, then we typically just say "at" wherever and/or "with" whomever. <S> Like, "The City Council will meet with the Firefighters Union at Foobar Hall. <S> " There's no real name for that kind of meeting, the fact that you say who they're meeting with expresses the idea. <A> This is in response to a question about off-site as a noun vs an adjective. <S> Also some more off-site variant data. <A> I'm not sure if "visitatorial" (or "visitorial" ) may be regarded as the best alternative to how "выездное" was translated on the Russian Presidential <S> website"(visiting <S> = paying a visit), but the exact meaning of the two I'm suggesting is "of or relating to an official visitor or visit". <S> Besides, they do not have the connotation mentioned in ColleenV's answer. <S> "Vladimir Putin chaired a visitatorial (or visitorial) <S> meeting" doesn't sound unnatural or strange to me, and this is how I would translate "Владимир <S> Путин председательствовал на выездном заседании" . <S> A native Russian speaker's opinion, though; maybe an English-speaking translator from Russian could think of better determiners. <S> I couldn't so far, but am still trying. <A> This sort of meeting is often described as extramural . <S> From the Latin for outside the walls , an extramural meeting is one that is held away from the usual place. <S> This adjective is also frequently used for educational activies that take place off the campus of the institution.
| Some further suggestions: A traveling Council meeting It seems that using off-site as an adjective is the most common construction.
|
interpreting present participle in the sentence I'm so confused with this example. they saw the monkey climbing over the fence. First I interpreted this like number 1 below and then,that sentence came to me differently later like number 2. 1.They saw the monkey and it was climbing over the fence somewhere. 2.They were climbing over the fence in front of them while they saw a monkey somewhere. Which interpretation is right? and how can I cope with such an ambiguousness? <Q> I understood it as your 1. <S> I think I found an explanation here . <S> After verbs of perception (see, watch, hear, listen, feel, smell, notice, observe etc.) <S> , the present participle expresses an action that continues over a period of time, regardless of whether we perceive the whole action or only part of it: <S> I felt the ground shaking for about half a minute. <S> (I felt that the ground was shaking.) <S> I saw the burglar climbing over the fence. <S> (I saw it as the burglar was climbing over the fence.) <S> I heard my brother singing in the bathroom. <S> (I heard my brother as he was singing in the bathroom.) <S> If we want to emphasise that the action is completed, we use the bare infinitive: <S> I felt the ground shake once. <S> (I felt it as the ground shook once.) <A> Thus, the first interpretation is correct. <S> The monkey was climbing <S> In order to express the second variant you should say: Climbing over the fence, they saw a monkey . <A> The first interpretation is right. <S> The monkey was climbing over the fence and they saw it. <S> For your second interpretation this would be put as:they saw the monkey while climbing over the fence.
| There's no ambiguity in this construction ( object+ present participle ), because the participle here stands after the noun, which it denotes (reduced relative clause ).
|
"I would think" vs "I would have thought" What's the difference in meaning between these two sentence "I would have thought Tom was the best expert in this stackoverflow.com" I would think Tom is the best expert in this stackoverflow.com." I've been told that I would think/expect/say/imagine/ etc are used for: tentativeness or creating distance from what we say For politeness or to be indirect Giving opinion with softness . . . . Or mixture of them. Now, I'm still confused in the use of I would have+p.p which is said to be used for "disagreeing with someone or giving opinion." I would think that giving opinion is itself contradicting or disagreeing with someone. So, I still could say that "I would think" and "I would have thought" give the same meanings. I have been told that "I would have thought" refers to both past and present. That's why, I'm puzzled between its meanings whether to use it for contradicting or for giving opinion? On the other hand, this phrase also seems like conditional ( If he had told me ,I would have thought about it ) but the if clause left out. But it doesn't give such meanings either. So it's useless to say that this phrase is conditional. what would Am i right? As I said before,I have been told that it's used for both "disagreeing with someone and giving the opinion" . It suggests that this phrase is an idiom (as it doesn't give its literal meaning) and works both for contradicting and giving an opinion. Is "I would have thought"** is the same as **"I had thought before" ? Does it mean that "i would have thought" is used for both giving openion and disagreeing with someone politely or without being direct ? As I've learned that "I would think" is used for giving openion ,politeness , showing uncertainty,softening etc"I would have thought" should also share the same characteristics as It's only past version of "I would think". Example:A: She died of a broken heart.B: Really? I would have thought that she died from an overdose of drugs. 'B' could also use "I would think" to show his opinion but why did he use "I would have thought' ? He could also use "I thought" to show his opinion but He didn't use it why? I think that 'B' made that statement ( Really! I would have thought she died from an overdose of drugs ) for clearification of the A 's statement.Is it just like the following example? A.Do you know , Mt Everest is located in India.B.Really! I would have thought it's in Nepal. or A.Buddha was born in china.B. But I would have thought he was born in Nepal. further querries : Is the phrase "I would have thought" means "I think" with more polite deference, more indirect and with more than necessary words ( "I think" is enough to convey the same meaning but "i would have thought" includes unnecessary words: 'would have') As you said this phrase is used for both purpose in past and present time reference ,depending on the condition: 1.for diagreeing with someone politely 2.for expressing an earlier opinion politely( the opinion which was in the past and but no longer exist) ( Note :I had asked a similar question but It wasn't about the difference between this two phrase ) <Q> Tom is the best expert ... <S> Assertion of a fact. <S> Where there are agreed criteria <S> then there's no need to hedge an statement. <S> Djokavic is the current number one male tennis player in the world <S> When criteria are less certain, or we ourselves are not sure of our facts, or we wish to be modest by appearing to be uncertain of our facts we may use <S> I think <S> I think Djokavic is the best male tennis played of all time <S> I think that the population of the UK is 50 million (actually 65 million) <S> This formulation implies that we are open to correction and discussion <S> Adding would softens this further, emphasises that we are uncertain <S> I would think that the population of the UK is greater than 50 million <S> The I would have thought formulation is normally used in a context where some information has recently been given. <S> Depending upon the context it may imply that we are actually contradicting the information, or that we are expressing surprised acceptance. <S> I think Tendulakar is the best batsman of all time I would have thought Bradman had a better record that was disagreeing, suggesting that by some criteria Bradman is better The current UK population is 65 million <S> Oh, I would have thought it was only 50 million <S> but now I've changed my opinion (this implied but not said) <S> that was agreeing <S> , I thought it was 50 million, but I accept your statement of 60 million is correct. <S> We could just say Oh, I thought it was only 50 million With pretty much the same meaning, the slight difference being that the second case implies it was actively in my mind, whereas the would form could imply that I hadn't really formed a solid opinion until now, but I would probably have guessed 50 million. <S> As your comment indicates we are indeed into shades of meaning and idioms. <S> In these cases the tone of voice will often differentiate the meaning. <S> I would have thought Bradman had a better record <S> Would probably said with a questioning or challenging tone and raised eyebrow. <A> As a native English speaker, I interpret the difference being related to tenses and not necessarily to indicate agreement/disagreement. <S> When using the phrase, "I would have thought" it is typically when reflecting on or considering an action that has already happened - perhaps by somebody else. <S> Examples of each: <S> "I would have thought that with the information available, a different decision would have been made (in the past). <S> " <S> "I would have thought the same as you if under the same circumstances." <S> "I would think that when I have the information (in the future), it will lead to this decision." <S> "I would think that you or I will have the strength to defend our position if under attack." <A> Both the sentences you quote at the start of your question are essentially saying, in my opinion,something is such and such. <S> They could read: 1)In my opinion <S> Tom is the best expert in this stackoverflow.com; 2) <S> In my opinion <S> Tom [is] the best expert in this stackoverflow.com. ' <S> However, instead of saying "I would have thought Tom the best expert in this stackoverflow.com",say instead, "I would have thought Tom was the expert in stackoverflow.com"; and instead of "I would think Tom the best expert in this stackoverflow.com. <S> ", say, " I think Tom is the expert of stackoverflow.com.
| I would have thought' and 'I would think' are polite forms of 'in my opinion' and both can be used according to the circumstances. When using the phrase "I would think", it is typically referring to a hypothetical decision/conclusion which might be made in the future situation - perhaps by yourself.
|
What does "this will date me" mean? What does the phrase "this will date me" mean? I searched for it here on "English Language Learners" and on Google but I could not find the meaning. <Q> The phrase "this will date me" is often used when referring to something that you would/could only know about if you are old. <S> "This" is referring to whatever example or topic you are about to say. <S> It's almost always used before referencing some kind of outdated technology, method, or historical event. <S> See definitions 16 and 17 here . <S> "Date" (verb): to ascertain or fix the period or point in time of; assign a period or point in time to "Date" (verb): to show the age of; show to be old-fashioned <S> For example, if you are going to talk about how to play music, you might say, "This will date me, but we used to have to place a needle on the physical record. <S> Now you can just tap your phone and music will play." <S> It's like a kind of joke about your own age. <S> It's equivalent to saying "this will show how old I am". <S> It plays off of the idea that people, in general, like to appear young or youthful. <S> The phrase is sort of "admitting" that you are old before outright giving it away by the example you are going to use. <S> When talking about the "undo" feature on a computer, "This will date me, but when I was using a typewriter I had to be very careful about making mistakes." <A> <A> It's just like when you are inspecting an antique to work out its authenticity. <S> Imagine you are presented with a silver spoon of unknown age. <S> Well, in England, silver spoons have a makers mark called a 'hallmark'. <S> The word hallmark is used to describe the defining characteristic of something. <S> Cristiano Ronaldo's hallmark is his super free kicks, speed and skill. <S> A hallmark on a silver spoon will have a number of symbols. <S> One of the symbols identifies the marker. <S> One identifies the date. <S> When we say "this phrase will date me", it means, that what is being said can identify the persons provenance. <S> Quite like when you want to work out whether the painting you are buying is an original, you seek to establish it's provenance, and you would do this by 'dating' the art. <S> Work out how old it is...
| Another way to phrase it would be, "My knowledge of this may indicate my age."
|
What do we call a person from a certain country? Do we call a person from China "a Chinese"? For example, can I say: I have a friend, he is a Chinese? <Q> He is a Chinese is okay, just like <S> She is a Portuguese <S> is okay. <S> But probably most native English speakers prefer to say <S> He's Chinese and <S> She's Portuguese . <S> See <S> the Wikitionary usage note about a Chinese : <S> As with all nouns formed from -ese , the countable singular form ("I am a Chinese") is uncommon and often taken as incorrect, although it is rather frequent in East Asia as a translation for the demonyms written 中国人 in Chinese characters or Japanese kanji. <A> The word Chinese is both an adjective and a noun. <S> Someone who is from China is a Chinese (noun) or is Chinese (adjective). <S> However, it's more common to use Chinese as an adjective <S> i.e. he is Chinese. <A> He is a Chinese (person) although the first gets used more often. <S> More formally, the Immigration authorities might say He is a Chinese national. <S> he has a Chinese passport <S> if he was the only Chinese in your school, you might say He is the Chinese at our school.
| To describe your friend from China, you would say He is Chinese.
|
Regretful "for" or "of" Would it be correct to use "regretful" with "for" or "of" "I'm grateful for my present but regretful 'of' my past" Is the "of" correct in context or it should be "for" <Q> "She was regretful of having caused a scene." <S> Before a noun, "of" would be the only correct choice: "They were regretful of the decision to unplug the server before checking that the backup had completed." <S> That said, I have almost never heard it used! <S> I always hear regret used as a verb instead, as in "I am grateful for my present situation but regret a lot about my past." <A> I think of is more correct. <S> Never afraid of what the future holds, never regretful of the present. <S> That's who we are! <S> The Dai-Gurren Brigade! <S> (Gurren Lagann, Episode 26, 2007) <A> The adjective regretful (feeling regret for something done or undone) may be followed by prepositions about, for, of and over . <S> Here are the examples: If you decide to leave him, you'll be regretful about the decision for the rest of your life Be grateful for what you have, not regretful for what you haven't. <S> He is regretful of his misdeeds. <S> Some day, she will make him regretful over his unfair treatment. <S> Also, regretful is often followed by the conjunction <S> that : He was really regretful that he had said those words. <S> The frequency of the usage with lots of other examples may be seen here . <S> As for the example sentence, if I were to choose, it would be "regretful for ", which reads and sounds in accord with "grateful for".
| I think "of" sounds more natural but "for" is not strictly incorrect before a gerund (-ing form) verb: "He was regretful of passing up the opportunity."
|
Today with present perfect Is it possible or even acceptable to use the present perfect with today (in those cases when today refers to the present age)? Even native speakers seem to disagree!!For instance; today, companies have thrived on foreign investment. Thank you! <Q> Absolutely yes. <S> With literal "today": I haven't seen him today. <S> implies that I still might, whereas I didn't see him today. <S> implies that the possibility of seeing him is over - perhaps I was talking about at work today, but work has finished; or I know that he has been here and then left. <S> Similarly Companies have thrived on foreign investment. <S> means that I am thinking of this as a process which is continuing (more compaines will do so). <S> Sometimes a perfect and a non-perfect are both possible in talking about exactly the same factual situation , and express a difference in how the speaker is choosing in that moment to talk about the situation. <S> So if I say Companies thrived on foreign investment. <S> I am saying that for the purposes of the present discussion I am regarding that as an situation which is not relevant to the present. <S> That might mean that it is no longer happening. <S> But it might mean just that I am considering only a historical period, and it is not relevant to me right now whether it is continuing or not. <A> Though I am not a native speaker, I think the present perfect can be perfectly used with 'today' (the day hasn't come to an end yet and you relate the past to the present moment), as in I haven't seen Tom today. <S> It's been a hard day today. <S> However, I have heard <S> a few American friends say things like-I didn't eat anything today. <S> I didn't see Tom today. <S> (it was late and they saw the day as a completed event, like doing those things wouldn't be possible anymore). <S> I guess the present perfect could be slowly dying (AmE still prefers 'He just left' or 'I already ate'), <S> but it's a great verb tense that I don't have in my first language (Portuguese) <S> and I hope it never dies completely :) <A> Today, can have two meanings:It can mean / at present or at the present time / or / on this actual day /. <S> The present perfect should be understood from a point on the (verbal) timeline that the action of the sentence is occurring in the present "at the time of speaking": 1) <S> On this actual day: We have not seen him today. <S> [the day is not over and we haven't seen him yet <S> , we might still see him] 2) at the present (time): <S> Today (at the present time), companies have thrived on foreign investment . <S> That seems to me generate awkward meaning in English. <S> To be grammatical, it would have to be: Until now, companies have thrived on foreign investment. <S> However: the at present meaning could be used like this: Today companies have shown themselves to be flexible .Meaning: <S> At the present time companies have shown themselves to be flexible .
