source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
How is “X” pronounced in English? The letter x can sound (most often) like [gz] and [ks]: [gz] in words like exam, exactly. [ks] in word like extra, hexagon, etc. I have found that x is pronounced [gz] whenever it’s in or before the stressed syllable, and [ks] otherwise. And in a few cases it sounds like [z] when at the beginning of a word. Do you know other ways of pronouncing this letter? Or other facts that have something to do with its pronunciation? <Q> As a rule of thumb, the prefix ex- is pronounced with /ks/ <S> when the prefix is stressed. <S> : <S> 'excellent 'exit 'exile 'execute <S> When this prefix is not stressed, then if the first sound in the root (the part after the prefix) begins with a voiced sound, the prefix will be pronounced with /gz/ <S> : <S> ex'am <S> ex'asperate <S> ex'actly ex'ist <S> This is still true, of course if the prefix is followed by a silent /h/ in the writing. <S> In this case of course, the first sound in the root is a vowel sound: <S> ex'hibit <S> ex'haust <S> ex'hort <S> ex'hilaration <S> If the prefix is followed by an unvoiced sound, then it will be pronounced with /ks/ <S> ex'pect /ɪkˈs <S> p ekt/ <S> ex'tol /ɪkˈs <S> t əʊl/ <S> ex'hale /eks' <S> h eɪl/ <S> ex'ceed /ɪkˈ <S> s iːd/ <S> ex'foliate /eksˈ <S> f əʊlieɪt/ <S> In the words above we see roots beginning with the following voiceless sounds respectively /p, t, h, s, f/ and so the prefix used /ks/ <S> instead of /gz/. <S> There is a different prefix in English exo- <S> meaning 'outer' or 'outside'. <S> The meaning is similar to <S> ex- <S> which tends to mean 'out of' or 'from'. <S> The prefix <S> exo- <S> is always pronounced with /ks/. <S> It is a Greek prefix. <S> Another Greek prefix, hex(a) , meaning 'six', is also pronounced with /ks/ <S> : <S> hexa gon hexa decimal <S> latex <S> six <S> Bronx <S> Very few words in English begin with X. Those that do are mostly from Greek and tend to be pronounced with /z/: <S> xylophone xanthar gum xenon <A> In answer to the question, “Do you know other ways of pronouncing this letter?” <S> It is pronounced like the letter Y or unpronounced in the case of Bexar County (the county in which San Antonio, Texas, is located). <S> So, it is said by locals like bear, or Bayer—the company known (among other things) for making aspirin/ASA. <S> But honestly, that is an edge case, probably not worth committing to memory. <S> Cf. <S> Bexar County, Texas Talk Notes on Wikipedia and Bexar County pronunciation on forvo.com . <A> I think your summary is good for UK English. <S> Any controversy would be in how to pronounce the leading X Xavier <S> You have stated the normal UK pronunciation, which I think follows from the French. <S> If you see the X-men films you will see it pronounced <S> exavier <S> I have seen statistics that suggest that this is a more usual US pronunciation
| X at the end of a word nearly always represents the sounds /ks/.
|
It has rained / been raining for one hour Imagine it's raining , and it started one hour ago and it's still raining , which sentence is correct: It has been raining for one hour It has rained for one hour And if we say: It has been raining . It has rained. Are these sentences true for this situation (without for or since ) or not? I think the former two sentences are true, and the first one is better, but we use the latter ones for finished actions or situations (It isn't raining right now). Am I right? <Q> Present perfect progressive (continuous) is used for actions that started in the past, and has just ended now or continuing to happen. <S> The rain started happening in the past (one hour ago) and has still not ended - it's a continuous action, so the correct form is <S> It has been raining for one hour. <S> About the second sentence, it is incorrect to use it, as present perfect simple is used for a short (non-continuous) actions that happened in an indefinite time in the past). <S> For example, if there was rain somewhen in the past <S> but you are not sure <S> /do not know/do not care when: It has rained. <A> No. 1, yes, in the right context. <S> I can't get to my car. <S> It's been raining. <S> Implies that continuous rain has prevented the speaker from getting to the car. <S> No.2, I can't think of a way that would work without the duration. <S> "for one hour" changes the meaning significantly. <A> In your scenario that it is still raining, both sentences are correct but it depends on context Q: Is it raining? <S> A: It has been raining for an hour. <S> Q: How long has it been raining? <S> A: It has rained for an hour. <S> In your second scenario It has been raining. <S> would be understood to mean it is still raining, whereas It has rained. <S> would usually be understood to mean it ruined before but has stopped, unless one were to say Q:What's the weather been doing? <S> A: It has rained and rained and rained. <S> which would be understood to mean it is still raining.
| You are in fact right about the first sentence.
|
What is the difference between "come in" and "come inside"? What's the difference between come in and come inside ? When it is raining, a mother would say her daughter, come inside but when a guest comes, come in, please . I think the former is a polite way while the latter is like an order. Am I right? <Q> It's all about tone and usage and nothing to do with the words themselves. <S> It would be just as polite to say either of these two phrases: <S> Please, do come inside. <S> Please, do come in. <S> And just as much of a command to say either of these two phrases: George, come inside, now! <S> George, come in, now! <S> Though, I admit it sounds a tiny bit odd to use "in" in the second example <S> but I believe this is due to the phrasing. <S> Saying something like this is perfectly appropriate: <S> George, get in the house right this second! <A> They can both be used interchangeably. <A> Grammatically, both are imperative sentences. <S> But practically speaking (or functionally) imperatives are not always harsh "commands. <S> " They can be invitations: Come to Boston when you have a chance. <S> Come inside (right this second)! <S> , said by a mother to her child, is not an invitation. <S> It is an order/command. <S> Now, a lot has been said about " the nuance of 'in' and 'inside' ," and you can read a lot of explanations there. <S> But we can simplify things and just say Come in is idiomatic in this particular usage of inviting a guest to enter your house, and come inside is idiomatic for ordering someone such as your child, to enter your house. <S> Native speakers would not reverse the usage of these prepositions, unless they wanted to stray from the idiomatic uses. <A> Another nuance is that "come inside" <S> implies that the recipient of the request is actually outside. <S> "Come in" could be used when the recipient is either outside, or being invited into another space in an already enclosed area. <S> For example: To a person who is standing on the porch:"Please come inside." or "Please come in". <S> To a person who is standing in a hallway, and being invited into an office:"Please come in." <A> You can use either in or inside as an adverb in the sentence presented, without any difference in meaning. <S> However, the use of in is much more common.
| There is no difference in semantics between the two. Come in is an invitation for your visitor to enter your house. "In" is just being used as short for "inside", however neither one is more formal than the other.
|
The most important things which show that an speaker is not native I know that there are many things which reveal that, for example, I am not a native English speaker. But I'd like to know the signs that native people use to determine if an speaker is not native. We are told in the class that accent is very important but I know that there are many accents in both USA and England. So, why is it still so easy for a native speaker to know that someone is not native? I mean, how can we be like native speakers? is it just about accent? <Q> I think nowadays it is easy to listen to others <S> speak who are native speakers. <S> For example, due to television, I have some practice listening to what (some) <S> British people sound like. <S> Similarly, due to television, I have some practice listening to what (some American) Southerners sound like. <S> You can imagine that before the days that it was possible to record audio, we might have had no idea what other native speakers sounded like. <S> In fact, it seems plausible that in those times, people could have mistaken native speakers from other place for nonnative speakers because they didn't sound the same ("they don't sound like me"). <S> Again, because of media, I have practice listening to nonnative accents too, like Chinese and Russian. <S> So, when I hear them spoken in real life I recognize them instantly. <S> I know that those people do not come from places where English is spoken "natively". <S> So even if a person with a nonnative accent had impeccable grammar skills, because I have practice identifying accents that are not native, I would identify the person as a nonnative speaker. <S> I guess I forgot the address <S> the first part of your question. <S> I doubt there is a "most important thing". <S> The two big clues that I can think of are accent (in the sense that it doesn't match one of the well-known ones, per se), and grammar. <S> Now, having poor grammar doesn't imply that you are not a native speaker, as there are plenty of native speakers with poor grammar (myself included). <S> But I think there are few distinct patterns that might serves as hints, like the lack of articles. <A> Yours is a fascinating question. <S> First of all, it is important to recognize that all English is spoken with an accent. <S> There is no immutable and inviolable standard of pronunciation, and English is spoken natively by scores of peoples, in accents so varied that they are often mutually unintelligible. <S> Much of humor is dependent upon a grasp of nuance and the fine differences among shades of meaning, and this grasp is not just linguistic and intellectual, but cultural and emotional; learned "at Mother's knee," we might say. <S> There may even be a joke which is specifically formulated to separate native from non-native speakers; further research is required! <A> English uses several uncommon distinctions between vowels; choosing the wrong vowel is a very common error. <S> Another red flag is using a more even rhythm. <S> In native speech, most vowels in unstressed syllables are reduced toward schwa, and foreigners often pronounce such vowels ‘too’ clearly. <S> Some errors are rather random. <S> I once worked with a Vietnamese who almost always said “upon” in place of “on” – and pronounced it /'ju <S> :pɔn/ rather than /ʌ'pɔn/. <S> I've never heard anyone else do that!
| After considering this for a while, I believe that while there is no single trait which always identifies a non-native speaker of any language to a native speaker, there is one which comes close: the ability to "get" a joke.
|
I traveled in or at the Philippines? "I traveled in (at) the Philippines." I have seen many sentences that use "in" and "at" with this kind of sentence. I want to know what's the difference between the two? When to use it? Thank you very, very much! I'm a beginner, please bear with me. <Q> Whichever preposition is used here mean completely different things, <S> I travelled at the Philippines Makes little sense and would not seem natural, <S> I travelled in the Philippines <S> Implies that you went to the Philippines that travelled around a bit. <S> In the end you have to choose what you mean by the sentence because each preposition changes its meaning. <A> How about simply: I traveled the Philippines which essentially means that you traveled and traversed the country. <S> This isn't usage you can use with countries that don't begin with "The", however. <S> Another example, courtesy of Merriam-Webster <S> We're traveling the countryside <A> At considers a location such as the Philippines as a point on a map, like an X . <S> This is similar to 'the treasure is buried at the X '. <S> You can specify X by latitude and longitude. <S> It is hard to conceptualize travelling at a point. <S> In speaks of within a location. <S> He felt safe within his own country . <S> You can travel within a location. <S> So the answer is in .
| The other alternative is talking about travelling to the Philippines which has a different denotation but may be what you're looking for: I travelled to the Philippines Implies that you went on a trip and the final destination was the Philippines.
|
Construction of “females representatives” In a Guardian article , I stumbled over this sentence: These kind of men deter women from entering politics, when more females representatives is exactly what America needs. I would have expected to read female representatives here (like green leaves , not greens leaves ). Why is it females ? Isn’t it used as an adjective here? It doesn’t seem to be a typo, since I found a few similar cases in a Google search, such as this one in a 2005 book: As a result of (…), Wales has one of the highest proportions of females representatives in the world, (…) <Q> You have certainly found a typographical error. <S> That you found multiple examplesis testament not to its correctness, but only to the frequency of the phrase "female representatives" and to the declining standards of proofreading in the Age of the 24-hour News Cycle. <S> (p.s. <S> : I just noticed that The Grauniad threw in a "these kind" for good measure!) <A> I can't but absolutely agree with P.E.Dant: It's an error no matter how you look at "female" -- as a part of a compound noun or a determiner. <S> It also might be that "women representatives", which appears to be more frequent than "female representatives" , made someone decide that "females" wouldn't be incorrect, which actually is. <S> Anyways, Google Ngram Viewer doesn't find the "females representatives" collocation. <A> Females' They forgot to add the possessive apostrophe. <S> Add <S> an s' to <S> female when you want to add possessiveness to it. <S> Add just add <S> s when you want to pluralize it. <S> Female representatives is using the word female as an adjective. <S> They are describing the representatives. <S> Compare it with these other examples: <S> Lawyers' clients Lucas' toys <S> If a noun ends in -s then to make it possessive, you can't just do Jones's , because then it will sound like Joneseses
| Females' representatives does not describe the representative but rather, it demonstrates who the representatives are representing, who they are sponsoring, who they work for.
|
How do you answer the questions like "What is[are]" + noun(s)? How do you reply to the questions like... "What is one good example of modern Beijing?" Can I either reply with A. "The National stadium is. " or B. "It's The National stadium."? <Q> It can't be B. since "it's" in B. <S> implies that the original question was something like <S> What is the only good example of modern Beijing. <S> A. works. <S> It is understandable, but I would also consider The National stadium. <S> The National stadium is a good one. <S> The National stadium is a good example. <S> The National stadium is a good example of modern Beijing. <A> Typically in informal speech we would simply reply The National Stadium , as people normally don't speak in complete sentences. <S> If you're speaking or writing formally, then 'A' works, but if you want to be super formal than it would be more like this: <S> It works with or without the words in brackets. <S> That's a style choice. <A> Informally, you can get away with just saying The National stadium , but formally it must agree with the question's verb usage. <S> What animal can run 500 miles per hour? <S> A robotic cheetah can run 500 miles per hour. <S> See how the answer follows the same pattern as the question? <S> How many people play guitar? <S> 5 people play guitar. <S> Since we already know the verb used in the question though, it can be omitted because the verb is in context now. <S> What time is it? <S> 7 o'clock. <S> instead of <S> The time is 7 o'clock.
| The National Stadium is one [good example of Modern Beijing].
|
'cook dinner yourself' vs 'cook dinner by yourself' This is the dialogue from my English textbook between a mom and her kid: Mom: I'm going to be home late tonight. I have to go and visit Grandma after work. Kid: What time will you be home? Mom: I'll be home after dinner. I'm sorry, but you'll have to cook dinner yourself . Is there any difference in meaning if I replace 'cook dinner yourself' with 'cook dinner by yourself'?(For me, 'cook dinner by yourself' means cook dinner alone, but I'm not sure if that sounds correct in the ears of native English speakers.) <Q> The primary difference for me is in the implication of the original expectation for the cooking process: <S> (Specifically, you were not going to participate in the cooking.) <S> Now, you have to cook (with no assistance) instead of not cooking at all. <S> "You'll have to cook dinner by yourself ": This implies that the original plan was for both people to participate in the cooking process. <S> Now, you have to cook with no assistance instead of cooking with assistance (or being the assistant). <A> To a native speaker, 'by yourself' is slightly more ambiguous, but both would be understood well. <S> I understand: <S> Cook dinner yourself as meaning, 'cook dinner without my help', while Cook dinner by yourself could either mean 'cook dinner without my help' or 'cook dinner alone'. <A> I'm not sure of the family dynamic, but cook dinner yourself implies that a sibling or other family member may be there who will not be cooking. <S> Cook dinner by yourself implies the family unit is just the two of them. <S> Therefore either could be true.
| "You'll have to cook dinner yourself ": This implies that the original plan was for someone else to cook the dinner.
|
Words to say about someone being almost the same age as you are Seeking the alternatives to saying about someone that he is almost the same age as I am, I came across the words agemate and batchmate . In the Russian language, there are several one-word terms to tell about a person born around the year you were born: ровесник -- approximately of the same age with you; одногодок -- born in the same year, погодок -- born a year or so before or after you were born, одноклассник -- the one who were with you in the same grade at school, однокашник -- college/university mate who entered the educational institution in the same year you did it (the usual age to begin a higher education being 17-19 years old), and a few more terms. Could the native English speakers answer me if there are the English words to match their Russian equivalents I tried to define in English? Also, about the two words I mentioned in the beginning of the post: Are they really in use? In your culture, what would be the maximal age difference between the persons to say that they are agemates? <Q> English lacks such precise terms to describe fellow members of an age group. <S> Occasionally in journalistic usage, we see the term cogenerational , but that feels contrived to a native speaker, and even worse, it has a previous usage which refers to power production. <S> I first encountered the word Agemate a few moments ago in your post, and I've been reading and writing English for over 65 years; this may answer your question about use! <S> Batchmate is primarily used in South Asian English, and seems not be in wide use even there. <S> It is all but unknown in NAmE. <S> Agemate seems to be most widely used in scholarly writing on sociology and psychology [1] , in which it is often hyphenated as age-mate . <S> It is encountered only seldom outside of such disciplines. <S> In that usage, it is taken to mean "born within a year of each other." <A> (AmE) <S> I don't use or hear "agemate" or "batchmate". <S> I might understand what you mean by "agemate", but definitely not "batchmate". <S> Personally, "batchmate" sounds like computer programming jargon. <S> If it interests you, please consider the following expressions. <S> This does not imply that we were born on the same day in the same year. <S> It doesn't even imply we were born in the same month. <S> I think most would agree that it implies that we're are about, at most one year apart. <S> For example, we are both 25 years old. <S> We are both X years old. <S> This is pretty clear: we've been alive for (at least) X years. <S> Maybe I am closer to 26, and the other person just turned 25, but we are both 25 years old. <S> We're about the same age. <S> This is bit ambiguous, but I think you can certainly use it if two of you are about 2 or 3 years apart in age. <S> We are X years apart. <S> We were born <S> X <S> years apart. <S> 4 means that the difference between my age and another person's age is X years. <S> 5 might be used by siblings. <S> As others have mentioned regarding your other requests, you might consider contemporaries and classmates . <S> In college and high school, students are often called Freshman (plural, freshmen; first year student) <S> We're freshmen! <S> Sophomore(s) <S> (second year student) Junior(s) <S> (third year student) <S> Senior(s) <S> (fourth year student) <S> In college, students are also called first/second/third/fourth/etc-year students. <S> Sometimes, the word student(s) is omitted. <S> We're first-year students! <S> We're first-years! <A> Are they really in use? <S> No, these are never used in American English, spoken or written. <S> "Contemporary" as noun is a good one, but there is no set age range for the term. <S> " <S> Peer" is another potential choice--also with no set age range. <S> Both can be used to describe someone who is actually several years apart from you, depending on the context. <S> "Classmate" is more commonly used to mean a student who attends the same specific class you do, but can also be used to mean someone who is in the same year of school with you, at the same school. <S> There is no good direct match for any of the specific terms you mention--Russian seems to have much more precise options here than English. <S> Which is interesting--I don't know why that would be. <A> A word that has not been mentioned yet is cohort , which has a number of meanings, but one of which is: a group of persons sharing a particular statistical or demographic characteristic: eg. <S> the cohort of all children born in 1980. <S> - dictionary.com <S> As the definition says, this applies to the group, so to refer to an individual you require a modifying phrase, <S> eg : <S> "This particular patient is a member of the 1985 cohort ". <S> This construction maps relatively closely to your second and fourth words (perhaps your fifth too, but I'm not quite sure I follow the meaning you've explained there). <S> Classmate has already been referred to, but idiomatically, it's not often used after the fact, whereas a phrase whose meaning is somewhat similar to cohort, but used in a more specific context is graduating class (which is frequently used after the fact), from which the individual form is produced a little less clumsily as graduating classmate ; <S> Another similar option: "he was from my year at school"; "she was in the same year as me at university". <A> The words agemate and batchmate are seldom in use today, but anybody can understand their sense when used. <S> The words you usually use are age when referring to a person of the same age and classmate when referring to a person of the same class. <S> For examples: He's my age <S> or he's the same age as me. <S> However, you can use the word contemporary instead of agemate as follows: <S> She doesn't mix with her contemporaries, preferring older people (Cambridge). <A> coeval <S> [koh-ee-vuh l] <S> adjective of the same age, date, or duration; equally old: Analysis has proved that this manuscript is coeval with that one. <S> coincident: <S> Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo were only approximately coeval. <S> noun a contemporary: <S> He is more serious than his coevals. <S> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/coeval
| Most people would intuitively understand "agemate," but would find "batchmate" very odd sounding. We are the same age. He's my classmate.
|
“Mary likes cheese very much" or “Mary very much likes cheese” which one is correct? Which one is correct? Maybe both? “Mary likes cheese very much ." or “Mary very much likes cheese.” According to this website the second sentence is wrong: http://www.antimoon.com/how/input-howmuch.htm It seems to me strange because I've read in Practical English Usage by Michael Swam that the sentences like the second one is correct. And I'm a bit confused. That's why I'm asking the natives. <Q> Both are grammatically correct. <S> Your question is not about grammar it is about usage. <S> In this case, placing the adverbial at then end is favoured. <S> But both are possible. <S> Both could be produced by a native speaker. <S> For example, from facebook <S> "Howard Otley very much likes Frankie and the Heartstrings ..." . <S> The page that you link to notes that native speakers make thousands of little choices like this. <S> The knowledge that "very much" usually comes after "likes" is one example of a little fact that native speakers have. <S> He says that "Mary very much likes cheese" is incorrect, and implies that it is ungrammatical. <S> In this respect the author is wrong. <S> He is mistaking a common preference for a grammatical rule. <A> Native NAmE speaker here. <S> Sentence number one " <S> Mary likes cheese very much <S> " sounds better to my ear. <S> The second sentence "Mary very much likes cheese" makes sense to me, but I would immediately know that the person stating it is not a native NAmE speaker. <S> Truth be told, what you are most likely to hear in conversation is "Mary likes cheese a lot" or maybe "Mary really likes cheese". <A> The first sentence is a statement, while the second sentence is a response. <S> The second sentence is speaking affirmatively <S> George likes cars very much. <S> The sentence is perfect on its own. <S> We have a subject, verb, and an object. <S> It is a clear sentence. <S> George very much likes cars. <S> By itself, it is grammatically correct and all, but you sound like you're speaking backwards if you say it out of context. <S> What is the right context, you say? <S> Consider the following: <S> Mother: I'm thinking of getting George a car for his birthday, do you think he'd like it? <S> Father: George very much likes cars. <S> It's nearly the same as saying <S> George <S> indeed like cars
| Most native speakers would say "Mary likes cheese very much." Both sample sentences are grammatically correct, although formal.
|
Is "incubate for 10 min" fully synonymous with "let sit for 10 min"? Example sentences: Incubate the solution at room temperature for 30 min. Mix by vortexing and let sit for 10 min at room temperature. Are these two expressions fully synonymous? Can "incubate" be used with solutions that contain no living organisms, or does it always imply that something living is being maintained or propagated under the mentioned conditions, per Wiktionary's sense 1 : (transitive) To brood, raise, or maintain eggs, organisms, or living tissue through the provision of ideal environmental conditions. Can one use use "incubate for 10 minutes", say, when describing a drug preparation procedure, in which the drug substance is inanimate matter? As an aside, what are other widely-used alternatives to "let sit for 10 min"? <Q> I would not use incubate as a synonym for "let sit/stand". <S> so that something will grow. <S> Incubate can be used for something inanimate, like a " business incubator ", but it has to be something capable of "growing" and <S> the process has to have adjusted the environment somehow to promote that growth. <S> Letting something stand at room temperature for a while to cool off or to allow a chemical reaction to complete isn't what I would associate with incubation. <S> An alternative to "let sit" would be "let rest", but it's typically used for situations where something is being "worked" in cooking, like letting dough rise after kneading it. <S> You can also say "allow it to come to room temperature", but that's typically only if the temperature will change by letting something sit (it cools or warms). <S> Here are some examples from the definition of " room temperature " <S> Just be sure to allow it to come to room temperature if it has been refrigerated. <S> Let rest for 10 minutes at room temperature, and then mix all ingredients together. <A> incubate comes from the latin word incubare , which means to lie upon something. <S> The term was originally used when hens sit upon their eggs to keep them at the right temperature so that they hatch. <S> These days incubation is done by machines, and these same machines can be used to promote other biological or chemical processes. <S> The meaning now revolves around creating an ideal environment for the process. <S> It could be applied to something non-living where a chemical reaction takes place, as long as it involves creating the right conditions for the reaction, rather than simply allowing it to stand. <S> If no special environmental conditions are required, let it stand might be more appropriate. <A> In the context you described, "incubate" means to maintain at a specific temperature (more rarely, this definition includes other kinds of environmental control, such as humidity). <S> The temperature required should be implied or specified in the recipe. <S> "Incubate" is slightly different from "let sit/settle", "set aside", "ignore" etc , because maintaining the temperature (and other conditions?) is a critical part of the recipe. <S> Room temperature is typically 72 degrees. <S> In your case, because both instructions call for holding the solution at room temperature, both sentences are synonymous. <S> As you seem to suspect, however, sometimes the meanings are indeed different.
| To me incubate means you've adjusted the environment (temperature, humidity, etc.)
|
How to ask about someone's study? Suppose I meet a stranger at park. And I want to ask about his study,i.e., what course he is studying. Then which one the following is true: What do you study? What are you studying? I think first one is correct and till now I was using that. But I just watched an English tutorial video on YouTube ( here ) in which they use (2). So I get confused. I am not asking about what currently he is studying. Thanks <Q> Both are absolutely correct and in most cases, they are interchangeable. <S> Unfortunately, like many other things in a language, it depends on the context. <S> If I am a college student living in a dormitory, and I ask my room mate What are you studying? <S> They might tell me which subject they are studying at that moment. <S> I'm studying Math right now, but I'll be studying Spanish in an hour. <S> If I ask my room mate <S> What do you study? <S> He/she might respond with a broader answer, since I didn't use the gerund (present participle) <S> verb tense. <S> To say studying suggests that the study is happening right now. <S> I study microbiology <S> In another context, let's say that you are attending a family reunion. <S> You're going to be around a lot of relatives, and generally, people that know you. <S> At such an event, it is inevitable that a question comes about your education, assuming you are in college/school. <S> Consider your uncle asking you <S> It is great that you're in college. <S> What are you studying? <S> In this sense, the uncle is not interested in getting a course name for an answer, he's interested in the broader answer: microbiology (from above) <S> Also, in this sense, both questions mean the same thing. <S> So if your uncle says, instead It is great that you're in college. <S> What do you study? <S> You would answer with the same answer. <A> Both would be understood, but there's a slightly different flavour. <S> I think the "-ing" form is better when talking about some ongoing education: <S> I'm a student at X University. <S> Oh, what are you studying? <S> contrast with <S> I have been taking some extra lessons. <S> Oh, what do you study? <S> Conversational English relating to medicine. <S> here we are talking about specific items of study, probably for a limited period of time. <A> Since the two persons are introducing themselves, 2 is inquiring about the person's major (AmE), or, as Wikipedia puts it: the academic discipline to which an undergraduate student formally commits. <S> This is in contrast to, say, two friends who are inquiring about the current/up coming term. <S> In such a case, 2 inquires about the particular subjects one might be studying that term, such as biology, math, and economics. <S> This is because, presumably, the friends already know each other's committed disciplines. <S> Question 1 usually inquires about one's committed disciple. <S> So, Kabir could also have asked 1 in this case, and it would have meant the same thing as 2. <S> Hence, Jackie responds "B.E.". <S> We can infer that B.E. is Jackie's committed discipline, in either case.
| The two phrases can mean the same thing.
|
How 'fondly' is different than 'fondle'? One of my colleagues wrote: Lord Ganesh is the deity remembered fondly before initiating evry auspicious occasion. An alarm rang in my mind because I know the word 'fondle' . To my surprise, it is like this: fondle (v) : to touch and move your hand gently over somebody/something, especially in a sexual way, or in order to show love (OALD) But , the same dictionary says... fondly (adv) : in a way that shows great affection Now, when it comes to worship some idol (of course, it has a lot of respect in it), the verb and the adverb's meaning changes drastically. Question: the adverb fondly is hailing from the verb fondle but it seems the meanings are different. Does fondly include sensuality/sexuality/physical affection *(which should not be the case in worshiping someone)? <Q> The verb fondle <S> originally meant to treat with indulgence and affection : <S> this meaning ties in well with fondly . <S> The meaning caress was first recorded in 1796. <S> Since then, it has acquired a sexual overtone and completely lost the original meaning. <A> You've got it all wrong. <S> Fondly doesn't come from fondle; it comes from fond . <S> Fond: <S> Having an affection or liking for: <S> I’m very fond of Mike <S> he was not too fond of dancing <S> So, to say something fondly, is to say something affectionately. <S> It's the adverb form of fond. <S> :) <S> Fondle, on the other hand, is to act upon that affection. <S> I am fond of breasts. <S> I like to fondle breasts. <S> I hold the breasts fondly. <A> This can be checked in a dictionary. <S> The words are congnate, but have different meanings modern English. <S> "Fond" is derived from middle english "fonne" meaning a fool, via a verb "fon" = be foolish. <S> From that meaning it meant "to foolishly love", and so "have strong feelings for" This was the meaning by 1570. <S> The sense of foolishness has almost been lost in modern English, but may be seen in old fashioned expressions <S> "He has fond hopes of..." <S> The sense of "caress" is known from 1796, and the negative associations are later. <S> The older word was "grope" which is still used in modern English. <S> The adjective "fond" or the adverb "fondly" have not picked up the negative or sexual associations of "fondle", and can be used in positive way, and "remember fondly" is an established expression. <S> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=fondle <S> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fond <S> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fond?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
| The word "fondle" orginally meant to be repeatly or continuously fond of someone.
|
Created equal or created equally? The United States Declaration of Independence contains one of the most well known and enduring lines in English: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. and was paraphrased by Michelle Obama in her speech at the Democratic National Convention: "All are created equal." The Massachusetts Constitution contains All men are born free and equal ... and The Virginia Declaration of Rights contains ... all men are by nature equally free and independent ... While I understand the Declaration of Independence to mean All equally have the same rights Would it not have been more grammatically correct to use the adverb All are created equally I realise that All are equally created may have a different meaning. <Q> Equal , the adjective, is correct here. <S> Created equally , with the adverb, implies that some things are more and some are less "created"—which would presumably mean (it's not idiomatic English) that they owe their origins to a greater or lesser degree to some sort of act of creation, as opposed to having arising spontaneously. <S> Equal is not an adverb but a "subject-oriented predicate complement", a term which describes the subject and is attributed to it as a result of the action of the verb. <S> Compare, for instance: <S> Coffee was served black. <S> Coffee was served in large mugs. <S> Black and in large mugs are subject-oriented predicate complements. <S> All men are created equal thus means that all men (and women, too!) were created as equal—the creative act caused them to be equal. <A> The attribute inheres in the created not in the act of creating. <S> You can take are created as a quasi-copula complemented by a predicate adjective that applies to that which is created. <S> We don't say born freely <S> do we? <S> Created equal is perfectly grammatical. <A> A homosexual man might say, "Your God created me gay!" . <S> This is the same grammar: <S> gay is an adjective, complement to the verb created . <S> (And note, by the way, it cannot be: "... created me gaily!" ) <S> "Created equally" is an awkward application of an adverb to a verb. <S> A speaker who uses this might be making a mistake, having intended to say "created equal", or might be trying to say "created according to the same procedure, to the same level of completion". <S> "Equally" is usually a helping adverb in an adverbial phrase as in "equally well", "equally far" and so on. <S> By itself, it usually refers to something being done such that there are even proportions: <S> " The food rations were divided equally among the stranded passengers. <S> " <S> " Daniel treated his three children equally when it came to love or discipline. " <S> To say, "created to the same level of completion, by the same procedure", we normally say "created in the same way ". <S> Equally doesn't function very effectively as a synonym for in the same way ; at least not in all the circumstances in which we can use in the same way .