| If you use the present perfect you are asserting a present relevance of what you are saying - often the meaning of that present relevance is that the events are seen as part of a process or period that is still continuing.
|
Difference between star (verb) and starring Definition from the dictionary: star - (of a movie, play, or other show) have (someone) as a principal performer. Ok, sometimes I meet this word, used as follows: The movie stars Dustin Hoffman as an autistic man link but much more often I face this word, used like this: A film starring Liza Minnelli So what's the difference between this two words, when should I use each of them? <Q> They are different forms of the same verb "to star". <S> The verb "to star" has both transitive and intransitive uses. <S> In either case, the verb expects a semantic patient or theme -- something that is affected by the action of the verb. <S> In the active voice, the transitive use displays this theme as a direct object . <S> The intransitive use displays its theme as a subject . <S> This film stars Dustin Hoffman. <S> -- transitive Dustin Hoffman stars (in several films). -- intransitive Like any other verb, "to star" has several forms. <S> The -ing forms of this verb are no different than those of any other English verb. <S> "Starring" is the form used for gerunds and present participles. <S> Those are non-finite verb forms. <S> They do not create predicates. <S> This film stars Dustin Hoffman. <S> a film starring Dustin Hoffman One major difference between these two examples is that only the first is a complete sentence . <S> The second is nothing more than a noun phrase. <S> Of course, that noun phrase can be used in a sentence: <S> We watched a film starring Dustin Hoffman. <A> They are actually different versions of the same word. <S> Here are two example sentences using the verb "to star": Third-person present active indicative <S> The movie <S> The Martian stars Matt Damon. <S> Present active participle <S> The Martian starring Matt Damon <A> I am in Africa <S> and I was taught a verb represents an action. <S> Something you can do or demonstrate. <S> How do I do 'star'?. <S> How do I demonstrate it? <S> The fact that you had you add 'to' in front of your verb tells me that this is a fluid verb.
| "Stars" is the third-person present active indicative of the verb "to star." "Starring" is an present active participle of the same verb, and can often take a noun like the name of an actor when being used. There is no difference between the words, in the sense that they aren't different words.
|
Usage of 'quick' as adverb I heard the following dialog in a British English movie: Words go round quick . All the little tongues go clack, clack, clack. What does this mean, and why was the word "quick" used instead of "quickly"? <Q> quick can be both adjective and adverb. <S> In spoken language it may be used instead of quickly as an adverb mostly in exclamations or comparatives. <S> Come quick, <S> Larry's on TV <S> Quick! <S> there is a mouse <A> An adverb does not have to end in -ly and often such adverbs that do not are called ‘flat adverbs’ <S> (see Flat adverbs are flat-out useful ). <S> ‘Quick’ as an adverb has been used since 1300, per the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which includes usages of the flat adverb ‘quick’ from Shakespeare, Milton, Locke, Chesterfield, Dickens, Tennyson, and Sandburg. <S> Do it quick , Come quick , and your Words go round <S> quick are natural uses of quick as an adverb. <S> However, the OED also says that the use of quick as an adverb is usually considered less formal than quickly , and found chiefly in informal or colloquial contexts [my emphases]. <S> One might also add dialectal to that sentence, as its acceptance and/or usage in formal contexts <S> may depend on the dialect of the speaker. <A> I see quickly as the correct adverb; I would correct my children if they said: <S> He's running quick. <S> However quick is widely used as an adverb, and in some phrases seems to work better: a get rich quick scheme Do it, and do it real quick <S> Some dictionaries do include that quick may be used as an adverb. <S> President George W Bush <S> We want to get this bridge rebuilt as quick as possible. <S> This article has some interesting observations At to the meaning of the passage. <S> The idea is of information (and suspect in particular malicious gossip) being transmitted very quickly from person to person. <S> The individual tongues working very quickly like components of a machine. <S> This comes to mind: <S> A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on
| ‘Quick’ (without -ly) is an adverb, as well as an adjective.
|
What does "Nailed it" mean? I came across a few combinations of ' nailed it ' or ' nailed down ' in various contexts. According to the blog-posts, it seems to be widespread on the internet. However, I have never heard these expressions in the real life. Is "nailed it" a common expression?What does it mean? I appreciate every answer! <Q> I believe that you are referring to the idiomatic meanings. <S> nailed it to complete a task successfully or get something right Example. <S> A: <S> Oh, you didn't burn the cake this time. <S> B: <S> Yep, nailed it! <S> Nail down can have a similar meaning. <S> nail down : to make (something, such as a victory) certain to happen < They need to score another touchdown to nail down the victory. <S> > : to find out or identify (something) <S> exactly < Her doctors haven't yet been able to nail down a diagnosis. <S> > <S> < They're trying to nail down the cause of our network problems. <S> > : to make (something) definite or final < nail down a decision > <S> People do use these phrases in everyday life. <S> However, nailed it has become a popular way to signal sarcasm. <S> Here is one example. <S> You can read more at Know Your Meme: Nailed It . <A> This is a good question, because this figure of speech occurs quite often among English language speakers. <S> A "nail" in this context is a sharp, pointed metal object that you use to connect boards together, etc. <S> : <S> http://www.homedepot.com/p/Grip-Rite-11-1-2-x-2-3-8-in-8-Penny-Vinyl-Coated-Steel-Sinker-Nails-1-lb-Pack-8CTDSKR1/202308520 <S> "nailed it" means you got something exactly right, or did something perfectly. <S> You can think of someone trying to hammer a nail into a board. <S> They hit the nail so perfectly that the nail goes straight into the board very well. <S> If you scored 100% on an exam, you "nailed it". <S> It could also mean something bad: suppose you hit and crushed a mailbox with your car. <S> You "nailed" the mailbox. <S> For example, you could be uncertain how to reach a CEO of a large corporation. <S> If you somehow got their personal cellphone number, you "nailed down" how to reach them. <S> Also, suppose a person is trying to avoid answering a question. <S> If you "nail down" the person, you conversationally pin the person into a corner so they are forced to answer your question directly and properly. <S> Visually, you can think of a tent blowing in the wind. <S> You "nail down" the tent with spikes to keep it from blowing around or blowing away. <S> It's that idea. <S> Here are some expressions that illustrate the idea: "That football kick was awesome... <S> you nailed it!" <S> "The boxer nailed that guy in face and knocked him out with one punch." <S> "We really need to nail down our business plans for next year. <S> Right now we are just guessing at things." <S> "We need to nail Mark down as to whether he plans to buy the car or not. <S> Otherwise, we are going to sell it to someone else." <S> "The politician got nailed in a bribery investigation and is now going to jail." <S> "The drunk driver nailed three people on the sidewalk with his car. <S> They are all in the hospital." <S> "Somebody in our business is stealing. <S> We need to find a way to nail them." <A> This is the most common meaning: NAIL IT (verb) to do something perfectly or successfully <S> Example Sentences: Good luck on your performance today, Jimmy. <S> I hope you nail it! <S> Yes! <S> I nailed it! <S> Shouted the happy football player after the important goal. <A> If you nail something down , it means that you make a decision and finalise all the details about it. <S> We have had several meetings about that, but we finally nailed it down yesterday. <S> It is a term that is more often used by aggressive business people- salesmen and such like- than by ordinary people.
| To "nail down" something means to get a focused, finished answer to something. "got nailed" means you got hit by something or were caught doing something wrong.
|
Understanding of the question The question is - The risk of living near a volcano is more than offset by the benefits. To what extent is this true? If I agree with this statement, does it mean that I agree that there are more benefits than the risk in living near a volcano? <Q> The answer to your question is "Yes. <A> The poster probably just wants to know the meaning of A is more than offset by B <S> This simply means that the problem of A is smaller than the benefit of B . <S> For example: The cost of living in Tokyo is more than offset by the high average Tokyo salary . <A> There are two questions here: <S> What does the first sentence mean, and what is the correct response to the second sentence? <S> The risk(s) of living near a volcano are more than offset by the benefits. <S> (I corrected a typo - "risk" is singular, and "are more" is plural.) <S> To simplify this idea, we can split it up: <S> Living near a volcano has risks. <S> Living near a volcano also has benefits. <S> The benefits of living near a volcano offset the risks of living near a volcano. <S> The benefits more than offset the risks. <S> The most complex idea here is "offset", which in this context means "to balance out". <S> (Definition #1 here: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/offset ) <S> In this case, the author is weighing the benefits against the risks on an imaginary scale, and believes that the good balances the bad. <S> In fact, the good more than balances the bad. <S> To use it in another way, I might say that the benefits of exercise more than offsets the inconveniences of exercise. <S> That is to say, exercise is worth the costs. <S> To what extent is this true ? <S> If the author asked "Is this true?", we could provide a simple " <S> Yes, that is true" and be done with it. <S> However, by asking " To what extent is this true?" the author is saying this is true only to a point, and is asking us where that point is. <S> For instance, consider: <S> "It is perfectly safe to drink beer. <S> To what extent is this true?" <S> Beer is safe to drink, as long as you stop before you make yourself sick, or impair your judgement enough to be dangerous. <S> It's true that beer is safe to drink...to a point. <S> So, to what extent is it true that the benefits of living near a volcano outweigh the risks? <S> I would say that the benefits outweigh the risks, until the volcano erupts .
| " If you agree with the statement "The risk of living near a volcano are more than offset by the benefits," you believe that the benefits of living near a volcano are more important than the risks.
|
But don't keep all the change! What do you say if you want to tip a specific amount when paying in cash? Say I've had a small meal for $8 and want to tip $2 on top of that. If I have a $10 bill, I'd say "keep the change" (By the way, should that be "keep the change, please"? Or "you can keep the change"?) But what if I only have a $20 bill? Would I say "give me back $10, please"? That could quickly get tedious with larger amounts. Or something like "and a $2 tip"? "Two of those are for you"? I'm sure I'd get the point across, but anything I can think of sounds convoluted or patronizing. When I hear "this is for you" I think of my grandmother giving me some money behind my parents' back... <Q> What I often say, when paying with cash, is something like, Just five dollars back, please. <S> It is usually obvious from context that the server or delivery person is supposed to keep the rest. <S> This would get tiresome if you had to say something like "Just twenty-three dollars and thirty-seven cents back, please"! - <S> but that's easily avoided by just rounding the tip up to the nearest amount that's easy to calculate and say, which seems to be what most of us do. <A> This answer is similar to the others, but I've said: I only need ten back. <S> Or maybe: Just the ten back is fine, thanks. <S> In the setting, the meaning is pretty obvious. <S> I've never had anyone ask for clarification. <S> If your bill was, say, $7.88, and you didn't care who got the 12 cents, you could also use something like: <S> If I could get $10 back, that would be great. <S> You can keep the rest. <A> That way you avoid any confusion or complexity. <S> In the past I have said, "take out $X". <S> Like if the bill is $8 and I want to leave a $2 tip, I hand the waitress a twenty dollar bill and say "take out ten". <S> I've also said, "please give me back $X".
| The easy solution, and what I almost always do if I pay cash, is to accept the change, and then leave the tip on the table.
|
The meaning of "out of question" vs "out of the question"? What is the difference between these two? out of question versus out of the question Does "out of question" mean "undoubtedly" and "out of the question" mean "impossible"? <Q> It's been discussed on ELU, here . <S> Apparently, "out of question" meant <S> Beyond doubt, undoubtedly <S> but it is obsolete . <S> This says it is obsolete. <S> Out of the question is still in common use, in my opinion out of the question Not worth considering because of being too difficult or impossible: <S> Here is some ngram data <A> Out of the question is the term in use today. <S> It means beyond consideration; unthinkable or impossible ( Collins dictionary ). <S> Out of question is obsolete, which means no longer used. <S> When it was used, it had two meanings. <S> The first one was unquestionably or doubtless . <S> See Definition 5 in Universal Dictionary of the English Language . <S> Today, for this meaning we use without question . <S> As you can see from Definition 6 from the same dictionary, it also meant out of the question or not to be thought of . <S> So it was just a variation of the same phrase with the definite article. <S> (As an aside, this shows how idiomatic the use of the definite article can be.) <S> The Oxford English Dictionary gives an example of out of question , as a variation of out of the question , as recently as 1940: <S> Flight tests have shown that more than one glider can be towed by an aeroplane, so that a glider train is not out of question. <S> (from the magazine Aeronautics ). <S> So, in general, you won't see out of question in use nowadays, but in older uses (that are now obsolete), it could mean either the same thing as out of the question or it could mean unquestionably . <A> It's also correct that the idiom 'out of the question' that's very common implies impossible. <S> If you say something is out of the question, it means it's not worth considering because of being too difficult or impossible.
| Yes, 'out of question' means undoubtedly, but its usage as such is obsolete.