| "Created equal" means "created such that they are equal".
|
How to express "I would be glad if someone answer my question" beautiful in English As title says, I would like to write a sentence(peroration) to pleasure the potential answerer. Due to I am not English Speaker, I have wrote some sentence but each make me feel strange. I am not sure what is the proper personal pronouns use in the sentence, for example: A. I am very glad if you can give me an answer! Here, personal pronouns you make me feel weird/strange (I mean, there is someone would answer my question, I don't know who, so use you here make me feel weird/strange ) B. I am very glad if someone can give me an answer! someone make me feel bad, this word is less respectful in Chinese. What is the proper emotional adjective? grateful, glad, happy? Isn't grateful is too heavy for a stranger who just answer a question ? But glad seems too common ... And is there any proper Emotional Adjective in this situation? What sentences native often use to express such sentence? PS: I can just says Thanks in the end of this question, it is no problem. But my purpose is to fill a question with more respectful , so I think need more words here. <Q> I understand and sympathize with your concern. <S> First, it is very important for you to understand that in English, unlike in Chinese and many other languages, we do not have different "ranks" or "grades" of personal pronouns. <S> Ours is a very "egalitarian" or "democratic" language where pronouns are concerned! <S> The second person pronoun "You" is neither respectful or disrespectful, and no-one will think of you as impolite if you address him or her as "you" in English. <S> Here at the English Language Learners site, you do not need to express your thanks before you receive an answer. <S> The people who answer questions here do so because they enjoy it, so you do not need to thank them before you have an answer. <S> If you ask a question and you do receive a helpful answer, the best way to express your thanks is to click the "Accept Answer" link. <S> This will raise the reputation of the person who helped you, and they will appreciate your response. <S> In answer to your specific questions: <S> #1A. See above! <S> #1B. <S> In English, the word "someone" is not at all disrespectful. <S> If you write: Can someone answer my question? <S> , that will be perfectly polite and sufficient. <S> #2. <S> You could also say "Thankful." <S> #3. <S> See James K's answer, and my third paragraph above. <S> Your gratitude is welcome and appreciated, but you don't need to express it before <S> you have an answer! <A> Choose between you and someone on the basis of how you address the letter. <S> Dear Dr. Smith, I would be grateful if you have the time to answer a question concerning your recent publication. <S> ... <S> question ... <S> Here we ask the question of one person, so we use you . <S> If instead we write to, say, a committee or other group where one person, but we do not know which person, may reply then someone . <S> Concerning grateful v glad v happy. <S> In a formal context grateful is usual. <S> We are expressing gratitude, thanks. <S> Glad or happy are personal feelings, more appropriate to informal correspondence <S> I am so happy that you are able to come to our concert next week <A> On a stack exchange site, say nothing! <S> This is probably good advice in other forums. <S> This is, of course, cultural. <S> There are some who strongly object to salutations ("Hello!") and valedictions (" <S> Thanks in advance") in questions. <S> It may be hard to understand why. <S> Some think these are "distractions" from the question. <S> Other people feel that the questioner is expected to be grateful, and saying so explicitly is self serving. <S> Whatever the reason is, it annoys some people. <S> Out of stack exchange, if you really think a valediction is appropriate, it should be short: "Thank you for your attention." is simple. <S> The suggestions you make (with "you", or "someone") are both correct grammar, and there is nothing disrespectful or particularly strange about either. <S> Both "grateful" and "glad" are quite acceptable. <S> But note the general advice: any sentence like this is going to sound heavy to some English speakers, and may annoy others.
| "Grateful" is a very good word to use when you are expressing thanks.
|
'Thank you for taking your time writing' or 'Thank you for taking your time to write' ? A person gave me an answer on English.SE and I commented: Thank you for taking your time writing this wonderful answer! Now, looking at the sentence in retrospect, even though I am not a native English speaker (duh, otherwise I wouldn't be asking a question on ELL.SE), I find the sentence a bit odd. To get my point across, let me rephrase the sentence: Thank you for taking your time to write this wonderful answer! With my relatively little knowledge and understanding of English, I feel that using 'writing' (as I did in the original sentence) emphasizes the very process of writing the answer , whereas using 'to write' emphasizes the mere fact that an answer has been given, and a wonderful one at that. This is exactly why I feel the original sentence is a little bit awkward and the second, revised one would have been more apt. Am I correct or are the quoted sentences virtually synonymous? <Q> The correct expression to use is "taking the time". <S> The gerund works with taking your time : <S> You are taking your time writing those <S> letters- get a move on! <S> But idiomatically the gerund doesn't work with taking the time . <S> The idiomatic version is therefore <S> Thank you for taking the time to write this wonderful answer! <S> Here is an NGram <S> that shows that the infinitive form is common but the gerund is never used. <A> I just maybe suggest Thank you for taking the time to write this wonderful answer! <S> I think that that's more commonly used. <A> I hope you upvoted too! <S> Stack Exchange discourages using comments to say "thanks". <S> There is little wrong with either sentence. <S> Both a gerund and a to-infinitive are correct here. <S> I don't detect much difference in nuance. <S> You could insert an "in" to say "...taking your time in writing", but I don't think it adds much. <S> I prefer "in" over "for" in this sentence. <S> Given a choice, I prefer the infinitive. <S> It is, perhaps, slightly more straightforward.
| taking your time means doing something slowly: this is probably not the meaning that you want! There's nothing really wrong with either one.
|
A brush cup, or a brushing cup? What should I call the cup while brushing my teeth: a brush cup or brushing cup? Some people might say "a cup you use for brushing", but I am looking for an adjective form. <Q> I have heard it as a rinsing cup . <A> You can say toothbrush cup or toothbrushing/tooth-brushing cup , though not everyone uses one, especially in the West . <S> In the West, where most people (per the article) normally just let the water run while brushing & rinse their mouth without using a cup, a toothbrush cup is mainly for storing one's toothbrush between uses. <A> There is no adjective + noun pair, nor single noun in English which we use to mean "the cup used when brushing one's teeth." <S> Since we commonly brush our teeth in the bathroom, though, if you were to say the bathroom cup , most NAmE speakers would understand you.
| It's the cup you use for rinsing your mouth while brushing your teeth.
|
Different Zero and Nol I am confused with this one, and I have two questions about that What"s the difference between Zero and Nol? Is 'nol' is accepted in English? And 1st First, 2nd Second, and what about Zero/Nol/0? Is Zero/Nol an ordinal or a cardinal number? Thanks in advance <Q> "Zero" is a number. <S> English also has the words <S> nil and null which are both from the same Indo-European source <S> (I assume "nol" is the equivalent in some other language). <S> Their meaning and usage are similar, but not identical, to that of "zero". <S> The ordinal number for zero is "zeroth". <S> It is a valid word in English, and in some areas (such as math and programming) it is useful and common. <A> Null is not a very common concept in common language because it means "nothing" in a way that is hard to fathom. <S> Zero does mean nothing <S> but it is still a definite number. <S> Null is an absence of any value. <S> In English you might hear it used in the phrase "null and void" (which means something is invalid). <S> The two words literally mean the same thing. <S> Null is a void . <S> A total absence of anything. <S> In my experience Null is most commonly used in programming. <S> Consider a Boolean variable. <S> Something is True or False. 1 or 0. <S> But what a value isn't provided? <S> Null serves as a "no comment". <S> Something that is neither True or False. <S> Being able to make this distinction is important because Zero and Null are interpreted in similar ways. <S> More than a few computer bugs have occurred due to not handling null values correctly (incorrectly assuming they meant False). <S> In a similar vein but irrelevant here, C-derived programming languages also terminate basic strings/char-arrays with the ASCII "null character" \0 . <A> Your dictionary will provide a useful definition. <S> This will answer your question regarding null . <S> Zero can only be a cardinal number. <S> Is zero an ordinal or cardinal number? <S> is a nonsensical question in any language. <S> The symbol "0" can represent the initial member of a set, but it is absurd to imagine the "Zeroth" starter in a horse race, since the set of "Zeroth" starters would be infinite in number, or contain no members, depending upon the philosophy of the stewards. <A> Nol is not an English word. <S> It is possible however, that certain (north american?) <S> accents of English would make null <S> sound like nol . <S> There is a word "knoll" which is pronounced as nol , but it is totally unrelated to these other meanings (eg, the infamous grassy knoll).
| In English, the word is null .
|
Meaning of "glassy" plants From wikipedia : Carbon dioxide levels reached astounding heights and the sea levels elevated. Plants such as plankton became "glassy" and temperatures increased. What does glassy mean in this context? I found several definition but am not sure which one apply here: Of or resembling glass. ( Oxford Dictionary ) Having little animation : dull, lifeless ( Merriam Webster ) Are the plant turning into glass (akin to vitrification), or are they just dying? <Q> During the Cretaceous period , a new species of plankton, called Diatoms , evolved. <S> One of their distinctive features is that they live in a shell made of silica , the material that glass is made from. <S> They are quite literally glassy . <A> It is not a well researched web page. <S> The shells can be made of various different materials. <S> The shells (called "tests") have a variety of appearances, when viewed under a microscope. <S> Some appear "porcelaneous", they look like fine china, with a shiny white surface. <S> Others have a fine structure that allows light to pass through. <S> The appear like soap bubbles or blown glass. <S> They are not actually made of glass, they are made of a form of calcium carbonate called calcite. <S> These shells are good indicators of sea temperatures, and the white chalk cliffs and limestones are made of trillions of forminafera tests. <S> Forminafera by J.R Haynes gives details. <A> You've got it right! <S> The increased CO2 levels will increase the temperature. <S> Because of it, firstly, the plankton will convert into the glassy form by exposure to the extreme heat (vitrification). <S> Then, they will gradually die because of the same reason. <S> You can see in the image that it's easy to convert the plankton in the 'glassy' form!In <S> a way, this scientific report perfectly uses the metaphor ' glassy '. <S> Image courtesy: http://identidadgeek.com/
| But the meaning is literal: it means "like glass" Forminafera are a type of single cell creature, rather like an amoeba, but with a shell.
|
"Fighting with" or just "fight" Does the preposition 'with' sound redundant to you in the following self-made sentence or not? If yes, why? Those two countries fought with each other for eight years. <Q> fight can be transitive (requiring an object) or intransitive (not requiring an object). <S> Examples of the transitive form (with the object highlighted) are: <S> He fought the disease bravely for three years <S> We need the public's help in fighting crime . <S> The intransitive form can be <S> The soldiers fought from house to house <S> They fought to the bitter end. <S> here is a sentence where with is used to mean alongside : <S> Germany fought with the English and the Dutch against the French. <S> Looking at NGram , we see that fought Germany <S> > <S> fought against Germany <S> > <S> fought with Germany . <S> So, all of these sentences are valid: 1) <S> Those two countries fought for eight years. <S> intransitive <S> : it doesn't say who they are fighting, maybe each other maybe somebody else 2) <S> Those two countries fought each other for eight years. <S> transitive: they are definitely fighting each other 3) <S> Those two countries fought with each other for eight years. <S> intransitive: they could be fighting alongside each other or against each other 4) <S> Those two countries fought against each other for eight years. <S> intransitive: they are definitely fighting against each other <S> So, 2 and 4 are unambiguous, and 2 is probably my preferred option: <S> this is backed up by Ngram. <S> 1 and 3 are grammatically correct, and could be used in a context where it is understood who was fighting whom. <A> As a native speaker, I find that "fight" seems to imply a single discrete incident, like "a fight", while "fight with" indicates a series of incidents. <S> But be careful; there is ambiguity that depends on context for the correct meaning. <S> For instance, if I say I fought my neighbor, one might reasonably conclude we got in a fist fight-- one instance. <S> However, if I say I fought with my neighbor, that implies we had a series of arguments, disagreements, shouting matches, etc. <S> over a period of time, but probably not a bout of physical violence. <S> If you're talking about two boxers, you would say that they fought at one match they had. <S> But, if you're talking about several matches, you might say, "Joe Lewis fought with Max Schmeling in the 30s". <S> You could also say, "They fought in the 30s", meaning more than one match. <S> But, you cannot say "Joe Lewis fought with Max Schmeling at the match last night"-- there was a single discrete bout, not several fights that happened at a boxing match. <S> Likewise you can say that France and Germany fought in WWII-- all of the military conflicts throughout the war as counted as a single instance of conflict: the duration of the war, from declaration to treaty. <S> You can say that France and GB fought with each other during WWII-- that means that they had disagreements with each other about how to accomplish the goals. <S> But to say that GB "fought with" Germany during WWII is too weak-- <S> they didn't have a series of scuffles; they were engaged in a military conflict that was going to last until one side surrendered. <S> They fought in WWII. <S> Also note there is a meaning of "fight with" that means "fight alongside", as allies. <S> For instance, the US fought with GB during WWII, or, "He's a good man; I fought with him in Vietnam". <S> But this is ambiguous, probably better to use a word or phrase that more indicates allegiance. <A> I think omission of with changes the meaning slightly. <S> Those two countries fought with each other for eight years. <S> It is common to say things like: <S> I fought with my brother all my childhood. <S> I fought with my girlfriend to decide which TV program we would watch. <S> However if you said: I fought my girlfriend to decide which TV program we would watch. <S> I would expect that you used violence to defeat her, so that you could decide. <S> Quite scary! <S> Conversely, Those two countries fought each other for eight years. <S> Without with , it implies a real battle - that the countries sent armies to kill each other's troops. <S> That it was a real fight. <S> Some examples: <S> I fought a bully at school. <S> Two men entered the arena to fight each other. <S> These are much more serious and violent. <A> IMO, you require 'with' in your sentence: <S> Those two countries fought with each other for eight years. <S> If you don't put 'with', then you cannot put 'each other', because IMO, we cannot write 'fought each other' for two countries. <S> So the sentence will be like this: <S> Those two countries fought for eight years. <S> Here, we cannot find out whether they fought among themselves (or say, between each other) or fought equally (for eight years) with other countries. <S> ' <S> With each other' clarifies the aspect, and therefore, it is not redundant in your sentence.
| Fighting with generally means argumentatively, sometimes not so seriously.
|
Which way can 'fit' go? Can I use the word fit like this: 'Pick an envelope that fits everything' as in Pick an envelope that is suitable in size and shape for all the papers you have to put in there 'The tires won't fit my rims' as in The tires are too small/big/wide/narrow for my rims 'Do you think the trunk fits all our luggage?' as in Do you think the trunk is big enough for all our luggage? 'My car won't fit the space' as in M y car is too big for that small parking space. I caused quite some drama in a forum. For instance, someone said this: I couldn't either, because subject-verb-object standard English word order causes that to be understood as "could one trunk be squeezed into all the different pieces of luggage.?" :confused: or To fit is either intransitive - My car fits into the space; or transitive - My car fits the space. My car fits into the space - This has a nuance of motion -> my car will go into the space. My car fits the space. - This has the nuance of "the space is a suitable size for my car." "The jeans won't fit you." could be interpreted as ... To fit does not mean "They won't look good on you." To fit does not mean "You won't fit into them" To fit does mean "They are too large/small." To fit -> to be a suitable size. or Pick an envelope which fits everything." is non standard, reversal of usual direction. or If one is buying a tire, and tries it out, one might find, "This tire does not fit my rims" just as "This hat does not fit my head." This is what I call reverse direction, which applies to some contexts. See definitions 10 and 14 at W-R online, first and second, below: to be of the right size or shape for:The dress fitted her perfectly. to put with precise placement or adjustment:He fitted the picture into the frame. Note the variant of 1. She fitted herself into the dress with great difficulty. Second sense, above. These answers contradict themselves. But if 'fit' means 'suitable' my example sentences are acceptable to say. <Q> ' <S> " <S> Select/choose/pick an/one envelope that fits your needs/requirements/all of the papers." <S> 'The tires won't fit my rims' as in The tires are too small/big/wide/narrow for my rims <S> Be specific and saying exactly what you mean. <S> "These/the tires are too whatever for my rims. <S> " I think that sentence was fine, but clarity is always good. <S> 'Do you think the trunk fits all our luggage?' <S> as in Do you think the trunk is big enough for all our luggage? <S> " Will all of the/our luggage fit into the trunk? <S> " Or, "Do you think the trunk is big enough for all our luggage?" <S> 'My car won't fit the space' as in My car is too big for that small parking space. <S> That works, but again to be absolutely clear, say what you mean. <S> "My car is too big for that parking spot/space." Or, "My big car won't fit in that small space." <S> Or, "My car won't fit in that space because my car is too big." <S> OR, "The parking space to to small to fit my car/for my car to fit." <A> Your sentences are acceptable and will be understood. <S> What you've done is truncate the preposition or prepositional phrase in each sentence. <S> With the phrase added they all make sense. <S> Pick an envelope that fits everything [into it]. <S> The tires won't fit [onto] my rims. <S> Do you think the trunk fits all our luggage [into it]? <S> My car won't fit [into] the space. <A> X fit(s) <S> Y means X can wear Y successfully, or that X and Y have complementary shapes and can interlock or other similar action. <S> It can also mean Y can wear X successfully. <S> The dress fits me. <S> I fit the dress. <S> Both mean the same. <S> There can be an implication that the direct object is what you are trying to fit the subject to. <S> X fit(s) can be reflexive, it's equal to saying X fits me or X fits myself , but it can also refer to an elided direct object, e.g. "I bought the dress for Cheryl. <S> It fits! <S> (= <S> It fits Cheryl). <S> " <S> X fit(s) <S> in Y means Y is a container capable of successfully containing X.
| Pick an envelope that fits everything' as in Pick an envelope that is suitable in size and shape for all the papers you have to put in there
|
Past Tense of "does respect" I want to emphasise the fact that something "does respect" what agreed, but in the past. Is it The file that we sent you yesterday "did respected" what agreed? or The file that we sent you yesterday "did respect" what agreed? <Q> I would write, <S> The file we sent you yesterday respected our agreement. <S> Though also acceptable would be: <S> The file we sent you yesterday fulfilled our agreement. <S> Though this implies a sort of finality, like sending the file represented the completion of an obligation that would become irrelevant going forward. <S> The file we sent you yesterday was pursuant to our agreement. <S> This is a distinctly legal-sounding word choice. <S> The file we sent you yesterday was respective to our agreement. <S> This is a bit awkward, but your message would come across. <S> Finally, if you want to emphasize the respect -- as may be appropriate in a situation where someone was suggesting or stating outright that the letter did <S> not respect the agreement -- you could say: <S> You could choose to emphasize the 'did.' <S> This emphatic form can be seen in another example as: <S> The file we sent you yesterday did fulfill our agreement. <A> There are several issues with your proposed versions of your question. <S> To answer your actual question, the past tense you are looking for is <S> did respect , not <S> *did respected . <S> You only conjugate one part of the verb, not both. <S> Furthermore, the order of the words in your question makes it hard to understand. <S> A question is not formed just by placing a question mark at the end! <S> The affirmative sentence would be <S> The file that we sent you yesterday respected what (we) agreed. <S> You could emphasize that with: <S> The file that we sent you yesterday did respect what (we) agreed. <S> The question would be <S> Did the file that we sent you yesterday respect what (we) agreed? <S> Now, the affirmative sentence can emphasize the respect a bit, but the question can not. <S> That is simply because the verb do is always used in a question like this. <S> If you want to, you can emphasize differently, for instance Did <S> the file that we sent you yesterday really respect what (we) agreed? <S> Note that the general choice of wording is not really natural-sounding. <S> This is explained in some other answers, I focused on the grammatical part in my answer. <A> Between your two options, "did respect" is the correct expression, although the alternatives given in Zach's answer are more common. <S> If you want to add emphasis, you should consider using the word "indeed" which can fit in ahh of these sentences. <S> For example The file we sent you yesterday was indeed pursuant to our agreement. <A> I suggest the use of "comply" rather than "respect". <S> The file that we sent you yesterday complied with our agreement. <S> You can then emphasize the verb "comply" as follows: <S> The file that we sent you yesterday did comply with our agreement. <A> The file we sent you yesterday did respect our agreement. <S> This sentence is the more correct one. <S> Whenever you use the word "did" the sentence automatically turns into past tense. <S> So we leave the word associated with did, in the the present tense. <S> did eat - correct <S> did ate - wrong <S> Therefore "did resepced" is wrong. " <S> did respect" is grammatically correct. <S> As @zach has mentioned, it is good to use alternatives like "fulfill" instead of "respect", because we are addressing a formal communication context.
| The file we sent you yesterday did respect our agreement.
|
Some equivalents for "saving face" Suppose a a woman has a very impolite, naughty and bad-tempered child; once a number of relatives come by to their house as guests. Before their arrival, mother speaks to her child. She wants to mention some points to her child in order to avoid losing face; are my following self-made examples mean the same in such sense: Please preserve our dignity in front of the guests. Please maintain our dignity in front of the guests. Please save face in front of the guests. For me they all mean the same excepting one point which differentiates the last one from the other tow; in my view, the last one can be used either before or after occurrence of an event in which one would lose his / her face but the first two are used just before occurring a problem (at least) in my scenario. <Q> A common suggestion to the child would be <S> Don't make a scene . <S> Particularly in British English. <S> The expression making a scene carries the meaning you require. <S> An embarassing display in front of guests or the public. <A> If I wanted to warn my kids before guests arrive, I would say Please behave yourselves in front of the guests (later, today, this evening, etc). <S> behave : <S> to act in an acceptable way : to act properly <A> None of these seem like something parents would say to a small child. <S> Please preserve/maintain our dignity in front of the guests. <S> sounds very formal, is unlikely to be understood by a young child (or even an older one), and rather 'over eggs' it. <S> In UK and USA, a child acting up would not damage the parent's 'dignity'. <S> Close would be be (per djna - noticed after writing this): <S> And this one: <S> Please save face in front of the guests. <S> is just wrong. <S> Saving face means (per this article ) "the lengths that an individual may go to in order to preserve their established position in society, taking action to ensure that one is not thought badly of by their peers" ; it's more concerned with avoiding reputational damage. <S> The child would not be 'saving face'. <S> The adults might be saving face if they (for instance) got the child to apologise and go to its room. <S> More likely would be an injunction to stop the behaviour (first example per @Chenmunka): <S> Don't make a scene. <S> Stop acting up! <S> Behave yourself! <S> The last of these is certainly the one I was told all the time as a kid. <A> I think different English-speaking peoples will have rather different ways to express these ideas. <S> These phrases would be widely understood, at least by adults <S> Please preserve our dignity in front of the guests. <S> Please maintain our dignity in front of the guests. <S> Please save face in front of the guests. <S> but I would not expect to hear an British or US native use them, and I would not expect young children to understand them at all. <S> If I did use these phrases I would probably say "our guests" rather than "the guests". <S> An alternative that seems more idiomatic to me: <S> Please don't embarrass us in front of our guests. <S> However, I would more expect people to focus on the child's perspective <S> Please help me to make our guests feel really welcome, let them see what a thoughtful boy you can be. <S> [In the case of teenagers I would, of course, use bribery. <S> ;-] <A> Dictionary definitions of saving face and preserving or maintaining dignity may seem the same, but usage tends to be different. <S> Saving face is normally a term used after the fact, not before the act. <S> A person who is attempting to save face would be doing what would be called damage control after a potentially embarrassing incident has already occurred.
| Please don't embarrass us in front of our guests. Although saving face is an expression used in English, it is not commonly used with children.
|
What word/term describes someone in the following scenario? So the scenario would be such as this: William is in a hurry to get his medicine from a pharmacy in Walmart, which is about to close. Worried that the pharmacy would close before he gets there, he parks in the disabled parking spot. A stranger watches him do that and tells him Stranger: "You can't park there, man, it is for disabled parking only. William: I know, but it won't take more than a minute and I am in a hurry. Stranger: No, you gotta take your car off from the disabled parking spot" William: "You are a cop? Or you are a vigilante or who are you to tell me not to park there and not understand my urgency here?" So my question here. If William wants to negatively describe him with a word, what would he say? <Q> According to your comment: "...someone who applies his moral principles to every situation regardless of the specifics of a circumstance would be called a narrow-minded, sanctimonious, pious person. <S> " <S> I think this might help: Rhad·a·man·thine <S> /ˌradəˈmanθʌɪn/ <S> adjective, literary showing stern and inflexible judgement . <S> 'Rhadamanthine moralists' <A> If I answer the question as stated (Version 3), then I agree that legalist is a good choice, and in the context you provide, it would be used in a negative way. <S> This refers specifically to William's taking umbrage at the stranger's insistence on the letter of the law. <S> Another term would be stickler for the law , although this stickler for the rules was specifically ruled out in the now obsolete Version 1 of the question. <S> Closely associated with legalist or legalistic is pedant , which crops up in the case of grammar nazis, but which can generally apply to A person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules <S> ( Oxford dictionary ) <S> Taking a broader view, William can call the stranger just about any word in the book of negative words, although I think asshole particularly fits the overall situation, since the stranger is An irritating or contemptible person. <S> You could also guy the stranger meddlesome Fond of meddling; interfering with to meddle meaning <S> Interfere in or busy oneself unduly with something that is not one’s concern To William <S> , it is not really the stranger's concern. <S> That is more than one word, but then again word can mean "a brief remark" ( link to Merriam-Webster dictionary) <A> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/legalist <A> How about "Dad"? <S> What are you my Dad? <S> Go mind your own [expletive] business. <S> Some other gems from the thesaurus: Meddler, Busybody <S> (my favorites) Buttinsky, Sidewalk superintendent <A> There's also Hall monitor from the volunteer, usually a student, who would patrol the halls during class times, hunting for students who might be trying to skip class. <S> A: <S> "You can't park there!"B: " <S> What are you, the hall monitor? <S> Get lost!" <A> There is an excellent borrowing from German: Blockwart . <S> It perfectly describes the sort of self-righteous legalistic busybody, and the link in fact describes a fellow in Germany doing exactly as you describe. <S> See the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockleiter for the origin in Nazi party organization.
| Interfering, pedantic, legalistic asshole would work. Legalist seems to fit well as an adherent of legalism which is: strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit.
|
What esle can we say about a sharp shooter's aiming power? Is it possible to tell about a sharp shooter: His / her aiming is great / perfect / etc. Does the sentence above make sense to you? Is it natural? <Q> It's more idiomatic to say his/her aim , rather than "aiming", but other than that, it looks fine. <S> Aim in this context is a noun and means "the ability to hit a target": <S> see definition 8 here. <S> Aiming , as a gerund, means something more like "one specific action of aiming". <S> So you would say "While she was aiming her rifle..." <S> but her general ability to aim a weapon is her aim . <A> Your sentence is not grammatically correct (see @stangdon's answer) and is not at all idiomatic. <S> There are several expressions that people use when talking about shooting: He is a dead shot <S> He is a sharpshooter <S> He aims with pinpoint accuracy <A> The idea that someone is good enough at shooting to hit the bull's eye most of the time may be expressed by ' he's a good shot/aim ' or ' he has a good shot/aim '. <S> This was once discussed on ELU (for details see here ). <S> The person skilled in shooting is a sharpshooter or a marksman .
| His aim [with a rifle] is very accurate
|
"She dressed like/as an owl." Which is correct? She dressed like an owl. She dressed as an owl. "As" or "like"? Which one is more appropriate? My brother said that the second one is correct. He said that first one means "she dressed like an owl does." <Q> She dressed like an owl. <S> When looking at her (say from a distance) <S> she vaguely resembles an owl. <S> Maybe she is wearing a long brown frumpy gown or over-sized sweater, has very large horn-rimmed glasses, and a hairdo that makes it look like she has owl ears. <S> As an example of usage, often a person who is wearing a tuxedo will be described as "dressed like a penguin" . <S> She dressed as an owl. <S> She is wearing an owl costume. <S> From Macmillan Dictionary:He went to the party dressed as a cowboy. <A> 1: <S> She dressed like a child <S> The way she put her clothes on was child-like (perhaps she struggled with the buttons, etc.). <S> 2: <S> She dressed as a child <S> The particular clothing she wore was intended to make it seem that she actually was a child. <S> Note that in practice these are not hard-and-fast distinctions, but if forced to distinguish two different meanings, that's how most native speakers would see things. <S> I don't suppose anyone has any idea <S> how an owl dresses, so in OP's context the intended sense must be as per #2 above (and would normally be expressed using as ). <S> EDIT: <S> P. E. Dant's comment below about the simile/metaphor distinction raises an interesting point. <S> Not that the distinction itself ( simile = <S> A is like B; metaphor = <S> A really is B) <S> is very important (grammarians just like it because it seems easy to understand and teach). <S> But consider... <S> 3: <S> She speaks like an old woman 4: <S> She speaks as an old woman Where #3 looks like a simile <S> (she's not actually an old woman; she just talks like one), but #4 looks more like a metaphor (among other things, she really is an old woman, and on this occasion her speech reflects that aspect of her identity). <S> Also consider 1 Corinthians 13:11 ... 5: <S> When I was a child ... <S> I thought as a child: <S> but when I became a man [I thought as a man] ... <S> where obviously as reflects the fact that the subject really is a child or a man in each context. <S> Thus it might seem that like = simile, as = metaphor. <S> But that principle certainly doesn't work with the first two examples. <S> In #1, if you saw the way she got dressed, you might (correctly) deduce she was a child, but in #2 that would mean her "disguise" had fooled you into making an incorrect assumption. <S> I think this is just my way of pointing out that the simile/metaphor distinction is more important to teachers than it is to students <S> (it seems <S> / is unhelpful in OP's context! :), <S> but it's food for thought. <A> He dressed like an owl. <S> He dressed as an owl. <S> You use the like as a preposition followed by a noun to compare somebody or something to another. <S> The first sentence means that he dressed like an owl does. <S> You cannot use the as here to convey this sense of comparison. <S> You use the as as a preposition followed by a noun to refer to what somebody or something is or what they appear to be. <S> So the second sentence means that he appeared to be an owl when dressed. <S> However, the like and as are interchangeabke when used as a conjunction to compare one thing to another: <S> He dresses like an owl does = <S> He dresses as an owl does. <A> "Like" and "as" are much abused words even by native speakers, so no one should think there are exact rules. <S> Usage my vary by region, economic status, or even just the "register" or fancifulness of the result the speaker wants to convey. <S> In general, "as" should be used when possible to compare full verbal phrases, while "like" should be used to compare noun phrases. <S> She dresses as an owl dresses, wearing nothing at all but the darkness of the night. <S> This would mean she is going around in the dark naked. <S> She dresses like an owl. <S> This would mean she somehow looks like an owl because of what she is wearing. <S> She dresses as an owl. <S> This is a special case where the "as" has a special use meaning "to be seen as," such as "She dressed as an owl at the costume party." <S> However, and very advanced for English, it could also be the same sense as "She dresses as an owl dresses" but with the last part dropped off for brevity (shortness). <S> For example, "The lady of the house dresses as a servant, all alone, pulling her corset only as tight as she herself can." <S> Notice, she is still dressed as the lady of the house, it is the act of dressing without a servant, thus "as the servants themselves do" that warrants (uses) the "as." <A> In addition, "she dressed as an owl" suggests that it was on a specific occasion that she owled up. <S> On the other hand, "she dressed like an owl" suggests that she commonly appeared in the guise of an owl <S> - it was her habit, you might say. <S> Note that the speaker requires the listener to apply their own world knowledge to eliminate the alternative meaning ie, that she dresses the way an owl dresses, because we know owls don't dress. <S> For a better illustration, substitute "an owl" with "a lady".