|
Meaning of "the bents were jealous else" in Browning's Childe Roland From Browning's Childe Roland : If there push’d any ragged thistle-stalk Above its mates, the head was chopp’d; the bents Were jealous else . What made those holes and rents In the dock’s harsh swarth leaves, bruis’d as to baulk All hope of greenness? ’T is a brute must walk Pashing their life out, with a brute’s intents. Per Wiktionary, the "bents" are Any of various stiff or reedy grasses. But why were they "jealous"? I found several senses of the word, but I'm not sure. This is not helped by the fact that I'm not sure how to understand "else" here. I get something like: "The bents were also [protective of something]" "The bents were [enviously resentful of someone] otherwise" This does not seem right. Should the bents be jealous of something? All the high thistle-stalks have their heads chopped, so there's nothing to be jealous of. Does the poet imply that it is the jealous bents that somehow led to the chopping of the thistle heads? That's odd. P.S. I've just come across this explanation that explained nothing to me: <Q> This is a simple allusion. <S> The field of bents represents the oppressing mass of humanity. <S> The head of thistle which dares to thrust itself above the mass is likened to a person who strives to rise above the mass, and who is "chopp'd," because the mass is jealous of her audacity. <S> As you propose, the word "else" here is equivalent to "otherwise" in modern parlance. <S> In modern poetry, Bob Dylan expresses the same sentiment in <S> It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding) <S> : <S> While one who sings with his tongue on fire Gargles in the rat race choir <S> Bent out of shape from society's pliers <S> Cares not to come up any higher <S> But rather get you down in the hole that he's in <A> "Otherwise the bents would be jealous" -- the low grasses would be jealous of the taller thistles. <S> This were is another irrealis. <S> ( Kudos to StoneyB ) <A> The word else has been transposed from where we expect it in regular speech. <S> If we move it like so: <S> If there push’d any ragged thistle-stalk above its mates, the head was chopp’d; else the bents were jealous <S> It's clearer now that else here means if it was not or otherwise . <S> To put it in plainer english: <S> When a thistle dared to rise above, it's head was chopped off; if it wasn't, the thistles who were bent would be jealous (of the unchopped thistle) <S> There are two interpretations of this that come to mind: <S> The bent thistles want those that rise above to be chopped down, like crabs in a bucket ("if I can't have it, <S> neither <S> can you"), similar to what P.E. Dant said. <S> If the thistles standing tall weren't chopped down, the bent thistles might get ideas and want to stand tall themselves. <A> This stanza is one of several describing what appears to be hell on earth. <S> I'm not sure that the blades of grass represent humanity. <S> It's possible. <S> In the previous stanza, Nature says: ’ <S> Tis the Last Judgement’s fire must cure this place <S> Calcine its clods and set my prisoners free.’ <S> This is a horrible place, at least in Roland's head. <S> Dry grass grows like hair on a leper. <S> Underneath the mud it looks like a dough made of blood. <S> He sees a standing skeleton of a horse. <S> The only way to save the prisoners of this place is for God to burn it down. <S> he's traveling through -- not necessarily symbolic of anything more than that.
| I would think these jealous bents are just cursed minions of the hell/wasteland
|
"... is called Minkowski space" or "is called the Minkowski space" and WHY? I met both constructions in quite respectable texts. Is it a matter of taste, or of a shade of meaning? <Q> There is a shade of meaning. <S> Minkowski space is a mathematical entity that can be studied and applied to several different cases, but there is one specific case which stands out, as this entity describes the space-time in which "the laws of nature" are elegantly described (as part of Einstein's special relatively theory). <S> So when you talk about "the Minkowski space" it can be understood that you are talking about the well-known space-time of the physical universe. <S> But you could also discuss other Minkowski spaces, perhaps alternate universes, spaces within computer simulations, or as pure abstract math models. <S> In these cases you would use "(a) Minkowski space". <S> This is somewhat similar to "a President" vs. "The President" - in most cases it is obvious which President is discussed, but in a wider perspective there could be more than one. <S> (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space and links within) <A> I think this is a question of whether we consider (the) Minkowski space to be a strong proper name. <S> According to Language Log here , here , and here (referring to The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language , pp. 517ff), there's a distinction in English between weak proper names and strong proper names. <S> Weak ones require an article, and strong ones do not. <S> However, this distinction is different across dialects and speakers. <S> I would say that especially (the) Minkowski space , being a specialized term, is prone to having both strong and weak forms since there aren't as many speakers to formalize it. <S> As for the reason why there are weak and strong proper names, we can only guess. <S> My intuition is that in the case of (the) Minkowski space that it's a question of how understand Minkowski . <S> However, if we understand Minkowski to be a noun inside the compound noun Minkowski space , then we don't need to specify that there's only one Minkowski space because that compound noun is unique. <S> P.S. Laugh's comment is also pertinent, since it's true that you can talk about other Minkowski spaces. <A> When a scientific idea is first presented to the scientific community, which is only gradually becoming familiar with it, we tend to find the definite article. <S> At this stage the dyad {definite article + proper noun} link the idea to its proponent or "owner". <S> Once the idea has become mainstream, and even consensus opinion, so that its owner or originator is less relevant, the definite article tends to drop out and the proper noun becomes adjectival. <S> P.S. <S> That last sentence should read "...and the proper noun becomes part of the name of the thing."
| If Minkowski is understood syntactically to be modifying space , then we have to specify that there only exists one space that Minkowski is modifying.
|
Pronunciation difference between "I walk to" and "I walked to"? In order to understand what I listen, I'm trying to catch differences between "I walk to" and "I walked to" but I can't catch any difference.How can I distinguish that sounds? <Q> It's almost impossible for native speakers to articulate the consonants <S> /k/ <S> /d/ <S> /t in rapid succession with no intervening voiced vowel (even though some might think they do). <S> So in practice it's not worth trying to hear (or reproduce) a difference, because there usually isn't one. <S> Just do the same as native speakers, and rely on context to tell you what was intended. <S> Arguably it's not fair to use an automated text-to-speech routine to illustrate this point, but it works for me. <S> Try listening to this and <S> this - if I don't look at the text, I've no idea which one is <S> I walk to work and which is <S> I walked to work . <S> Even better, see if you notice anything at all unusual about this or this! <A> Normally you wouldn't hear the difference, but a careful speaker might pronounce the 't' as a double consonant, i.e. hold the dental stop a trifle longer for 'walked to' than 'walk to'. <S> Compare the double consonant sound 'n' in 'penknife', for example. <S> If there had been a misunderstanding and the speaker was emphasising the past tense, they might make a double 't' sound, i.e. 't t', but this would not be the natural, unforced pronunciation. <A> As a native speaker I would say there's very little difference, but if there is any, it's in timing. <S> There may be differences in stress to depending on the context <S> but I think these are hard to discuss in isolation.
| Rather than there being an additional articulation of the "t" sound in "walked to", it's timed more closely to "walk" than to the vowel sound of "to".
|
Where do I have to put the word "that"? I have written the following sentence, I do not know what is the best place to put the word that . although I just feel version 2 is better. Version 1 - Also, I have to mention that (I don't know if this is important to you) I may defer the beginning of my programme to the next semester. Version 2 - Also, I have to mention (I don't know if this is important to you) that I may defer the beginning of my programme to the next semester. Thank you. <Q> Version 2 is better, because if you read it aloud, it can sound like the thing that you want to mention is "that I don't know if this is important to you." <S> Of course, no one reading Version 1 would misunderstand it. <S> But it's best to write so that the words flow naturally, without leading the reader down any " garden paths ", even garden paths that parentheses explicitly forbid. <A> I can't really see one as better than the other. <S> Personally, I would consider shoving the parentheses to the end <S> Also, I have to mention that I may defer the beginning of my programme to the next semester (I don't know if this is important to you). <S> Or all together change the structure, I don't know if this is important to you, but I (also) have to mention that I may defer the beginning of my programme to the next semester. <A> You're writing in the style of someone speaking and interrupting themselves with something they want to mention in midsentence. <S> This is better expressed by using long dashes and not parentheses, or even commas. <S> You are not really trying to add a second "sub-stream" of parallel information to the benefit of the listener/reader, but rather you are actually breaking into the middle of sentence to CYA in the event you are wasting the listener's/reader's time. <S> You should add an and in front of <S> I don't know... <S> to make it clear you are introducing an interruption that interrupts the flow of the first sentence. <S> Also, I have to mention that-- <S> and I don't know if this is important to you--I may defer the beginning of my programme to the next semester. <S> Also, you should put the that after the interruption because that makes it clear that it is linked to the text before the interruption (or at the very least not meant to stand alone): <S> Also, I have to mention--and I don't know if this is important to you--that I may defer the beginning of my programme to the next semester. <S> In live speech, pauses and voice intonation makes things like this unnecessary.
| Both seem fine since the purpose of the parentheses is to interrupt the sentence and insert information.
|
How can I train myself to hear the difference between C (/'si:/) and Z (/'zi:/)? When you hear Americans spell their names , C is pronounced as /'si:/ , and Z is pronounced as /'zi:/ . To me, both sound the same. What can I do to hear a difference? In English language classes, this issue never came up, because we were taught British English, where Z is pronounced as /ˈzɛd/ . Research I've done : Apparently, /s/ is the voiceless alveolar fricative and /z/ is the voiced alveolar fricative . I tried to find words in my native language (Austrian German) using /s/ and /z/, but, apparently, /z/ is voiceless in the southern German variants , so that doesn't help either. <Q> The problem, as you suggest, is that (1) in Standard German the sound [z] is most often encountered as an 'allophone' (environmentally determined variant) of /s/; in those instances where the [s]-[z] contrast is phonemic, [s] is orthographically marked as <ss> (eg., weise - weisse ). <S> BUT <S> (2) In your dialect of German /s/ is almost always realized as [s], regardless of environment; in effect, Austrian German does not have a [z] sound. <S> However: when I attended the Innsbruck Realgymnasium in '62-63 there was regular instruction in speaking "proper" Hochdeutsch. <S> If that was still the case in your schooling, this may help: the difference between 'C' /'si:/ <S> and 'Z' /'zi:/ is the difference between the way you ordinarily say <S> Sie and the way you were taught you <S> should say Sie . <A> Practise, practise, practise, and don't just listen, try to do it yourself. <S> Think about the difference between /f/ <S> (as in fünf ) <S> and /v/ <S> (as in weiß ). <S> What do you do differently when you pronounce <S> /v/? <S> Can you do that whilst saying <S> /s/? <S> Practise. <S> Phonetics sites might help you. <S> The wikipedia articles are good and contain sound samples. <S> Personally I always liked this one <S> but there might be others. <S> But anyway, if all else fails, you can always ask , <S> Sorry, I didn't catch that, was that 'c' for 'Charlie' or 'z' for 'zulu'? <A> Please compare the German "Sie" (you) and the second syllable of the French "Merci" (thanks). <S> Are they pronounced the same in your area? <S> Assuming that you hear a difference, then "Sie" sounds like the name of the letter "Z" and the "cie" in "Merci" sounds like the name of the letter "C". <A> It's true that when naming the letters of the alphabet, the British call the letter Z, "Zed". <S> But in both British and American English, the phoneme "z" /'zi:/, is pronounced differently from a soft "c" /'si:/. <S> Your native dialect may not have a phoneme similar to the English /'zi:/, but you certainly have the sound. <S> If you've ever had your hair cut with an electric hair trimmer, then you've heard the English /'zi:/ --- "buzzzzzzzzz". <S> A "soft c" (/'si:/) in English is pronounced like the English "s". <S> It sounds like air escaping a punctured tire, and that's basically how you make the sound. <S> To make a soft /c/ -- hold your mouth slightly open, press your tongue to the roof of your mouth, with the tip against your upper front teeth, so that you can not exhale through your mouth. <S> Now drop the tip of your tongue to let air escape, and finally feel your throat just below your jaw - if your vocal cords are not vibrating, that's an English /'si:/ <S> To voice an English "z" ( <S> /'zi:/), hold your tongue similar to /'si:/, but drop the tip of your tongue to touch your lower front teeth. <S> The key is the vibrating vocal cords. <S> Hold your fingers to your throat, when you practice -- vibrating = <S> /'zi:/ ("fuzzy") --- not vibrating = <S> /'si:/ ("fussy"). <S> But remember those electric hair trimmers and you'll be buzzzzzzing away in no time.
| Some people soften their z's, so that they almost sound like a /'si:/. The big difference is the "voiced" part - when you exhale, the vocal cords vibrate (remember the electric hair trimmer :-).
|
What is typical phrases to say to your friend when you're surprised by him/her? The situation is; One of your friends/colleagues suddenly appears from your behind and says "Boo!" You are so surprised. What is typical words to say to him/her when you want him/her to stop it but want to deliver the words friendly? I come up with "You startled me!" and "Don't scare me!" Could you tell me alternative words for them? <Q> You could call him/her cheeky . <S> The Cambridge English Dictionary defines it as, 'slightly rude or showing no respect, but often in a funny way.' <S> You could say something like: <S> Oi, cheeky, don't scare me. <A> I do this often. <S> They tell me Don't do that! <S> Stop it! <S> Quit it! <S> among other things. <S> Each is usually preceded by <S> Oh my god <S> I think it depends on <S> how you say it, not so much what you say. <S> If you say it in a nice, playful manner, then that is how it will come off. <S> If you say it sternly then that is how it will come off. <A> You could tell your friend Please don't do that, you really scared me. <S> Do you want to give me a heart attack? <S> Don't scare me like that! <S> However, if you do have the presence of mind and don't look too startled, you can just say "Boo!" <S> back to your friend in a calm tone of voice, it will probably annoy your friend to no end.
| You could also say the words in a friendly or playful way.