| You can use either like or as in your sentence as a preposition; both are correct, though they convey different senses.
|
Using a comma after the word "enclosed" in a sentence Do I need a comma after enclosed in the following sentence? Enclosed you will find a small token of gratitude. <Q> Both Enclosed is/are and attached <S> is/are <S> are standard phrasing for business correspondence and also personal correspondence that mimics the business usage. <S> Enclosed you will find check for tickets sent by the Chicago Dental Society. <S> Official Bulletin <S> Even though this reference is from 1921, it is still used today. <S> Enclosed is our check. <S> Garner on Language and Writing <S> A similar sentence is <S> Attached are copies of the contract. <S> GMAT <S> Prep Course <S> Also Attached are the minutes from the last board meeting. <S> Time Management Training <A> This is an optional comma because it is a bracketing comma with weak interruption. <S> Remember: you can omit a bracketing comma if the interruption is weak. <S> You can tell it is a bracketing comma because you can move the “enclosed” around the sentence with no change of meaning: You will find, enclosed, a small token of gratitude <S> The interruption is weak, i.e. the sentence can easily be understood without the bracketing commas. <S> Therefore, they can be removed. <S> You will find enclosed a small token of gratitude <S> It follows that they can be removed <S> even if “enclosed” is at the beginning of the sentence. <S> More on bracketing commas and the other three types of commas here . <A> I agree, no comma is required here. <S> However maybe the following would be a better way to say the sentence? <S> "Please find enclosed a small token of [our] gratitude"
| No, you do not need a comma, and I would not recommend using one.
|
What does `'s` mean in "What CPU's will it run on?"? Does it indicate a possessive adjective or just a plural noun? If noun, why it is not CPUs (without apostrophe)? <Q> It's widely-used, but whether it is correct is the subject of debate. <S> It may be best to avoid its use in formal or professional documents. <S> Generally, CPUs will always be considered valid, while CPU's may or may not be (this applies to other acronyms). <S> You may find these resources interesting: <S> What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym? <S> Plurals of acronyms, letters, numbers – use an apostrophe or not? <A> Punctuation is a matter of style. <S> Here, 's is almost certainly used to pluralize the initialism CPU , but whether this is appropriate depends on which style manual you, your editor, or your organization follows. <S> The New York Times stylebook, which is derived in large measure from Associated Press style, has this to say about plural abbreviations : <S> Use apostrophes for plurals of abbreviations that have capital letters and periods: M.D.’s, C.P.A.’s. <S> Also use apostrophes for plurals formed from single letters: <S> He received A’s <S> and B’s on his report card. <S> Mind your p’s and q’s . <S> But do not use apostrophes for plurals of abbreviations without periods, or for plurals formed from figures: TVs, PCs, DVDs; 1990s, 747s, size 7s . <S> In contrast, APA Style fully rejects any use of apostrophes to indicate plurals: Just as with numbers, don’t include an apostrophe when pluralizing abbreviations. <S> For example, when pluralizing an acronym, such as “CV” for “curriculum vitae,” all you need to do is add an s to the end, as in “CVs.” <S> This rule also applies to standalone letters, as in “The students all received As.” <S> For abbreviations that end with a period, such as “Ed.” <S> to indicate an editor in a reference list entry, add an s before the period, as in “Eds.” <S> When pluralizing an italicized abbreviation, remember not to italicize the s, as in “ p s.” Just don’t add an apostrophe. <S> The Oxford Guide to Style (2002 edition of New Hart's Rules ) offers similar guidance: <S> Do not use the apostrophe when creating plurals. <S> This includes names, abbreviations (with or without fall points), numbers, and words not usually used as nouns: the Joneses · several Hail Marys … · B.Litt.s · QCs … · <S> the three Rs … · sixes and sevens … <S> The Chicago Manual of Style guidance states <S> Capital letters used as words, numerals used as nouns, and abbreviations usually form the plural by adding s. <S> To aid comprehension, lowercase letters form the plural with an apostrophe and an s. <A> There's a lot of argument about proper pluralization of acronyms and initialisms. <S> There's no way to interpret the sentence you have in your image as a possessive statement, though, so it is clearly being used as a plural form of CPU. <A> Because not using an apostrophe often looks ridiculous, it cannot be universally prohibited. <S> Since it's not universally prohibited, it is sometimes allowed. <S> For "CPU", some people prefer "CPU's" for the plural but most prefer "CPUs". <S> To see why you sometimes have to use an apostrophe to indicate a plural, try removing the apostrophes from the plurals in bold below. <S> "Your penmanship is good overall, but your S's and <S> I's need more work." <S> or "What's with all the <S> maybe's ?"
| It's one way of showing plurals that is used with acronyms. Both using and not using apostrophes is an acceptable method of pluralization (depending on what resource you use), so it's a matter of case-by-case interpretation to determine whether it's possessive or plural.
|
Meaning of "There is no god and we are his prophets." What does this mean? There is no god and we are his prophets. This quote is spoken by Ely from the novel The Road by Cormac McCarthy. I don't understand how this works. <Q> This sentence is deliberately confusing. <S> It is a play/joke on the theme of religion, which is that there is a God and we are his prophets (or creations) <S> that must talk about him and share the religion with other people. <S> The quote refers to Atheism. <S> So there is no god, and we are the people that should spread the word that there is no god, and teach reality and atheism. <A> This quote has multi-faceted interpretations. <S> In addition to the interpretation above, the quote also refers to the complete lack of dignity and vast cruelty acted upon people by other people. <S> An example of this within the novel is the infant being roasted on the spit. <S> "There is no God", as no rational God would allow his people to behave this appallingly, and "we are his prophets" as our shocking indecency or dark side, is a testament to this. <A> As Alan Watts explains it : "...are you a theist or are you an atheist? <S> See <S> the theist is caught by god and the idea of god, the belief in god. <S> But the atheist is equally caught. <S> Because an atheist is very often an atheist because he cannot stand the idea that god is watching him all the time . <S> That there is this constant all seeing eye prying on your most private life, and that there is this…You know how when you were a child in school <S> and you’re writing something or doing arithmetic and the teacher walks around the class and looks over your shoulder. <S> Nobody wants to be watched like that. <S> Even someone who is good at writing or at arithmetic doesn’t want someone looking over their shoulder while they’re doing it. <S> It puts you off. <S> It bugs you. <S> So the idea of the lord god who is watching us all the time; who is judging everything that we do puts people off, and they can’t stand it. <S> So better be an atheist to get rid of teacher. <S> So… <S> But the atheist, you see, the man who advertises his disbelief in god is a very pious person. <S> Nobody believes in god like an atheist. <S> “There is no god, and I am his prophet.” <S> "
| What it means is, there is no god, and we are prophets of this belief.
|
On charges or charge? Brazil is suffering from a severe recession. Its president, Dilma Rousseff, is being impeached on charges that she manipulated government accounts; an interim government, led by Michel Temer, is in charge. Not yet medal contenders . The Economist. July 30, 2016. I don't get why 'charges' has been used instead of 'charge' above? Should it not have been 'charge' as she manipulated government accounts is just a single accusation. So, why then 'charges' has been used? <Q> There is a lovely Latin phrase which describes nouns that lack an ordinary singular use: pluralia tantum . <S> In legal jargon, "charges" and "grounds" are common pluralia tantum . <S> Even when the word "charges" represents a single accusation, we tend to use the plural form. <S> We're really talking about the accusation in combination with the evidence and any associated legal proceedings. <S> Similarly, when "grounds" indicates a justification, we're talking about the justification along with the circumstances under which it applies. <S> Unlike "grounds", "charges" is sometimes used in its singular form. <S> We can talk about a single charge of embezzlement, or compare one embezzlement charge to another. <S> The original sentence could have read "impeached on the charge that she manipulated government accounts" if she is accused of only one act of account manipulation. <S> However, if we do not know how many times she allegedly manipulated these accounts, it is simpler to let "charges" stand as plurale tantum . <A> The plural is used when speaking of charge(s) in general. <S> In your particular example, there are probably several surcharges involved, possibly one for each account manipulated. <S> For example, in a car accident there can be a "driving recklessly" charge, but also "assault with a deadly weapon", " <S> driving while intoxicated", "speeding". <S> If the singular was used it would be more specific on a charge of on the charge of and specified by what the actual charge was. <A> It is idiomatic in NAmE and BrE to use the plural charges when referring to action before the bar, particularly in journalese . <S> In the most common instance of this usage, a suspect is said to be brought up on charges whether or not there is more than one charge. <S> Examples abound, as this link will illustrate.
| The phrase on charges has the same meaning as "on account of" or "because of accusations of".
|
Usage of word "jammy" I wonder if it's grammatically correct to say that the traffic is jammy. If so, does this sentence make sense at all? Thanks <Q> If you said this in Britain it would probably be misinterpreted. <S> Jammy is a synonym for lucky. <S> To say traffic was jammy could be interpreted as being lighter than usual. <S> You were lucky in not getting stuck. <S> You would be better saying that the traffic was jammed. <A> "Jammy" is a legitimate adjective, so the sentence is grammatically correct. <S> It doesn't really make sense, though. <S> Instead you could say the traffic is "jammed", but it's more common to just say traffic is "bad" or "backed up". <S> It is common however to use the word as a noun: <S> There is a traffic jam. <A> I think it has other meanings, too, but I'm speaking from an American English standpoint; not British English.
| I would say "The traffic is jammed up" or "The traffic is backed up"; I would not say "jammy". "Jammy" means "of or relating to the jam that you would put on your toast".
|
"He needn't say" / "He doesn't need to say" When I studied English at school (in Italy, more than 35 years ago), we were taught a rule according to which one should say, e. g., "He needn't (need not) say", but NOT "He doesn't need to say". If I'm not mistaken, it was explained to us that the rule holds good with the following limitations: 1) only in the negative form: thus, "He needn't say", but "He needs to say", and "Does he need to say?"; 2) only in the present tense: thus, "He needn't say", but "He didn't (won't, wouldn't, etc.) need to say"; 3) only when an infinitive follows: thus, "He needn't see a doctor", but "He doesn't need a doctor". But, if I google "doesn't need to", I find 125,000,000 occurrences. I was wondering: does the rule hold good more for British than for American English? Also, perhaps it isn't an absolute rule, and both constructions ("He needn't say" and "He doesn't need to say") are possible. Is the rule at least a good description of the circumstances when we CAN (but needn't necessarily) use this construction? Thank you very much, for this and the other answers. <Q> I think the use of "needn't to say" is wrong. <S> If you use "need" as a modal verb, the correct form is "need not say" or "needn't say". <S> If you use "need" as a transitive verb, " He doesn't need to say" is correct. <S> In Oxford Dictionary of English ( Mac version),need as a modal verb is its second definition, only used in negative sentences and questions. <A> Also, perhaps it isn't an absolute rule, and both constructions ("He needn't say" and "He doesn't need to say") are possible. <S> This is correct. <S> Is the rule at least a good description of the circumstances when we CAN (but needn't necessarily) use this construction? <S> And this is correct as well. <S> My impression is that "doesn't need to" is a lot more common than "needn't" in American English. <S> But "needn't" isn't so rare that it looks weird <S> - I just now noticed that you used it in the above quote, and it seemed completely natural. <S> I think "needn't" is less rare in British English, but it still might not be as common as "doesn't need to". <A> As a native American English speaker, I agree that the rule and the limitations look grammatically accurate. <S> Practically speaking, I almost never hear people say "needn't" in everyday life.
| Most people would say "doesn't need to."
|
"After being several episodes in" vs. "several episodes in"? Which of the two sentences is grammatically correct? At first I thought that show was a cheap rip off of Friends, but several episodes in I started liking it. At first I thought that show was a cheap rip off of Friends, but after being several episodes in I started liking it. <Q> There is only one potential difference I can think of. <S> Neither explicitly says that you were still watching the programme when you began to like it, but I would say that the former implies this. <S> The latter doesn't. <S> Other than that <S> , I can't think of any real differences in interpretation between the two, and to me neither sounds odd. <S> Which you use will probably come down to the overall tone and style of whatever you are writing/saying. <A> “. . . but several episodes in . . .” used in the first sentence is the correct version. <S> However, it needs to be understood that “several episodes in” is a slang expression which is linguistically incorrect in itself. <S> Furthermore, both sentences are linguistically incorrect in that neither half expresses a complete thought: <S> In the first half of both sentences, one is claiming the show to be a “rip-off” of another show, but in the second half of the sentence one is claiming that he or she began to like the show after watching a few episodes. <S> In other words, that would be like saying, “At first I thought it was going to snow, but while I was at the store I decided to buy some milk.” <S> See what I mean? <A> If you are reading a book or watching a movie, you can use the idiomatic expression: After several pages in [after reading several pages] After several episodes in [after watching several pages] <S> This can also be used in other contexts. <S> The interview lasted four hours. <S> After 20 minutes in, it became very boring. <S> That said, people use it in speech, but it is not needed and does not change the meaning to leave it out. <S> This kind of usage is similar (but not the same as exactly) to: <S> Where's he at now? <S> Meaning: Where is he now?
| Both are correct, and they each have essentially the same meaning.
|
"He is very good shape" vs "he has a very good shape" Which sentence sounds more natural to you? I've seen both lots of times: 1) He is very good shape. 2) He has a very good shape. 3) He is a very good shaped young man. In my opinion the most should be "good shape d ", though you will find easily lots of examples on the internet without the ending "ed". <Q> Of your three sentences, only the second has any meaning as written in natural English usage. <S> He has a very good shape. <S> This would be taken to mean that his body is well-proportioned. <S> However, it would very seldom be expressed in this way. <S> There is an idiom in English which you may be attempting to express: <S> He is in very good shape. <S> Without any other context, this is taken to mean "He is in very good physical condition. <S> " If context is provided, it could also mean that he is in very good financial, mental, or emotional condition. <S> Your first sentence is grammatically incorrect. <S> It omits the article: <S> He is a very good shape. <S> With the article, the sentence is grammatically correct, but it would elicit puzzlement from a native English-speaking reader or listener. <S> Your third sentence could be analyzed as grammatically correct, but an English speaker would never use "good shaped" here. <S> Instead, the adverbial form of ""good" would modify the participle of the verb "to shape:" <S> He is a very well -shaped young man. <S> This would be taken to mean that his body is well-proportioned, as with your second sentence. <A> I believe the usage you are looking for is "in shape" meaning fit and having well toned muscles. <S> To say, "He has a very good shape," would mean his shape (such as round, square, oblong, etc. is very good), which I have never heard used. <S> He is in very good shape. <S> He is a young man in very good shape. <S> You can use the word "fit" to mean "in shape" and can use it as you have suggested. <S> He is very fit. <S> He is a very fit young man. <A> "He has a very good shape" could refer to, say, a dog which conforms to recommended physical attributes, or some other male with an aesthetically pleasing shape. " <S> He is well-shaped" would be better. <S> "He is a very good shaped young man" could be read as a "shaped young man" who is "very good". <S> A more usual way of putting that would be "a very well-shaped young man." <S> Which one is best is down to what you mean.
| "He is in good shape" would typically refer to someone who is fit, either mentally or physically.
|
"Will" = "want" and "shall" = "must" We know that the proper and original meaning of "will" (verb) is, roughly, "want"; similarly, "shall" means "must, ought to". But "will" and "shall" are normally used as the auxiliaries of the future tense. (Please note that my question is not, or at least is not directly, about the use of "shall" and "will" in the future: it's about these two verbs in their original meanings of "must" and "want" respectively.) So, here's my difficulty: if I say "I will go", or "I shall go", that will be understood by everybody as a future; what am I to do, if I mean to say "I want to go" or "I must go" respectively? (Well, you might answer, of course: just say that, "I want to go" and "I must go"! But suppose I want to use "will" and "shall".) If, in speaking, I pronounced "will" or "shall" with emphasis, or, in writing, I wrote these two words in italics (or underlined them, etc.) — thus: "I will go", "I shall go" —, this would probably be understood as an energetic future, but still as a future (admittedly, in the case of "I will go" this energetic future would often be not very far in meaning from an energetic volition: as in "Whether you agree or not, I will go!" But, even then, this is not the same as "I want to go"). How can I use "shall" and "will" with the meaning of "must" and "want", and avoid every possible confusion with the future tense? <Q> How can I use "shall" and "will" with the meaning of "must" and "want", and avoid every possible confusion with the future tense? <S> In most contexts, you can't; that's not what those words mean any more. <S> There are a few similar uses which are still current: <S> Shall does mean <S> must sometimes in the very conservative legal dialect; and its past-tense form should is often in both present- and past-tense contexts with the oldest recorded sense, which is not <S> must <S> but owed, ought <S> ( You really should read Ulysses <S> it's a great book ). <S> Will <S> may have the sense be willing to in the protasis of a conditional construction, and that sense will spill over to the apodosis ( If you'll get the beer, I'll get chips ); and the past-tense form would is still occasionally used in both present- and past-tense contexts with the archaic sense want , <S> albeit mostly in fossilized expressions ( Do what you will, I don't care ). <S> In any case, even if you could employ these words in these senses, you could not eliminate future reference because both want and must entail futurity: the obligation and the desire are present at Reference Time, but <S> the actualization of what you want or are obliged to do—the verb complement expressed with an infinitive—necessarily lies at some point after Reference Time. <S> And you cannot assume that "original" meaning implies "proper" meaning <S> —that's what linguists call the etymological fallacy . <S> Word meanings are not static, and there is no Golden Age of English which determined for all time what any word means. <A> Saying or writing "I will go" is very unlikely to be understood as "I want to go", or anything similar, regardless of any emphasis. <S> You could say "I am willing to go" instead. <S> This is a common and well-understood phrase. <S> I would not interpret "shall" as " <S> must" as you suggest, except in legal or similar language, where it means something like "required in order to comply". <S> Note that the verb "want" also has a different "original" meaning, similar to "miss" or "lack". <S> With that meaning, you can still find it as "wanting". <S> English verbs carry a lot of interesting history... <A> "Shall" has largely disappeared in modern usage (except as a synonym of "will," sometimes employed by a NAmE writer or speaker who wishes to be perceived as "British") and "will" has largely lost its relationship to "want." Like it or not, today you shall use "must" and "want" if you will make your meaning clear. <S> This has been discussed many times at ELU; see this link . <A> I think you could simplify it down to this: 'Want' is desire, and is used to express desire of some type. ' <S> Will' has not lost its relationship to 'want,' as 'will' still has the context of "volition" or more simply, "will" (the two are synonyms). <S> It however is not the same context as "do as what you are willing," in which 'willing' means something like "what you'd be comfortable doing, reasonably. <S> " It is not a want. <S> 'Shall' is closer to 'will.' <S> It implies a lot of volition, more so than 'will,' which is conditional. <S> It implies duty, just as 'must' does, but if taken in a modern context, 'must' is more informal and applies to a more flexible range of time. <S> If you need an example of 'will' in the more archaic context, here's one. <A> In the traditional use, shall in the first person (singular or plural) indicates volition or simple future, and in any other person it indicates necessity or enforcement <S> (think legal contracts or prophecies). <S> Conversely, will in the first person (singular or plural) indicates strong determination, whereas in any other person, it indicates simple future. <S> Similarly, should in the first person traditionally indicates an inclination (I should like to think), whereas in any other person it indicates an obligation. <S> If you read Harry Potter, the character of Albus Dumbledore pretty much follows these traditional rules when it comes to using these auxiliary verbs. <S> In modern American English, you rarely ever use <S> shall in the first person. <S> Questions with "shall I?" <S> might be an exception.(If you say I should , it more often than not has the same meaning as in any other person ( an obligation or expectation )).
| The verb "will" is used as an auxiliary verb in modern English, and a such it does not carry the meaning of the noun "will". "Shall" is not common in speech nowadays, and when it is used, it suggests a solemn promise or oath.
|
Present Simple or Continuous in this sentence? Which is correct? The sentence is: "Well, I normally do eight hours a day, but at the moment I'm working at least ten hours and some Saturdays." "Well, I normally do eight hours a day, but at the moment I work at least ten hours and some Saturdays." What is the best to use? <Q> I think the use of the present continuous fits well in your sentence. <S> The situation in your second clause contrasts with that in the previous clause. <S> Moreover, the second clause implies that you see the present routine or situation as temporary. <S> In such cases, it is more idiomatic to use the present continuous. <S> So you should say: ....., but at the moment I'am working at least 10 hours (a day) and some Saturdays. <S> You can also use the present simple if you see this change as permanent. <A> Well first off, it sounds a little bit weird. <S> It should be: <S> I'm working at least ten hours a day and some Saturdays." <S> In the first part of the sentence you're talking about hours and at the end you're talking about days, so you have to add "a day" Now to your actual question: <S> "Well, I normally do eight hours a day, but at the moment I'm work at least ten hours a day and some Saturdays." <S> This is wrong. <S> It sounds awkward, but you would be understood. <S> When you say "I'm" the sentence must end in -ing <S> "Well, I normally do eight hours a day, but at the moment I'm working at least ten hours a day and some Saturdays." <S> This sentence works. <S> Alternatively, you could say: " <S> Well, I normally do eight hours a day, but at the moment I work at least ten hours a day and some Saturdays." <S> In this context, there isn't really a difference between I'm working and I work. <A> Your first sentence is: <S> Well, I normally do eight hours a day, but at the moment I'm working at least ten hours and some Saturdays. <S> Here, you use the present continuous , but the usage is idiomatic. <S> A native English speaker, particularly a NAmE speaker, would interpret it to mean "I spend at least ten hours at work. <S> " It is idiomatic in NAmE to say, for instance, "I'm working at McDonald's," when the meaning is actually "My current job is at McDonald's," and not "As I speak, I am engaged in work at McDonald's. <S> " <S> Your second sentence is: <S> Well, I normally do eight hours a day, but at the moment I work at least ten hours and some Saturdays. <S> Here you use the simple present , but the usage here is also idiomatic. <S> As with your first sentence, it would interpreted to mean "I spend at least ten hours at work. <S> " <S> The difference in meaning and usage between <S> simple present and present continuous (or present progressive ) <S> often puzzles new students of English. <S> Their meanings, in one sense, are the same: at the current time, some activity is taking place. <S> Although it is not the case in this idiomatic usage, in most cases the present continuous adds a sense that the activity will continue or progress, or that it is habitual. <S> There is an answer to a different question here which may help you to understand when to use the present continuous .
| Neither is really the best ; they both convey the same thought and would be understood identically.
|
"to not do that" or "not to do that" I'm saying How many times I asked you not to do that? or How many times I asked you to not do that? which one is correct please? <Q> Neither is completely correct: you can use How many times have I asked you not to do that? <S> or How many times have I asked you to not do that? <S> Notice how the word "I" is capitalised in English. <S> This is always the case. <S> The word "have" is required as an auxiliary verb to form the present perfect with the past participle "asked" for it to make sense in those sentences. <S> Both "not to do" and "to not do" are correct. <A> How many times did I ask you not to do that? <S> How many times did I ask you to not do that? <S> The first sentence, in which we keep to and the infinitive do together, is more usual and idiomatic than the second sentence, in which we have a split infinitive. <S> Many people think that a sentence with a split imfinitiveis not correct, but it's becoming generally acceptable. <A> The only difference can really be seen when you say the phrase. <S> How many times have I asked you NOT to do that? <S> vs. <S> How many times have I asked you to <S> NOT <S> do that?
| The emphasis is always put on "not".
|
What is the proper way to use "ones" or "one's" this word in sentence? It's said that this is not a good idea to think in my native language (Turkish) then try to translate it to English. But I couldn't find to correct word/phrase to express this sentence: I didn't download any extra library except ones in the code. Should it be ones or one's ? <Q> It is also the possessive of "one." <S> Examples of these are: <S> One's mood can be affected by the seasons. <S> (possessive) <S> One's the smallest positive integer. <S> (contraction) <S> "Ones" is merely the plural of "one." <S> This is the usage you are looking for here. <S> In English, "one" can sometimes be used to indicate individual units of something. <S> Here are some examples. <S> I've put in square brackets a translation of what "one" means in each instance: <S> They are the ones [the specific people] who bought the house. <S> I don't play video games, except ones [non-specific games] that get left at my apartment by friends. <S> I am the only one [person] who can help you. <S> She will take in any dogs, even ones (non-specific dogs) who are not housebroken. <S> Note also, there are small changes you can make to such phrases that alter the meaning very slightly. <S> With your example, there could be many variations. <S> I think the one you want is: <S> I didn't download any extra libraries except (for) the ones in the code. <S> The use of "for" here is optional. <A> "Ones" is the plural of "one". <S> Example: Are those the ones you are looking for? <S> "Ones" is also the possessive form of "one" when "one" is used as a pronoun. <S> There is no apostrophe, similar to "his". <S> Example: One should mind ones own business. <S> "One's" is a contraction of "one" and "is", or "one" and "has". <S> Examples: One's less than two. <S> One's been less then two forever. <S> If one is used as a proper noun or a noun, then "One's" would be the possessive for the proper noun, and one's would be the possessive for the noun. <S> Examples: <S> "Number One's skills are better than Number Two's skills" or something like that. <S> I can't think of a great example of a sentence. <S> Two's value is greater than one's value. <S> (Talking about numbers with the numbers being nouns.) <A> You should use "ones" without the apostrophe. <S> You would use "one's" when referring to something belonging to oneself. <S> Also, you might want to use the definite article ("the ones"), or even a different pronoun ("those"). <S> For example: I didn't download any extra library except those in the code.
| "One's" is a contraction of "one is" or "one has."
|
When can you respond with "affirmative"? When is it appropriate to respond with "affirmative"? Could some examples be provided? This dialog has been taken from Knight Rider TV series season 2 episode 15: Michael: KITT , analyze these tire tracks. KITT: They're still warm, Michael. Made by a vehicle accelerating, not stopping. And I detect traces of clay in the tires. Michael: Clay, like at Glenrock Cliffs? KITT: Affirmative. How I Met Your Mother season 3 episode 6: Lily: Are you telling me that they actually have conventions for porn? Barney: Affirmative, or to put it in another way "God Bless America" <Q> "Affirmative" has one (and only one, in my opinion) advantage: it takes a while to say. <S> This is why it is used in the military, and other radio-oriented professions. <S> When communicating over radio, it is important to get your message across in one transmission. <S> If you 'press to talk' too late, or there's a moment of interference, then a short "Yes" may be missed. <S> If the recipient hears ".. <S> firmative <S> " then they can be pretty sure what the person is saying. <S> If they hear "..." then they simply don't know. <S> The problem is the opposite: "Negative". <S> If you hear "...ative", then you don't know what the person meant either. <A> The use of "affirmative" generally has a "military" or "robotic" feel to it. <S> You're likely to hear yes, <S> yeah, uh-huh , etc. <S> KITT replies with "affirmative" because KITT is an artificially intelligent electronic computer module in the body of a highly advanced, very mobile, robotic automobiled [ 1. ] <S> Since KITT is more or less a robot, it makes sense that KITT responds in a manner befitting a robot. <S> In the second case, there are a number of reasons why Barney could have replied that way. <S> My best guess is that this was meant as misdirection . <S> By replying with "affirmative", Barney appears to be serious, or mature, about the matter. <S> But then he comments "God Bless America", which indicates that he's glad, or thankful, that "they actually have conventions for porn". <S> This is supposed to be funny because it breaks the idea that he was being serious. <S> He was immature all along. <A> The Knight Rider example is very appropriate to demonstrate the reason for using "affirmative". <S> "Affirmative" has only one well defined meaning; agreement with an assertion or request. <S> Its common synonyms "yes" and "right" have multiple meanings and connotations that must be implied by context. <S> In a tactical situation, it is important to express yourself clearly without ambiguity so that you may be quickly and accurately understood. <S> The ability to extract meaning from context requires a human, or highly advanced computer hardware and software. <S> That is why using uncommon, but very unambiguous language is termed "robotic". <S> Because robots do not have a choice. <S> They lack the ability to imply anything, unless it is a specific preprogrammed response(which would be very rare). <S> Since KITT must often say "Left Michael", or "Right Michael" <S> it avoids confusion for the driver if KITT never says "Right" except with the directional meaning. <S> Because of the reasons listed above, "affirmative" has acquired tone beyond "yes" when used in casual conversation instead of tactical operations. <S> It implies a higher degree of confidence in your answer than simply saying yes. <S> And, subsequently is often an attempt to bring the other party over to your way of thinking, as used in the second example. <S> Woman: Do I look OK? <S> Man: Yes, you look fine. <S> Woman: Do I look OK? <S> Man: Affirmative, you will be the prettiest at the ball. <A> “Affirmative” has at least one advantage: <S> it has a word root "Affirm-". <S> As a result, it can be used as an adjective. <S> It has a verb (affirm), a noun (affirmation), and an adverb (affirmatively). <S> Sample usage ( <S> highly contrived):One day KITT replied affirmatively to me: “Affirmative.”Contented with KITT <S> ’s affirmation, I did something else. <S> The next day I told another person: “KITT affirmed me.” <S> He replied, “that was an affirmative answer.” <S> In contrast, “yes” only has one conventional usage: <S> One day KITT replied affirmatively to me: “Yes.”Contented with KITT <S> ’s affirmation, I did something else. <S> The next day I told another person: “KITT said yes to me.” <S> He replied, “that was an affirmative answer” A computer can easily insert words like “affirm*” into any syntax. <S> It is also easier for a computer to find identical words from a large amount of data.
| In everyday speech, it is uncommon to hear someone reply with "affirmative".
|
What is the word for a property no more necessary but still present in a object? As an example the small ring in the maple syrup bottles: now too small to be usefull but still present <Q> For parts of the human body such as the appendix, the term vestigial is often used. <S> Here is a definition: <S> Used to describe something, especially a part of the body, that has not developed completely, or has stopped being used and has almost disappeared Note that the definition does not exclude its usage for things that are not parts of the body. <S> Here are a couple of examples of its non-medical usage which definitely carry the meaning that they no longer have a purpose: <S> As it turns out, these vestigial urban remnants that serve absolutely no purpose have a name. <S> They’re called “Thomassons” - <S> 6sqft <S> ..a doorway like an ancient castle narrowing to a sort of stone tunnel as if for defense — one of those vestigial architectural features which Lanny had explained to Leutnant Rörich at the Château de Belcour Presidential Agent <S> The first article also proposes the term <S> Thomasson for architectural features that serve no purpose yet are still maintained. <S> The term “Thomasson” has its roots in Gary Thomasson, an American baseball player who was traded to Tokyo’s Yomiuri Giants. <S> Thomasson was paid a fortune for a two-year contract, but eventually lost his luster and was benched for most his contract. <S> For Akasegawa, Thomasson was both “useless” and “maintained.” <A> However, after searching around, I found this: <S> According to Brooklyn Brainery , who asked themselves the same question, those tiny handles are remnants from a time when maple syrup jars came in large five-pound earthenware containers, when the handles clearly served essential functional roles. <S> But over the years, due to the fact that we associate that container shape with maple syrup, the handles have been retained as a design element in the shrunken version we now buy, even though they don't serve any real function. <S> In fact, maple syrup handles are a classic example of a skeuomorph , a "retained but no longer functional stylistic feature." <S> ( Source. ) <S> From Wikipedia, A skeuomorph is a derivative object that retains ornamental design cues from structures that were necessary in the original. <S> Skeuomorph is not a widely known word. <S> A quick search for some idea of the comparison gives the following. <S> So although skeuomorph has the definition we seek <S> (and apparently it was precisely the word you were looking for), your audience is more likely to understand what you mean if you call the ring a vestige , or vestigial . <S> They'll get the idea that the ring is left over from a previous design or purpose, but that it is no longer necessary. <A> ornamental (adjective): serving or intended as an ornament; decorative. <S> "Ornamental" conveys the basic idea that the handle is not functional, and would be appropriate for all audiences. <S> vestigial (adjective): forming a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable. <S> "Vestigial" conveys that the ornamental handle was functional in an earlier incarnation of the object. <S> This term would be appropriate for an educated audience. <S> skeuomorph <S> (adjective): an ornament or design on an object copied from a form of the object when made from another material or by other techniques <S> "Skeuomorph" is a delightfully precise term, indicating that the vestigial feature is an intentional design cue. <S> However, since its introduction circa 1890, it has not been widely used by laypersons. <S> As such, this jargon is best employed when speaking to an audience specializing in design, marketing, engineering or a related field. <S> Also, most definitions of skeuomorph require the traditional object to be made from another material rather than simply a larger scale. <S> That said, this is still a very young word and could benefit from expanding usage. <A> As @oerkelens noted in his comment on the question, obsolete may be a useful descriptor, but it often refers to a whole object that is outdated and may have a newer version available. <S> I also thought of deprecated , but I think this word is primarily used in programming to refer to properties or algorithms that should not be used because newer versions exist that should be used instead. <A> Speaking more generally - superfluous is a good word to describe something extra but unnecessary
| At first, I saw no problem calling it a vestigial ring , or a vestige an ornamental ring , or an ornament a remnant .
|
Yeah, no | What does it mean? How can we best describe the meaning of this phrase to a non-native English speaker? Example Dialogs : Sally : Isn't Twilight the best movie series of all time? Fred : Yeah, no. Fred : Doesn't it bother you that vampires sparkle? Sally : Yeah, no, not really. <Q> One way of thinking of the response " <S> Yeah, no" is that the first part ("yeah" or an affirmative) acknowledges the question and the second part ("no," "naw," or negative) refutes what the question is implying. <S> Thus: S: Isn't twilight the best movie series of all time? <S> F: <S> Yeah, I see why you would think that. <S> But no, I don't agree with you. <A> Yeah is instead like saying "Hmmm. <S> " <S> Its more of a sound that comes before the thought. " <S> Yeah" then means in this context, "I've considered this point you're making <S> and then the "no" part of the phrase is the actual answer. <S> " For example, "Isn't this store the best one in the mall? <S> " If the answer is "Yeah, no." It translates to, "I can maybe see why you think this store is the best one in the mall ( <S> Yeah), <S> but I don't think it's the best (no). <S> " <A> "Yeah, no" or "yeah, nah" is an informal way of emphasising one's disagreement with something. <S> See Urban Dictionary regarding its use and meaning: <S> Yes, I'm hearing what you're saying, <S> but NO you're wrong
| "Yeah" in this case is not meaning "Yes", they are not saying "Yes, no."
|
Comma after an introductory phrase beginning with "in" and containing a list Do I need a comma before "no specific" in: In the tissue samples of the primate brain cortex, liver, muscle, kidney, lymphatic node, spleen and tonsil no specific immunohistochemical staining by Z011 was observed. I found this explanation : If a prepositional phrases contains four or fewer words, usually no comma is needed as in the following sentence: On the table a bottle of champagne rested, conserving its energy for the upcoming festivities. Prepositional phrases of five or more words require a comma: Beneath the dusty redwood table, the cat crouched with murderous anticipation. The punctuation marks serve to indicate how the sentence is to be read aloud. As such, the first sentence would have no pause, whereas the second sentence would be read with a slight pause after table. While the word count may appear arbitrary, it reflects an organic speech pattern. The prepositional phrase in my example has more than four words, but they are themselves set off by commas. Maybe there's no need then for a comma before "no specific"? <Q> Commas are a bit of a dark art in English. <S> The "four or fewer words" trick above is not so much a rule but rather perhaps a trick to use to decide when a comma is optional. <S> In your case, you definitely need a comma because it tells the reader how to parse the sentence, but I would also use a comma even if you shortened the prepositional phrase to just four words, like so: "In the tissue samples, no specific immunohistochemical staining by Z011 was observed. <S> " It just makes it easier to read in my opinion, and in scientific writing it's especially important to be clear. <A> An addition to the previous answer: <S> In my opinion, one more reason, if not the main one, for a comma before "no specific" is that it is supposed to follow a non-restrictive appositives "spleen and tonsils" which provide additional information about the lymphatic node, i.e. that spleen and tonsil are elements of the lymphatic node. <A> Either use a comma there, for the sake of clarity, or start the sentence with "No specific ...was observed in ..." My personal preference is not to have a long list of items in a dependent clause opening the sentence because it delays the main clause. <S> Such a list is better as a wagon than a horse. <S> (Kudos to Tromano)
| In your example, I would definitely use a comma before 'no specific', because otherwise it's unclear how to read/parse the sentence.
|
What is the opposite of "dumb down"? I am trying to figure out what would be the opposite of "dumb down" as in "I can dumb down this presentation". In this example the presentation is too complex and needs to be simplified for the target audience, but what about the other way around, I can't say "complex up", and whilst "smarten up" is valid it doesn't work in this context. <Q> If you intend the material to be hard to understand, then I like complicate complicate : to make (something) more difficult or less simple <S> It does not imply that the material will be digestible. <S> On the contrary, I feel like it implies that the material will be difficult to understand. <S> If you want to make it more detailed, but still understandable, I would say make something sophisticated . <S> sophisticated : <S> deprived of native or original simplicity: as <S> a : <S> highly complicated or developed : <S> complex <S> I didn't see a problem with smarten , or smarten up . <S> You said "it's doesn't work here", but didn't explain why. <S> It sounds like it does. <S> smarten : to make smart or smarter; especially : spruce —usually used with up . <S> smarten up <S> US : <S> to become more intelligent or aware : to become smarter <S> US : <S> to make (someone or something) smarter or more aware <A> I'm not sure there is a simple established phrase that complements "dumb down." <S> As you've mentioned in some earlier comments to previous answers, verbs like complicate or complexify don't do the trick – the goal is not to make the presentation more complicated , the goal is to make it less simplistic . <S> Those two aren't quite synonymous. <S> I can't think of a good single word or established idiom, but I think I'd probably say it something like this: <S> I can dumb down this presentation, or I can make it speak to the expert . <S> I don't want to <S> dumb down this presentation, I want it geared it more toward the expert . <S> Adding the word expert is key, I think. <S> According to Wikipedia, dumbing down is: the deliberate oversimplification of intellectual content within education, literature, cinema, news, video games and culture in order to relate to those unable to assimilate more sophisticated information <S> ( emphasis added ) <S> I looked up expert in a thesaurus, just to see if there was a better word that could be used. <S> We don't need to dumb down this presentation; it's designed for the specialist . <A> To complexify Oxford English Dctionary : a. trans. <S> To make complex or complicated. <S> rare . <S> b. intr. <S> rare . <S> Or You could complicate or overcomplicate a presentation.
| In regards to a presentation, I think we generally "dumb down" information to make it more digestible for novices and neophytes; therefore, the opposite would be to design the presentation for experts, rather than for the masses. To become (more) complex or complicated. Several words were listed (including authority, pundit, maestro, virtuoso, master, wizard, connoisseur, and aficionado ), but the only one I thought might be a worthy alternate candidate was specialist :
|
Suggest an alternative to be used in place of "However" The last line of the following paragraph sounds fishy. Could you suggest another transition word for the word however ? I learned many things over the course of my three month internship at a startup, Crunch. I worked with a team to build a recommendation system and handle interfacing between client-side and the backend server. However , there was one thing I had ascertained. My chosen major was, indeed, Computer Science. <Q> In your example we don't see what it refers to. <S> Thus you shouldn't use any of its synonyms like <S> but . <S> I suggest you use and instead. <S> You need a discourse marker to provide some additional information. <A> In the process , there was one thing I had ascertained. <S> or During my internship , there was one thing I had ascertained. <A> Like @P.E Dant said, However is superfluous. <S> An old-fashioned rule was that you shouldn’t start a sentence with however, but today however is often used at the beginning of a sentence to mean ‘but’, ‘nevertheless’ or ‘regardless of the fact’. <S> Link <S> I suggest you to use anyway or <S> but . <S> I learned many things over the course of my three month internship at a startup, Crunch. <S> I worked with a team to build a recommendation system and handle interfacing between client-side and the back end server. <S> Anyway, there was one thing I had ascertained. <S> My chosen major was, indeed, Computer Science. <S> Other Resources <S> You can check others synonyms and resources googling "Use however" and "Synonyms however", I can't post it because I haven't 10+ reputation.
| However is normally used to express contrast.
|
Verb for how much space a file takes up? When I was a kid my dad used to say (in Norwegian): This file weighs four megabytes. Or maybe one could say This file consumes four megabytes. Or simply This file is four megabytes. But somehow I'm not sure. What are some good verbs I can use for this? <Q> If you simply want to say how big a file is, then is is fine. <S> This video is 770 megabytes <S> This video will occupy most of the free space on my phone. <A> What is wrong with take up ? <S> The file takes up four megabytes. <S> Example : <S> One kilobyte (KB) is a collection of about 1000 bytes. <S> A page of ordinary roman alphabetic text takes about 2 kilobytes to store (about one byte per letter). <S> A typical short email would also take up just 1 or 2 kilobytes. <S> Text is one of the most naturally compact types of data at about one byte required to store each letter. <S> In non-roman alphabets, such as Kanji, the storage takes up 2 or 4 bytes per "letter" which is still pretty compact compared to audio and images Definition ('take up') to fill or use an amount of space or time <S> The table takes up too much room. <S> I won't take up any more of your time. <S> Her time is fully taken up with writing. <S> ( Oxford Learner's Dictionary ) <A> I think most English speakers say "is" or "takes". <S> "This file is 4 MB" or "This file takes 4 MB." <S> We sometimes say "requires", especially if we're discussing whether the person has sufficient room on their device to hold it. <S> For example when you install new software, you often get a message that says something like, "requires 100 MB, 280 MB available", and then if the "requires" is more than the "available" you get an error message. <S> Or more casually, you might say to a co-worker, "This file requires 3 GB. <S> Do you have enough room for it on your thumb drive? <S> " <S> I've never heard an English-speaker say "weighs 4 MB", though it would make a wonderfully descriptive word for the idea. <S> If you said "consumes" people would know what you meant and would probably not think it incredibly odd wording, but few would actually say that. <A> 12 megabytes are the size of the file. <S> In English, sizes are measured . <S> Some measurements, like weight, happen to have a special verb attached to them, derived from the measurement process. <S> " <S> This potato weighs 200 grams" means that, when you weigh the potato, the output of the measuring process is 200 grams . <S> We have never created a special word for the measuring process of information. <S> Maybe information theorists have one, but it has never made it into common culture. <S> So, if you insist on using a verb, you cannot go more specific than <S> This file measures 12 megabytes. <S> As others have noted, this is not typical usage. <S> Nobody thinks of measuring a file as a process, because the information about the measurement is available without any action on our part. <S> So we simply use the contraction <S> This file['s size] is 12 megabytes. <S> And that's all there is to it. <S> Sometimes the word you are looking for doesn't exist, because nobody needs it. <A> For example "What size is the file?" <S> or "The file size is 6 megabytes". <A> There are so many verbs that can be used to convey the sense the OP wants to. <S> We can also use the verbs consist of or comprise, but the usage of the comorise is more formal. <S> The verb be can also be used as a main verb. <S> So the following sentences are possibe: <S> This is a 35-megabyte file. <S> This file is 35 megabytes. <S> This file consists of 35 megabytes. <S> This file comprises 35 megabytes. <S> However, the sentence "This file occupies 35 megabytes seems more appropriate than the sentence "This file takes (up) 35 megabytes". <S> You can also say: This file has a storage capacity of 35 megabytes. <A> This is exactly the sort of usage for which the English verb comprise is appropriate: <S> The file comprises <S> 4Mb. <S> I propose, however, that we standarize instead on the elegant Norwegian expression: <S> The file weighs <S> 4Mb.
| This file takes (up) 35 megabytes. There's nothing wrong with the verb take (up), but the verb occupy is more common and idiomatic. Generally people use the word size for this. If you want to emphasize how much space it is taking up, you can use occupy in the sense fill, exist in, or use a place
|
A word for something in my mind? What would be a good word to fit in this sentence: I have this idea that I've been [...] for some time now. Somehow, "thinking about" doesn't seem like a good choice here. I'm looking for a word that would mean something like "processing in my mind". <Q> I have this idea that I've been pondering for some time now. <S> He pondered the various possibilities before acting. <S> He thought about what to do beforehand <S> For two words mulling over would be appropriate. <A> Depends what sort of idea and what sort of thinking. <S> Possibilities include: thinking about, considering, mulling over, dreading, working on, debating ... probably dozens more. <A> I can suggest two words: Hatch v. <S> tr.(used figuratively) to contrive or devise ( <S> a scheme, plot, etc) <S> Devise <S> v. <S> tr. <S> ,which means Plan or invent (a complex procedure, system, or mechanism) by careful thought. <S> But I believe the variants are unlimited. <A> for one word, I would use "cogitating". <S> From the word "cogitate", it means to think on or think around a subject matter. <S> One synonym for this is also "ponder", so I would also agree with Peter. <A> Depending on the issue pondering is very good for a simple set of soft circumstances, but evaluating is more easily understood and correct if the circumstance/issue is hard or complex. <S> As in, "I was pondering what the size my cat's house should be. <S> " or "I was evaluating <S> the structural differences in manmade materials used in buildings today. <S> " <S> Both are correct, yet they carry a very different connotation!
| A possible single word that fits your request is ponder
|
Correct use of "used to" I wanted to understand the correct use of "used to". For example: I used to play cricket over the weekends. Here, I am talking about the past, not the present. Can I use "used to" in present tense as well? Please advise. <Q> "Used to" is the imperfect tense, often describing past habitual actions with no clear start or end point except that both are in the past. <S> The verb "use" can be used in the present tense, like I am using it right now, or like you may use it in combination with an infinitive verb (beginning with "to"), but this is not the same as the "used to" construction that refers to the past. <S> For example: What do you use to make your cakes so moist? <S> The bowline knot can be used to tie a loop of fixed size. <S> In these examples, you can imagine "in order" implied in front of the infinitive verb (to make, to tie, to describe) in order to more easily remember that the "to" in each of those examples (and other present tense instances where "used" and "to" are found next to each other in that order) is associated with the infinitive verb. <S> "Used to" in the present can also be a synonym for "accustomed to" in describing a state of being, in association with a conjugation of "to be." I am used to hearing the trains go by; the noise doesn't bother me [because I am used to it]. <S> This implies that trains still go by on a regular basis. <S> Contrast that previous sentence with: <S> I used to hear the trains go by. <S> which implies "I don't hear the trains go by any more; I heard them only in the past." <A> Used to VP is a very complex idiom. <S> It does talk about the past, but it also talks (differently) about the present. <S> If you say Bill used to live on Elm Street. <S> you are asserting -- saying, claiming, affirming -- that Bill lived on Elm Street at some past time . <S> But you are also presupposing that Bill does not now live on Elm Street. <S> Presuppositions work differently from assertions. <S> A presupposed statement is one that must be true -- no matter what -- in order to make sense of the sentence. <S> A sentence and its negation have the same presupposition. <S> Hence Bill's brother has moved in with him and <S> Bill's brother hasn't moved in with him <S> both presuppose that Bill has a brother. <S> Note that neither one can be continued this way: <S> * <S> Bill's brother has(n't) <S> moved in with him, though Bill doesn't have a brother. <S> WTF?As can be seen presuppositions are sneaky, in that when they appear in conversation, they add to the context, and if not challenged will become presuppositions of the entire discourse. <S> This leads to trick questions like <S> Have you stopped beating your wife? <S> Since X stop <S> VP <S> -ing <S> presupposes that X has VP -ed <S> in the past, this question cannot be answered truthfully either Yes or No by someone who does not have a wife, or who has never beaten their wife. <S> If you answer <S> No , you admit by presupposition that you used to beat your wife <S> If you answer <S> Yes , you admit all that, and also admit to beating your wife now <A> I used to play cricket over the weekends . <S> The aspectual verb "use" has no present tense , only infinitival and past forms, so although the form "use" appears to be a present tense form, it is in fact the plain (infinitive) form which is only used in negatives and with inversion: "I didn’t use to play cricket"; “Did he use to play cricket"? <S> There is the added complication that "use" can be a lexical verb or an auxiliary one, though the books tell us that many speakers treat it as a lexical one. <S> I suspect that’s due to the unacceptability for many people of the auxiliary use found in %"Playing cricket usedn’t to be allowed" and %"Used he to play cricket"? <S> Lexical Use <S> (infinitival verb-form and do-support required in negatives and questions): <S> "He used to play cricket". <S> "He didn’t use to play cricket". <S> "Did he use to play cricket"? <S> Auxiliary Use (past tense verb-form, no do-support required): <S> "He used to play cricket". <S> % <S> "He usedn’t to play cricket". <S> %"Used he to play cricket?
| The words "used to" are often used to describe habitual actions in the past [but not here].
|
Is it right to say, "The washroom got free only 10 minutes back"? The bathroom got free only 10 minutes back. Is 'got free' the right way to say it? What about The bathroom was vacant only since 10 minutes ago. <Q> The use of got free does not sound natural to me (American English). <S> I suggest using became free . <S> I would also use ago : <S> The bathroom became free only 10 minutes ago. <S> As for <S> The bathroom was vacant only since 10 minutes ago. <S> This doesn't sound natural either. <S> Here I would use the present perfect: <A> The bathroom was vacant only 10 minutes ago <S> was <S> indicates a state. <S> This means that 10 minutes ago the bathroom was vacant. <S> The only gives the impression that it might have been occupied before or since, but the sentence does not say. <S> It might have been vacant before, it might have been vacant after that, it might still be vacant now. <S> The bathroom became vacant only 10 minutes ago <S> became <S> indicates a change of state. <S> This means that the bathroom was occupied until ten minutes ago, and then it became vacant. <S> It does not specify whether it is vacant now. <S> back is also possible, but according to this NGram , ago is much more widely used. <A> You can use "got free" in the sense of "Reach or cause to reach a specified state or condition:" ( http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/get #3) in a sentence like <S> "The attackers tied up the hostages, but they got free 10 minutes ago." <S> But that sense of "got" doesn't work in the OP's sentence, because the bathroom didn't take any action to remove the people who exited from it 10 minutes ago. <S> In the OP's second sentence, "since" may be a wrong translation of a word like "depuis" in French, which is translated as "since" or "for" in English depending on the context. <S> "Il habite à Paris depuis 1990" = <S> He has been living in Paris since 1990. <S> "Il habite à Paris depuis dix ans" = <S> He has been living in Paris for 10 years. <S> (Note: <S> French uses the present tense of the verb in those examples, but English does not.) <S> "The bathroom has been vacant for 10 minutes" would be the commonest usage, but "The bathroom has been vacant since 10 minutes ago" is just about possible - a sentence like "The bathroom has been vacant since before lunch" seems perfectly OK (in British English, at least). <A> I would tend to say this phrase as: <S> The bathroom was freed up only 10 minutes ago. <S> or (changing the phrasing and subtext only slightly) <S> The bathroom has been free for 10 minutes. <A> [I would post this as a comment, but no reputation] <S> I think that something like > <S> The bathroom only opened up 10 minutes ago. <S> (I don't feel good about this option anymore) <S> The bathroom finally opened up 10 minutes ago. <S> might be what you want. <S> It changes the meaning a bit though, so I'm not sure. <S> EDIT: I'll try to explain. <S> Using "finally" emphasizes that the bathroom was occupied for a long time. <S> Whether you use "finally opened up 10 minutes ago" or "opened up only 10 minutes ago" depends on whether you're in a situation like #1 or #2: <S> You're saying that the bathroom was occupied for a long time, and it just now finally opened up. <S> Maybe in a conversation like this: Me: "Is the bathroom still occupied?" <S> You: "No, it finally opened up 10 minutes ago." <S> You're saying that the bathroom has been open for a short time; you're emphasizing that it has been a short time. <S> Maybe in a conversation like this. <S> You: "Bathroom's open." <S> Me: "When did it open up? <S> Has it been open for a long time? <S> " <S> You: "No, it opened up only 10 minutes ago."
| The bathroom has been free/vacant for (only) ten minutes.
|
English word for 'make someone feel in debt to you' I'm looking for a word (at best a verb because the expression in my native language a verb) used to show disapproval to describe when you do or want to do a favor for someone and you want to make that person feel that s/he is indebted to you . For example my friend asks me for some money and I start talking about my own financial problems or the fact that this is me who's always helping him out then my friend confronts me with this and says, I understand that this is a great favor but please stop [word]ing Or I ask my colleague to help me and he acts like he wants you to know that he really doesn't have to do it and wants you to know he's doing you a favor. Later you tell your friend about your collegue and say, Today I asked my colleague to help me and he did but with some [word]ing. <Q> In English, unfortunately, I believe we have no single verb that exactly conveys the negative sense of <S> the Farsi منت گذاشتن <S> Dictionary.com defines it as to bind or oblige morally or legally. <S> Nevertheless, it is sometimes used in a negative sense, thus: I understand that this is a great favor but please stop trying to <S> obligate me. <S> Today I asked my colleague to help me <S> and he did but not without making me feel obligated . <S> Another useful English word to consider is the adjective beholden . <S> Although this word means only indebted or obligated, it is seldom used except in constructions which do connote something negative: <S> I understand that this is a great favor, but please stop trying to make me beholden to you. <A> Perhaps guilt-tripping ? <S> As in to lay a guilt trip on me. <S> It has a sense of making one feel guilty or ashamed. <A> If you're asking for a verb that describes a rant or tirade the word harangue (or harangued, past tense)comes to my mind. <S> Americans generally use expressions instead so you might hear <S> "he lectured me" , "read me the riot act",'Jumped my case" or 'guilt tripped me' about ( whatever it was.) <S> He read me the riot act about borrowing money.
| Obligate is a verb which in itself connotes nothing negative.
|
A word to refer who doesn't want to study anything I need to know if there is a word to refer to someone who doesn't want study anything, who is a bad student etc. Example: He was a bad student because he didn't study anything. I would like know if I can replace "didn't study anything" with an adjective. <Q> The common word lazy can apply here. <S> lazy : not liking or willing to act or work <S> He was a bad student because he was lazy . <S> In this context, lazy implies that he did not do his work or study. <S> Specifically, to suggest that a student did not want to study, you could say disinterested : not having the mind or feelings engaged : not interested <S> apathetic : <S> having little or no interest or concern : <S> indifferent <S> He was a bad student because he was apathetic (towards school, studies, etc). <A> We can say that a student is unengaged , unfocussed or detached . <S> We avoid lazy because sometimes the fault is not always with the student but due to other circumstances either inside the class or elsewhere. <S> It could result from sickness or inability to understand the teacher (such as being weak at understanding a second language etc.) <S> The aim of a good teacher is to get all their students engaged and focussed and overcome their difficulties. <A> It's a bit obscure and underutilized in my opinion, but I always liked to use the word insouciant for students like that. <S> noun: " <S> The English Professor had to bear the constant insouciance of the Engineering and Science majors in his Technical Writing class." <S> adjective: <S> "The interns have a surprisingly insouciant attitude toward learning; perhaps the cause is that we only pay them minimum wage?" <A> I think the word you're looking for is unmotivated : Not having interest in or enthusiasm for something, especially work or study. <S> ( Oxford Dictionaries ) <S> If you're unmotivated, you have no motivation : ... <S> the state or condition of being motivated or having a strong reason to act or accomplish something: <S> We know that these students have strong motivation to learn . <S> . . . <S> ( Dictionary.com ) <S> These terms are heavily associated with students (and young people in general), as suggested by the definitions above. <S> (The Google Image result for "unmotivated" is also instructive.) <S> I suspect educators like this terminology in part because there's an implication with unmotivated students that the right teaching approach or subject matter could change the student's attitude toward learning and studying. <S> Some other words sound more like an inherent predisposition or character flaw, which would be a lot harder to influence for a teacher. <S> So you could say <S> He was a bad student because he was unmotivated . <S> or He was a bad student because he had no motivation .
| He was a bad student because he was disinterested (in school, studies, etc). Although lazy is often used, in academia there are a wider variety of words that can be used with less negative connotations.
|
Idiom to describe a text (or speech) which is too long Let's say I ask someone to write a very short text, but I want to insist humorously that it should not be too long (less than 50 words). Could be something like " Don't write the Bible " or " Don't make it a Fidel Castro speech ". A kind of exaggeration. Are there similar ways of saying that in English? <Q> Leo Tolstoy's work War and Peace is often used idiomatically to represent any long, allegedly boring piece of writing. <S> You can say that you don't want them to give you War and Peace . <A> (Using the second definition of a long essay, such as a doctoral thesis.)Another one is "Don't write me a dissertation ." <S> They're less humorous than your examples, but commonly used. <A> Though I don't think it's an idiom per se, I think this should work well. <S> Both of its meaning and its humor should be easy to understand. <S> Don't write a mile long! <A> You could ask them not to Filibuster . <S> Filibustering is a political technique to talk for an excessive time. <S> Usually used when a debate has a fixed time duration, a filibuster will talk until the time expires and the motion therefore fails. <S> It would be appropriate for your humourous setting as, although the term strictly applies to speech, you can use it metaphorically for writing. <A> A good way to ask for a condensed essay is to say or write, "Reader's Digest version, please." <S> Reader's Digest is a magazine known for containing short, succinct articles about a variety of topics. <S> It provides the reader with just enough detail to understand the topic, but without unnecessary details.
| We often say "Don't write me a thesis ."
|
The meaning of "happen to" in "I happen to know" What does 'happen to do' mean? For example, I happen to know that. Did you happen to let him know? How did you happen to hear that? I really want to know the difference between "I know that." and "I happen to know that." I was taught there exists some difference between them but usually failed to understand what it means. <Q> The phrase happen to appears to be used in the following ways usually. <S> When you're asking someone 'Do you happen to know this person or information?' <S> , it indicates that you believe chances are that they don't know that person or information <S> but you're exploring the remote possibility <S> that they might. <S> This might help clear some aspects of the usage for you: http://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/happen-to-do-something <A> Consider this conversation: <S> A: <S> "I wonder where he was born?"B: <S> "It just so happens <S> I know that. <S> " <S> Person B could have said "What a remarkable coincidence! <S> I know the answer to the question you just asked!" <S> In this case, the word happens <S> indicates a coincidence; <S> just <S> and so are extra words that really add very little to person B's statement. <A> "Happen to" is quite likely saying "by any/some mean(s)" . <S> Your examples may be recast as follows: <S> By some means, I know that. <S> Did you, by any means, let him know? .
| Similarly when you're saying that you happen to know someone or some piece of information when not initially asked if you happen to know , you'd be doing it to convey that it was unexpected, but you do know.