|
The role of 'sleeping' in 'sleeping baby' A "sleeping baby" generally means a baby that is sleeping at the time of speaking, as shown in this sentence: After finishing all the feeding, bathing and nappy-changing duties, a number of dads have been competing in a new game to see how many Cheerios they can stack on their sleeping baby . (Quoted from this article ) In this and most other contexts, the "sleeping" in "sleeping baby" has a progressive meaning to it. In fact, I can't really think of a context where a "sleeping baby" does not mean a "baby that is sleeping at the time of speaking" but a "baby that just sleeps". On the other hand, it's hard to think of other noun phrases consisting of "V+ing + noun" where the "V+ing" has a progressive meaning to it. In none of the following examples does "V+ing" show a progressive meaning: The guy was a walking encyclopedia of beer knowledge. That's an interesting idea . We are paying customers . When I was diagnosed, it was a really trying time . I own the controlling interest in the company. Today's recycling day . Is there something special about the phrase "sleeping baby" that makes the progressive meaning possible? Is so, what is it? If this isn't anything special about this particular phrase, then please show me some examples of "V+ing + noun" where the "V+ing" shows a progressive meaning. <Q> It's not a special use. <S> The ing form can refer to the action going on right now, or to one that is habitual. <S> This carries over to its use as a modifier: Going on at the moment of speaking: <S> They were careful not to wake the sleeping baby. <S> John sat in the minivan carrying seven passengers. <S> ( e-gmat blog ) <S> Others I can think of <S> : I don't know if I can eat that tantalizing dessert. <S> Please shut that buzzing contraption off. <S> That hissing radio is really annoying. <S> Habitual (therefore, giving a characteristic): <S> all the examples you gave in your post, plus the one by user3169: <S> She was as quiet as a sleeping baby. <S> Also: Never wake a sleeping baby. <S> Sometimes both senses are meant at the same time: <S> Look at the waltzing bear. <S> The bear is a waltzing bear and he is waltzing now. <S> John sat in the minivan carrying seven passengers. <S> The van carries seven passengers and it is carrying seven now. <A> The sleeping baby was cute. <S> Sleeping is a gerund used as an adjective . <S> This has nothing to do with the progressive tense of the verb to sleep . <S> As in: I'm sleeping at their house vs <S> I sleep at their house. <S> All verbs in English (with a few exceptions) can be used as adjectives in the gerund form. <S> Careful with: We are paying customers. <S> Paying is not a verb there. <S> It is an adjective. <S> Just like: We are great customers. <S> Tricky, isn't it?? <A> Compare these: a drinking man" a man who is always drinking and somewhat alcoholic (present participle) "a man drinking beer" a man who is drinking beer right now (present participle) "drinking water" water for drinking (gerund) <S> VS "a sleeping baby" a baby that’s sleeping right now (present participle) "a baby sleeping on the couch" a baby that’s sleeping on the couch right now (present participle) <S> "a sleeping bag" a human-sized bag for sleeping (gerund)
| “A sleeping baby” is some kind of participle.
|
Coolest jacket I ever had/ have ever had? I bought a jacket today, and it is really cool, so I want to tell my friends. Which one of the following sentences is correct? Is there a difference between them? It's the coolest jacket I ever had ! It's the coolest jacket I have ever had ! <Q> The grammatically correct way is to use present perfect. <S> It's the coolest jacket I have ever had! <S> When you use words like "never", "ever", "already", "yet", this usually requires present perfect tense. <A> However, It's the coolest jacket I ever had! <S> is more informal than <S> It's the coolest jacket I have ever had! <S> When your friends see your jacket they may say That jacket is the coolest. <S> Your jacket is the coolest ever. <S> Your jacket is the coolest I have ever seen <A> Yes more formal, but the context of “ever had”, would be assumed that you no longer possess said subject. <S> Whereas “I have ever had” would imply you still maintain possession
| Both of your sentences are understandable, correct, and have the same meaning.
|
Here We Are vs We Are Here Can anyone tell me the difference between Here We Are And We Are Here <Q> We are here. <S> This sentence means exactly what is says. <S> Where are we? <S> We are here. <S> (pointing at a map) <S> Here we are. <S> This sentence is more idiomatic. <S> It can mean that the speaker found/reached something after spending time. <S> It can also emphasize that the speaker wants attention directed on something. <S> Hmm... which website was that... (a person looking through their browser history). <S> Ah, here we are. <S> (the person found the website) <S> Here we are! <S> That was a long drive wasn't it? <S> (upon reaching a destination) Where are you? <S> There are so many people at this concert! <S> (on the phone) <S> Here I am! <S> (waving hand for attention) <S> Here it is. <S> Isn't it beautiful? <S> (showing off a new car) <A> It is usually associated with pointing at a map or directly at your feet (to emphasize "right here"). <S> It can also mean figuratively that We are here (for something or someone) <S> we "stand" here either in support or in waiting. <S> Here we are <S> can have different meanings <S> 1) it can mean the same as "we are here" 2) it can be used to announce the arrival of something , for example, bringing a much anticipated cold drink to someone <S> who is very thirsty, synonymous with "here you go" <S> Here we are! <S> finally, here is what you have been waiting for <S> the understood meaning would depend on additional context. <A> We are here. <S> Here we are. <S> Both are different in meaning. <S> In the former, you are simply referring to the place where you are. <S> In the letter, you are telling somebody that you have arrived.
| The phrase We are here is used to tell someone your current location.
|
Is there an english adjective meaning "obtained by cutting or by breaking it off something"? I'm trying to translate a native word. For example: I got this piece of wood by breaking it off from a branch. I got this twine from that ball of string. So, what I'm looking for is a ' to be ' verb or adjective . But in my language to be verbs and adjectives are sometimes the same. How do I say that the twine was obtained by cutting it from the ball of string? Or the piece of wood was broken off from a branch? I'm looking for an adjective similar to stolen in stolen goods . Or like plucked but instead it was broken off or cut . I understand it doesn't always translate but what is the closest word I could use. <Q> This X was removed from a Y. <S> This X was taken from a Y. <S> This X was cut from a Y. <S> But "This X is a ________ thing". <S> I don't think there's a general all-purpose word that means "something cut from something else". <S> stolen refers to a much more specific context. <S> So does used (i.e. pre-owned) car and frozen foods and baked goods . <S> Cut twine. <S> Sawn board. <S> Chopped branch. <S> Snapped twig. <A> Why not using cut off which means to remove by cutting ? <S> The past participle has the same form. <S> This is a piece of wood cut off from the branch of the tree. <A> The preposition off expresses this: I got this piece of wood by breaking it off from a branch. <S> I got this piece of wood off a branch. <S> I got this twine from that ball of string. <S> I got this twine off that ball of string. <S> All of these have a very informal flavor to them, in formal, business, or even written speech it would be better to use one of the longer expressions in your example. <S> In informal speech you might hear "broke off" which borders on slang. <S> Here is a broken off piece of wood. <S> Here is a cut off piece of wood. <S> Take the broke off piece of stale bread and put it in the pan. <S> Here is a pulled off twine.
| As far as an adjective, "broken off", "cut off", "pulled off" will work.
|
What do "I realized a few things about life, (reading)/(having read) that book" mean? I realized a few things about life, reading that book. What's the meaning of the above sentence?How is it different to the meaning of I realized a few things about life, having read that book. <Q> To address your questions in order: I realized a few things about life, reading that book. <S> This can be restated as: while I was reading the book, something in the text inspired a thought or realisation which I was then able to apply to my own life. <S> How is it different to the meaning of: I realized a few things about life, having read that book. <S> The primary difference lies in the fact that one is ongoing: <S> I am currently reading , and my realisation came about during this process While the second occurred after the fact: <S> Having already read the book, I subsequently came to have a realisation - perhaps I needed a period of introspection to allow the things I had read to sink in. <A> In both of these sentences, there is an implied conjunction (or preposition?) linking the two clauses. <S> If you want to use this word order, it would be better to insert the implied conjunctions. <S> If you want to omit them, it would be easier to understand if you start off with the cause clause and follow on with the effect clause. <S> Reading that book, I realized a few things about life. <S> There is an implied while here, and it means that, in the course of reading the book, my understanding about life increased. <S> Having read that book, I realized a few things about life. <S> Here are the versions with your word order the included conjunctions: <S> I realized a few things about life while reading that book. <S> I realized a few things about life after having read that book. <A> It seems that the participle clause (having + past participle) refers to an event that follows chronologically whereas the participle clause using the (verb-ing) form implies a chronological overlap. <S> Crying, Sarah threw my cellphone onto the ground. <S> (While crying) Having cried, Sarah's eyes were red and puffy. <S> (After crying) <S> So if we look at your two sentences I realized a few things about life, reading that book. <S> (while reading) <S> I realized a few things about life, having read that book. <S> (after reading)
| There is an implied after here: what it means is that, on completion of reading the book, some things later occurred to me which increased my understanding about life.
|
Which one is correct - look at you or look at yourself? I've seen in some movies the phrase 'look at you' being used.I've heard 'look at yourself' but never that.Is that makes any sense?What's the difference between the two? <Q> To me, there is a difference. <S> " <S> Look at yourself!" is literally a command to look (though "look" might be metaphorical - it may mean something about "think about what you look like"). <S> Whereas <S> "Look at you!" <S> cannot be a command, and I hear it as elliptic for something like "Will you look at you!" <S> - an expression of surprise. <S> I hear it as parallel to "Will you look at John!" - in a way, it is addressed to a different "you" (though there need not actually be anybody there to address). <A> "Look at yourself" is a direct, grammatically standard statement. <S> You are ordering or encouraging the person to examine himself. <S> It may be literal, for example if you are pointing out that the person is dirty or improperly dressed. <S> "Your clothes are a mess! <S> Look at yourself!" <S> Or it may be figurative, you may mean that he should examine his own behavior or motives. <S> "How dare you accuse me of being greedy. <S> Look at yourself!" <S> "Look at you" is a more idiomatic expression. <S> The speaker is saying that he sees something notable about the person he is addressing. <S> For example, "Oh, look at you, all dressed up for your first date!" <S> To the extent that you can make literal sense of it, the speaker is instructing himself to look at the subject. <S> That is, "Look at yourself" <S> is a command to the person being addressed to examine himself. <S> You would never say "look at you" to instruct someone to examine himself. <S> For example, "You need to clean yourself up! <S> Look at you!" <S> would be wrong, no fluent speaker would say that. <S> Likewise, you would never use "look at yourself" to express your own amazement at someone's appearance. <S> There are cases where either would be appropriate. <S> Namely, if it would make sense either to instruct the person to examine himself, or to express your own surprise at his appearance. <S> But the meaning is different. <S> " <S> Look at you! <S> You're a mess!" means "I am surprised that you are such a mess." <S> "Look at yourself! <S> You're a mess!" means "You should examine yourself and you will see that you are a mess" (probably with the implication that the person should clean themselves up). <A> Both are correct. <S> I'm native to a country where "look at you!" means more physical. <S> Look at you! <S> Oh, God. <S> Your nose is bleeding! <S> Look at you! <S> What happened to your skin? <S> And, "look at yourself! <S> " tends to be non-physical. <S> What?! <S> Did you say that I'm a moron? <S> Look at yourself! <S> (but I'm unsure if this applies to other countries.) <S> So, it depends on what you really want to express. <S> Sorry for using a bad word.
| "Look at you" is an exclamation where the speaker notes that he has observed something about the subject.
|
Is "says you" grammatically correct? So I heard it from a character in a movie, and looked it up . If it's correct, why add '-s' to say when the subject is "you"? <Q> Treat it as an idiom. <S> It only works with "says", not other verbs. <A> As ColinFine says, it is not standard or correct grammar. <S> It's slang. <S> It means, "So you say" or "That is what you say". <S> The implication is that the statement in question is not true, and the only proof that the person is offering is his own assertion that it is true. <S> For example: You Ruritanians are all stupid! <S> Says you! <S> The phrase is very informal. <S> It is commonly used in verbal arguments. <S> You would not use it in a scholarly paper -- except to add a humorous touch. <A> I believe "says you?" <S> arises from the fact that "who" rhymes with "you". <S> Consider as an example the following exchange between fans of rival baseball teams: Joe: <S> The Cardinals are indisputably the best baseball team. <S> Frank <S> : Says who? <S> Joe: Says me! <S> Frank: Says you!!! <S> Your phrase is not strictly grammatically correct, but it flows as a rhyme from other phrases that are grammatically correct and has now become idiomatically correct. <A> "Says you" is a specific case of a more general way of refusing to agree. <S> When a listener disagrees with a proposition, he may amend it by attributing it to a source. <S> For instance, if you say, "It is good to buy hats", I might respond, "Says the haberdasher" (someone who makes and sells hats). <S> This indicates that I don't necessarily agree that it is good to buy hats, but I agree the haberdasher <S> says that it is good to buy hats. <S> Because this is an unusual word order (the verb "says" precedes the subject "the haberdasher") <S> it's not uncommon for people to conjugate the verb improperly. <S> As you noted in your question, "you" would ordinarily imply "say" rather than "says". <A> "Says you" is indeed mostly used to disagree. <S> But it is also employed as a signal that the preceding comment is unsupported scientifically -- a specific refutation, not a mere disagreement. <S> This usage follows this idea:If any assertion can be entirely refuted by responding "Says you," then -- even if it's a fact claim -- it is not one that is based on demonstrable evidence. <S> Refutation by <S> "Says you" is a diagnostic tool to uncover hidden opinions and relative comparisons masquerading as facts ("I own a big dog," " <S> This is how to solve math problems like this," or "You should at least finish out the semester.") <S> "Says you" doesn't necessarily refute all assertions completely. <S> Sometimes the response can be "No, not ' <S> Says me' -- says 'This evidence right here.'"
| It does not conform to standard grammar, but is fairly common in speech.
|
Is this sentence grammatically wrong? (Using as) As owning a car is helpful, it costs a lot. Is this sentence grammatically wrong? The answer key said 'As' can't be used in this situation. But I think as can be used in many different ways. <Q> As owning a car is helpful, it costs a lot. <S> The reason is that as in this sentence functions as a conjunction meaning because , so it means Because owning a car is helpful, it costs a lot. <S> The meaning is "clause1 causes clause2", whereas the intended meaning is that clause1 is a positive effect of owning a car, and clause2 is a negative effect: although has this meaning. <S> Although owning a car is helpful, it costs a lot. <A> I agree with the answer key. <S> The sentence is combining two thoughts: <S> Owning a car is useful (this is a positive thing) Owning a car is expensive (this is a negative thing) <S> Because we are appending a negative to a positive, we need a word to alert the reader that a shift is coming. <S> This would be acceptable: <S> Although owning a car is helpful, it costs a lot. <S> The word as could be used to start a sentence like this one, but we would want the second thought to reinforce the first, not provide a offsetting condition; for example: As owning a car is helpful, it is worth the money. <S> In such a construct, the word as essentially means "because." <A> The sentence is grammatically correct. <S> When used this way, "as" means "because". <S> So the sentence says that cars are expensive because they are helpful. <S> This may or may not be true, but grammar has nothing to do with whether statements are true or false. <S> Some of the other answers try to change the meaning of the sentence. <S> When correcting grammar, meaning should not be changed unless you are sure the speaker had another meaning in mind. <S> As a factual matter, prices depend on supply and demand. <S> Part of the high price of cars is due to their demand and that demand comes from the fact that they are so useful. <S> If someone claims it's due to the cost of producing them and that their usefulness is irrelevant, that would be factually incorrect (and, frankly, silly). <S> Used toilet paper is more expensive to produce than new toilet paper. <S> But you pay for one because it is more helpful. <S> A thirty year old broken car is even more expensive to produce than a comparable new car. <S> Yet the new car will be more expensive because it is more helpful and thus is in more demand.