|
Do I use present or future with "so that"? You will find some food so that you won't need to go out when you arrive or You will find some food so that you don't need to go out when you arrive. Which one is the best? I think first one is better. <Q> Both are acceptable depending on the meaning. <S> With won't (will not), the meaning is that you will not need to go out to get some food, because there is already food. <A> I think the first sentence is correct, since you used "will" in the first part of the sentence it would be more appropriate to use will in the second part <A> Neither is good to my ear. <S> You will find some food so that you won't/don't need to go out when you arrive. <S> " <S> So that " is used to indicate a purpose or to give explanation . <S> Neither of these definitions are applicable here. <S> Instead of " so that " you need to use " so " which shows the result (therefore) . <S> You will find some food so you won't/don't need to go out when you arrive. <S> In this case " won't " will be better since we are talking about a future time " when you arrive ". <S> " don't " will be better about a general statement or a statement applicable in the present: <S> I payed the bill morning so you don't need to worry about it. <S> With " so that " you need a purpose (outcome and reason): He locked us inside so that we wouldn't go to the party. <S> I will hide the sweets so that you don't overeat them. <S> P.s. <S> You might try " You will find that I've stuffed plenty of food in the fridge so you won't need to go out to buy it when you arrive. " <A> I think it is better grammar to use future + future , rather than future + present . <S> However, I would drop <S> that without blinking - it sounds strange. <S> Use <S> so instead of <S> so that in this case. <S> Extra: <S> so / <S> so that do(es) not require anything. <S> It is the verb in the main sentence which requires something. <S> See same example, past tense: <S> We found some food <S> so we didn't need to go out when we arrived <S> More: will is future, when you arrive is present, but suggests future, therefore it is natural to use future for the middle verb too. <A> When the time of a subordinate clause is the same as of the main clause, the verb form in the subordinate clause is usually simplified. <S> So Michal Swan says in his Practical English Usage (§580.1). <S> In the OP's example, however, the subordinate clause is talking about further into future than the main clause, so it's easier to digest when it says won't .
| You may use future + present in some situations for some specific meaning, but the broad rule is future + future . With don't (do not), the meaning is that you do not need to go out at all, for food or any other reason, because there is food.
|
Thing of social artifice Please tell me what is meant by 'social artifice' in the following Now historians are increasingly arguing that nation or national feeling cannot simply be described as 'invented' or 'imagined'. Such an approach presupposes that nation is a thing of social artifice, a symbolic formulation, rather than a natural essence. <Q> artifice b : an ingenious device or expedient <S> a : an artful stratagem : <S> trick <S> Social artifice seems to be another way of expressing the idea of social construction , without getting into all the complicated details of sociology. <S> Here, the author is saying that the presupposition is that "nation" is a social construct. <S> This is similar to the notions that gender and race are social constructs. <S> In that respect, a social construct as an idea would be widely accepted as natural by the society, but may or may not represent a reality shared by those outside the society, and would be an "invention or artifice of that society. <A> "Artifice" CAN mean a trick or deceit. <S> But it can also mean an invention, in the sense that the telephone is an invention. <S> Collins English Dictionary gives definition 4: "a skilfully contrived device". <S> "Social" means having to do with society. <S> So a "social artifice" is an invention created by society. <S> So the writer here is saying that the idea of a "nation" is not something invented by society. <S> I'm not quite sure what he means by that without more context, but whatever. <A> Artifice is an archaic word, used more commonly in older writings. <S> An example is: <S> Man is a growth by law and not a creation by artifice. <S> -James <S> Allen circa1903. <S> If you look at the date of your writing and/or the education of your author, you may see a clearer option to his or her intent. <S> After all, antonyms for ‘artifice’ are: fairness, candor, simplicity, and openness. <S> ‘Social artifice’ could very well <S> and I presumably believe to mean social manipulation or trickery. <S> Good words that once held specific definitions lose their given qualities when used loosely a few times, and then we are all left needing more context, when the answer should be perfectly clear. <A> I interpret "social artifice" in this context to be pretty much as they define immediately after, i.e. that a nation is not simply an artifact of a society, it's not just "a symbolic formulation", but instead it has it's own intrinsic properties and uses. <S> In other words, the nation is not an artifact (accidental, emergent property, or consequence) of a society (social structure), but that is a proper entity onto itself.
| A social construct or construction concerns the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by the inhabitants of that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event.
|
Meaning of "mess lmao" I was reading a blog and I'd read: I am involved with way too many languages and I am a mess lmao . I guess I can speak English and Cantonese (?) I know what lmao means, but what means in this case with mess lmao ? <Q> Although lmao is used as LMAO, which stands for laughing my ass off , it is often used as a general substitute for "ha ha ha". <S> And, "ha ha ha" is not always a genuine, hearty laugh. <S> As for your example, it should probably be written or read with a comma: I am involved with way too many languages and I am a mess, lmao. <S> In casual, informal speech, "I am a mess" often means "my life is a mess". <S> So, I took the sentence to mean I am involved in too many languages. <S> My life is in overall disarray. <S> Reading it this way, the two ideas are disconnected. <S> But it is not uncommon for people to speak this way. <S> It still makes sense. <S> However, in order to make the ideas connect, we could try to fill in some missing details: <S> I am involved with way too many languages and I am a mess because of it , lmao. <S> In either case, I believe the statement is supposed to be a self-deprecating joke, and lmao is being used as a substitute for "ha ha ha", not LMAO. <A> This means the person is laughing so hard because they consider themselves to be a "mess." <S> I can see where this might be tricky for a learner, because the word mess , as defined by a standard dictionary, relates to clutter and untidiness. <S> If a person was a mess, you might imagine them with rumpled clothes and unkempt hair. <S> However, the word can also refer to a state of mind. <S> In this context, I'd assume it means this person might have occasional trouble mixing up words from different languages, to the point where they find the jumble of mixed words going through their brain rather amusing. <A> In the comments for your question, you say that you've looked up the meaning of lmao and don't understand how it fits into to that sentence. <S> On the internet, abbreviations which stand for actions (like smh , which means ”shaking my head," or the classic lol , which of course means "laughing out loud") are used to quickly communicate the writer's emotional tone. <S> In this way, they are far more like interjections than ordinary parts of speech. <S> So the writer of the blog post doesn't mean "laugh my ass off" to literally be part of the sentence. <S> He's just showing that he has good humor about the fact that he's a mess. <S> A comparable sentence might be written: I am a mess, ha ha ha. <A> I think what some of the answers here are missing is that 'lol' (and to a lesser extent 'lmao') <S> has undergone a very interesting shift in meaning over the last few years. <S> 'lol' used to mean 'laugh out loud' and it's still used that way sometimes <S> (like when you send someone a funny video and they reply 'lol') <S> but it now has a second meaning as a discourse marker like 'well' or 'so'. <S> So when someone writes "I am a mess lmao' they don't mean 'hahaha'. <S> (To me, 'I am a mess hahaha' would have a very different meaning.) <S> This article has more information about the evolution of 'lol' and links to John McWhorter's excellent TED talk on the phenomenon. <S> tl;dr: in this context, 'lmao' is a discourse marker. <S> It doesn't indicate laughter.
| Specifically, this means the speaker's life is in overall disarray, but it can also be an exaggeration. It's simple: unlike many abbreviations (like btw or imho ), lmao isn't supposed to stand for words that fit into the sentence literally.
|
Is "I was slept when he came back... " grammatical? I was slept when he came back to the home. The above statement has three verbs in the past tense. was = is slept = sleep came = come My questions: Are "I was slept" and "he came back to home" grammatically correct? Can I use all these past tenses in a sentence like this? If it's correct what about the below statement? I did not go there In this statement "did" define it is a past tense of "do" but "go" never change to past tense. So in the first example, all the verbs are changed into the past tense but in the second example, some verbs are not changed. If both statements are correct, why can we use them like this? <Q> The sentence as it stands there is not correct. <S> This is due to the circumstance that to sleep is usually an intransitive verb that does not take an object. <S> With the leading was <S> the construction would be passive voice, but English doesn't use intransitive verbs that way. <S> However, intransitive verbs can use the past continuous and thereby was sleeping. <S> sleep <S> intransitive verb to rest in a state of sleep - <S> MW <S> Admittedly there are transitive uses of sleep, but they do not fit in the construction of the sentence in the question. <S> The problem with intransitive verbs is that they don't go over into a passive voice. <S> I.e. <S> you can't be slept. <S> If it was a transitive verb that took an object that would easily be understood. <S> Take the transitive verb to slap for example. <S> I was slapped when he came back to the home. <S> This sentence offers two explanations at once. <S> Firstly it's homophone to the sentence from the original question. <S> Thus, it might be what was spoken if the question is based on something heard. <S> Secondly it shows that two past tense verbs can actually be just simple past but in a passive construction. <S> In the most commonly considered type of passive clause, a form of the verb be (or sometimes get) is used as an auxiliary together with the past participle of a transitive verb ; - Wiki: Passive Voice <S> A transitive verb is a verb that requires one or more objects. <S> This contrasts with intransitive verbs, which do not have objects. <S> Transitivity is traditionally thought of as a global property of a clause, by which activity is transferred from an agent to a patient. <S> - Wiki: Transitive verbs <A> "I was slept when he came back to the home" is not grammatically correct. <S> Let's analyze this by first breaking apart the sentence into its two clauses: "I was slept" and "he came back to the home", which are joined by "when", a subordinating conjunction. <S> One can hear instantly that the former clause is incorrect, and that the latter is correct. <S> "I was slept" has a subject followed by two verbs, "was" and "slept". <S> These are the conjugated forms of the verbs "to be" and "to sleep". <S> 'Being' verbs (including "to be", "to feel", "to seem", etc.) are often followed by an adjective or a noun which describe the object that is 'being'—does that make sense? <S> These nouns and adjectives are called 'subject-complement-nouns' and '-adjectives', respectively. <S> "I was slept" needs to be "I was asleep" or "I was sleeping" because an SC-N or SC-A is needed—not a verb. <S> Also, If we consider to sleep to be a transitive verb, then the sentence is a passive construction with no agent expressed/no object. <S> You can read more about transitive verbs here . <S> To sleep can be a transitive verb, but only in special idioms, and even then it cannot be transposed to the passive ( src + deadrat). <S> Hence, in this particular case, this is not a possibility. <S> Hope <S> this helps. <A> "I was slept when he came back to the home." <S> No you can not use the words as you have as the sentence does not make sense. <S> You can not use 'slept' to refer to the past continuous as you have here. <S> Slept is for the present perfect tense, or past perfect tense. <S> For help learning the various conjugations of the verb sleep, see here: <S> Conjugations of the verb sleep <S> Pay particular attention to the examples they provide and note that all the examples with was or were <S> take the past continuous form, 'sleeping'. <S> You have two options to fix the sentence. <S> (1) use sleeping instead of slept. <S> (see above for reference) <S> (2) use asleep instead of slept. <S> (see here) <S> "I was asleep when he came back to the home." <S> "I was sleeping when he came back to the home." <S> If you wanted to use the past perfect 'slept' you would remove 'was' from the sentence instead like this: " <S> I slept when he came back to the home."
| The problem you have is the verb sleep you have used is in the wrong form.
|
Meaning of "call the code" What does the expression "call the code" mean? Example : Each patient is different, so the researchers looked at hospitals, comparing the average time spent trying to resuscitate patients and tracking how many patients survived until they were released. “How long do hospitals try for before they call the code ?” Nallamothu said. <Q> " Code blue " is a medical emergency. <S> It is used to summon doctors in an hospital. <S> It normally indicates that a patient's heart has stopped. <S> From this is the verb "to code" - meaning to enter cardiac arrest. <S> This verb is used quite freely: "Mr X was coding when he entered the hospital" Meaning that he was brought in with no heartbeat. <S> To call a code, is to cease resuscitation efforts. " <S> To call something" is to make a judgement. <S> The doctor must make a judgement that the heart cannot be restarted, and that the patient is indeed dead. <S> The doctor tells the nurses and paramedics working with them to cease, and notes the time of death. <S> " What really happens during a code " - slightly grim reading. <S> This use is only found in the USA and Canada. <A> I'm not sure that the example given is in line with the usual usage of the term "code" as it relates to a hospital setting. <S> "To code" is usually to be in critical condition, requiring immediate help. <S> According to WebMD for "code": <S> Technically, there's no formal definition for a code, but doctors often use the term as slang for a cardiopulmonary arrest happening to a patient in a hospital or clinic, requiring a team of providers (sometimes called a code team) to rush to the specific location and begin immediate resuscitative efforts. <S> I believe a better phrase in the example sentence would have been "How long do hospitals try before they pronounce them dead ?" <S> (Perhaps the example is using the word "call" as in "to call off", so <S> the phrase was actually meant as "How long do hospitals try before they call off the code?". <S> Similar to the usage of "call" <S> as when someone says, "That's it. <S> I'm calling it. <S> " to mean that they are quitting whatever it is they are doing.) <S> In other words, the patient was already "coding," which is why (or synonymous to) <S> the hospital workers were performing life-saving actions. <S> There may be a button in the patient's room that anyone can press to "code" the patient, which will alert hospital staff to the patient's critical condition, and nurses, <S> doctor's, and other support personnel will quickly come to provide immediate, potentially life-saving, care. <S> In addition, if a patient is connected to certain monitoring devices, the devices may "code" the patient if certain conditions occur (e.g., no heartbeat). <A> There are two parts to this phrase: <S> "Call [x]" - means roughly to declare that you believe x to be true. <S> This is usually in a case where it can be unclear what is the case (as it is here, with when exactly someone dies and cannot be brought back). <S> It might also be taken as simply, "to declare (verbal or otherwise)". <S> I'm not sure that the difference in meaning can be distinguished here. <S> "the code" - hospitals will have a code that means the patient has died, among other conditions. <S> These serve as technical terms for the doctors and other staff, and in this case also serves as a euphemism for death. <S> Call the code here, then, is synonymous to declare the patient dead .
| Code has a medical meaning.
|
Is it correct to say "except for some exceptions"? I've heard people saying sentences like The rule applies to all the employees except for some exceptions. Doesn't the use of word "except" make it obvious, in this case, that they're exceptions? Shouldn't the sentence be The rule applies to all the employees except for some. Is there any word for such sentences where a previously used word makes the latter obvious? <Q> redundant : repeating something else and therefore unnecessary <S> Yes, I believe the given example is redundant, and I would personally say exactly what you wrote <S> Better yet <S> The rule applies to most . <A> You could simply use the word awkward . <S> It's broader than cases where "a previously used word makes the latter obvious," but it still applies. <S> Awkward <S> (abbreviated as awk ) is part of the standard editor's/proofreader's notation. <S> One website calls it a catchall term . <S> It gets defined in various ways, such as: <S> I can understand this, but it's not well <S> said 1 <S> Awkwardly expressed or constructed 2 <S> The phrase is grammatically correct, but there is a clearer, more concise way to phrase it 3 <S> This sentence or construction is awkward; it should be written differently 4 <S> I think all of those would apply to your "all the employees except for some exceptions" example. <S> Interestingly enough, one website provides an example of an "awkward expression or construction," and it's not too far off from the example in your question: <S> The storm had the effect of causing millions of dollars in damage . <S> Much like in your example, "had the effect of causing" is somewhat redundant, although the wording may not be quite as glaring as "except for some exceptions. <S> " In any case, the fix seems pretty straightforward – a simple shortening of the sentence will do the trick: <S> The storm caused millions of dollars in damage . <A> It is correct, but it is redundant. <S> The phrasing suggested, The rule applies to all employees except for some. <S> is correct and not redundant. <S> However, I personally think it sounds better to say, The rule applies to all employees, with some exceptions.
| You might be looking for redundant . The rule applies to all the employees except for some.
|
Is "X is out" a correct way to say that X has been used up? I was wondering if it is correct to say "X is out" (for example, "milk is out"). I remember reading it somewhere, but I can't seem to find any examples now. One example that comes to mind is "time is out", which seems like a valid expression. <Q> Case-by-case basis. <S> "Time is out" is passable, though "Time is up" is better. " <S> School is out" is correct but means something different than "There is no more school remaining." <S> "Bell-bottoms and mullets are out" is also correct but doesn't mean we've run out of those items. <S> Same with "Our parents are out" and plenty of other uses I'm sure. <S> In general "X is out" is not the best way to state that there is no longer any remaining X. <A> It depends on what X is. <S> With milk, one would say that he is "out of milk." <A> Using googles corpus magic there is no indication that X is out is used that way. <S> Generally the expression is out <S> does not seem to be used in collocation with nouns that you can run out of. <S> The only hit besides time (as mentioned in comments already) in the top 100 is item . <S> Further investigation shows, that those occurences are (>90%) <S> followed by of . <S> Furthermore, no dictionary definition of out covers that usage, which brings us to the next step of the question, we are not supposed to use it, but do we? <S> It doesn't seem to be the case. <S> As this ngram shows there is no usage to be found in relevant numbers. <S> Note that I divided out of gas by five and multiplied the milk/beer/gas <S> is out lines by ten and they are still an order of magnitude apart. <S> Having a second look at milk/beer/gas is out <S> also shows that those occurrences are not in the context the question refers <S> to are also followed by of . <S> So there are no indication that it is used that way in English. <S> I agree with GEdgar , that it is likely a lousy, literal translation from another language. <S> In German it is very common to say "Die Milch ist aus", oder "Die Milch <S> ist alle. <S> " <S> Literally, "the milk is out" and "the milk is all", respectively.
| Rather than "X is out", say "out of X" instead. With time, one would say something like "I'm out of time" or "Your time is up" or "He ran out of time."
|
about 'start' and 'begin' Are 'begin' and 'start' interchangeable? Both " This is a new start " and " This is a new beginning " work , right? Then during games , they say " Let's start " but I never heard " Let's begin ".So there is supposed to a difference ,no? And then one guy said this " They could not begin to start a conversation ". What is this supposed to mean ? Is it correct ? Please explain , thank you. <Q> Begin and start have meanings that overlap (and also overlap with commence, which is more formal).In many sentences there is little difference:"The sale (starts/begins/commences) on Monday". <S> There are some uses for which only start is used. <S> Start can be used as noun ("the start of the race), and start has an older meaning which is "to suddenly move" For example " <S> John started when the car outside backfired" (= <S> he was startled). <S> Also When you set something in motion you start it. <S> "Start the engine", or figuratively "Start a business". <S> To "start a conversation" is to (metaphorically) set it in motion. <S> Also there is an idiomatic pattern " <S> I couldn't begin to (do something)", which means "I couldn't (do something) at all. <S> Put these together <S> and you get "I couldn't begin to start a conversation" = <S> "I couldn't start a conversation at all" <A> They're interchangeable in very many (most?) <S> but not absolutely all contexts. <S> "Let's begin" is perfectly correct (out of context). <S> One fairly clear difference would be when we say that a car "starts", i.e. the engine starts (we wouldn't say it "begins", unless we're saying that it "begins [to make a strange noise]"). <S> Another example would be "Don't get me started!" or <S> "Let's get started!", where "begin" just wouldn't work. <S> But maybe this is the same use as the car starting. <A> We generally prefer begin when we are using a more formal style. <S> But there are cases where begin is not possible: 'start a journey' 'start working' (for machines) 'make [something] start'
| Begin and start can both be used with the same meaning.
|
What does "I am still getting used to the idea of having to get married." mean? I asked my friend if she was ready to get married. She replied, I am still getting used to the idea of having to get married . What does this mean? What does ' having to get married here ' mean? Does it mean she is getting used to the idea of getting married? Or does it mean she is getting used to the idea that she has to get married? Is there a difference between the two sentences? <Q> Depending on the culture she is from, there may be things that she wants to do, that she cannot, without getting married. <S> Examples are: Having sex with her boyfriend <S> Living in the same house as her boyfriend <S> Having a baby which would not be referred to as "illegitimate" Purchasing major things (such as a car) Travelling without a chaperone, such as her brother <S> Perhaps when she was younger she innocently thought all these things were possible to her without having to marry. <S> Now she is older <S> she realizes that she "has" to marry to achieve them. <S> Does it mean she is getting used to the idea of getting married? <S> Not necessarily. <S> The phrase used suggests that she is getting used to having to marry to do certain things. <S> Is there a difference between the two sentences? <S> Yes there is. <S> One is considering the requirement to marry in order to do things. <S> The other is considering an imminent marriage. <S> The lady in question might never marry, conceivably. <S> She might tell her friends <S> "I never realized I had to marry to do X. <S> I didn't want to marry, so therefore I can't do X.". <S> Of course, this is all dependent on where you live. <S> In some cultures you can do many things without being married. <A> "Having to get married" means that there is someone or something that forces her to get married. <S> "I am still getting used to the idea" means she doesn't agree to get married right now, but will in her own opinion, agree some time in the future. <A> What does the sentence say? <S> It says: I am still getting used to the idea of having to get married. <S> Therefore, it does not mean "she is getting used to the idea of getting married." <S> Has to (third person singular) <S> and have to (used for other persons and number) expresse obilgation. <S> So the sentence means <S> I am still getting used to the idea of being under the obligation to get married. <S> It could be something as simple as the place where the marriage ceremony (wedding) will take place <S> is available only on Tuesdays: I am still getting used to the idea of having to (being under the obligation to) get married on a Tuesday when all my life I have dreamed of getting married on a Saturday. <A> She is likely communicating that for whatever reason, she feels forced into her marriage. <S> Specifically, she is saying that she is still getting used to marriage being a requirement, at least at the present time, without taking into account the realities of marriage in her specific case. <S> It's a fairly abstract distinction, but possibly phrased this way to avoid making a comment or implication regarding her fiancee.
| It means "she is getting used to the idea that she has to get married."
|
exhibit vs. exhibition ( both of them as nouns ) I know that "exhibit" means "display". Also, "exhibition" means "display" ! One can say: It was the best exhibition of talent i've ever seen. Is it correct to say this one? It was the best exhibit of talent i've ever seen. What's the difference between these two sentences?! "exhibit" can be a noun itself ! Why make a noun of a noun, like "exhibition"?! Is there any differences in the usage of "exhibit" as a noun, and "exhibition"? <Q> There's really no difference as a noun. <S> Generally, if they are singular, either word will suffice. <S> "Exhibition" can be considered the same as "exhibits" (i.e. a plural number of displays), while an "exhibit" is usually just one (display). <S> At least if you're speaking American English, it's not likely anyone would notice if you used the noun either way. <S> Just be aware that "exhibit" is also a verb, while "exhibition" is not. <A> I cannot recall ever having heard exhibit of talent , ngram shows no uses. <S> exhibition of talent is the expression I would expect to use. <S> To my surprise ngram shows that it was a more commonly used phrase 100 years ago than today. <S> Setting aside the use of exhibit as a verb, considering only the noun usage I would expect to go to an exhibition and see a number of exhibits , each exhibit being a single displayed, catalogued item. <S> When showing our talent as a musician, dancer or athlete we show a series actions that constitute an exhibition of our talent, with many individual facets. <A> My intuition says that exhibit has a more concrete, physical meaning than exhibition. <S> The -tion suffix itself is used for nominalizing verbs, for example: immigrate -> immigration mutate -> mutation act - <S> > action etc. <S> Conversely, an exhibition is merely the action of displaying something in a more abstract sense. <S> So you could hypothetically have an "exhibit of talent", but it would be very peculiar. <S> You could buy tickets for it. <S> Maybe there would be jugglers and things of that nature. <S> It might be advertised in the newspaper. <S> An exhibit has a physical presence that an exhibition doesn't have. <S> An exhibition might occur in a physical space, but it is not physical itself. <S> So I think the second sentence "It was the best exhibit of talent I've ever seen. <S> " is feasible and possible, but strange and why you won't find any usage of that phrase. <S> Another example of something similar would be the difference between a proposal and a proposition .
| An exhibit would be a physical display of something - something you can actually visit and look at. Look them up in the dictionary, you'll see they're nearly identical in at least one definition.
|
You are subscribed or you have subscribed Which one is correct ? you have already subscribed to our newsletter. or you are already subscribed to our newsletter. I would tend to use "have" for present perfect - I have seen, you have subscribed... - but a Google search brought examples of both... See this stack overflow link for example: https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/questions/12258/you-are-already-subscribed-to-our-newsletter-message <Q> The difference in usage here is very simple: You have already subscribed to our newsletter. <S> This is in the active voice. <S> You is the subject of the verb subscribe. <S> You are already subscribed to our newsletter. <S> This is in the passive voice. <S> This exact question is discussed at our sister site ELU in <S> Why is it “Thank you! <S> You’re subscribed,” not “You subscribed,” or “You’ve subscribed”? <S> The answer there posits the theory that use of the passive is meant to leave open the possibility that someone other than the recipient initiated the subscription. <S> This is interesting, but crediting the theory involves interpreting the intention of the writer who composed the "welcome" email. <S> From a strictly grammatical perspective, there is no difference in meaning between the active and passive usages. <A> The difference between "you are subscribed" and "you have subscribed" has nothing to do with the active and passive voices. <S> Both clauses are in the active voice. <S> In the first instance, "subscribed" is a past participle functioning as a predicate adjective with "are" as the copula between the subject "you" and the predicate adjective "subscribed". <S> This same structure underlies such utterances as "you are angry" and "you are tired". <S> In the second instance, "subscribed" is a past participle forming (with "have") <S> the present perfect tense. <S> While both clauses are grammatically correct, pressing "subscribed" into service as an adjective describing a trait or condition of a person seems rather silly to me. <A> "you have already subscribed to our newsletter." <S> In this context, the subject (you) is clearly marked by the main verb (subscribe).It gives the sentence a much more personal meaning. <S> "I have taken out the trash. <S> Me, no one else but me." <S> "You have already selected the first option. <S> "Great! <S> It clearly means you. " <S> YOU"! <S> Notice however that both constructions cannot always work with the same verb. <S> For instance: "You are already done for the night" <S> (correct)"You have already done for the night" (wrong) <S> The second one is wrong and it's missing a main verb. <S> In this sentence, the word "have" is an auxiliary verb (linking verb) which usually works best followed by a verb. <S> "you are already subscribed to our newsletter." <S> Denotes a less personal tone and opens up another possible interpretation. <S> That is, someone else could have signed up for a subscription on your behalf. <S> Perhaps someone did you the favor in signing up for the newsletter in which case "you are already subscribed to our newsletter" would make more sense.
| There is no difference in meaning or tone between the two usages. Both sentences can evoke a different meaning or tone.
|
Is "Raining Cats and dogs" still used nowadays? Is it old-fashioned to say "It's raining cats and dogs"? If yes, what is the substitution idiom for expressing heavy rain? <Q> It's raining cats and dogs is used to describe very heavy rain and is still in use these days. <S> Alternative phrasing might be <S> It's pouring <S> It's bucketing <S> It's a deluge <S> It's pissing down (BrE) <A> According to Google Ngram , the British English corpus shows its popularity has declined since its peak in the 1940s. <S> Whereas <S> according to Google Ngrams, it seems that American English speakers are loving it, the chart shows a sharp increase in usage since the 1970s. <S> Ngram link <S> To add to the many colloquial sayings mentioned already by @Peter and @Jocie, the very common, but perhaps for some speakers offensive, phrase: <S> It's pissing down and <S> the innocuous-sounding <S> It's pelting down <A> It entirely depends on where you are in the world, right down to the city. <S> I'm from Lincolnshire in England <S> and I have <S> never heard anyone say "it's raining cats and dogs" without them being silly or making a joke. <S> Locally we'd say "it's chucking it down" <A> Yes, "cats and dogs" is still in use and almost all Americans will understand. <S> There is also the airplane pilot's description of truly bad weather when driving a car: <S> "It's IFR weather out there" (Instrument Flight Rules), meaning (jokingly) you can't see a dang thing through the windshield and you must use your car's oil pressure gauge to steer by.
| It's really coming down (can be used for any precipitation ) Perhaps nowadays the saying is less popular among young native speakers, it does sound a bit of a cliché.
|
She does homework every day vs She does her homework every day vs She does the homework every day Can I use the first example? She does homework every day She does her homework every day She does the homework every day Or is the object her required? <Q> All your examples are grammatically correct. <S> I haven't collected statistics <S> but I'd guess "her homework" is most commonly used. <S> I have an intuitive feel that "she does homework every day <S> " sounds like it's saying that she has a lot of homework, that the emphasis is on the idea that she's doing it every day. <S> But "she does her homework every day" sounds more like it's emphasizing that she is living up to her responsibilities. <S> But I'd be hard-pressed to give a logical argument for that interpretation. <S> Maybe "her" makes it more personal, she's doing the homework assigned to her? <S> While simply "homework" puts the emphasis on the work itself? <S> "The homework" would indicate that it is some specific homework. <S> You wouldn't use it to refer to homework in general. <S> Like you mean say, "She does the homework from her biology class". <S> Or, "Did you do the homework <S> the teacher assigned yesterday? <S> " But you wouldn't say, "She does the homework every day" to refer to doing homework in general. <A> or is the object her required? <S> I wouldn't call her an object, but rather a pronoun that modifies the object homework . <S> It's not required for grammatical correctness, but in practice the version with the pronoun has a connotation of all of the subject's homework, while the version without is more indefinite. <S> She does homework every day. <S> At least in American usage, one would generally take this to mean that she spends time working on homework, but doesn't necessarily complete all the work. <S> She does her homework every day. <S> This generally means that she does all the homework assigned to her, or at least everything she needs to have done for the next day. <S> The possessive pronoun "her" specifies which homework you're talking about, and the implication is that you mean all of it. <S> If your mother asks you if you've done your homework <S> and you say "yes," you'll be in trouble if she finds out later that you only completed half of it. <S> She does the homework every day. <S> The article <S> the here makes this version relate to some specific homework, like that for a specific class. <S> For example: She succeeds in math class because she does the homework every day. <S> It's worth pointing out that doing your homework <S> often relates to being prepared even for people who aren't students, and in that case you generally mean that the subject is (or isn't) fully prepared, so the possessive pronoun is often used, or an adjective is used to clarify the meaning. <S> Some examples: To avoid losing money, do your homework before investing in a new company. <S> She knew he was lying because she did her homework before the deposition. <S> Do some homework before buying a house: check prices of recent sales, school quality, etc. <A> They have different meanings. <S> She does homework every day. <S> This means that every day she does at least some homework. <S> It neither says nor implies that she completes her homework (because it doesn't specify what homework it's talking about). <S> It's also perfectly consistent with her doing other people's homework. <S> (For example, she might be a nanny who, among other tasks, helps with homework every day.) <S> She does her homework every day. <S> This means she does the homework that has been assigned to her, as opposed to doing other people's homework or helping others with their homework. <S> It also strongly implies that she completes her assignments, and doesn't just work on them for a bit. <S> (Because "does" implies completing and "her homework" implies all of her homework.) <S> She does the homework every day. <S> This means there's some homework that both the speaker and listener are referring to, and she does that particular homework. <S> For example, "Mary is assigned math homework regularly. <S> She does the homework every day." <S> Which would mean she does that math homework. <S> It would be confusing to use this when the listener would not know what homework you are talking about. <A> They are all correct but can create slightly different implications. <S> Some examples: <S> She does homework every day, can't the teacher give them a break? <S> She does her homework every day, she's such a great student. <S> She does the homework every day while her sister writes the book reports. <A> Both sentences are correct, <S> I personally like more the first one " <S> She does homework everyday" - the shorter the better. <S> Nonetheless if what you are looking for is to be more precise, the second one would be more detailed but in any case both are clear.
| You could certainly say that "her" is not required, as the reader is unlikely to suppose that she does someone else's homework.
|
Under someone's surveillance vs watchful eyes Which one of the following self-made sentences sounds more natural: They are under the surveillance of the intelligence agency. They are under the Intelligence Agency’s watchful eyes. Do these two expressions have different meanings or they can be used interchangeably?Based on dictionary definition about surveillance I guess it would be better to use the former sentence, although both mean the same and both are formal. <Q> They mean essentially the same thing, but "surveillance" is far more formal. <S> Also, "surveillance" is normally understood to mean watching someone for purposes of gathering information about a crime or act of espionage, while "watchful eye" is far more general. <S> You could say, "Sally kept her children under her watchful eyes while they were at the park. <S> " You would be very unlikely to say that she "kept her children under surveillance" ... except as a joke meaning excessive watchfulness. <A> It depends on the context. <S> They are under the surveillance of the intelligence agency. <S> Sounds serious and official, implying the surveillance is reasonable and/or justified. <S> They are under the Intelligence Agency’s watchful eyes. <S> Is somewhat casual and dismissive. <S> "Oh, you snuck a bottle of water into the airport, however did you get past TSA's watchful eyes!? <S> " <S> It could also imply that the agency is just watching and not doing anything about them. <A> They can be used interchangeably. <S> The only problems are that watchful eyes is fairly informal and is quite poetic. <S> As a result, I would refrain from using the latter sentence in a formal and/or official setting.
| If you were a law enforcement officer or intelligence agent writing a report on your activities, you would definitely say, "We placed the suspect under surveillance", and NOT "We kept that guy under our watchful eyes".
|
Someone who invites other people to another religion I was wondering if you could let me know how shall I describe someone who tries to convert people to another religion. The only word I know is "missionary" who attempts to invite people to a specific religion. So I would say something like: He / she is a Christianity / Islam / Judaism missionary I need to know how natives would say such a thing? <Q> The specific title evangelist is often used to refer to one person: John the Evangelist. <S> In modern Christian usage, there's also the problem that one denomination/strand within Christianity is known as evangelism , so if you say "He's an evangelist" people might think you mean <S> "He's an evangelical Christian". <S> A more generic word, which can apply to any religion, is proselytize . <S> Collins gives to convert (someone) from one religious faith to another <S> However, it also acknowledges that even an unsuccessful attempt to convert someone counts as proselytism: If you proselytize, you try to persuade someone to share your beliefs, especially religious or political beliefs. <S> A person who proselytizes is a proselytizer . <S> A newly converted person, by the way, is a proselyte . <A> Such a person could be called an evangelist ... <S> Evangelism is the preaching of the gospel or the practice of giving information about a particular doctrine or set of beliefs to others with the intention of converting others to the Christian faith. <S> Although the above Wikipedia definition specifically limits usage to the Christian faith , it's by no means impossible to refer to an evangelistic Buddhist , for example. <A> "Missionary" is generally used to mean someone who has made converting others to his religion his life's work. <S> The usual connotation is that this is his job: he is supported by a church or missionary organization or some form of contributions from others. <S> If he does have a regular job to support himself, he views this as secondary: his job is a means to support his mission work, and not something he does for itself. <S> (Missionaries who support themselves are often called "bivocational missionaries". <S> "Evangelist" is very similar in meaning to "missionary". <S> In Christian circles, I think the word "missionary" is used for people who go to a foreign country or another culture, while "evangelist" is used for those who try to spread the faith at home. <S> Like speaking as someone from the U.S., a person who toured the U.S. preaching Christianity would be called an "evangelist", while someone who went to Kazakhstan to spread Christianity would be called a "missionary". <S> "Proselytize" is a verb meaning to try to convert others to your religion. <S> The dictionary gives "proselytizer" as the noun form, but I think that's very rarely used. <S> "Proselytize" tends to have negative connotations. <S> If you resent someone else trying to convince you to change your religion, you might say "he's trying to proselytize me". <S> But a religious group would be unlikely to say, "Hey, let's go out and try to proselytize a bunch of people". <S> In conservative Christian circles, it's common to refer to people trying to convert others to Christianity as "witnessing", and to a person who engages in such efforts as "a witness". <S> As in, "Bob is trying to be a witness at his job", meaning, Bob is trying to talk about Christianity and convert others at his job. <S> I've never heard this term used for other religions: I don't think anyone talks about a "Muslim witness" or a "Buddhist witness" in this sense. <S> There's also the general word "preacher". <S> A "preacher" might be trying to convert people. <S> But he also might be trying to teach people who already share his faith more about that faith, or encourage them to practice it more faithfully, etc. <S> Anyone who talks a lot about his faith might be called an "outspoken X", that is, an "outspoken Christian", "outspoken Muslim", etc. <A> These answers are all focusing on particular words without answering the OP's question about grammar. <S> To address that, you could write <S> He [evangelizes/proselytizes] for Christianity. <S> Notes: <S> A missionary is someone who proselytizes professionally, and likely moved far from his own home specifically to do so. <S> Proselytizing can carry a negative connotation. <S> The term evangelist is often used in contemporary business; for instance, someone may have a job as a "Brand Evangelist," which would mean that they promote a company's product the same way that an evangelist promotes his religion.
| He is a Christian [missionary/evangelist/proselytizer].
|
A word or phrase that describes I'm going with a girl for a serious relationship I'm seeking a word or phrase which implies in the last few days I have a girl, but she's not a friend and she's not a girlfriend yet, we go together in order to see the possibility of being together in a relationship. In my language, we say something that its translation is: "We are going out together in the last couple of days". What is the parallel word/s or phrase in English? <Q> Going out is OK for this (you don't need the together ); so is dating . <S> Going out is a bit more non-committal <S> —it doesn't exclude an escalating relationship, but it doesn't specifically imply it either, while dating at least suggests a relationship something more than merely casual or friendly: you are exploring escalation. <A> To express an uncommitted relationship you can say <S> We're just seeing each other / dating, but we're not serious (yet). <S> I'm seeing a new girl <S> but it's nothing serious <S> If you include yet in the first sentence, then the listener will guess that you are romantically interested in this girl and want to take the relationship further. <S> In other words, you are ready to be in a serious (committed) relationship. <S> But dating and being serious about someone <S> is a tricky and nebulous area of language. <S> “ I’ve been seeing this guy for four months now – we’re dating and see each other a couple of times a week. <S> However, if anyone refers to me as his girlfriend in front of him, the colour drains from his face. <S> When I asked him if we were going out properly he just said he ‘wasn’t there yet, and wasn’t even sure if he wanted a serious relationship.’ <S> Daily Telegraph <A> Dating might be the word you are looking for. <S> It means the very beginning of a relationship when two people are still finding out about each other and there is no commitment involved. <S> A person may date multiple people during the same time period (I refrain from saying "at the same time" since that may be taken the wrong way). <S> It's just a date. <S> One might even say first date second date to show how new the relationship is.
| They're just dating.
|
"The number (or numbers?) of potatoes they each peeled would be recorded." The sentence is as follows: The number of potatoes they each peeled would be recorded. I know that something plural like "have" should go after "they each", but why not numbers in this case? If "they each" is like a group of people, then why "number" should be singular? Correct my understanding of "they each" if it's incorrect since it's closely related to the question. <Q> It's not as much about 'they each' than about 'number of'. <S> Moreover I will switch some of your tenses for clarity as otherwise the verb forms are just the same. <S> As the dictionary tells us: <S> The construction the number of + plural noun is used with a singular verb (as in the number of people affected remains small). <S> Thus it is the noun number rather than the noun people which is taken to agree with the verb (and which is therefore functioning as the head noun). <S> - ODO: number, usage <S> The tricky part with each on the other hand is that it can act in two ways. <S> Used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately: [AS DETERMINER]: each battery is in a separate compartment <S> each one of us was asked what went on [AS PRONOUN]: <S> Derek had money from each of his five uncles <S> they each have their own personality - ODO each <S> They each have peeled a number of potatoes. <S> This rephrasing of your sentence and the dictionary example are the pronoun use of each . <S> As you can see they each is followed by plural verb (have), and singular noun (a number of potatoes / own personality). <S> In the dictionary example each refers to the individual properties of the people that are referred by they. <S> Now you are trying to record these numbers individually. <S> The number of potatoes they each have peeled is still singular, thanks to the number of which is still the head of the damn thing. <S> Therefore it is a valid sentence with a singular verb noun agreement . <S> The number of potatoes they each peeled was recorded. <S> (I changed tense for clarity.) <S> You can also use each as determiner and use singular all over: <S> The number of potatoes each of us has peeled is recorded. <A> (Here, subject cannot be potatoes because "of potatoes" is a prepositional phrase and subjects usually cannot come in prepositional phrases. <S> There are some exceptions to this rule though.)So, in order to match the subject-verb number you need a singular verb. <S> As per the intended meaning of the sentence, "they each" has no relation with the main verb. <S> "each" is only conveying a meaning that the individual number of potatoes peeled would be recorded. <S> If "each" is omitted, the sentence would imply that the total number of potatoes they peeled would be recorded. <S> To foster your understanding, consider this sentence: <S> A number of people are stranded on the island. <S> Here, "A number" is the subject, which is plural. <S> Hence, the plural verb "are stranded. <S> " <S> But, The number of people stranded on the island is far beyond the number of our evacuation boats. <S> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/number-of-people-is-or-are <S> Hope this helps! <A> I think it's because of "each" which forces the subject to be grammatically singular, even though "they" is technically a plural, but sometimes, as here, used as a third person singular which doesn't require a gender to be specified. <S> If you take out "each" then "the number of potatoes they peeled" would be ambiguous : total number or individually? <S> Adding "each" removes the ambiguity.
| The subject of the sentence is "The number", which is grammatically always singular.
|
When you remember some past sweet memories and want to mention to them Suppose you are recalling a sweet memory from the past and you remember a specific person / event in which you e.g. laughed / was very happy a lot. How would a native call that moment / event / person / scenery etc. at the time being (when he / she is remembering it)? The only way I think it should be translated from my mother language is: May it always be brought happily to mind. I would be thankful if you help me find the best way to say it. <Q> When you think about pleasant memories, you can describe it as reminiscing . <S> You can refer to the memories as reminiscences or, if you really want to lay it on thick, sweet reminiscences. <S> These expressions are regarded as quite old-fashioned, but I think the whole concept is quite old-fashioned. <S> I can't imagine a sk8er boy doing it. <A> fond memory <S> something that you remember with pleasure fond memory of: Jane has fond memories of a happy childhood. <S> You might also be interested in cherish . <S> cherish : to remember or hold (an idea, belief, etc.) <S> in a deeply felt way <S> So, May I always cherish these fond memories. <A> You can also use the terms Sentimental or Nostalgia <S> Nostalgia - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nostalgia a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time: a nostalgia for his college days. <S> Sentimental - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sentimental <S> expressive of or appealing to sentiment, especially the tender emotions and feelings, as love, pity, or nostalgia
| You might be looking for fond memory .
|
Noun for the event of something splitting in two directions I know there's a perfect word for this, but I just can't seem to recall it. I know about split , but I'm thinking of something more eloquent. For example: After the split of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge. For another example, consider this sentence from this question : What is the historical/etymological explanation for this split in names? <Q> The first word that comes to mind is schism . <S> According to the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language schism : <S> A separation or division into factions: "[He] found it increasingly difficult to maintain party unity in the face of ideological schism over civil rights" (Nick Kotz). <S> Obviously, there are many synonyms listed in the dictionaries that can be used. <A> As I was typing this question, I suddenly remembered the word divergence . <S> The situation in which two things become different. <S> Cambridge Dictionary <S> I'm posting this answer for peer review, since I'm not sure. <S> Also, I'm interested in other options, too. <S> After the divergence of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge. <S> What is the historical/etymological explanation for this divergence in names? <A> bifurcation <S> the division of something into two branches or parts. <S> After the bifurcation of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge. <S> What is the historical/etymological explanation for this bifurcation in names? <A> For the first example, you might be interested in: division : the act or process of dividing something into parts : the way that something is divided After the division of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge. <S> After Western philosophy branched into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge. <S> separation : the act or process of separating : the state of being separated After the separation of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge. <S> Similar for the second example. <A> You could consider Fork From Dictionary.com : <S> the point or part at which a thing, as a river or a road, divides into branches <A> The first word which came to my mind is fission . <S> It's perhaps most commonly used in the context of nuclear physics, but it doesn't need to be restricted to that context. <S> It could go directly into your first example sentence: <S> After the fission of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge. <S> Looking through Google Books, I get the impression that it's a moderately popular word in the social sciences. <S> E.g. in Encounters and Transformations: The Archaeology of Iberia in Transition <S> we find sentences like ... <S> incipient complexity led more often to social fragmentation or fission than to pristine state formation. <S> I argue that too little attention has been devoted to fragmentation and fission and that more sophisticated models be developed to account for these alternate trajectories of social evolution. <S> Google Books also turned up the word in a number of titles or subtitles, often in opposition to fusion , as in the white paper Fission Or Fusion: What Kind of Commercial Culture Will Emerge in Southeast Asia? , but not always. <S> An example without fusion is the book Household Strategies for Survival 1600-2000: Fission, Faction and Cooperation . <S> The British National Corpus turns up a couple of nice examples in natural science literature. <S> From The Pacific by Simon Winchester: <S> The slow fission of Gondwanaland produced two oceans -- the Indian, where Africa, India and Antarctica were hauled away from each other; and the southern portion of the Atlantic, where South America and its clearly closely-fitting neighbour Africa (which possessed an uncanny coastal match first noted by Francis Bacon) sprang apart. <S> And from Exploring the night sky with binoculars , by the legendary Patrick Moore: It used to be thought that a binary [star] resulted from the fission or breaking-up of a formerly single star which was spinning rapidly, and became unstable. <A> Bifurcation Meaning : to branch out in two <S> For example: The path bifurcated on reaching the forest. <S> Ramification Meaning : diverging branches or consequences For example: <S> The army killed all the terrorists and all the related ramifications. <S> Fissuring Meaning: branching , splitting For example: <S> The heavy earthquake created apparent fissures on the playground. <A> If one can overlook the second meaning in the Oxford Dictionary , the first definition of cleavage is A sharp division; a split After the cleavage of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge. <S> What is the historical/etymological explanation for this cleavage in names? <S> Here are some other examples from the Oxford Dictionary: <S> There was not this sharp consciousness of the cleavages and different realities in our social existence long ago as that which is so evident today. <S> To existing social splits were added inter-working class cleavages which were all too apparent by November 1916. <S> It is a function of that same openness that no sharp cleavages can be sighted between the traditional and the modern in India. <A> Verbs would be "to cleave" and "to rive." <S> The issue created a rift in the party. <S> The setting sun shone through a cleft in the ridgeline.
| branch : to divide into smaller parts : to separate into branches After the branching of Western philosophy into these major directions, new thinkers began to emerge. Perhaps a couple less literal but more literary options would be the nouns "cleft" and "rift."
|
Do some people call all horses “Pony” and if so, why? I’ve recently noticed the word “pony” being overused, in books and conversation. Sometimes it seems highly unlikely that ponies are so prevalent in the setting. So I was thinking. Maybe there is a region in which “pony” is colloquial for “horse”? And why would it become colloquial in the first place? <Q> TL;DR: <S> In the US, you will see large, adult horses referred to as "ponies" in association with: Horse-racing, especially gambling on horse races. <S> Young women and girls, and stories about young women and their horses. <S> I don't know about region, but at least in the US there are two contexts where "ponies" can mean "horses, generally" (regardless of size or age). <S> The first is horse-racing, and particularly the gambling associated with these races. <S> From Oxford Dictionaries : <S> 1.1 (the ponies) informal , chiefly North American Racehorses: ' he had been playing the ponies on the side ' " <S> Playing the ponies" is an idiom meaning "betting on a horse race"; it is even the title of a Three Stooges movie about horse racing . <S> By extension, people talking about horse racing will just say "the ponies" even though they're often talking about huge adult horses. <S> For example, National Velvet (both novel and film) is often described as one of the most influential examples of the "pony story" (see, for example, the International Companion Encyclopedia of Children's Literature ) even though it actually features a full-size, adult horse suitable for steeplechase racing . <S> This association is partially due to the fact that young girls would be more likely to ride a pony than a full-size horse, and thus actual ponies are often involved. <S> The term "pony tale" for stories featuring young female equestrians and <S> their horses is probably especially attractive since a ponytail is a hairstyle sometimes associated with girls and young women. <S> Associating "ponies" with the horses of women and girls, regardless of whether the term otherwise applies, also fits with the sometime-practice of equating "feminine" with "young and small" . <S> This particular usage has likely also gotten a boost recently from the My Little Pony franchise . <A> " Pony " is indeed often used as an umbrella term for horses, or rather more specifically, a young horse . <S> In fact this usage is so common that many people fall under the mistaken belief that pony is just another word for a foal . <S> That said, it should be safe to assume, given the technical definition of pony as well as the colloquial understanding, that if someone uses the term " pony " they are likely speaking about a small horse. <S> Of course, there are also those that use the word for any horse, in which case you'll have to rely on context for more information (or ask them directly "what kind of horse"). <S> So, in short, your suspicion that the word is being over/innaccurately used is correct. <S> As far as the actual line of thinking that led to this colloquial definition, I couldn't find any reliable sources explanating it, so it's anyone's guess. <S> My theory would simply be that most people (in the US at least) are only passingly familiar with horses, and so wouldn't know that there are specific kinds horses known as ponies, and thus when hearing the word simply form the association "small horse = pony = young horse" etc. <S> but of course, this is just speculation <A> Formally, pony refers to specific breeds of horses of small varieties. <S> Informally it is often used for horse racing, any small horse, young horses, diminutives for a specific horse or a playful horse or just horses in general. <A> "Pony" could also be used to show affection. <S> We often use the name of the younger version of the animal to show love. <S> Baby, kitten, puppy and other words are used to refer to adults of these different animals. <S> With other people this manner of speech is called baby talk.
| The other realm in which "ponies" can be used for horses of all types is when referring to the stereotypical love of girls and young women for horses .
|
"whom,them" vs "that, which " as appositive Sixty people, most of whom were females, liked the party. Sixty people, most of them were females, liked the party. The animal, which is sick , needs treatments. The animal, that is sick , needs treatments. Are all of those sentences correct? If any of them is wrong, please explain. <Q> These would be my approaches the first sentence: Sixty people, most of whom were females, liked the party Sixty people, most of them female, liked the party Sixty people, mostly women, liked the party. <S> I am not prepared to even consider the second sentence because, without context, it is needlessly complex. <S> here is a more sensible way of writing it. <S> The sick animal needs treatment. <S> The problem with made-up sentences is that it's hard to tell whether they are unnatural because they are made-up, or unnatural because they are grammatically wrong. <S> It would be much better to look for real examples of a particular usage using google books: <S> The house is packed with people of all ages, most of whom do not have Parkinson's Most of me <S> I've provided a very supportive book introduction, so <S> most of them feel confident to try reading the book. <S> making the most of small groups <A> I would say all four of your sentences are correct and understandable. <S> Sixty people, most of whom were females, liked the party. <S> is fine. <S> Sixty people, most of them were females, liked the party. <S> is slightly awkward but Sixty people liked the party and most of them were females. <S> Sixty people liked the party. <S> Most of them were females. <S> would sound more natural. <S> Commas are not necessary in your last two sentences The animal which is sick needs treatment. <S> The animal that is sick needs treatment. <S> and treatment s <S> should be singular even if the animal needs more than one type of treatment. <A> I dislike using the sterile and biological term "females" to refer to women, but leaving that aside for the moment: Sixty people, most of whom were females, liked the party. <S> This is a correct dependent clause where "whom" refers to people. <S> Sixty people, most of them were females, liked the party. <S> This is a little abrupt-sounding because "Most of them were females" is a complete sentence on its own. <S> Inserting a complete sentence as a parenthetical in another sentence isn't impossible. <S> In writing, it would be better to set it off with em dashes, though. <S> Your last two questions on <S> that vs. which are more interesting. <S> Which can be used to introduce an independent or a dependent clause. <S> That can only be used to introduce a dependent clause. <S> Most style guides would tell you not to use which to introduce a dependent clause. <S> The commas matter, too. <S> If it's an independent clause, it needs the commas, but the commas are technically incorrect in the one with that . <S> Your examples are especially interesting, though, because they are a good example of exactly when it makes a difference when you use that or which . <S> Here is how I would be most likely to read the following: The animal, which is sick, needs treatments. <S> I would be most likely to take this to mean that a specific animal needs treatments because it is sick. <S> On the other hand, I would read the following differently: The animal that is sick needs treatments. <S> I would take this to mean that the specific animal that happens to be sick needs treatments, but the animals that are well don't need treatments.
| The words in all four sentences could be seen as correct, depending on your meaning.
|
What is a correct way to say that you took the metro and drove for three stations? I took the metro/underground/subway (train?)I drove for/past three stations My station - 1st station - 2nd station - Destination (3rd station) <Q> I took the metro/underground/subway and rode three stops. <A> I took the metro for 3 stops (or stations). <S> You don't say that you drove the transport if you're a passenger. <A> You could say that your destination was the third stop after you boarded, or that you rode for three stops. <S> You could also say that you rode for three segments, but I don't know if non-transit people say that. <S> After you board, you don't get off the train the first and second times it stops. <S> But the third time the train stops, you do get off since that is your destination. <S> Hence you could say that your destination was the third stop after you got on the train.
| Another option is to use ride , as in: I rode the metro for 3 stations.
|
A noun for a country you live in and that's not your home country Suppose you are from country X, and had to travel to and live in a foreign country Y for a better life, leaving behind your family. I'm looking for a word with the meaning a foreign country you voluntarily [to exclude exile ] live in I've been living in [expatriation] for five years. My understanding is that in this sentence, expatriation referes to a state rather than a physical place . I hope my husband will return from [expatriation] soon. I'm not sure this last sentence is correct with expatriation refering to a foreign country (place). What I'm particulary interested in is the phrase return from Y . So, does expatriation work? any other word? Other words that I have a confused understanding of are exile, alienation and diaspora. <Q> In or to a foreign country; away from your home. <S> It is widely used in expressions like: <S> I decided to study abroad for 2 years because it costs less money. <S> I enjoy living and working abroad because I meet new kinds of people every day! <S> I can't wait for my husband to return from his military operation abroad . <S> It also obviously works in both your example sentences, as per my previous examples (if you remove "in"). <S> I've been living abroad for five years. <S> I hope my husband returns from abroad soon. <S> Update <S> : Note that "abroad" is mostly used as an adverb, but can also be used as a noun , in expressions like "from abroad" as per my third example sentence and the OP's second example sentence. <A> <A> You can refer to your new country as "adopted home" as the headline in this article suggests: Refugee youth explore <S> adopted home through photography <A> As there is always more than one way to express a thought in English (with subtly different connotations), consider also the word sojournment : •temporary residence, as of a stranger or traveller Ex: <S> "I've been living in sojournment for five years. <S> " <S> "I hope my husband will return from sojournment soon." <S> Use of sojournment is more formal than, for instance, abroad , but carries the connotation of being a more business related than tourist related experience. <A> There is a single verb which can be used instead of return from Y in your example, repatriate : to return to one's own country <S> So this would work: <S> I hope my husband will repatriate soon.
| Abroad is the word you are looking for. In formal contexts (e.g. immigration forms and other official documents), you can use the noun phrase country of residence .
|
Correct way of using - "Both" Which one of the following two sentences is more correct/appropriate than the other? Why? That's a both interesting and challenging problem. That's both an interesting and challenging problem. <Q> The best way to write this sentence is to make it simple and direct by eliminating the somewhat awkward-sounding phrase using "both" (in any version): "That's an interesting and challenging problem." <S> This says the exact same thing and is much more to the point. <S> I spent many years on a newspaper copy desk and would strongly recommend grammar and composition guidelines found in Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style. <S> " One of their Elementary Principles of Composition is "Omit needless words." <A> The cleanest way to rephrase this using the rhetorical effect of "both" is to put the adjectives at the end, in a restrictive clause, and link them with "that is": <S> That's a problem that is both interesting and challenging. <S> This simplifies the structure so that the reader or hearer does not have to keep track of so many things at once, and subtly builds up emphasis as it goes so the rhetorical impact of the adjectives is increased. <S> If you don't really need the emphasis, you can simplify this further: <S> That's an interesting and challenging problem. <A> 1.That's a both interesting and challenging problem.2. <S> That's both an interesting and challenging problem. <S> Here, both is used as a correlative conjunction , so no determinant should precede it. <S> The first sentence is ungrammatical. <S> The second one is ok. <S> It is used for clarification. <S> There are other correlative conjunctions that shouldn't be preceded by a determinant. <S> Eg: either... or
| Of your original two sentences, neither is very smooth-sounding, but only the second one is grammatical; you can't really use "both" and a pair of adjectives to make a countable noun phrase like that.
|
When something is temporary and you try to benefit from it as much as you can (In a positive way) When something is temporary, but it is beneficial for you, you try to get the most for it and profit from it as much as you can. For instance: Scenario 1 - We all are well aware that time flies and one would age too faster than what they can believe. So a father asks his son, do his best in his studies, in his job in other to make a better life while he is young. Which one of the following self-made sentences is the most natural to you?(Actually, I've found only these expressions related to what I'm going to convey, but I would be thankful if you let me know better and more natural choices here.) Try to get the most bang for your age. Try to get the most for your age. Scenario 2 - Suppose there is a very knowledgeable university professor who is approaching the end of his life. Another professor of that university asks privately the students to learn from him as much as they can because everybody considers him (that knowledgeable professor) a phenomenon of that scientific field and there is only one professor with that grade of the knowledge. Try to get the most bang for him. Try to get the most for him. <Q> I think you are thinking of this idiom: <S> bang for your/the buck value for the money spent; excitement for the money spent; a favorable cost-to-benefit ratio. <S> I don't think bang for your [noun] works outside of this expression. <S> So your examples that use bang don't work. <S> Get the most out of could work: <S> get the most out of someone or something to achieve the greatest output of work, effort, production, etc., out of someone or something <S> For scenario 1, Get the most out of your age. <S> Get the most out of your youth. <S> By themselves, these statements apply broadly to the son's life. <S> In other words, the father is telling the son to have as many (positive) experiences as he can as a young person that he won't be able to have as an older person. <S> The context will imply if the father wants him to focus on school, work, etc. <S> Or the father can be specific and say Get the most out of your studies. <S> Get the most out of work. <S> On a related note, there is also the idiom make the most of something to make something appear as good as possible; to exploit something; to get as much out of something as is possible. <S> So for scenario 1 Make the most of your age. <S> Make the most of your youth. <S> Make the most out of your studies. <S> Make the most out of your work. <S> For scenario 2, it's possible to say, "Try to get the most out of him." <S> But, I think it sounds a little strange. <S> It sounds like you are trying to get the professor to overexert himself. <S> Instead, you could talk about the professor's class, for example. <S> Try to get the most out of his class. <A> Make hay while the sun shines. <S> To act while an opportunity exists; to take action while a situation is favorable. <S> Wiktionary <S> Example: <S> I've got a few hours to finish the housework before the kids come home <S> so I might as well make hay while the sun shines. <S> Free Dictionary <S> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/make+hay+while+the+sun+shines <A> To strike while the iron is hot. <S> Which means: <S> Example 1: <S> Alice: <S> I’ve been thinking of going to university, but I’m not sure if now is the right time. <S> Bob: <S> You’re 18, single and have extra money. <S> You should strike while the iron is hot and go to university now! <S> Exampe 2: When the stock market goes down, lots of people try and buy, because it’s a good time to strike while the iron is hot. <S> Source for both meaning and examples: Idiom Meanings Secondary source for meaning: When you have an opportunity to do something, do it before you lose your chance. <S> Source: <S> The Free Dictionary <A> carpe diem (seize the day) <S> In Horace, the phrase is part of the longer carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero , which can be translated as "Seize the day, put very little trust in tomorrow (the future)". <S> The ode says that the future is unforeseen and that one should not leave to chance future happenings, but rather one should do all one can today to make one's future better. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpe_diem <S> Also: ride the wave to be helped by being connected to something attractive or interesting <S> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ride+a+wave+of <S> and jump on the bandwagon to become involved in an activity that is successful so that you can get the advantages of it yourself <S> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/jump-climb-get-on-the-bandwagon
| To take an advantage of a situation when the time is right.
|
The word for "unable to change" Is there any word in English for a person who is unable to change himself for someone else regardless of he/she wants to change or not? He just can't change. I'm writing a play and I need that word for a specific scene if there's any. The scene is, boy B and girl G are in love. Both love each other. But the problem is B can't change his bad habits like smoking and gambling etc. But sure he wants to change. But he's just too addicted and he can't. So G will get the dialog "Look I still love you, but you are too [something something]. You can't change yourself even for your love". I need something to fill in brackets. I thought of stubborn. <Q> Inflexible - unwilling to change or compromise. <S> By conscious choice someone is unwilling to change. <S> "We must have Christmas dinner at his house every year. <S> He is completely inflexible to having anywhere else." <S> Unmovable - incapable of being moved. <S> Can apply to inanimate objects as well as people as simply a state of being. <S> "The tree is unmovable therefore we must build the path around it." <S> Independent - not influenced or controlled by others. <S> Mostly a positive characteristic of someone who is self-sufficient. <S> " <S> She's very independent. <S> She finishes her homework and chores without ever being asked to." <S> Can apply to inanimate objects as well as people as simply a state of being. <S> " <S> The seller is unbending--she refuses to come down on the price." <S> Obstinate - firmly or stubbornly adhering to a purpose. <S> A more negative characteristic in <S> that there may not be a healthy or logical reason for holding their ground so firmly. <S> "The toddler was obstinate about not eating broccoli." <S> Unyielding - hard; not apt to give under pressure. <S> Someone strong in their convictions or position, either wisely or unwisely. <S> "The wrestler's hold was unyielding. <S> His opponent would have to tap out." <S> Uncompromising - absolute; without exception. <S> Knows what they want and will take nothing else. <S> " <S> The chef is uncompromising when it comes to the quality of her ingredients." <A> There isn't a precise word for that in the English language. <S> Most would probably use an idiom like "a leopard can't change its spots" to express that notion. <S> I would suggest rephrasing the line. <A> I would say incorrigible . <S> Cambridge Dictionary gives the following for its definition : <S> (of a person and their behavior) impossible to improve or correct: an incorrigible liar <S> It also gives the following explanation:
| Unbending - rigid; refusing to bend or compromise. An incorrigible person or incorrigible behaviour is bad and impossible to change or improve.