| This sentence is grammatically correct, but it doesn't make sense.
|
What do you call this way of stacking rectangular objects on each other? Sometimes we stack rectangular object like books, paper slips, bricks, video cassettes, etc in a way that one is put in a landscape orientation and the other in a portrait orientation. What is called this way of stacking? I want to fill in the blanks with that term: You can stack more books if you put them in a/ an ___ manner. Please make 25 sets of copies of pages 1-10 from this book, then collate the copies so that each set is bundled separately. I suggest to stack them in a/ an___manner. <Q> Perhaps crisscross : "to form a pattern on (something) with lines that cross each other" or crossways . <A> I don't think English has a single word for this which is unambiguous. <S> I think it would be best to say something like: <S> I suggest stacking them in a criss-cross pattern, alternating between portrait and landscape orientations. <S> Or: <S> Stack them in a criss-cross pattern, with each one being a quarter-turn from the one below it. <A> Staggered is a good word for it meaning an arrangement of things in a zigzag order so they are not in line <A> Rotate Offset is the term used by HP to define the feature of their printer that allows users to print multiple copies of a job in alternate orientations. <S> Rotating Collate is the term used by Ricoh in which every other print set is rotated by 90 degrees. <A> I can't think of a single word, but "alternating directional pattern" fits well. <A> You could say to stack them alternating from portrait to landscape. <S> to interchange repeatedly and regularly with one another in time or place; rotate (usually followed by with): Dictionary.com <A> Interleaving Verb (transitive) <S> To intersperse (something) at regular intervals between the parts of a thing <A> You can stack more books if you put them in a/ an ___ manner. <S> Please make 25 sets of copies of pages 1-10 from this book, then collate the copies so that each set is bundled separately. <S> I suggest to stack them in a/ an___manner. <S> If you want a one word term, staggered or criss-cross seem closest but not acceptable at conveying what you want to express. <S> Criss-cross would imply that the papers are intersecting each other making a cross pattern. <S> Staggered implies that each set will be aligned differently, but doesn't give any more information as to how they are aligned. <S> I suggest "stagger the sets in horizontal-vertical alignment" or "stack the sets in a portrait-landscape stagger"... and even with these there is probably a need for extra instruction. <S> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ <A> Staggered means that each item (normally an unbound set of pages) is kept together so it can be picked up on its own easily. <S> In a context where that is an issue, like making copies, this explains the purpose so even if it’s not understood exactly, the listener will do something appropreate and useful to the task. <S> For books, if the listener seems puzzled, add “…like when making copies.” <S> This gives contextual clues to what staggered means. <A> Stacked in a "checkered" pattern is a candidate. <S> Basket-weave is another one! <S> Admittedly both words are not very common but would do the job! <A> Crosshatched is another option. <A> I don't think you will get one word for it; perhaps a phrase that captures the intent? <S> Perhaps - "an alternating axial/transverse pattern". <S> But this will assume there is a frame of reference alluded to be the axial - axis... <A> Not so much for books, but for paper print outs I've seen the term <S> collated used collect and combine (texts, information, or data). <S> "all the information obtained is being collated" <S> So for example, if you print out 50 copies of a 10 page document you can collate them like the above to make it easier to distribute. <A> I think putting it in the simplest way can avoid ambiguity. <S> Thus,you can say: put the books lengthwise or widthwise. <S> It is unlikely you would want to stack the books in more than two configurations.
| I would suggest crosswise staggered .
|
Amazon is by investors Here's what Charlie Rose said in a segment of CBS's 60 minutes titled " Amazon's Jeff Bezos looks to the future ": Bezos believes low costs ensure customer loyalty to Amazon, even if it's at the expense of profits. Amazon is one of the rare companies that on a quarterly basis shows little profit and yet is beloved by investors . Is it also possible to use "loved" instead of "beloved" here? Which is more natural in context? And Why? Is there any difference between them, semantically and/or syntactically? <Q> Amazon is beloved by investors. <S> Amazon is loved by investors. <S> You can use either "loved" or "beloved" in the sentence, without any difference in meaning. <S> But "beloved" is stronger than "loved"; "beloved" means "loved" very much. <S> Besides, "loved" is the past participle of love and the sentence is in the passive. <S> On the other hand, "beloved" is an adjective; you can use the preposition "of" or "by" after it. <A> Either Amazon is beloved by investors. <S> Amazon is loved by investors. <S> can be used and it would easily be understood that investors have a positive affection for the stock. <S> However, "beloved" is a stronger and more intense feeling of love that may border on "worship". <S> She lost her beloved cat of 19 years. <S> Amazon is beloved by investors. <S> there are some who would not disagree with this statement. <A> Dictionary.com gives the following etymology for the English prefix be- , which can illustrate how the meaning is modified. <S> word-forming element with a wide range of meaning: completely; to make, cause seem; to provide with; at, on, to, for from Old English be- <S> "on all sides" (also used to make transitive verbs and as a privative or intensive prefix) <S> In the case of belove <S> it's probably best to say it's an "intensive" prefix, so it means "to love very much." <S> Belove though is not used anymore as a verb with a subject/object by itself (very rarely, if at all), but the past-participle-as-adjective use lives on.
| Amazon is worshipped by investors
|
Triple negation: what does "This ain't no place for no hero" mean? It's a phrase from the song "Short Change Hero", and while I think I understand it (This is not a place for people who are not heroes), I find somewhat confusing the combination of all those negations; "ain't" is "is not", so you may read it as "This is not no place for no hero", wich doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense. Then the song continues with This ain't no place for no better man Again with the negations and this "no better man", that looks strange. I've seen it in phrases like i.e. "there's no better man for the job", but what's the meaning here exactly? Finally can those phrases be considered correct english or the songwriter took some licenses to make them fit the song? <Q> Most of the time, especially in "vernacular" speech, multiple negations are not intended to be interpreted sequentially, but rather as an intensified single negative. <S> The phrase <S> The additional negations intensify it, leading to a sense more like "This is absolutely not a place for a hero." <S> Similarly, "This ain't no place for no better man" means "This is not a place for a better man." <S> These sorts of multiple-negation phrases are absolutely NOT considered correct, standard, grammatical English, but are common vernacular. <A> The chorus is: <S> This ain't no place for no hero. <S> This ain't no place for no better man. <S> This ain't no place for no hero - To call "home." <S> The meaning is: this is no place for heroes, this is no place for better men. <S> This is a place for criminals, for violent people, as no one else can survive here. <S> A hero would try to be heroic, to change the place, and be persecuted and killed for it, so go back where you came from. <A> The phrase 'This ain't no place for no hero' was coined by the United States Military, leadership often told infantry combat soldiers 'this ain't no place for no hero' <S> It means that you keep your head down and you follow orders and you might just make it home. <S> Any acts of heroism, is the fastest way to go home in a body bag. <S> Yeah, they'll remember you alright.. <S> But you'll be dead.
| "This ain't no place for no hero", in normal speech, would be "this is no place for a hero."
|
Can I use "who when" together? For example:I hope there is at least 1 person who when (s/he) sees the quality of final outcome, s/he will be delighted... is this possible and if not what could be the appropriate structure that allows such use of "who when" together? thank you <Q> I guess it might be possible this way: <S> I hope there is at least one person who, when she sees the quality of the final outcome, will be delighted. <S> I doubt that you can use "who when" in this sentence without a comma. <S> When you set off a clause or a phrase by two commas like this, it's called " parenthesis ". <S> You can also use round brackets or dashes. <S> I hope there is at least one person who - when she sees the quality of the final outcome - will be delighted. <S> Compare: <S> O blinding hour, O holy, terrible day, <S> When first the shaft into his vision shone <S> Of light anatomized! <S> Euclid alone Has looked on Beauty bare. <S> Fortunate they <S> Who, though once only and then but far away , Have heard her massive sandal set on stone. <A> Does it absolutely positively have to be "who when"? <S> I mean, to my ears it doesn't really sound good. <S> What about this: I hope there is at least one person who will be delighted when she sees the quality of the final outcome. <A> In general, there are no restrictions whatever on which word might happen to follow which other word in a sentence. <S> * <S> This is because English grammar doesn't work on strings of words - it words on (nested) structures. <S> So your example sentence is perfectly fine (though clearer with a comma). <S> I has no structure allowing "who when" together: it has a structure where the subject of a sentence (which happens to be realised as "who") is followed by an adverbial clause (which happens to be introduced by "when"). <S> *Even obvious restrictions like 'a' followed by a vowel-initial word are not inevitable. <S> Consider " <S> This presents us with a - I might almost say the - big question", where 'a' is followed by 'I'. <A> Double quotes seem to make it okay as well. <S> Consider: ...what could be the appropriate structure that allows such use of "who when" together? <S> that seems valid! <S> :) <S> Comma usage opens many additional possibilities as well: <S> The detective wanted to know who, when, where and why.
| There is no structure that I can think of which will generate the sequence "who when"; but there are many ways of creating a sentence where "who" in one constituent happens to be followed by "when" in another (admittedly, usually with a comma in between).
|
Difference between "Could" and "Could've" in the given sentence You're everything I could've ever asked for. You're everything I could ever ask for. What's the difference in the meaning of these two sentences? <Q> Usually we'd see agreement of time in the tenses of the main clause and the reduced clause. <S> She was everything he could have ever asked for. <S> She is everything he could ever ask for. <A> There's not really much of a difference in terms of the meaning of the sentence, but using "could've" instead of "could" sort of indicates that you're talking about the past instead of the present. <A> Assuming the function is set and all tangents are viable, being capable of said ' could or ' could have ' one might reproach with exactly that; the equation solving any function applicable to definitive absorption further isolating pertinence of the objectification. <S> The " have " implication instills open availability without historic impression diluting bias expectations.
| In effect they really just mean the same thing.
|
How to use "next" - 'your next purchase' is ok, but 'next purchase' is not According to my grammar books, it reads that you can say "Discount on your next purchase" but not "Discount on next purchase" because you have to put "your" or "the" before "next". Could anyone can explain why? <Q> your determiner next adjective purchase <S> Next can't fill the determiner slot here, so you can't leave out your . <S> *discount on next purchase ← ungrammatical in Standard English <S> This doesn't work because the noun phrase next purchase is incomplete without a determiner. <S> And because the meaning of next is definite (it refers to something specific), we want to use some sort of definite determiner, like your or the . <S> It's true that you might run across this sort of example in an elliptical style – for example in a headline or on a coupon – where words that are usually necessary are left out. <S> But in Standard English, a determiner is required. <S> A possible exception <S> Although it's usually not a determiner, we might want to consider next a determiner in a few specific phrases, like next Wednesday or next week : <S> last week this week next week <S> In this week , it's clear that this is a determiner. <S> We might want to consider last and next determiners in these examples by analogy. <S> But most of the time, as in your example, next is an adjective and cannot be a determiner. <S> In this answer, the * symbol marks a phrase as ungrammatical. <A> If you are referring to THE next purchase, then you need to use the definite article. <S> It doesn't sound correct to say "discount on next purchase", because you are talking about THE NEXT purchase. <S> It is about a particular object, therefore you need the article. <S> If you were mentioning whose is the next purchase (like in "discount on your next purchase"), then you should not use article, because possessive pronouns do not require articles in English. <S> When you have contact with native speakers and immerse yourself in English, you are able to perceive what sounds natural and what does not. <S> Sometimes you don't find such things on grammar books, you need to live with English. <S> In addition, I have an observation about your comment. <S> You said "next" is a superlative and it is not. <S> Superlative is the highest degree of a quality, the most highlighted object or person of a group. <S> In the context of distance, the superlatives are: "closest" and "nearest". <S> Perceive superlatives either end with "-est" or have "most" before the adjective. <S> "Next" cannot be used as superlative. <S> You can read a publication from Cambridge Dictionary about "nearest" and "next": http://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/gramatica/gramatica-britanica/nearest-or-next <S> Tip: <S> I think you are reading grammar and forgetting the naturalness of the language. <S> If you want to learn speaking English, you should commit yourself to learn the natural language with people and less with grammar books. <S> Unless you want to be a grammarian or understand the historical dynamics of English, you don't need to attach yourself to archaic terms, such as "nigh", because it helps little for English learning as second language. <S> All the best <A> There are several words that, in common contemporary English, count as determiners -- a, the, some, this, that, my, your, their, whatever, and so on. <S> A singular and countable noun (such as "purchase") requires some sort of (singular and countable) determiner to form a complete and coherent phrase. <S> The difference between "next purchase" and phrasings like "your next purchase", "the next purchase", "some next purchase", "whatever next purchase" and so on is that the latter phrasings include a determiner where one is required. <S> On its own, "next" is a reasonable adjective, but it is not a sufficient determiner. <S> The most common determiners are articles -- the definite and indefinite articles specifically. <S> "Your" and "the" are not the only sensible options, but they are the most obvious options in this specific context for a supplied determiner. <S> In the absense of such, the phrasing is either not coherent or not countable.
| Next isn't a determiner Purchase needs a determiner, but next is an adjective. The word "next" may have been used as superlative in the past (probably for "nigh", as dictionary.com says), but not today anymore.