|
Is there an alternative way to express "has them " other than "makes them "? For example, in the following sentence, can I replace have them with makes them , or is there another verb that more correctly I could use instead of has ? Since the manufacturers are so deeply involved, in some cases Wal-Mart even has them handle their own distribution, saving the retailer big bucks and increasing profit margins on cheaper goods. Another example could be the following one. The doctor sends my father and Uncle Johnnie out for all the ice they can get. Then he has them dump the ice in the bathtub, add cold water almost to the top, whereupon my aunt is wrestled into the tub and submerged. <Q> There are several constructions of the form have NP <S> VP ( to not allowed) <S> One of them is a causative construction; as noted, there are other causatives as well. <S> A causative always entails that an event happened or a state changed; but there are different ways to cause this, and different ways to talk about it. <S> make NP <S> VP ( to not allowed) <S> I made him examine me <S> means I forced him to do it. <S> get NP to <S> VP ( to required) <S> I got him to examine me <S> means I had to persuade him to do it. <S> caused NP to <S> VP ( to required) <S> I caused him to examine me means only that he did it <S> and I was responsible. <S> It's very formal. <S> The causative have NP <S> VP construction is quite common with a past participle clause <S> I had my tires replaced yesterday, while my car was in the shop. <S> (basically a passive with indefinite subject, from <S> I had them replace my tires ) <S> There's another very different <S> have NP <S> VP construction - the subject is not the agent but the patient. <S> I had my tires slashed last night, while my car was parked outside. <S> This one is always passive and often (though not always) deals with a bad outcome <S> I had my dearest dreams crushed by their betrayal. <S> I had my wildest dreams fulfilled by their assistance. <A> "Makes them" is harsh and commanding. <S> If you are writing a positive or informative article about WalMart, "has them" would be good. <S> If you are upset about how WalMart treats its manufacturers, use "makes them". <A> It is probably somewhere between "instructs them to" and "makes them" depending on the context. <S> "has them" is fine, but is vague related to the intended meaning. <A> A minuscule grab-bag of alternate verbs for various shades of causation: you can command, demand, pay, wheedle, beg, force, cause, insist, browbeat, blackmail, order, bribe, threaten, intimidate, and so forth. <S> Some of these are direct replacements, but most need additional bits of grammar -- in place of "has them sing" you'd have to say something like "bribes them to sing" or "threatens them into singing. <S> " <S> Although I'll admit usually the problem is to get singers to stop singing.
| "makes them" is rather strong language and probably should be reserved for situations where there is some force behind the action, for example a contract with Wal-Mart. They are both correct, but "has them" is a much gentler way of stating things.
|
How to say something like "my company" without sounding like I own the company? How do I say something like "my company," "my plane," "my bus", etc. without making it sound like I own the company/plane/bus/etc? "Our company" makes it seem like both me and the person/people I'm talking to own the company together. <Q> It is acceptable to say something like, "My plane/bus was late" or "My company was sold" without sounding as if you own them. <S> It would be considered unnecessary and cumbersome to say, "The plane/bus I was on was late." <S> or "The company I work for was sold." <S> Typically, people will know you don't own any of those things, and if there's any question, people will ask. <A> Addressing the more general case, it's important to note that possessive pronouns don't necessarily imply ownership, possession (nor does the Saxon genitive 's , despite what it says in that link). <S> Often, it just implies some kind of relationship, connection . <S> For reasons that aren't clear to me, teaching materials for non-native speakers frequently over-emphasize the "ownership" relationship ( and make too much of the fact that we're slightly less likely to use 's after "inanimate" nouns - despite clear evidence that the car's engine , for example, is far more common than the engine of the car ). <S> Regarding OP's specific context, I'd say it's a "non-problem". <S> Native speakers don't simply assume My company went bankrupt <S> implies the speaker owned the company, unless context favours that interpretation (as opposed to it just being the company the speaker used to work for). <S> But in the unlikely event that both interpretations are possible in a "non-interactive" (written) context, a considerate writer could easily disambiguate by using the company that I owned / that I worked for . <A> They just indicate a close relationship. <S> No fluent speaker assumes that it means ownership. <S> If you say "my boots", yes, you probably mean that you own them. <S> But it's quite common to say, for example, "my country", and no one takes that to mean that you own the country. <S> Rather, you mean the country where you live. <S> A slave will refer to "my master". <S> He certainly doesn't think that he owns the master. <S> It's rather the other way around. :-) <S> If you said, "My plane was late", listeners would normally understand you to mean the plane that you were riding on, not that you own the plane. <S> Unless you had just been discussing the fact that you owned an airplane. <S> There are cases where it could be ambiguous. <S> If you pointed to some clothes and said, "this is my uniform", do you mean that you own the uniform, or that the organization owns the uniform and has directed you to wear it? <S> If you say, "my company", do you mean that you own the company or that you work for the company? <S> Etc. <S> Usually it will be either be clear from context or irrelevant. <S> "I get a lot more respect when I wear my uniform": it probably doesn't matter whether you own it or not, the point is just that you wear it. <S> If you say, "My company fired me yesterday", you almost surely don't mean "the company that I own". <S> But, "I have decided to sell my company", you presumably own it. <S> " <S> My company produces widgets": without some context to make clear, that could mean you own it <S> or it could mean you work there. <S> It may or may not matter to the listener. <A> As others have pointed out, "my company" will usually be interpreted the way you intend based on context. <S> If you don't feel that that's clear enough, then the other usual way to phrase this is the company I work for <S> I regularly use this phrase, rather than the ambiguous "my company", but not always. <A> "The" works for transport: "the plane was late, I missed the bus". <S> I think it works for "company" in most circumstances. <S> " <S> The company sent me to Alaska". <S> "Careful with the car seats, it belongs to the company". <S> Some dialects go further in this direction and use "the" where "my" would be unambiguous. <S> There are people who will refer to "the wife", although this feels a bit antiquated and working-class. <S> Never "the husband", perhaps "the old man" instead. <S> And Myles <S> na gCopaleen had his great series of anecdotes in the Irish Times about "the brother", meaning his brother. <S> But that usage feels very Irish-specific. <A> "Our" company/bus/plane? <S> I use "our" to describe such things. <S> Eg: <S> "Our" company is hiring engineers <S> "Our" bus was late <S> There were snakes on "our" plane <S> This car is "ours" (my dad's car; the family uses it) <S> It's a simpler way to say that you are somehow related to the thing/object/whatever, but it doesn't belong to you ( <S> or you aren't the sole owner of the thing). <A> Try a substitute, such as: <S> "My employer.." <S> " <S> The company.." <S> "The company I work for.." <A> If speaking, rather than typing, intonation is key. <S> If you slightly stress "my", it will sounds like you own the company. <S> Both words equally stressed is ambiguous, and will tend to be interpreted by the listener depending on their perspective. <S> Stressing the word "company", though, is more likely to give the impressions you want. <S> It's not guaranteed, as there are many factors. <S> But consider intonation and stresses when you respond.
| Possessives -- words like "my" or "our", or use of apostrophe-s -- do not necessarily indicate ownership.
|
What is understood if I say "I'm an English teacher"? What is understood if I say "I'm an English teacher"? "I teach English", or "I'm a teacher coming from England"? <Q> In writing this depends on the situation, but you are very likely to be understood as meaning that you are a teacher of English. <S> However, in actual speech it depends entirely on the stress used in the sentence. <S> A teacher of English is referred to as an: ' <S> Eng lish teacher <S> Here these two words form a compound noun and are stressed just on the first syllable of the compound. <S> However, a teacher from England (who might teach anything at all) will be referred to as: <S> an 'English 'Teach er <S> Here we see an adjective noun combination. <S> Each word will have its own stress in a normal pronunciation. <S> Because teacher will probably be the last word in the utterance, the first syllable, teach , in the second word will have a higher pitch and seem more prominent than the stressed syllable <S> Eng in the adjective English . <S> We see this pattern in other compound nouns and adjective plus noun combinations. <S> For example, this is a 'green house: <S> But this is a 'green 'house <S> I myself am a ' Scot tish ' Eng lish teacher! <A> This is because English is a well-known umbrella term for the subjects taught in English class regarding the English language, like grammar and composition. <S> English English language, composition, and literature as offered as a course of study in school. <S> This is opposed to, for example, I'm an American teacher. <S> There generally isn't a class called American or American class . <S> So American teacher does not suggest "a teacher who teaches American". <S> To convey <S> "I'm a teacher coming from England", you could say that. <S> Or you could say, for example, I am a teacher from England. <A> In a normal context, if you said simply that you were a teacher, the usual response would be, "What do you teach? <S> ", not "Where are you from?". <S> So it seems to me that unless the conversation is truly about what you do AND where you're from, no one would infer upon hearing you say "I'm an English teacher" that you were a physics teacher, or music teacher, from England. <S> If you really mean to say that you're a teacher from this or that country, you'd probably be misunderstood as a teacher of that country's language wherever the name of the language is the same as the term for a native: "I'm a Russian/Spanish/German/Chinese/French/Norwegian teacher". <S> On the other hand, you'd be ok if you said "I'm an Austrian/Bolivian/Ethiopian/Australian teacher". <A> I can't actually think of any situation, outside of a joke, in which the phrase "English teacher" would mean anything other than "teacher of English. <S> " Unless you were making a witty play on words (e.g., you're in Scotland <S> and you say, "Mr Smith is the English teacher but he teaches French!"), it will always mean "teacher of English". <S> If you wanted to say the other thing, you'd say "teacher from England" or "British teacher" if it wasn't so important that they were from specifically England (e.g., if you're in an American school, you might just say "There's only one British teacher").
| English teacher will widely be understood by native speakers to mean a teacher who teaches English.
|
What does “such as” refer to in "Public transportation such as train or bus"? Example Sentence: Public transportation such as train or bus. Question: What do the words "such as" refer to? Do the words "such as" refer to "public transportation" or to "train and bus"? I had this question in my exam. <Q> The key to the question is the meaning of refer to. <S> We often just think this means linked to or corresponds with and people often use it like this. <S> So logically, such as connects to both public transportation and train or bus. <S> There is, therefore, no clear "correct" answer. <S> The most careful and thoughtful answer is train or bus because the definition of refer to <S> we'd expect to be operative here is alludes to, and such as alludes to the examples: trains or buses. <S> Smartest action: Maybe don't correct your teacher! <A> 'Such as' can be used in two different ways: ' <S> Quadratic equations such as 3x^2+2x+1=0 can be solved using the quadratic formula' means all quadratic equations can be solved using this method, and the sentence is only giving an example for illustration. <S> 'People such as him are very evil' means people like <S> him are very evil and not all people are evil. <S> You need to determine from the context which case it is. <S> Hence without further information, 'public transportation such as train or bus' could mean public transportation in general (first sense above) or specifically trains and buses only (second sense above). <A> The example sentence is not a sentence, since at a minimum, it is missing a verb. <S> Regardless, we can still examine the phrase with for example : Public transportation for example train or bus <S> So trains and buses are examples of public transportation. <S> As for what such as refers to, I believe it is unclear. <S> One could argue that such as refers to public transportation since the examples are about that. <S> But such as also indicates what the examples are, so it could refer to the examples as well. <A> "Such as" is a phrase meaning "for example" or "like". <S> Another way to write the sentence would be: "Public transportation, like trains or buses," <A> The phrase such as train or bus is, in effect, an adjectival phrase modifying public transportation . <S> The nouns <S> train and bus are subordinate to such as . <S> The only way the question makes sense to me is as asking what these words modify. <S> I wouldn't use "refer to" in this sense (I'd probably use "apply to"), but it's not impossible; I can readily imagine such a question being asked about a Latin sentence in which (as often happens, especially for poetic effect) <S> an adjective is separated from its noun (but linked to it by gender and case). <A> In the absence of commas, the use "such of" would refer to both of the following items. <S> Adding commas, could change the meaning, e.g. "He usually arrives via some form of public transportation such as a train, or a taxi." <S> The meaning of the latter may be enhanced by repeating the preposition, e.g. "He usually arrives via some form of public transportation such as a train, or else via a taxi."
| Such as means for example in this instance.
|
I am looking forward to attending/attend the party i'm kind of confused about the use to+verb-ing i found the title of a document like "Five keys to create the new communications era" but also I found the same doc titled as "Five keys to creating the new communications era" so when to use -ing and why? thanks <Q> In the first sentence, “to” is part of an infinitive, which expresses finality. <S> For example, if you lose your key, you may buy or manufacture a new one (in order) to be able to open a door. <S> In the second sentence, “to” is a preposition and the gerund stands for a noun. <S> Thus the speaker could have also said: "Five keys to the creation of the new communications era". <S> In particular, the expression the “key to something” means the only or at least best way to achieve something. <S> This is a figurative use of the physical case: the key (= what gives you access to) a house. <S> Although the first expression is not grammatically incorrect, the intended meaning will be normally better expressed through the second one. <S> With the latter, you are stating that if you want the propitiate the advent of the communications era (= enter a new room), you must do this and that (= use certain key actions). <S> The first one is weird. <S> Its meaning would depend on what precedes it. <S> If, for example, I said “I am going to give you 5 keys to create a communications era”, I would somehow mean that the act of giving you such information is what causes the sociological change…, which is probably not the intention… <S> PS: the same applies to the expressions of the title: <S> "I am looking forward to attending the party" = <S> I think of the future and see a picture of my attendance to the party, which is pleasant (I like the idea). <S> "I am looking forward to attend the party" = <S> I look in front of me and trust that this way I will be transported to the party (you can... <S> but don't expect to succeed, you had better take a bus...). <S> This example has the advantage of placing the two uses together, both with their respective meanings: WHAT does your daughter object to? <S> She objects to doing things that harm the world. <S> WHY does she object? <S> She objects to those things (in order) to make the world a better place to live in. <A> The first sentence is equal to: "Five keys for creating ..." The word "to" here is used to make an infinitive. <S> "to" in the second sentence is the preposition of the noun "key. <S> "Take <S> a look at this link: http://www.englishteachermelanie.com/grammar-can-a-gerund-be-used-after-to/ <A> Both forms are correct in my opinion. <S> They expressed the same idea. <S> In the first sentence, to create is an infinitive. <S> In the second sentence, creating the new communications era is a gerund used as a noun. <S> Here are definitions of infinitive and gerund from English Grammar 101 : <S> Infinitive : <S> An infinitive is a verb that has not been conjugated (changed to show person or tense). <S> The infinitive can work as a noun, an adjective, or an adverb. <S> Gerund : <S> A gerund is a verbal that uses the present participle of a verb (the ing form) but acts as a noun. <S> It can act as a subject, a subject complement, a direct object, an indirect object, or an object of a preposition.
| In English, infinitives generally use to with the base (present) form of the verb.
|
What is the meaning of "down by the creek"? I am reading a book, and one sentence which reads: he lived in the trailer down by the creek But I cannot understand "down by". <Q> In R Cowan's 'The Teacher's Grammar of English: A Course Book and Reference Guide' (Chapter 8: Positions of Occurrence ... <S> p150 Preposition + Preposition Combinations) is found: Sequences made up of two prepositions, such as from behind and down to , occur frequently.... <S> The first preposition can often be followed by [any of] a number of others. <S> For example, from occurs freely with prepositions such as behind, inside and beside , [while] down occurs freely with prepositions such as beside, around and by . <S> He took the package from behind / inside / beside / [on top of] <S> / [underneath] the box and gave it to her. <S> She wandered down beside / around / by the river. <S> The semantics involved is rather complex. <S> (a) <S> As @Scott says in a comment, the preposition + prepositional phrase construct (down by ...) may well be taken literally, 'beside the creek, down where it flows through its valley'. <S> (b) <S> Another less literal sense is given by CDO : down adverb (FAR) down B1 used, especially with prepositions, to emphasize that a place is at some distance from you or from somewhere considered to be central: <S> I'll meet you down at the gym after work. <S> He has a house down by the harbour. <S> I'm going down to the shop to buy some milk. <S> (The 'adverb' classification is one I'd reject.) <S> (c) <S> As RMac says, a largely bleached sense is also in use, <S> probably [via] a colloquial / lyrical development from the second sense above: 'Gonna lay down my sleepy head ... <S> Down by the riverside ...' 'Down by yon flowery garden my love <S> and I we first did meet.' <S> / <S> Down by the Salley Gardens , <S> a poem by William Butler Yeats ' <S> Down by the Station in Kirkwood, Missouri' <S> While semantically bleached, this usage adds a poetic and/or friendly feel. <S> But none of these usages can be labelled non-standard, which term F. Parker and K. Riley, in Linguistics for Non-Linguists , 1994 <S> define: ... <S> a nonstandard dialect does draw negative attention to itself; that is, educated people might judge the speaker of such a dialect as socially inferior, lacking education, and so on. <S> A nonstandard dialect can thus be characterized as having socially marked forms, such as ain't. <S> A socially marked form is one that causes the listener to form a negative social judgment of the speaker. <A> It's not standard English. <S> It means exactly the same thing as "by the [...]." <A> Easy answer: down by = <S> next to
| "Down by the [...]" is a regional expression.
|
Is "To write. That is what I have always wanted to do." proper? "To write. That is what I have always wanted to do." Would it be better if I used a comma instead?Thus: "To write, that is what I have always wanted to do." I guess this flows a bit better at the cost of a tad of perceived drama. Yes, I know I might be over thinking it, that is why I decided to start off with something simple. Thank you. <Q> When you use a phrase with a comma at the start of your sentence like that, a good test to see if it is correct is to try to rearrange your sentence so that you don't need the comma. <S> Here's an example: <S> Before I started exercising, I stretched. <S> I can rearrange this sentence like this and still make sense: <S> I stretched before I started exercising. <S> Here is your sentence: To write, that is what I have always wanted to do. <S> With this sentence, it is impossible to decide what the phrase "to write" is modifying! <S> The reason for this is that "to write" is not a prepositional or adjective phrase. <S> It is a verb in an infinitive form. <S> You cannot use an infinitive verb in this way in English. <S> It is simpler, more effective, and grammatically correct to write this: I have always wanted to write. <S> Or this: <S> What I have always wanted to do is to write. <S> But, as you can see, if we try to arrange your sentence as written into something that makes sense without the comma, it just doesn't work! <S> That is what I have always wanted to do. <S> ADDENDUM: <S> If you still want to phrase your sentence more or less the same, you can use commas and a different sentence structure to do it correctly. <S> The trick here is to use your infinitive, "to write", as the elaborated antecedent of "that". <S> That, to write, is what I have always wanted to do. <S> If you do it this way, though, it might be clearer to many readers if you use em dashes instead of commas. <S> That--to write--is what I have always wanted to do. <A> One of the most well-known texts in English starts with the phrase To be, or not to be: that is the question: (...) <S> The punctuation varies between sources: in the Bard's first editions, commas were used instead of colons, but in modern punctuation and recent sources the colons are used more often. <S> Therefore, you can write To write: that is what I have always wanted to do. <S> And you'll have Shakespear on your side if anyone complains. <A> Writing is an art form. <S> Writers use punctuation as a tool to help express what they want to say (especially in the type of writing your question illustrates). <S> There is nothing improper about using a statement such as to write . <S> I use "statement" because what constitutes a complete sentence is disputed. <S> Does it have to contain a verb? <S> What about the statement: Food ? <S> That can contain a thought, perhaps even a complete thought on the page that serves as the writer's canvas. <S> Punctuation that you can see exists only in written English. <S> We can use pauses in spoken English. <S> Some people say that punctuation in written English represents the different types or length of pauses in speech. <S> Maybe.
| It is not improper to say "To write to teach to dance I want to do all three" using appropriate pauses.
|
What is the meaning of "check out" in a programming context? I am working with some version control software.One of the things you can do with this software is to "check out a version" of a program's code. This is the exact phrasing: "Check-out a branch (of the master code) into a local repository:When working in your local repository, you may want to check out and work on branch code rather than the main code line." Can anyone tell me the meaning of "check out" in this context? The common meanings of check out don't seem to fit... <Q> So at any time you know who is recorded as being in possession of the item. <S> Library books are an example that is familiar to everyone but in some environments many other items may be checked out and back in. <S> Early version control systems also worked like this. <S> To avoid two people modifying the same file at the same time you would "check it out" before starting modifications and "check it in" when your modifications were done. <S> Later version control systems moved away from this model. <S> Instead of trying to block people from modifying the same file at the same time they accepted that it would happen and dealt with merging the results afterwards. <S> Nevertheless the terms "check out" and "check in" stuck around. <A> It's confusing, because check has many, many meanings, but the definition is basically this: 49 f : to borrow (an item) by having it listed as one's temporary responsibility: <S> The adding machine was checked out in your name. <S> or this: check out 2. <S> To withdraw (an item) after recording the withdrawal: check out books. <S> Probably the most common usage of "check out" in this sense is taking out books from the library: to check out a book from the library is to borrow it, and have the act of borrowing be recorded. <S> This sense has been extended to other things - in the case of version control software, you're not literally borrowing the code, but metaphorically you're doing the same thing. <A> It means to make a copy of that file or directory locally for doing some editing. <S> The editing won't affect the original file until you check it back in. <S> Then when you check it back everyone will have the changes. <S> Used in Version Control Systems such as Git . <A> In the versioning application Team Foundation Server , there are two terms with similar words: <S> Check <S> In: <S> Put your edited files into server. <S> Check <S> Out <S> : Get the latest update for each files on server. <S> Since the versioning application is usually used by team (several persons). <S> So while they edit some file, we can retrieve the latest version of that file.
| "Checking out" an item usually means borrowing it in a way that records that you are the one who borrowed it. "Checking in" is returning the item and also records that fact.
|
Word for "gradually removing the vacuum" I'm translating a description of a lyophilization procedure. One of the sentences goes like this, in my translation: After keeping the samples in the vacuum for 24 hours, we gradually relieved the vacuum, removed the samples from the shelves, and submitted them for subsequent processing. I picked "relieve" from "vacuum relief valve". Is it okay to say "we gradually relieved the vacuum" though? The vacuum is hardly relieved, it is gone. I found that we can say that we "broke" the vacuum: After keeping the samples in the vacuum for 24 hours, we gradually broke the vacuum, removed the samples from the shelves, and submitted them for subsequent processing. But here the word "gradually" may clash with "break". Breaking is usually an abrupt process. What other word could be used? "We gradually removed the vacuum"? <Q> I'd go for a post-positioned adverb so that it clearly modifies only relieved : <S> "...we relieved the vacuum gradually , removed the samples quickly, and as fast as humanly possible submitted them for processing" <S> P.S. <S> Relieved is fine. <S> A vacuum that is broken is relieved all of a sudden. <S> Obviously it's the pot-smoking beatniks and hippies who started saying "release the vacuum". <A> I would use either: 'We gradually reduced the vacuum' or 'We gradually decreased the vacuum'. <S> As long as you are not in outer space, vacuum is a drop in air pressure relative to normal air pressure. <S> Reducing or decreasing vacuum implies that you gradually restore your samples to normal air pressure. <A> After keeping the samples in the vacuum for 24 hours, we gradually relieved the vacuum, removed the samples from the shelves, and submitted them for subsequent processing. <S> I'd say "restored atmospheric pressure". <S> Ideally you give a bit more detail. <S> Was ordinary humid air from the room used to bring the pressure up, or dry nitrogen from a tank. <A> Here it is. <S> You got to think outside the box. <S> What's in a vacuum? <S> Nothing. <S> Fill the vacuum. <S> Now you have something: oxygen. <S> "...we gradually filled the vacuum." <S> Fill. <S> v. : to make (something) <S> full http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/filled <A> Using broke seems sudden compared to a gradual change. <S> I would use release , for example: <S> I released (gradually let out) air from a balloon. <S> So for your example: <S> After keeping the samples in the vacuum for 24 hours, we gradually released the vacuum, removed the samples from the shelves, and submitted them for subsequent processing. <A> This question requires both knowledge in English language and in physics. <S> From physics stand point, vacuum doesn't have the characteristics of air, thus it cannot be "released", "broken", "relieved", etc. <S> "Vacuum is space void of matter. <S> An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure. <S> Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call "vacuum" or free space, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to an actual imperfect vacuum as one might have in a laboratory or in space. <S> In engineering and applied physics on the other hand, vacuum refers to any space in which the pressure is lower than atmospheric pressure" - Wikipedia So going back to the question I would suggest the following translation: <S> After keeping the samples in vacuum for 24 hours, we gradually pressurised them, removed them from the shelves, and submitted them for subsequent processing. <A> In your sentence, the vacuum can be broken meaning <S> the pressure is increased to atmospheric pressure. <S> After keeping the samples in a vacuum for 24 hours, we gradually broke the vacuum, removed the samples from the shelves, and submitted them for subsequent processing. <S> In Lyophilization of Parenteral Breaking Vacuum is defined as Admitting air or a selected gas to an evacuated chamber, while isolated from a vacuum pump, to raise the pressure towards, or up to, atmospheric. <S> In White Paper: Recovering Lyophilised Anaerobes , in the first paragraph <S> At the end of the process the vacuum is broken , nitrogen gas replaces the vacuum, and the tubes or vials sealed. <S> This question uses break <S> How can I break the vacuum of a Ultra High Vacuum chamber? <S> Although your sentence already uses " removed the samples from the shelves ". <S> Your sentence might read After keeping the samples in a vacuum for 24 hours, we gradually removed the vacuum, <S> took the samples from the shelves, and submitted them for subsequent processing. <S> or more succinctly After keeping the samples in a vacuum for 24 hours, we removed them from the vacuum chamber , and submitted them for subsequent processing. <S> by implication, in order to remove the samples from the vacuum chamber, the vacuum would need to be done away with. <A> While it would seem that there is conventional usage here, if you are uncomfortable with it, the reason is probably that you are attempting to describe what was done to the emptiness of a container rather than what was done to the container. <S> If you were describing an apple basket that had been emptied of apples and then refilled, you would not say that you removed the emptiness of the basket by adding apples, you would say that you filled the basket with apples. <S> Similarly here you could say that you repressurized the vessel (with ?).
| You might also use remove
|
How to understand this sentence about sights in Cambodia with many clauses? There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, the capital of Combodia, starting with a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas where hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention. For a learner like me, this sentence is difficult to understand. How can I divide this sentence into simple sentences? <Q> You can start with the punctuation. <S> For this sentence, the commas divide the sentence usefully. <S> Consider what each phrase means, and what it relates to. <S> There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, the capital of [Cambodia], starting with a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas where hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention. <S> Phrase 1 is straightforward. <S> Look at phrase 2. <S> It's a noun phrase. <S> What does it relate to? <S> In this case, it provides more information about Phnom Penh. <S> It's also a parenthetical expression , so you should be able to remove it without changing the meaning of the sentence. <S> Take it out, and see what's left. <S> There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, starting with a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas where hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention. <S> At this point, note that you have a list: a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas <S> This is followed by the word "where". <S> In this case, it relates to the nearest noun (market areas), saying that some things happen in that place. <S> The rest of the sentence tells you what those things are: hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention Putting all this together, the sentence says that: there is a lot to see in Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh is the capital of Cambodia, <S> the 'seeing' started with the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas, and in the market areas, hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention. <A> This sentence can be divided into eight sentences. <S> There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh. <S> The capital of Cambodia is Phnom Penh. <S> There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, starting with a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum, and the market areas. <S> There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, for example, a tour of the Silver Pagoda. <S> There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, for example, the National Museum. <S> There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, for example, the market areas. <S> The market areas have hand-woven silks and antiques. <S> Hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention. <A> You're not the only one to have trouble parsing this sentence. <S> I had trouble with it myself, and had to re-read it several times to figure out what was meant. <S> Here is what I ended up with: <S> The main clause: <S> There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh Parenthetical clause about "Phnom Penh": , the capital of Combodia, Note that "Cambodia" is misspelled here. <S> Dependent clause about "see": , starting with a tour of the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum and the market areas <S> Restrictive clause about "market areas": where hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention <S> I would consider the sentence poorly written. <S> As written, it's hard to see that where hand-woven silks and antiques will compete for your attention modifies market areas , so I had to go back and puzzle out how to edit the sentence so that it makes sense. <S> I would also note that a tour of is superfluous, and only adds confusion since it's not obvious where the prepositional phrase ends. <S> If I had to cram all of that information into one sentence, I'd write it this way: <S> There is plenty to see in Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, starting with the Silver Pagoda, the National Museum, and the markets, where antiques and hand-woven silks will compete for your attention.
| The biggest problem is that a comma is missing after "areas" , such that the last clause looks like a non-restrictive clause rather than a restrictive clause.