|
What is the difference between "a little late" and "a little too late"? Please tell me what is the difference between the following sentences He celebrated a little early. He celebrated a little too early. And It is a little late to do that thing. It is a little too late to do that thing. <Q> Early: sooner in time than on time (sooner than expected, desired, allowed, required, etc). <S> We arrived early for the game, and we were able to find a great parking spot. <S> We arrived too early for the game: the gates to the stadium parking lot were still locked and we could not get in. <S> Ditto, for late . <A> Too can be used to indicate that something happened just before (or just after) the right or appropriate moment. <S> It can also imply that something happened at an inappropriate or incorrect moment. <S> For 1., I can imagine that it his birthday soon. <S> Maybe it is on Monday, but he has work on Monday, so he celebrated on Sunday instead. <S> So, "He celebrated a little early. <S> " If someone said "He celebrated a little too early" in this scenario, then I feel like it might be the case that "this" a person believes that you can only celebrate exactly during the hours of Monday. <S> So if he started celebrating at 11:50pm Sunday night, then "this" person would say he started celebrating too early . <S> In other words, it was not the "right time" to celebrate, according to this person. <S> Another example would to imagine a man that is expecting to receive a promotion today. <S> The boss is deciding between him and another person. <S> The employee is so confident that he will get the promotion today that he took his friends out to celebrate the night before. <S> His boss finally makes his decision and gives the promotion to the other person. <S> So one might remark, "he celebrated too early". <S> It implies that it was wrong of him to celebrate since he did not get the promotion. " <S> He celebrated a little early" does not necessarily have the same implication. <S> It is possible, but it would probably be implied by the speaker's tone rather than the words. <S> This can have a variety of meanings, in particular depending on the meaning of "late". <S> I choose late to mean at night. <S> I can imagine two girls talking. <S> It is nighttime. <S> One friend wants to get ice cream. <S> The other remarks <S> "It is a little late to do that". <S> It can suggest that it might dangerous to go at night. <S> If instead the friend says "It is a little too late to do that", it can suggest that the ice cream shop has closed. <S> For example, she was trying to leave at 9:05pm, but the ice cream shop just closed at 9:00 pm. <S> Again, 3. can imply 4., but this would be due to the speaker's tone, not his or her words. <A> In many social settings, there is a time where something needs to happen and a different time when people would like it to happens. <S> For example, let's say you and a bunch of your friends are going on guided tour in a nearby city. <S> To avoid everyone having to drive to the nearby city, you all agree to share rides. <S> You decide to meet at a parking lot in your own city, leave some cars there, and all pile into a few cars to go to the tour. <S> That saves a bunch of gas! <S> You all determine that, if you leave any later than 8:15, you will miss the guided tour. <S> Everyone has to depart by 8:15. <S> Knowing this, you all agree to meet up at 8:00 and have some coffee before hitting the road. <S> If someone arrives at 8:10, you might say "He arrived late." <S> He didn't arrive at the planned time, but there was still time for him to make the tour. <S> However, if someone arrives at 8:20, you might say "He arrived too late," because he has arrived so late that it is now impossible to go on the tour. <S> We use "early" and "too early" in the same way. <S> Consider the game of baseball, where one person swings a wooden bat at a ball trying to hit it into the field. <S> If you swing "too early," you'll miss the ball entirely. <S> On the other hand, if you just swung "early" you may still hit the ball, but it may not go in the direction you intended because your swing is almost over before it hits the ball. <A> In addition to the general difference between "early/late" and " too early/late", sometimes "a little too " early/late is used ironically to mean "very much too" early/late. <S> For example: Stranger: <S> What an adorable baby! <S> You'll have to fight the boys off with a stick! <S> Parent: She's only a week old, it's a little too early to worry about that. <S> or Telemarketer: I'd like to speak to John Smith, please. <S> Family member: <S> You're a little too late . <S> We buried him last week.
| Too early: surpassing some threshold relative to being early.
|
Help choose past or past continuous tense I'm confused about this one. Please help choose past or past continuous tense and explain your answer. Thanks. When I came home yesterday, all the cats were sleeping. But at night, while I was sleeping, they played/were playing loudly and disturbed/were disturbing us all. <Q> As a foreign English-speaker, using past tense in the second part of the sentence makes more sense to me. <S> It wouldn't be wrong to use past continuous tense <S> but it sounds awkward. <S> IMO, it would be more balanced if you use past tense instead of past continuous tense. <S> When I came home yesterday, all the cats were sleeping . <S> But at night, while I was sleeping , they played loudly and disturbed us all. <A> Both are correct. <S> Which one is better depends on what else you are trying to say. <S> In your example by itself without any context I would use “playing” to describe the event and delimit its time and then use “disturbed” to describe the consequences of the event. <S> This is all a matter of style and personal preference any other combination is grammatically correct. <A> Supposedly it could be either ways depending on your intention and <S> they way you'd describe it. <S> If you feel like the cats were playing considering the durarion then it could best describe it. <S> I guess if you have a look to the below diagram which explains time tenses you'd have some ideas about and finally you'd make it out.
| The past-continuous tense is better if you want to limit the time-frame to when the event was happening but the simple-past is better if you want a more general description of the past.
|
English equivalent for 'تازه به دوران رسیده' I explain this word by an example: a person who recently became someone important or rich but, he behaves very pretentiously such a way that one might think he was rich or important for many years. For example, a beggar who finds a million dollars on the street by chance and next day, he starts to sneer at the indigent. In Persian language we call it "تازه به دوران رسیده" . Is there equivalent for this word in English? <Q> Although I think you did not provide a very suitable example, I answer this question as a learner. <S> As I explained in the comment, in Persian, we use "ندید بدید" or "تازه به دوران رسیده" to describe a person who recently became someone important or rich <S> but, he behaves very pretentiously such a way that one might think he was rich or important for many years. <S> For example, a beggar who finds a million dollars on the street by chance and next day, he starts to sneer at the indigent. <S> I recommend you to provide more detailed and specific context so that the native can answer the question perfectly. <S> With this regard, In order to provide some insights to your question, I can suggest: parvenu :[noun] a person from usually a low social position who has recently or suddenly become wealthy, powerful, or successful but who is not accepted by other wealthy, powerful, and successful people <S> upstart : <S> [noun] a person who has recently begun an activity, become successful, etc., and who does not show proper respect for older and more experienced people <A> In many languages, there is either a word or a phrase to describe this adjective. <S> Below translation is what you are looking for, which is the best usage of the definition I can find. <S> nouveau-riche: <S> A pejorative term for one who has recently become rich and who spends money conspicuously. <S> From French, meaning "new rich." <S> However, if you are looking for an English slang to use in an urban way, there is this one: chinless wonder: a silly man, typically of high social class Very derogatory term for an upper-class Brit, frequently one who gained his position via nepotism or other social connections, not through his own competence. <S> The trademark recessive chin is thought to be due to inbreeding. <S> A member of the upper classes - usually male. <S> an English man from a high social class, who thinks he is intelligent and important, but who other people think is weak and stupid <S> It is usually used for a specific human profile who is rich, egocentric and simply idiot (other people see this person as so). <A> What about arriviste ? <S> " <S> One that is a new and uncertain arrival (as in social position or artistic endeavor)" You can see examples following the link. <S> This one may fit your request The town's old money immediately shunned these vulgar arrivistes, who may have had the cash but certainly not the class As you can see it may imply negative connotations.
| nouveau riche :[noun] a person who has recently become rich and who likes to spend a lot of money
|
A comparison between Grade, Mark, Score and Point Let's suppose a teacher wants to punish a student and wants to decrease his / her achieved points on a test paper; he would say something to the student; I would like to know which one of the following self-made examples may work here: I have to take two marks of you. I have to take two grades of you. I have to take two scores of you. I have to take two points of you. For me all the first three mean the same and though the last one is not the same, but works here either. I need to get your feedback. <Q> Per the dictionary, the standard choices should be point : a unit of measurement: as a (1) : a unit of counting in the scoring of a game or contest b : a unit of academic credit mark <S> g : a symbol used to represent a teacher's estimate of a student's work or conduct; especially : grade I often hear of points and marks on test, exams, homework, etc. <S> I even tell my students "I will take points off for X, Y, Z." <S> So, of the choices provided by OP, I would personally would choose "points" and say I have to take two points off your exam. <S> I have to take two points off of your exam. <S> I have to take two points from you. <S> (If the listener knows we are talking about the exam.) <S> However, I have worked with students from around the world, and I feel like I have heard some of them use "grades" and "scores" in the manner that I use "points". <S> So like I said earlier, these four words might be equivalent to some people. <A> These are in fact distinct ideas. <S> Marks <S> can be mean the same as either points or grade, so I'll talk about both meanings below. <S> Mark and grade are mostly the same with regional preference, and refer to the final grade/mark given for an assignment or class, such as a 97% or an A. <S> For example, in British English you would be more likely to say "I got good marks this term," but in American English, "I got good grades" is more common. <S> Parts of a test or assignment are worth points <S> that add up to your total score . <S> For example, you could get 3 points out of 5 on the first question, and 4 out of 5 points on the second, for a total score of 7 points. <S> Depending on your school system, this score could result in a grade of C. As I mentioned above, marks can also be synonymous with points, but not that it tends to be used without specific numbers in American English. <S> For example, "you lost marks on that last question" is more common than "you lost two marks on that last question". <S> Some phrases you might use <S> : I have to take two points off on your paper <S> I have to take two points off of your score <S> I have to decrease your grade <S> You lost some marks on your test because of what you did <A> Firstly, you want to say "take [X] off you", or " off of you", not just " of you". <S> Secondly, preferred usage will differ from place to place. <S> In my answer, I am speaking for Australian English. <S> I have to take two marks off you. <S> This is correct . <S> If your score would have been 18 out of 20, but your punishment is to receive 16 out of 20 instead, this is a good way to say it. <S> I have to take two grades off you. <S> This is probably not correct . <S> A "grade" is a final or overall result. <S> It typically goes on a short scale like "A, B, C, D, F", or "High Distinction, Distinction, Credit, Pass, Fail", or even just "Pass, Fail". <S> So to "take two grades off" would mean either: To reduce this result by two steps on the scale (e.g. from B to D). <S> To entirely remove two results from the student's record. <S> This is a very strange thing to do! <S> In both cases, this is an awkward way of saying it. <S> If you actually do mean this, say instead "I have to reduce your grade by two steps", or "I have to remove these two results from your record". <S> I have to take two scores off you. <S> This is almost certainly not correct . <S> It is like "grade", option #2 <S> (remove two results from the record). <S> I have to take two points of you. <S> This is correct . " <S> Points" and "marks" are interchangeable words for "the basic unit of judging an assessment". <S> "Marks" is somewhat more common among people I work with or teach.
| But going by the dictionary (or standard use per se), your best options are points and marks.
|
Start a sentence with "being" I read this sentence in a book: Being jealous, Mona would not let her boyfriend dance with any of the cheerleaders. I've seen similiar sentences starting with "being" but I don't know why an english person should start a sentence like that! If I was going to say the same things, maybe i would say this one: Mona didn't let her boyfriend dance with any of the cheerleaders because she was jealous. Now these are my questions: When do English people start a sentence with "being"? What's the difference between my sentence and the first sentence? Is my sentence right at all? <Q> Being jealous is what's called a free adjunct . <S> It would be very difficult to explain exactly what linguists understand about it to you, since it requires a lot of technical knowledge. <S> The best way to explain it is this. <S> Let's start with the sentence: <S> Mona didn't let her boyfriend dance with any of the cheerleaders. <S> At this point, the listeners doesn't know why Mona didn't let her boyfriend dance with any of the cheerleaders. <S> However, the speaker wants to let the listener know why Mona didn't let him, so they want to add that Mona was jealous. <S> The most straight-forward solution would be your sentence, Mona didn't let her boyfriend dance with any of the cheerleaders because she was jealous. <S> The reverse also works (Because...Mona...). <S> But they require two clauses inside the main sentence. <S> [[Mona didn't let her boyfriend dance with any of the cheerleaders] <S> [because she was jealous.]] <S> Instead of having to put two clauses inside the main sentence, why not just have one with some extra information tacked on? <S> [Being jealous,] [[Mona didn't let her boyfriend dance with any of the cheerleaders.]] <S> This is analogous to: <S> Jealously, Mona didn't let her boyfriend dance with any of the cheerleaders. <S> The difference is that with jealously , it moved from the main clause to outside it. <S> In other words, the original sentence was: <S> Mona jealously didn't let her boyfriend dance with any of the cheerleaders. <S> And then the jealously moved in a process we call topicalization . <S> Topicalization in English moves parts of the sentence to the front <S> so they're more prominent. <S> ↓----------¬ <S> Mona jealously didn't let her boyfriend dance with any of the cheerleaders. <S> With being jealous , however, it didn't move from anywhere. <S> The speaker just thought of it and attached it to a point where it's allowed, which includes the front of the sentence. <S> Being jealous ↓ <S> Mona didn't let her boyfriend dance with any of the cheerleaders. <S> In conclusion, being jealous is basically a quick way of saying "Mona was jealous, therefore...." with fewer words. <A> "Being" in this sentence is a present participle , which is the verb form created with the base of the verb plus ing . <S> It's a verb form used a little like an adjective: <S> Mary was talking ; Dylan was running ; I saw Courtney laughing . <S> We use it at the beginning of a sentence to indicate that two things took place at the same time, or that one was the reason for the other. <S> For example, Whistling , Marley cleaned the house (that is, Marley cleaned the house while whistling) <S> Biting into the steak, Philomena lost a tooth (that is, as Philomena bit into the steak, she lost a tooth - but you could also think of it as being that she lost a tooth because she bit into the steak) <S> Feeling bored, I decided to go for a walk (that is, I decided to go for a walk because I was bored) <S> The logical conclusion we would make from the original sentence is that Mona did not let her boyfriend dance with the cheerleaders because she was jealous. <A> I can see your point: your rewrite seems more direct and is probably the more common way to express it. <S> That said, there are several reasons an author might want to stray from that "standard" approach, such tone, nuance, rhythm, and emphasis. <S> Being the flexible language that it is, English doesn't require a subject-verb-object construct for every sentence. <S> This probably makes it hard for the learner, but, for the rest of us, it's refreshing to see some variation every once in a while, be it in journalism or literature. <A> Your sentence is correct. <S> When do English people start a sentence with "being"? <S> What's the difference between my sentence and the first sentence? <S> Here's some possible reasons: <S> Sometimes if something is important, it's better to put it in the beginning of the sentence - it will make specific things stick in the reader/listener's mind a bit better. <S> "[Z] Being X, Y" is more compact and less wordy than "X because Z is Y." <S> If the reader/listener has already previously said that Z is X, but wants to mention it again as a "reminder", this compact form is preferred. <S> If the reader/listener already knows who Z is, the reader/listener may find it overly repetitive to hear Z again. <S> " <S> X because Z is Y" usually expresses a strict cause-and-effect relationship between X and Y. <S> However, the author/speaker may want to "soften" that a bit - maybe Z had some tendencies toward Y previously, but only now is fully manifesting Y. "[Z] Being X, Y" blurs these harsh lines somewhat which may be better for expressing emotions and tendencies.
| To address your questions specifically: yes, your sentence is correct too, and means pretty much the same thing.
|
Can we use the word "please" while throwing an error message I am trying build a software with proper error messages. I want English words, sentence suggestion for an error message below Please supply host name/IP address Should we stop using the word Please , Does the word Supply have a proper usage here? <Q> This reads like a good error message. ' <S> Supply' has been used properly and adding the 'Please' makes the imperative sound less aggressive. <A> They're both being used correctly, grammatically. <S> Stylistically, using 'please' in error messages is, in my opinion, a good software choice. <S> The only thing I would change here is that host name is conventionally one word in English, hostname. <S> You could also say "You must supply hostname/IP address." <S> That sounds a bit more demanding to me, and I like 'please' better. <A> However, the general conventions is to say "Enter hostname/IP address. <S> " When we put information into a computer, the conventional term is "enter" rather than "supply". <S> Don't think of the message as either a request or a command. <S> Rather, think of it as information on rectifying an error. <S> We presume that the user wants to rectify the error, so this is something they are doing for their own sake, not yours. <S> Saying please it therefore superfluous. <S> For certain kinds of information, it is worth telling the user why the information is needed. <S> It probably does not make a difference in this case, but people have become increasingly suspicious of software asking for certain kinds of information and an honest explanation of why the information is required will do far more to get them to comply than saying please. <S> There are cultural difference to take into account as well, but these seem to be the general conventions in the English-speaking world.
| There is nothing wrong with adding "please", but it is not the general convention to use it. There is nothing wrong with it either grammatically or stylistically.
|
Which one is correct word? People or People's Which word is correct and what is the difference between these words? People People's I heard somebody say, " People's does not work in a sentence. People means a group of humans. Why would you make the word plural again?" <Q> People is a collective noun. <S> When we talk about a specific group of people, we consider it as singular and therefore, no need to add s . <S> Peoples is used when we talk about two or more different ethnic groups. <S> For example, "All the 14 distinct peoples (native groups) of the continent were part of the survey" . <S> Whereas People's is not the plural form. <S> The apostrophe ('s) is used to indicate possession. <S> The box is mine. <S> The box is hers. <S> The box is theirs. <S> The box is my family's. <S> The box is the people's. <S> (The box belongs to the people.) <S> Likewise, the People's President means the President of the People . <A> Actually, I think you are looking for the difference between people and peoples . <S> People means indeed a group of humans, as in: The people of Germany speak German. <S> It can also be used as a plural of person : <S> Many people like apple pie. <S> The peoples of Asia are vary varied. <S> It is not used very often, so usually you will use the singular. <S> Note <S> You asked about people's , but that is not the plural form (you also wrote human's when you meant humans . <S> The apostrophe is used to indicate the genitive (possessive) form: <S> John's book -> the book that belongs to John. <S> You could certainly use people's in a sentence: <S> The elections showed the people's wish for change. <S> The wish belongs to the people. <S> In this sentence, people means all the humans that live in the country we are talking about (where elections were held). <A> People is the correct word. <S> If you are talking about the plural, then particularly use people, but if you are talking about pointing or showing some possession of something to any plural category then people's is okay.
| The plural of people is peoples and is used when you talk about several groups of humans, usually several ethnic groups:
|
It's/they're a pair of shoes It might seem a trivial question but it occured to me whlie I was writing for an assignment. I know if I put a pair of in subject place, I should use a singular verb e.g. A pair of shoes is there . Does it work the other way around too? What subject suits this sentence, a singular or plural one: .... is/are a pair of shoes. This is confusing for me because on the one hand when you point at some shoes actually you're showing something that is originally a plural noun so it must be addressed as plural. On the other hand we want to use a pair of which is singular. So which is correct? It's a pair of shoes. They're a pair of shoes. <Q> It is a pair of shoes. <S> It is a pair of two halves. <S> It is a pair in these examples one is describing the "pair"edness of the objects. <S> They are a pair of shoes. <S> Those are a nice pair of melons. <S> two somethings are a pair in these examples one is describing the objects as a "pair". <A> Many group nouns can take either take a singular or plural conjugation depending on the dialect of the speaker. <S> These include things like band , group , and pair . <S> In general, BE prefers a plural form for these nouns and AmE a singular form. <S> EDIT: <S> Here's some data from the GloWbE corpus for usage frequencies. <S> "Pair are": <S> "Pair is": <A> It is a pair of shoes. <S> They are shoes. <S> Grammatically a pair is singular.
| In your examples, both are correct, but it depends on what you are referring to
|
What does it mean? "I can't people today" There is a shirt with a sentence written on it. The sentence is : I can't people today What does it mean? I've seen this link and I know that "people" can be a verb but in this special case, I don't get the meaning of the phrase. <Q> It's supposed to be funny. <S> It implies <S> I can't deal with people today. <S> I personally didn't find it funny because this structure I can't [noun] seems cliche to me. <S> It is supposed to invoke something like this <S> It's akin to <S> I can't even if you are familiar with that expression. <S> I felt like I should probably note that the structure (using nouns as verbs) can change meaning. <S> It isn't fixed. <S> But it is usually used to be funny. <S> For example, I can't math today. <S> It could mean I can't do/comprehend/tolerate/ <S> teach math, all depending on context. <S> Today, before I went to class, I saw this post. <S> I was exhausted <S> and I really didn't plan anything for class. <S> So I was thinking, <S> I can't math today .In <S> other words <S> , I can't teach math today. <S> (I wasn't trying to be funny; that's how I felt. <S> But it could be used by someone else to be funny, like if they really hated math.) <S> Here is an instance of to [noun] . <S> The speaker is talking about the abundance of tutorials in the game Pokemon LeafGreen <S> You get a tutorial battle where you are told how to play Pokemon. <S> And then there is an old man later on who tells you how to Pokemon . <S> In this instance, we infer that "to Pokemon" means "to play [the game] Pokemon [LeafGreen]". <S> He's trying to be funny/cutesy. <S> He gets a couple of smiles, but no one really laughs out loud. <A> This isn't normal English. <S> The person who wrote this is deliberately using weird grammar for fun. <S> This is something people do as a joke: using words as verbs even though they're not verbs. <S> People also say things like "I forgot how to American" (meaning something like: I forgot how to act like an American) or "how do I piano" (how do I use a piano). <S> You have to kind of guess the meaning of the 'verb'. <S> It's deliberately not very clear. <S> What's meant here would be something like "I can't deal with people today". <A> This is an example of a relatively popular meme, all of which are variations on the so-called "Adulting" meme. <S> The syntax of the phrase is deliberately bad English, which is intended to inject humor into the saying. <S> But if you're not already very familiar with the intended meaning, the literal meaning just sounds wrong. <S> The original phrase, which your example is a derivative of, was "I can't adult today, please don't make me adult". <S> The relies on the use of the noun "adult" as if it were a verb, and probably derives from the " adultingblog " Tumblr account. <S> (Warning some NSFW language in some of the posts.) <S> The blog author used the term "adulting" to mean "the process of being, or acting like, an adult", as if it were a job title. <S> If we expand this concept to your example, we can see the pattern: to survey -> activity that defines one as a surveyor to bake -> activity that defines one as a baker to adult -> activity that defines one as an adult to people -> activity that defines one as a person <S> Note also the deliberate use of the plural "people" even though the speaker is a single person, again relying on improper grammar to inject humor.
| The phrase is a strange and ungrammatical way to say "I don't want to have to do the things that people do every day, because I can't handle it."
|
Difference between betrayal and cheating I've seen some movies in which a king tells someone that he betrayed him. But when a man betrays his wife, the wife doesn't say "You betrayed me". She says "You cheated on me". Why? What's the difference between "cheating on someone" and "betraying someone"? <Q> There are no hard and fast rules in these cases. <S> Both words can be used by either party and be entirely correct. <S> Betrayed is a stronger statement of deception than cheating and a deceived wife <S> can well say she was betrayed. <S> A king who was swindled at cards could quite rightly say he was cheated rather than betrayed. <A> Both words refer to dishonest acts, perhaps even the same act, but portray the act in different light. <S> To betray means to violate loyalty. <S> If a king tells his minister "You have betrayed me. <S> " <S> he means that the minister has committed a gross violation of his duty to his king. <S> If however he says "You have cheated me." <S> he means that the minister has tricked him to gain some advantage, perhaps in a personal matter such as the sale of a horse. <S> Adultery is both. <S> It is a betrayal because it is a violation of the principle of loyalty to one mate. <S> It is cheating because of the stealth and deception with which it is usually accomplished. <S> Both expressions can be and are used, though the second may be more idiomatic at the moment. <A> I am not a native speaker so be cautious. <S> I think betrayal have a more personal meaning (That's why it is stronger as stated by tom). <S> Cheating is more objective and neutral; you cheat when you break some rule or convention, even if it was expected. <S> But that doesn't apply for betrayal, if it was expected then it wasn't a betrayal.
| To cheat means to gain an advantage by dishonesty and guile.
|
An "a" article doesn't become a "the" despite the fact it was already mentioned With her watching, I'm a liar. She's a fake. She's the liar. ...(7 sentences, another paragraph)... To Marla I'm a fake. Source: Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk "I'm a liar. She's a fake. She's the liar." Looks like here "a" become "the" because "liar" was mentioned already and we should use a definite article. But after 7 sentences in the next paragraph we see the already-mentioned noun "fake" with indefinite "a". Why so? <Q> With her watching, I'm a liar. <S> She's a fake. <S> She's the liar. <S> The noun "liar" here does not take "the" because it was just mentioned. <S> You can say: I am a liar. <S> She's a fake. <S> She's a liar. <S> That would mean "we are both liars". <S> When you use "the" in this particular situation, you indicate that out of you two, she is the only liar. <S> It is as if you said I am a liar. <S> No, wait! <S> She's the liar! <S> It is she who is the liar between us two, not me. <S> When you are describing something, the "description noun", if it does not indicate a unique role, will take "a": <S> Bob is a policeman. <S> John is a policeman too. <S> See? <S> The word "policeman" is used to describe who Bob is, who John is. <S> In this copular construction the noun "policeman" does not refer to any particular person, it's a description. <S> You can mention it many times, and still it will take "a". <S> Bob and John walk towards each other along the street. <S> Bob is a policeman. <S> He wears the uniform, he clearly is a policeman. <S> But why does he suddenly run from John? <S> Ah, John is the policeman! <S> Bob was only pretending to be a policeman! <S> The meaning in this sutuation is: out of these two persons, John is "the" (only) policeman. <S> In this particular situation, the description is unique. <A> The rules for "a" and "the" can be complex and subtle. <S> And yes, often the reason they know is because it was already mentioned (and may originally have been "a/an X" instead). <S> But that is not what is happening here . <S> CowperKettle's answer is basically correct. <S> However, it isn't quite right in how it describes the "she's the X" idiom. <S> A hypothetical conversation: <S> Alice: <S> "You're an idiot." <S> Bob: <S> "You're the idiot!" <S> Why has Bob switched from "an idiot" to "the idiot"? <S> The reason is all about what's implied, not what is said explicitly. <S> Bob is implying that there is only one idiot in this conversation. <S> He has not explicitly denied being an idiot, but by saying "the idiot", he implies that there is only one (and so he's not it). <S> (In practice, this might be happening in a situation where Bob has done something quite idiotic, so it would be unreasonable for him to completely deny being an idiot. <S> Bob's implication, then, is that compared to him, Alice is much more of an idiot.) <S> Summary: <S> It is a deliberate choice of phrasing that puts a lot of implied meaning into a very short sentence. <S> The effect is to deny being a liar , or suggest that "she" is a much worse liar than the narrator. <S> Also note that, in speech, the emphasis shouldn't be on the article. <S> If "she's the liar" was spoken aloud, the emphasis would be on "she's", not on "the". <S> I mention this because when I read CowperKettle's answer, which bolds "a" and "the", I read it as having emphasis on those words, which sounds strange to me. <S> (I would guess that CowperKettle bolded those words because they're the ones we're talking about, not because they should be emphasised in speech. <S> And that's fine. <S> But another common use of bold is to mark emphasis, and <S> so I thought this warning was worth including.) <A> It has nothing to do with "first mention". <S> It's about whether and how the statements are logically related. <S> This is a perfectly valid statement, using related and complementary assertions: "I'm a liar; you're a liar; we're all liars." <S> Some style guides would permit commas in place of semicolons here, because the assertions are so short and so closely related. <S> It would also be permissible to use periods (Commonwealth English: full stops), which would probably be interpreted as slow (perhaps excessive) "let it sink in" emphasis. <S> In this construction, the intent is to contradict a previous "off-camera" accusation: "I'm not a liar; she's the liar." <S> This is a compressed version of something that in longer form might come out as: "I deny the accusation that I am lying about this. <S> The liar in this situation is her." <S> Note <S> that if you use "a liar in this situation is her", that does not preclude anyone else in the situation also being a liar, so it would not logically support the "I'm not a liar" (or "I deny the accusation ... <S> ") claim. <S> Use of "the" makes the second assertion (in either form) definite and specific. <S> This would also work, to encapsulate natural dialog[ue]: "I'm a liar? <S> She the liar!" <A> I'm having to guess a little at the context here <S> but I think this is on the right track. <S> I believe the first was intended to be read this way. <S> She's the liar = <S> There is indeed a liar here <S> but the liar is her rather than me. <S> Although I've expanded on the meaning in a way that does now follow the a-then-the pattern I wouldn't actually emphasize that too much because I agree that the rule is an oversimplification. <S> Now for the second sentence: She's a fake = <S> She is fake. <S> Despite the structural similarity between the "liar" and "fake" sentences, there is no specific fake ever in discussion here and no reason to single anybody out as " the fake". <S> She's just one member of the class of fakes and it's a common English expression to say it the first way. <S> (The first way is a stronger way of expressing it and suggests the totality of her being is fake.) <S> You can substitute the second form, which uses an adjective rather than a noun, to avoid the issue with articles and maybe satisfy your confusion.