|
Singular or plural usage for 'face' in the sentence We should wash our face with clean water. We should wash our faces with clean water. Which is more natural, 'face' or 'faces'? Does the plural subject 'we' require a plural noun in the object? <Q> If each individual [item] implied by a plural subject has only one of something (each of us has one face , in OP's example), we tend to extend the plurality of the subject ( we ) to the object ( faces ) . <S> Thus: 1: We can hold our heads up <S> - 720 hits in Google Books 2: <S> We can hold our head up - 121 hits <S> But if you look at some of the results there, I'm sure you'll find that the second (singular) set will have more contexts where we're all taking pride exactly in the same thing (as opposed to each of us being proud of our specific version of whatever it is). <S> So in OP's specific example, most people in most contexts would use plural faces . <S> But if preceding text had focused on "the face" in a more "generic, archetypal" way (for example, A stranger's face is usually the first thing we look at when we meet them ), it wouldn't be unreasonable for the writer to continue with the singular when recommending that everyone should wash their face properly. <S> There's one additional point to consider in contexts like OP's. <S> Sometimes (especially when addressing children ), we use we when we really mean you (singular or plural, we do it in both contexts). <S> Thus: <S> (Teacher to lazy pupil) <S> 3: <S> We didn't do our homework, did we? <S> (Dentist examining new client's mouth) 4: <S> We haven't been using our dental floss, have we? <S> That interpretation ( we means you , and doesn't include the speaker) isn't always possible. <S> But it certainly could apply in OP's context, so bearing in mind this would represent a very condescending style of address, that might be one more reason to use the plural in that exact context. <A> As, presumably, we each have our own face, you are talking about many faces here. <S> But it isn't true that a plural subject requires a plural object. <S> Many people could be acting on one thing. <S> For example, "We should keep our neighborhood clean. <S> " There could be many people all living in one neighborhood. <S> Plural subject, singular object. <S> One person could be acting on many things. <S> "I should wash my hands with clean water." <S> One person but he has two hands. <S> Singular subject, plural object. <A> From the position of descriptive grammar, the usage that is most common in your dialect is more 'natural'. <S> From a technical perspective, the confusion arises due to a lost reference for possession. <S> To clarify, think of a family who owns one car- <S> We should all wash our car. <S> A family that owns several cars- <S> We should all (every one of us) wash our cars. <S> A family where each member owns a car- <S> We should all (each one of us) wash our (own) car. <S> A family where each member owns several cars- <S> We should all wash our cars. <S> Confusion arises because the last form is a grammatically correct expression. <S> At the same time, unlike a car, it is implicitly understood that each one of us has only one face. <S> Read the following three sentences to see if you can understand how the singular 'face' makes sense when possession is understood clearly. <S> We should all wash a face with clean water. <S> We should all wash our own face with clean water. <S> We should all wash our face with clean water. <S> Notice <S> how 'own' specifies what is implicitly understood, each one of us owns just one face.
| In this case, I'd say you need the plural "faces".
|
"Are you asking about...?" vs "Did you mean...?" How do you reply to someone if you are confused about their question? Eg: someone mailed me "How are you ensuring that the box is there?". I am confused whether he meant Box A or Box B. How would I reply asking for clarifying the same? Which of the two expressions − "Are you asking about...?" and "Did you mean...?" − should be used? <Q> Under the given context, there is no hard and fast rule stating which one should be used. <S> Both equally applies in practice. <S> It's just a matter of preference. <S> There is, however, a slight difference in the tenses of the constructs you've stated. <S> "Are you asking about...? <S> " <S> is present continuous while <S> "Did you mean...? <S> " is past tense. <S> A somewhat equivalent construct ought to be "Do you mean...?" <S> But that is all there is to it. <S> You may even any of the following while keeping the semantics intact. <S> Are you referring to...? <S> Which one...? <A> I would explicitly quote his expression, and if you have the information available and it's not too onerous to explain <S> , you can give him answers for both possibilities. <S> When you say "the box" to which box are you referring, Box A or Box <S> B? <S> For Box B, I can see... <S> For Box A, there is a... <S> This clarifies that you found the question ambiguous <S> but you are giving the most useful response you can by covering both cases. <A> You could ask for clarification like this: <S> When you say "the box", which box are you referring to: box A or box B? <A> Either "Are you asking about...?" <S> or "Did you mean...? <S> " <S> is completely acceptable and sounds fine.
| The two phrases are equivalent.
|
Can I say "I speak Chinese as well as Spanish"? I speak Chinese as well as Spanish. I want to say that my Chinese and Spanish are equally strong. So please help me out with this. I think it's weird to say speak "as well as". I don't know if there are other better expressions. <Q> I speak Chinese as well as Spanish is "ambiguous", in that it could mean either of... 1: <S> I speak Chinese and also I speak <S> Spanish 2: <S> I speak Chinese as competently as I speak Spanish Context <S> will normally make it obvious which sense is intended. <S> #1 above is probably more likely , but you can easily force the sense of #2 using something like just as well as, for example. <A> To announce that you speak both languages, you can simply say: ' I speak Chinese and Spanish '. <S> But to announce that you speak them equally well, the construction alters to: ' I speak Chinese and Spanish equally well '. <S> To native English speakers, the latter is still ambiguous, but for a different reason. <S> It can mean 'I speak them both well', certainly; but it can also mean 'I speak them both, equally badly'. <S> The fact that a person has equal ability in each language tells us nothing about his level of competence, only that it is equal in each case. <S> An unambiguous construction is ' I speak Chinese and Spanish fluently '. <S> Avoidance of the comparative term equally is a way of avoiding a comparison between the two: by substituting an absolute term, fluently , in place of a comparative term. <S> In English, comparatives are a common cause of ambiguity. <S> This is especially true of written English, where there are no verbal clues of stress and intonation to clarify what the intended meaning is. <S> For example, "I speak Chinese as well as I speak Spanish" can be interpreted as meaning "I speak Chinese about as well as I speak Spanish", because the phrase 'as well as' can mean 'as (in)competently as'. <S> It does not solely mean also , it can mean at what level of competence ; and in point of fact it is just as ambiguous as equally . <A> What you're saying now technically does communicate what you want to say, but you should say: I speak Chinese as well as I speak Spanish. <S> or, I speak Chinese and Spanish well. <S> What you're trying to say now can - and probably will - be interpreted as: <S> I speak Chinese and Spanish. <A> "I speak Chinese as well as Spanish. <S> " Is a perfectly acceptable construction. <S> You could even add "I speak Chinese as well as Spanish fluently" or any other adjective besides 'fluently' really. <S> You could even say "I speak Chinese and Spanish" without the 'as well as'. <A> Your original suggests more that you speak them both than that you speak them equally well <S> (though it's ambiguous). <S> With the right timing/emphasis/tone on "as well as" would help to convey the intended meaning (to convey it via something more like "as well-as Spanish" rather than "as well ... as Spanish"). <S> However, I'd say it this way: <S> "I speak Chinese as well as I do Spanish" (which is true for me, since I speak only a few words of either <S> -- I speak them both extremely poorly) <A> How about next phrase. <S> My Chinese and Spanish are at the same level. <S> My Chinese is at the same level as my Spanish. <A> As a native English speaker, I understand you if you were to say "I speak Chinese as well as Spanish." <S> Personally, it is easier and more natural to say "I speak both Chinese and Spanish." to demonstrate competence in the languages, or "I am fluent in both Chinese and Spanish." to demonstrate mastery of them. <S> Generally, shorter sentances are better, and "As well as" is longer than "Both". <A> I think it's good to use "as good as",
| So you could say: I speak Chinese as good as Spanish.
|
Why do we say like "as noun as"? I am seven times as old as your were when I was old as you are. I was as good as you are. I will go as well as him. I was eight times as good as you are. go as fast as you can. Except for the 3rd, I wonder why the as is required in these kinds of sentence or sentences. Why can't I say, I was good as you are. How is the as acting actually? Reconstructions:In the first, the as can be replaced by in and in the third, I was good like you are. <Q> The answer to your question is "Because that is how English does it". <S> Different languages have their own patterns. <S> English uses "as X as Y" - in the negative we can alternatively use "so": "not as X as Y" or "not so X as Y", but this is not common in positive sentences. <S> For an example of how another language does it: literary Welsh has a special form of the adjective known as the "equative" that is used in this kind of construction, in addition to the comparative and superlative found in English and many other languages. <S> So hen = 'old', henach = 'older', but mor hened â = 'as old as' <A> The price of a virtuous woman might be ‘as rubies’, ‘that of rubies’, or ‘as that of rubies’ but none of those puts her price ‘far above rubies.’ <S> All three give ‘the value of rubies’ to Mrs Virtue <S> ; they make her ‘as valuable as rubies’. <S> Mrs Virtue might ‘make a present’ for her beloved Solomon; she could not ‘make a present to ’ anyone. <S> Strictly, she might ‘give a present to’ or ‘make a presentation.’ <S> To ‘make a presentation to’ would involve using a slide projector, not giving a prize. <S> To chop out each 1st ‘as’ would kill all the other examples and leave ‘I will go well as him’ lying injured. <S> Whether it’s actually clever or funny, ‘I am seven times as old…’ is an algebraic conundrum, not a linguistic distortion. <S> It’s purpose is to be confusing and <S> it’s <S> meaning is not ‘I am seven times as old as you.’ <S> ‘I was as good as you are’ indicates that in the past I was as good as you now are. <S> ‘The past’ could be 50 years or 10 minutes. <S> ‘I was good as you are’ says nothing about how good I am now. <S> It might well be interpreted as ‘I was once good and you are now good’ with no measure except that neither was bad. <S> The function of the second ‘as’ would be to indicate one being better or both being the same. <S> ‘I will go as well as him’ indicates two people traveling together with no question of their going having value, because of the nature of the verb. <S> With the same construction ‘I will race as well as him’ would not distinguish between running at the same time, whoever won, and running equally fast, perhaps in different time trials. <S> ‘I will go well as him’ indicates perhaps an actor preparing to play a part. <S> ‘I was eight times as good as you are’ is no different in form from ‘I was as good as you are’ even though it contains a specific value. <S> ‘Go as fast as you can’ indicates a comparison of intended speed against possible speed. <S> ‘Go fast’ is a simple imperative. <A> Let's chop out each 1st as and see what happens: <S> I am seven times old as you were when I was old as you are. <S> Probably equivalent, but so much more confusing -- <S> a comma <S> after were might help. <S> The 2nd "old" lacks a preceding "as", and could be replaced with "young". <S> ("I am seven times old as you were, when I was young as you are.") <S> That works, but having four instances of as is more musical, which makes for a more memorable riddle. <S> I was good as you are. <S> Implies the speaker may no longer be good. <S> I will go well as him. <S> The speaker contemplates identity theft. <S> I was eight times good as you are. <S> Implies the speaker is even better now. <S> go fast as you can. <S> More imperative.
| Using “as anything as” compares the value of two things, rather than separately giving either of them an independent value. ‘Go fast as you can’ indicates the speaker is a learner attempting to understand the language.
|
What does “Thank you for taking me into consideration.” mean? What does mean the phrase Thank you for taking me into consideration and what are the correct substitute phrases for this sentence? 1:Thank you for taking me in consideration. or... 2:Thank you for taking me into consideration. or... :Thank you for considering me Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. <Q> "Consideration" can mean the payment for a service. <S> So "Thank you for taking X in consideration." <S> means <S> "Thank you for taking X as a payment" . <S> The sentence <S> "Thank you for taking me in consideration" leads to all sorts of questions (that are off topic for this site) as to how a person can be used a payment for something. <S> The other two forms in the question <S> (namely "Thank you for taking me into consideration" and <S> "Thank you for considering me" ) <S> both mean thank you for thinking of me (or about me). <A> It is often used in the context of a job search, as something you might write in a follow up letter to thank them for taking the time to give you a job interview, or you might write it at the end of an application letter for a job or scholarship or grant. <S> For example, more informally it means: <S> "Thank you for taking the time to read my application/conduct a job interview with me" 1: <S> Thank you for taking me in consideration.- <S> This is incorrect . <S> 2 <S> :Thank you for taking me into consideration.- <S> This is correct 3 <S> : Thank you for considering me- <S> This is correct but a more informal. <S> It doesn't sound as professional. <S> There is nothing wrong with it, but #2 above <S> is the common 'professional' phrase. <S> Please also note: " under consideration" This means something different: This phrase is used when you may write a letter offering advice on something (or perhaps a complaint, or making a submission to a working group) and they might reply "Thank you for your letter, we will take your advice under consideration." <S> This means they have read <S> /heard your advice and will think about it ('consider' it) but don't make any promises as to whether they will actually use it or do anything about it. <S> It is often used in form-letters (e.g. standard letters used to reply to everyone) and cynical people think that using this wording more often than not is a polite way to say 'thank you for your advice, but we're not going to do anything about it'. <S> In the context of a job search or application they might say "Thank you for your application, we will take it under consideration" which means they will think about it <S> but they do not promise you will be accepted. <A> In my experience, I have used this statement in job search-related issue. <S> It would usually be written by someone considered for a job, but either not actually chosen, or not yet chosen. <S> It is most likely simply a polite response. <S> It is grammatically correct as given.
| "Thank you for taking me into consideration" means thank you for taking time/effort/ to do something that involved you assessing me in some way.
|
Can we use "re-re[verb]" or re-re-[verb] etc, (like the French "re")? In French we can use the prefix re- to mean again ( prendre = to take , reprendre = to take back/again ). It's sometimes a real verb (like reprendre ), but it's not standard or semi-standard when we use it with certain verbs. But still we do and it. So instead of saying "j'ai encore cassé ce vase" (formal), I could say "j'ai recassé ce vase" (informal), which means "I broke this vase again " . I could even say "j'ai re-re-recassé ce vase" if it's the forth time I've broken it. It's only used in spoken French, (often to be funny). Is there a comparable way in English to say "again for the n-th time"? Note: I understand not every verb starting with re means ... again , far from it. <Q> We can, at least with many verbs, prepend a second, or less commonly, a third or more re prefix. <S> Bill: <S> They messed up my order again the second time, so I re-returned it! <S> Susan: <S> Let's hope they get it <S> right this time <S> or you might have to re-re-return it! <A> In English, you can use re once or twice informally on any verb - if twice, the second 're' is usually pronounced more strongly (stressed). <S> If you have an English word that starts with re as a prefix (e.g. reactivate ), you can sometimes use the re- prefix once more, again informally. <S> Further use of the prefix sounds awkward. <S> E.g. <S> He revived the hard drive. <S> It crashed again. <S> He re-revived it. <S> Re- prefix <S> 1 <S> Once more; afresh; anew: reaccustom, reactivate - ODO <S> The more formal approach in English is to specify the number of times you repeated the action. <S> For example, to formally say that the hard drive was 're-re-re-re-revived', you can say, rather prosaically, that it was "revived five times". <A> There seems to be an important (but subtle) difference between this informal spoken language phenomenon in French and English. <S> The example that was given in French:"j'ai recassé ce vase" shows that it is possible to use this construction in French with an unintentional action. <S> In English if you said "I re-dropped" the vase, the would mean one intentional dropped the vase again (not that one <S> once more knocked it off the table accidentally). <S> I wish I had more native-speaker intuitions in French to come up with other examples.
| Some would consider it unacceptable in Standard English, and it would often be done informally, often playfully (apparently as you characterize such in French, to be funny), or for special effect (could be angry, etc.).
|
How to say I switch from one math class to another? So we have two math classes taught by two different teachers. If I want to switch from one class to another, what should I say? Change classes for Math? Switches classes for Math? Also, why do I need to use plural form of 'class'? <Q> How about transfer ? <S> From Merriam-Webster: <S> transfer : to move to a different place, region, or situation; especially : to withdraw from one educational institution to enroll at another From the Free Dictionary: <S> transfer : to withdraw from one educational institution or course of study and enroll in another <S> When I was in school, we used transfer to describe switches from one class "section" to another (e.g., nominally the same class, but taught by different teachers). <S> So, you would say something like the following: <S> I want to transfer from Math 101 taught by Person A to Math 101 taught by person B. <S> You could also use change or switch . <S> I want to change classes, from Math 101 <S> taught by Person A to Math 101 taught by person B. <S> I want to switch classes, from Math 101 <S> taught by Person A to Math 101 taught by person B. <S> In this case, change and switch <S> seem a little more more natural. <S> As to why it's transfer , change , and switch " classes " rather than transfer , change , and switch " class ", it's because transfer , change , and switch each involve two classes: the class in which you are currently enrolled and the class in which you want to be enrolled. <S> Class is an "indeterminate object". <S> For additional information, see https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/153649/do-you-switch-between-things-in-plural . <S> Note: You can think of it as being analogous to changing trains. <A> If it's the same course being taught by two different people, then you are changing sections . <S> If you are switching from one course to another, then in the U.S. you are doing a drop and add . <S> Transferring is more drastic. <S> You transfer from one institution to another. <A> It's plural because you're mentioning 2 classes. <S> You could use singular if you only referred to one at a time: "I changed one math class for another." <S> Using verb + <S> "es" as in "switches" is a present conjugation for he/ <S> she/ <S> it, so you wouldn't use it for yourself, but you could say it about someone else: "He switches classes often." <S> Math classes' or 'switched Math classes,' <S> meaning you did it once in the past. <S> Saying you 'switch classes' makes it present tense as in the above example, which implies that it's an ongoing activity. <S> Words that describe nouns (adjectives) usually go before the noun in English. <S> Saying 'I changed classes for Math' might be confusing. ' <S> I changed Math classes' is more clear and more common. <A> In English, sadly a lot of words are misused from the original intent when using words from other languages. <S> In order to make up for this a lot of random rules are put in place to make up for this <S> and it leads to more confusion. <S> Indo-European comes from the Indo-Iranian/Aryan language. <S> In Parsi (Persian) plural is mostly used when talking of something tangible or out of respect. <S> For instance a classroom is tangible but a class course is not. <S> So one would always refer to the class in singular form. <S> In Persian - "Classam avaz kardam" ("My class, change, I made.") <S> Subject + verb. <S> In English there are many ways to say this and most are correct, which again leads to which one to choose. <S> So you can say I would like to change my class from Y to Z. <S> I would like to transfer my class from Y.101 to Z.101 <S> I would like to switch/transfer classes. <S> (Then more explanation is needed as to what class to which class) <S> Plural clearly just points to more than one class involved but does not explain the whole situation to the listener. <S> In the end, all are proper. <S> So it also depends on how many words would you like to use in getting your point across. <S> As for switches classes. <S> That would be used describing a person that is neither you or the listener. " <S> Johnny switches classes often." <S> And for self… "I would like to switch classes from math 101 to math 202." <A> On the following page Sacramento State uses three terms: ADD; DROP; SWAP http://www.csus.edu/schedule/fall2014spring2015/registration.html#late Sacramento State <S> has this web page that explains DROPPING: http://www.csus.edu/acad/faq/dropping.html <S> Regarding plural use of "class": <S> I'd like to drop a class . <S> I'd like to add a class . <S> I'd like to swap this class with that class . <S> I'd like to swap these two classes .
| If you want to use the plural classes instead of the singular class , you could say: I want to transfer classes, from Math 101 taught by Person A to Math 101 taught by person B. You could say you 'changed
|
"ate" vs "eat" - Which is correct in terms of grammar? If you're asking someone a question like, Did you ate ? or Did you eat? I always have a problem with this word usage. When I want to ask someone if they ate or they didn't. <Q> You would never say "Did you ate?". <S> In this specific context you would use "Did you eat?" or "Have you eaten?" <A> Ate is the preterite conjugation of eat and is used when conjugating without the verbs "do" or "have" (therefore, you do not use "ate" when asking a question, only when stating a fact). <S> Examples: <S> "I ate that." <S> "We ate your food, Blake." <S> Eat is the infinitive form and is used when conjugating alongside the verb "do", such as when giving a command or asking a question about whether an action took place. <S> Examples: <S> "Do not eat that or I'll take away your phone. <S> " <S> "Did you eat my empanadas?" <S> Eaten is the past participle and is used when conjugating alongside the verb "have", such as when asking about the current state of the subject of the sentence or stating something that is not necessarily a fact. <S> Examples: <S> "Have you eaten today?" <S> "Have you ever eaten ravioli?" <S> "I might have eaten your leftovers." <S> "I would have eaten that if you didn't take it." <S> As mentioned by Avery Ross, these categories can often overlap depending on the tone that you want to convey. <S> "I ate today" and "I have eaten today" are equivalent in meaning. <S> As an aside, you may use ate when asking questions, but only when it is not preceded by the verb "to do" <S> (example: "You ate last night?"). <S> However, this is usually confusing unless said in response to something that suggests that the subject did eat last night, such as an empty takeout container in the living room. <S> When asking if the subject ate after talking about something unrelated, you should use eat (example: "Did you eat last night?"). <A> Remember this rule of thumb and would never be confused in the future: " Did is never followed by a word in the past tense". <S> So "Did you ate?" is wrong because "ate" is in the past tense.
| You can use "Ate" as a verb to simplify other sentences, for example: "I ate today" rather than "I have eaten today".
|
Does the word 'all' in the clause 'all he had' mean the only thing? His three friends lifted him up and all he had were bruises and cuts.I had to read this sentence in a story. I'm confused with the use of 'were' in it. If the word 'all' in the clause 'all he had' means the only thing, I think it should take a singular verb.Please explain to me. <Q> 'were' supports the plural 'bruises and cuts'. <S> If he only had cuts,for example, it would be 'all he had was a cut'. <A> First of all, I believe that sentence is badly worded and not a good example of English (even though it is technically grammatical). <S> This sounds more natural and is clearer, "His three friends lifted him up and his whole body was covered with bruises and cuts. <S> " The sentence as written is better suited for cases of actual possession/ownership (e.g. "All he had left were bananas.") <S> Regarding your actual question, whether "all" is singular or plural depends on the number of what "all" refers to. <S> All the trees are beautiful (all refers to trees which is plural so all is plural as well) <S> All of the honey is gone (all is singular) <S> All he had was one thing to say (all refers to thing which is singular) <S> All he left to his name were failures (all refers to failures and is plural) <A> His three friends lifted him up, and all he had were bruises and cuts. <S> Yes. <S> It means the only thing he had were bruises and cuts. <S> A comma is needed in this Compound-Complex Sentence. <S> This type of sentence has two independent clauses and one or more independent clauses. <S> Yours has two independent and one dependent clause. <S> His three friends lifted him up | and | all |(that) <S> he had | were bruises and cuts. <S> Independent: His three friends lifted him up Independent: all were bruises and cuts. <S> Dependent: <S> (that) he had = <S> this clause is introduced by the relative pronoun "that' which is left out but understood. "that" introduces the clause and its purpose in the clause is a pronoun with the antecedent ( <S> that word the pronoun stands for) "all," another pronoun. <S> [remember a pronoun takes the place of a noun or another pronoun], and to be the direct object of "had." <S> (that) he had = <S> he had (that) = <S> he had all = subject | verb <S> | direct object all were bruises and cuts = <S> were <S> is a linking verb, and without going into that topic, the verb links "all" as a pronoun to bruises and cuts which are both used as nouns [a noun or pronoun is called a predicate nominative that the linking verb is linking to the subject] to "identify" or "explain" the subject "all. <S> " <S> all = bruises + cuts <S> [Sounds like he was beaten up and robbed of his possessions, and his friends were picking him up off the ground, or he lost the fight, and instead of victory and pride, it was cuts and bruises] <S> So, together, the dependent clause shows that he possessed "all" and the independent identifies or explains what he had: all he had were bruises and cuts .
| 'All' can be a singular object or multiple objects, so it doesn't determine the verb form.
|
Questions about the phrase "but of tea not a glimpse" from "Great Expectations" I still have a question about the phrase "but of tea not a glimpse" from the novel Great Expectations by Charles Dickens. I rang for the tea, and the waiter, reappearing with his magic clew, brought in by degrees some fifty adjuncts to that refreshment, but of tea not a glimpse. A teaboard, cups and saucers, plates, knives and forks (including carvers), spoons (various), saltcellars, a meek little muffin confined with the utmost precaution under a strong iron cover, Moses in the bulrushes typified by a soft bit of butter in a quantity of parsley, a pale loaf with a powdered head, two proof impressions of the bars of the kitchen fireplace on triangular bits of bread, and ultimately a fat family urn; which the waiter staggered in with, expressing in his countenance burden and suffering. After a prolonged absence at this stage of the entertainment, he at length came back with a casket of precious appearance containing twigs. These I steeped in hot water, and so from the whole of these appliances extracted one cup of I don’t know what for Estella. Below is the sentence about which I still have a question. I rang for the tea, and the waiter, reappearing with his magic clew, brought in by degrees some fifty adjuncts to that refreshment, but of tea not a glimpse. Does the word "of" mean "with respect to" in the phrase "but of tea not a glimpse"? Does "not a glimpse" mean "the protagonist of the novel saw and inspected all of the fifty adjuncts that were brought by the waiter, and the protagonist of the novel didn't glimpse all of the fifty adjuncts, and the protagonist of the novel saw all of the fifty adjuncts very carefully, and then the protagonist of the novel found that all of the fifty adjuncts were with respect to the tea" in the sentence "but of tea not a glimpse"? <Q> Several words have been elided from the sentence's syntax, and the word order is unfamiliar to modern ears. <S> Here we'll add two words back <S> which are implicit in Dickens's work: <S> I rang for the tea, and the waiter, reappearing with his magic clew, brought in by degrees some fifty adjuncts to that refreshment, but of tea there was not a glimpse. <S> We can make it clearer still for today's readers by rearranging the order: ... <S> but there was not a glimpse of tea. <S> Dickens would have expected his readers (those of mid-19th century England) to understand his elisions and word order with no trouble. <A> The sentence means that the waiter brought in about 50 things related to serving the tea. <S> Because there were so many, they had to be brought in a bit at a time. <S> Possibly several trips were needed to bring it all in. <S> When referring to "that refreshement" , Dickens means the tea itself. <S> He is saying that there were about 50 things related to serving tea, not including the tea itself. <A> When author asked to waiter for tea, waiter Brought in by degrees (one by one) <S> some fifty adjuncts <S> (i.e teaboard, cups and saucers, plates, knives and forks (including carvers), etc.) <S> to that refreshment (to tea), but no tea
| By adding "not a glimpse" , Dickens is saying that tea was not included amongst the various things that were brought in.
|
Definite article and "only" I wrote: Here one may use the average value of the first and second squares instead of only the second square. I doubt if I must write Here one may use the average value of the first and second squares instead of the only second square. Which is correct? If both are correct, what is the difference in meaning? <Q> Both are grammatically correct but they do mean different things. <S> The position of "only" gives the sentence a breakdown like this: "... <S> only [the second square]." <S> "The second square" refers to a specific object. <S> This is almost certainly the correct phrasing of your intention. <S> The second example - the only second square - is broken down like this: "... <S> [the only] [second square]." <S> Since "the" is not immediately before "second square", this sentence is talking about "second squares" in general (rather than the specific second square you most likely are considering). <S> It conveys a meaning that there is an object that is called a "second square" and there is only one "second square". <A> Ditto G-Cam, but <S> let me add an additional comment. <S> As G-Cam says, "only the X", means that there are several things under discussion, but right now the one we are interested in is the X. <S> "The only X" says that there is only one thing that qualifies as X. <S> In your example, talking about the "second square", the second usage doesn't make much sense. <S> Presumably there is only one square that is "second". <S> I wouldn't suppose there could be 5 or 10 "second squares". <S> But suppose I said something about the "red square". <S> If I said, "Consider the only red square", that would mean that while there may be many squares, only one of them is red. <S> I am emphasizing that there is only one red square. <S> "Consider only the red square" <S> says that I am calling your attention to the square that is red. <S> The fact that I use the singular "square" implies that there is only one, but the sentence structure is not emphasizing that there is only one, but rather assumes this, and then emphasizes that this is the one we are interested in. <A> You should in all likelihood use ... <S> instead of only the second square. <S> The other way suggests that you are overly fussy about there being just one second square. <A> We interpose only between determiner and noun <S> It is the only car we have. <S> when the meaning is "no other one exists/there is no other one" (adjectival only , existential quality). <S> When the meaning is "alone, by itself, not with anything else" (adverbial only , manner) it would be use the second square <S> only use only the second square
| Your first example - only the second square - is drawing attention to the second square specifically (as opposed to both of the squares).
|
Assigned to a job I know nothing about it - is there an idiom for that idea? I'd like to know an idiom that let me express the idea of being assigned to a job/task you have no clue at all. My first language is Spanish, and we have a cool idiom for this situation (rough translation: I was sent straight to war!), but I don't know if there is a similar one in English... <Q> <A> Another idiom is baptism by fire : <S> A phrase originating from Europe that describes an employee that is learning something the hard way, like being immersed in their field of employment. <S> Baptism by fire has its roots in battle terminology, describing a soldier's first time in battle. <S> Thus this usage seems to match <S> the subject matter of your own military idiom. <S> Read more: Baptism by Fire <S> (Investopedia). <S> Note that this military usage ultimately originates in the concept baptism by fire found in the Christian Gospels. <S> See Wikipedia . <A> A similar idiom is thrown to the wolves , which is what we say when we assign someone to a job with very little assistance or training. <S> The "wolves" in this case are people who depend on the job being done, and are accustomed to it being done up to a certain standard. <S> Much like a person who's been sent to war, a person who has been thrown to the wolves needs to learn to survive in a hostile environment. <S> They'll either learn very quickly or fail miserably. <A> I saw the question in the sidebar and came, a day too late, with "thrown in at the deep end". <S> A few relevant expressions came to mind. <S> After I think of each one I searched to see if it was here and in more cases than not, some variant had already been suggested. <S> Where my versions seem usefully different I've still included them, with comment on their "duplicity" :-) <S> " Out of his depth " — similar but not identical in concept with "thrown in ..." <S> Related if not quite apposite: <S> Related related: <S> " When you're up to your neck in alligators it's hard to remember that you came to clear the swamp. <S> More if the crowd you are placed with are dangerous to you because of your innocence or newness: <S> " Sheep among wolves ". <S> Conveniently "sheep" can be considered singular or plural there, or you can add a leading "A " for singular. <S> (Some similarity with Patrick's “thrown to the wolves.”) <S> I thought of " sink or swim " <S> but I see Nigel also did 21 hours before me — in his comments to StoneyB " Up the creek without a paddle " - a more common form of what I see user3169 commented yesterday. <S> "Coffee break's over. <S> Back on your heads." More relevant than it may sound :-). <S> Joke's a bit long to explain well <S> , so many of these explain it or a short text version here . <S> In this context - you get into a new situation and THINK <S> you know what its all about, until the door opens and <S> .... <S> Oh No !!! :-) <A> Related to this is the Peter Principle - The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by Laurence J. Peter and published in 1969. <S> The theory is that the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. <S> Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and managers rise to the level of their incompetence.
| A common metaphor for this is to say you've been " thrown in the deep end ", referring to the (supposed) practice of teaching someone to swim by throwing them into a swimming pool at the deep end, where they'll drown if they don't figure out on their own how to swim. A not uncommon somewhat crude variant is the “shit creek” . Up to his (or your) neck in alligators " (or other).
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.