| In this case, switching from "a" to "the" is not done to follow any particular rules of English. Yes, in general, "the X" is used when there is one specific X that is being talked about, and the speaker and the audience know which one it is.
|
Can I use "sleep-in" as a noun like "lie-in"? I have some questions about "sleep in". Do you use the expression "to have a lie-in" in the US, Canada and other English-speaking countries? Can I use "sleep-in" as a noun like "lie-in"? "Have a nice sleep-in" is correct? If "sleep-in" can't be used as a noun, is there any noun in American English like "lie-in"? <Q> No, that is not something a US English speaker would say or understand. <S> No, not as a noun in general conversation. <S> You could say "nap", "shut eye" or "snooze". <S> I'm off work <S> so I'm going to sleep in tomorrow. <S> Meaning sleep late. <S> If you're talking about a kids overnight party, that would be a "sleep over" or "slumber party". <A> It is quite possible to use sleep in as a synonym of lie in - staying in bed in the morning. <S> However, the noun sleep-in , with a hyphen, carries a different nuance - in British English at least. <S> It is common to use the suffix ' -in ' on a verb to create a noun indicating that it is a communal activity. <S> This started with the coining of the term love-in in the 1960s to describe hippy gatherings. <S> The term sit-in has been used for many years to describe a form of protest. <S> I have seen lie-in used to describe a similar form of protest. <S> Journalists in particular sometimes use the -in suffix on almost any verb. <S> It is used to imply a communal activity, not necessarily conventional. <A> Yep... in Britain and Ireland. <S> Not commonly turned into a noun, but people will know exactly what you mean in context. <S> Generally a phrasal verb. <S> In Ireland and Britain that is. <S> Can't advise on American English. <S> Wohooo... <S> I can have a lie in tomorrow! <S> I think we gen use 'sleep in' for over sleeping... <S> e.g. when it makes you late. <S> But you'll get your message across without raising too many eyebrows if you use either verb/noun <S> and it makes sense!P.s. <S> found this thread as i used "a sleep in" to Italian visitors who questioned me about it and got me thinking!
| "Sleep in" would always be used in the verb form. For sure, 'a lie in'and 'to have a lie in' are very common in Ireland... and seen as a great luxury.
|
What does "Fanny By Gaslight" mean? Have anyone read a book of British writer Michael Sadleir "Fanny by Gaslight"? Or seen a movie of the same name? I Googled all about the title, but never met a clear explanation what does it mean. There isn't any gaslight in the movie (I didn't read the book) and people offer different theories <Q> The locution "{something or someone} by daylight|moonlight" means {something or someone} as illuminated by the light of the sun or the light of the moon . <S> By gaslight would mean "as seen in the light cast by a gas-burning lamp". <S> Before electricity, indoor lamps and street lamps used a gas flame. <A> Gas lighting was implemented in London during the reign of Queen Victoria, which ended in 1901. <S> Fanny was a popular girl's name in Victorian England. <S> "Fanny by Gaslight" was a catchy title encapsulating the themethat <S> Fanny was a common working girl engaging in street work (under the gaslight) as a prostitute. <S> This indicates that the phrase was in common use by WWII. <S> To support that inference,my 22 year old father was an Commonwealth [RAAF] pilot on loan to the British RAFand <S> his AVRO Lancaster had a logo of a young woman astride a bomb, with her knickers at her knees, entitled "We drop 'em by night!" <S> In summary, "Fanny by gaslight" is a prostitute who works/walks the streets at night. <A> It's ambiguous. <S> It could be a play on words. <S> Whether or not there is gaslight in the movie, it could just mean Fanny at night –since nighttime is a time when gaslight is often used. <S> Titles cannot always be taken literally; they often contain figures of speech or even bad grammar ( Gone Girl ) to attract attention. <S> There are many possibilities. <A> According to the synopsis of the movie Fanny (Phyllis Calvert) finishes at boarding school in 1880 and returns to London, where she witnesses Lord Manderstoke (James Mason) fight and kill her supposed father. <S> She soon learns that her family has run a brothel next door to her home and (on her mother's death) that he was not her real father. <S> She goes to meet her real father – a respected politician – and falls in love with Harry Somerford (Stewart Granger), his advisor. <S> Manderstoke continues to thwart her happiness "Fanny" is the name of the main character, coincidentally in BrE, a "fanny" is a woman's vagina and as has ben pointed out in one of the other answers A "fanny" by gaslight is a prostitute. <S> Given that the family ran a brothel, it all ties in... <A> "Fanny by gaslight" was a WW2 phrase created by the British Royal Air Force. <S> The meaning and uses of this was a term for aircraft landing with only candle lights on the landing strips/runway to guide their landings. <S> I read that it originated from an Avro Lancaster squadron who only flew night sorties. <A> "By gaslight" is the key. <S> If we realize the two connotations of "by gaslight" or "gaslighting", we have the answer. <S> One meaning is, as already expounded by fellow contributors, that of a hooker walking the pavement. <S> The other meaning, however, goes deeper, (see the wikipedia definition below) and I for one understand the title as a composite of both connotations. <S> The protagonist Fanny, raised unbeknownst as the adoptive daughter of a brothel landlord, who is NO hooker, perish the thought, happens to be an innocent victim of two in Victorian times unforgivable indiscretions. <S> Firstly, that of hailing from a dubious background, and secondly, as later transpires, of being the natural daughter of a Victorian cabinet minister. <S> Upon the manslaughter of her adoptive father, the brothel owner, she is sent to live with her biological father, a cabinet minister, whereupon she is being vilified, manipulated and tossed about by two class conscious sanctimonious Brit upper class chicks who see Fanny's now apparent two identities as a potential threat to their respective first class compartments on the Victorian upper class gravy train. <S> Here goes the definition of GASLIGHT: <S> Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes such as low self-esteem. <S> Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and misinformation, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs. <S> Instances can range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents occurred to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.
| It could mean Fanny is a prostitute and works when the gaslight is on. "Fanny by gaslight" sounds the likely title and cartoon emblazoned on an AVRO Lancaster aircraft, playing on the point that it flew night missions. The title is a play on words.
|
Is "don't mind if I do" old-fashioned? I do not listen (but do read) much to English lately, but honestly, I heard it once or twice. Would you consider it old-fashioned? "I don't mind if I do" said to politely accept an offer of food or drink - A: "There's plenty more cake if you'd like another piece." B: "I don't mind if I do." Source: Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary <Q> I disagree a little with the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary here when they emphasize that it's a polite acceptance. <S> It is polite, but more to the point, I'd say it's something like an eager acceptance; it's almost a little playful. <A> In your example (politely accepting cake) I think it could be considered old fashioned. <S> But more generally I don't think it's that uncommon, as currently many people use it to be slightly tongue-in-cheek. <S> E.g. if you were offered some cake and grabbed a big slice you might smile and say "don't mind if I do, I'm starving!". <S> This might make your host smile if you are in an informal context, but wouldn't be acceptable in a more formal context (e.g. restaurant). <S> Even Homer Simpson says it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SLdg0BGGQ0 <A> I don't know if the previous posters are Americans, but while it seems a little formal, it's certainly not outdated and I would expect to hear this quite regularly here in sunny Buckinghamshire, England. <A> Yes I would, but the average person today would still know what you mean. <S> According to Google Ngrams , the phrase was most popular from the thirties to mid forties but came back and is just as popular today.
| It's not that common of an expression, but it doesn't strike me as old-fashioned, either.
|
What does "chrome" mean besides the metal? I have trouble understanding the following sentence from lwn.net Because the nightly builds are not full browsers, the interface leaves out most of the traditional browser chrome . I know there's a browser called Chrome but I doubt that's the meaning here. Using a dictionary I can only find chrome as my title says. I think it means something like user interface but I'm not sure. <Q> The term "browser chrome" comes by analogy to "chrome" on vehicles — <S> shiny surfaces that appeal to buyers/drivers. <S> The Chrome browser was, of course, named after this term. <A> From Glen's answer on Quora , which also goes on to explain Chrome's name: <S> In design terminology, 'chrome' refers to the non-webpage parts of the browser's interface - the toolbars, tabs and buttons <A> From the Jargon File : [from automotive slang via wargaming] Showy features added to attract users but contributing little or nothing to the power of a system. <S> “The 3D icons in Motif are just chrome, but they certainly are pretty chrome!” <S> Distinguished from bells and whistles by the fact that the latter are usually added to gratify developers' own desires for featurefulness. <S> Often used as a term of contempt. <A> Chrome is something that isn't needed, but it looks nice. <S> From the link you gave, one example mentioned is that it doesn't include the usual start page. <S> Leaving out chrome makes the browser is smaller and simpler, but it's still 100% usable. <S> It may be missing pretty graphics, the interface may not include some visual-effects, and optional/unneeded features might be left out.
| So browser chrome is the visible user interface, the menus and toolbars and icons and tabs and so forth, which are the parts of the browser that are actually distinct (from the webpages, which are presumably displayed the same by all browsers) and can therefore be marketed to users.
|
Being them / being themselves? Here is the sentence I am struggling to make sure it is correct. What pronoun is correct- changing them to themselves or as written? But my friends love being them, and I love them being them, but I still love being me! <Q> But this is a subtle distinction and the alternative isn't entirely wrong, so e.g. "being me" isn't rejected. <S> You can see from this comparison of different phrases that the preference is not completely unambiguous: <A> It depends. <S> "Being themselves" has the idea of displaying their true personality . <S> Be oneself Act naturally, according to one’s character and instincts: <S> I want him to have the confidence to be himself - ODO <S> Assuming that you are using the word them as a pronoun that refers to your friends, use themselves if you prefer them to be genuine, or them if (as your phrase "but I still love being me" indicates) <S> you're referring to them literally/ontologically. <S> Since you enjoy the fun and friendship they show when they're not in front of the camera, they should just be themselves at the presentation. <S> There's also another issue, which is that "them" might refer to a different group of people, not named in this sentence. <S> Your friends may be pretending to be that group. <S> The first part of your statement then says that both you and your friends enjoy your friends' performance, and the final part is a humorous aside. <S> If you wanted to exclude that interpretation of them , then themselves would be a better choice. <S> Your friends do an excellent parody of those actors. <S> It's entertaining watching them be them . <S> I understand that on the face of it, I've recommended that you use both terms, in turn. <S> English sentences can be ambiguous, whether by design or by accident. <S> Happily, however, the ambiguity is often resolved by considering the wider context. <A> Reflexive pronouns are used when the subject and the object are the same. <S> I will pay for myself. <S> You can pay for yourself. <S> They can pay for themselves. <S> I love being myself. <S> They love being themselves.
| "Themselves" is better, in the same way that "being you" is worse than "being yourself" — it's better to directly refer to the entire self, not just the essence.
|
Can the comma be used to create a pause in a (long) sentence? I'm studying for TOEFL and saw some punctuation rules online. Some sources mention the pause for comma, while others don't.Is there a canonical source for questions like this? <Q> There are various ways to create pauses in sentences using punctuation. <S> The most common is the ","(comma), and tends to be the shortest pause. <S> There is also "-"(dash), "--"(em-dash), ":"(colon), and ";"(semicolon). <S> here <A> If you're trying to write common speech patterns, the ellipsis […] is very common. <S> Umm… no. <S> That's… interesting. <A> Most credible guidelines I've seen caution against using commas where they shouldn't go simply because a reader might pause there. <S> For example, the Grammar Girl says: The “put a comma everywhere <S> you’d pause” idea is an unfortunately common myth. <S> Another writing consultant opines: <S> If you have a block of text that's so long it needs a mid-way breath while reading aloud, or if reading aloud leads you to throw in natural pauses to help structure the meaning, those are not necessarily indicators that the written text needs a comma. <S> And in the Writing Forward blog, Melissa Donovan writes: A comma often indicates a pause, but some pauses occur without any assistance from commas. <S> In fact, one of the biggest mistakes people make is to simply place a comma wherever they want the reader to pause. <A> In addition to pausing, commas guide sentence intonation. <S> Roughly, the comma separates groups of words that form a pattern of pitches. <S> For example in a list, each item except the last has a rising pitch. <S> The pattern of pitches within an intonation phrase is called the intonation contour. <S> English doesn't have enough punctuation to mark all the possible intonations. <S> The comma can show where an intonation phrase ends, but it is up to the reader to supposes exactly how the expression should be expressed. <S> The commas are a guide to prosody . <S> By guiding the reader in how a sentence should be read, commas can improve clarity and reduce ambiguity. <S> A breath and a pause sometimes can occur at the end of a intonation group, but not always. <S> The commas only guide prosody. <S> They do not prescribe when and where to pause. <S> Again in a list of short items, a speaker would not pause or breath after each item. <S> These intonation phrases often coincide with grammatical elements of the language, and so it is possible to use the grammatical structure of a sentence to deduce where commas should be placed, however they are not themselves part of the grammatical structure of the sentence. <S> There are notable dialectical differences in intonation between American, British and Australian. <A> There are times when the length of your sentence can cause readers to have trouble following along, necessitating the use of a comma to break it up. <S> The previous sentence is an example of such a case. <S> Its purpose is to show where you would naturally pause while talking aloud. <S> However, sometimes it's better to just break the sentence up into two using a period. <S> Use this method tactically when writing to help you vary sentence length. <S> There are also other ways to break up sentences, including the semicolon and the hyphen. <S> Ellipsis can be used to generate even longer pauses, but such a usage is typically considered informal.
| Commas often go where pauses would go, but I'd advise against using a comma simply to force a pause.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.